Why are scientists shooting mushrooms into space?
The Short Answer
In 1997, cosmonauts aboard the Russian space station Mir discovered something unsettling. Fungi were everywhere. Growing on the air conditioners. Corroding the control panels. Digesting the window seals. The same organism that colonises your shower grout had followed humanity into orbit and was methodically eating a spacecraft. NASA's response to this crisis? They are now deliberately launching mushrooms into space. The thing that nearly destroyed Mir might be exactly what we need to build on Mars.
Biological Insight
The Mir incident should have been impossible. Space is supposed to kill things. Cosmic radiation shreds DNA. Temperature swings between 120°C in sunlight and -150°C in shadow. There is no atmosphere, no soil, no obvious source of nutrients. And yet several species of fungi had hitched a ride on equipment (or cosmonauts), found the humid corners of the station, and begun dissolving it from the inside. They treated a $4 billion spacecraft as an all-you-can-eat buffet. Here is where it gets properly strange. Many of these fungi produce melanin, the same pigment that darkens human skin in sunlight. But fungal melanin does something ours cannot: it absorbs ionising radiation and converts it into chemical energy. The fungi are not just surviving cosmic rays. They are eating them. They are, in effect, photosynthesising with gamma radiation. When cosmic rays inevitably damage their DNA, they have repair mechanisms sophisticated enough to excise the broken sequences and patch them back together. Their spores have cell walls thick enough to survive temperature extremes that would kill almost anything else. This is not an accident of evolution. This is what happens when an organism has been stress-tested by 1.5 billion years of environmental catastrophe (asteroid impacts, volcanic winters, UV bombardment before the ozone layer formed) and emerged with a toolkit for surviving conditions that do not yet exist. NASA noticed. Their Innovative Advanced Concepts programme is now developing lightweight packages of dehydrated fungal spores for lunar and Martian habitats. Add water and regolith (the local soil), and mycelia begin growing, binding the material into radiation-shielding bricks. Partner them with cyanobacteria (which provide oxygen and nutrients), and you have a self-constructing habitat. The same organisms that nearly destroyed Mir could build the first structures on Mars. They can even be engineered to break down asteroids into usable soil, or to extract aluminium and iron from rock. The pest became the pioneer. The organism eating the infrastructure became the organism building it. This is not a metaphor. It is a case study in how we systematically misread what is happening in hostile environments. When something thrives where nothing should survive, the instinct is to classify it as a problem. A pest. An infestation to be eliminated. But the capacity to thrive in hostile conditions is not a flaw. It is data. It tells you something important about what capabilities exist in your system that you have not yet learned to deploy. Every organisation has its fungi. Those persistent issues that keep showing up no matter how many times you address them. The people who seem to thrive in chaos. The ideas that refuse to die no matter how many strategy meetings bury them. The processes that emerge spontaneously in the gaps between official workflows. The question is not how to kill them. The question is: what are they adapted to survive that you have not yet learned to see as an opportunity?
Key Questions to Ask Yourself
- What keeps growing in your organisation despite hostile conditions?
- What have you been trying to eliminate that might need redirecting instead?
- Which of your 'problems' have survival characteristics that could become assets in new territory?
- What would it mean to deploy your pests as pioneers?
Common Mistakes
- Classifying anything that thrives in adverse conditions as a problem to eliminate
- Ignoring what your hostile environments select for (that is adaptation data)
- Assuming what damages current infrastructure cannot build future infrastructure
- Never asking why something survives when everything else dies