Six months after we started this blog, finally we've come across something that involves a global, genome-based view of life on earth as part of space policy. Just so we don't lose it, I should be quoting the whole lot, but I'm too lazy. The gist of it is to set up a DNA library on the moon in case of Catastrophic events on planet Earth.
There are several known threats to life on Earth, and perhaps some that no one has yet imagined.
"Everybody tends to think of it in terms of a big dirty rock," Burrows said. Scientists estimate that a kilometer-sized boulder could cause planetary-wide devastation. There are hundreds of these large asteroids that astronomers are keeping an eye on. And a significant fraction of the estimated population of potentially deadly large asteroids -- those whose orbits cross in the vicinity of Earth's path around the Sun -- have yet to be found, other experts agree. Burrows said there are "rogues" – asteroids outside the plane of the solar system – that are harder to spot.
Besides the Armageddon that a large impact would unleash, there are nuclear wars and pandemic viruses to worry about. Foing, the European proponent of lunar living, believes there needs to be a self-sufficient colony on the Moon that can wait for the fallout of the disaster to subside.
"It would need to be able to survive independent of Earth for many years," he said.
Foing thinks that a biosphere on the Moon would be the primary function of a lunar base, and only then could a DNA library be worth contemplating. Burrows agreed: "You need to have people [on the Moon] to rescue Earth."
Why it has to be Luna and not Mars is something that escapes me. However in terms of timescales, setting something up on Luna maybe closer than Mars. Anyway, there are signs out there that people are thinking on the bigger picture. It's just a shame that you can't win elections on the back of these issues.
- Art Neuro
2 comments:
Only travel time would suggest the Moon. Mars makes more sense in terms of indigenous resources (no small factor) and total cost of colonisation. Travel time is important in terms of expasure to radiation in transit. Luna grav is a bummer too.
Maybe they are thinking about ease of rescue since the distance makes for very slow response times either way?
My choice would still be Mars as it is survival of the Biome we are after. What will a small colony be able to mount in terms of rescue if the biosphere(1) is knocked out anyway?
yeah. I agree with all that. I thought it was good that they were at least *thinking* about it, because it's genome-based thought. You know, it's sentient. :)
Post a Comment