Slashdot Log In
The Indirect Case For Life On Mars
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Feb 16, 2005 05:36 PM
from the nearly-almost-somewhat-approximate dept.
from the nearly-almost-somewhat-approximate dept.
Deinhard writes "Space.com is reporting that '[a] pair of NASA scientists told a group of space officials at a private meeting here Sunday that they have found strong evidence that life may exist today on Mars, hidden away in caves and sustained by pockets of water.' It is all based on methane signatures and not direct observation. Now plans for using the Genesis Device on Mars are out ... unless this is just a particle of preanimate matter caught in the matrix."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
PROOF!!! (Score:5, Funny)
http://xmlx.ca/images/37/o_martian.jpg [xmlx.ca]
obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Hiding in caves (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hiding in caves (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Ancient Life (Score:5, Interesting)
Given our accessibility and coverage on earth, we didn't know about this ancient life until recently.
And now we only have few rovers on Mars...
Re:Ancient Life (Score:3, Insightful)
All that said, the antarctic find is pre
In other news.... (Score:4, Funny)
meanwhile... (Score:5, Funny)
1. Terraforms any planet within 2 minutes.
2. Can only be used on Micrsoft Authorized, Genuine Planets and Asteroids (MAGPAs)
3. Any matter may be used, however the Matter Standard may be extended in the future.
Microsoft has critiziced GNU Terraform system, calling it 'anarchist'. Richard Stallman has responded, reminding about how Microsoft once lamented about how 'if people knew how planets were terraformed when the Earth became inhabitable, people would be in dystopian alien governments today.'
Meanwhile in an unrelated incident, a person has sued MMOINC for not letting him use a used copy of Marsland MMO.
The WiMax Foundation has come out saying that WiMax could blanket 99% of Mars. Microsoft has responded to GNU Terraform by making Microsoft Genesis free-of-charge.
Life on Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Creature that secrete methane gas and spend their lives hidden in caves, never coming out for observation.
Well, of course, th-HEY! This isn't the "EULA Confusion w/ Used Copies of WoW?" thread!
Under Rocks? (Score:5, Interesting)
To the, uh.. Martian Cave!, .... Rover! (Score:3, Interesting)
Easy Fix (Score:4, Funny)
Somehow I seem to remember a Simpsons qoute about thermodynamics that's applicable to this situation. NASA should investigate this.
Parent
Re:Under Rocks? (Score:3, Informative)
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
The proper way to avoid flatulence [wikipedia.org] (colloq: farting) is through a controlled diet, avoiding beans, cabbage etc. Drilling is apt to get them nowhere.
Oh, please (Score:5, Insightful)
"Because know any sort of possibility of life on other planets is a hot button, we'll pull this theory out so that we can beg for funding."
It's all about getting more funding, and justifying what they have.
Re:Oh, please (Score:5, Interesting)
Jeez, this is so transparent.
Not necessarily. Back in the 1960s James Lovelock (of Gaia Hypothesis fame) was working for NASA on detecting life on other planets. He reasoned that to detect life all you needed to do was to see if the atmospheric chemistry was far from equilibrium. He used Earth as his example explaining that the presence of highly reactive oxygen and other clues indicates life. He suggested to NASA that a 1000 inch telescope be built to get detailed chemistry information on the other planets to determine if there was life without the need to send probes. NASA turned it down.
So the presence of methane on Mars is not a trivial thing.
Is the "possibility of life" a grant magnet? Of course, so is cancer, HIV, etc. Doesn't mean they don't have something important to say.
Parent
Let's hear it from an expert! (Score:5, Funny)
Dan Quayle, 8/11/89 [quotationspage.com]
I rest my case.
Re:Let's hear it from an expert! (Score:5, Funny)
1: so no one would dare assaninate him.
2: to get us used to a moron in the Whitehouse.
Parent
We are not bound by the "Prime Directive" (Score:5, Funny)
Since the "Prime Directive" is centuries in our future we are free to f' over anything we find there as we terraform.
Please Share Your Stash of Happy Fun Drugs (Score:4, Insightful)
Cor.
Don't assume for a moment that we won't colonize and terraform Mars. It may take 100 years and start with little research outposts like those on Antarctica, but soon enough it'll all be plowed up and paved over and we'll bring all the plagues of earth, litter included.
I suppose there will be an environmentalist coalition of some sort and some fine parks will be set aside, i.e. Olympus Mons, but when competing national iterests pit India and China against any other comers, it'll be a race to colonize it and damn the environment and anyone who pipes up to protect it.
Yup, life is there... (Score:5, Funny)
(or it's from the remains of a long dead civilization that had a war with the fifth planet of the solar system. The fifth planet was turned to rubble and the aftermath of the war destroyed Mars. So the survivors fled to Earth and feasted on dinosaur meat until they hunted them to extinction...)
Martian Fusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Proof of life on Mars is becoming strikingly similar to commercial fusion or anti-balistic missile defences - always just another contract down the road. It's not that I have anything against the exploration of Mars, nor do I not appreciate the difficulty of understanding an alien environment, but every time NASA hypes to the public I feel like I'm watching/reading politics, not science.
It's not just methane.... (Score:5, Interesting)
According to http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7014 [newscientist.com] the scientists have not only detected methane, but also formaldehyde, which was measured at levels of 130 parts per billion. From the article:
He thinks that the gas is being produced by the oxidation of methane and estimates that 2.5 million tonnes of methane per year are needed to produce it. "I believe that until it is demonstrated that non-biological processes can produce this, possibly the only way to produce so much methane is life," he says. "My conclusion is there must be life in the soil of Mars."
Bruce
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
much simpler explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
C02: 95%
H2O: 0.03%
Now huge ultraviolet radiation breaks down H2O and CO2 to loose hydrogen/oxygen/carbon atoms (this process along with mars weak gravity is co-responsible for mars losing its once dense atmosphere). Additionally there is huge evidence of Electrical Discharge On The Martian Surface [nasa.gov]
Try simple high school science project: Load a container with water and CO2, add electrodes to create some discharge ('lightning') and you'll have your own PanGea in a bottle.
After some time all sorts of 'organic' chemicals will be present in the bottle along with most common methane (but also alcohols, higher carbohydrates and more complex molecules). I would think decent scientist would at least mention such possibility in reocurring articles on 'OH-OH methane is evidence of life on mars'
with everything that we've sent over there... (Score:5, Interesting)
Positive Viking Lander Results (Score:5, Informative)
For some years now, the principle investigator for the 1976 Viking Lander Labeled Release Experiment [spherix.com] has claimed that his experiment did find evidence of life on Mars. The problem is that the results from the other Viking experiments was inconsistent with this, so NASA decided that the LRE detected a non-biological chemical reaction.
Is this new data about methane consistent with the Viking LRE data?
Re:Positive Viking Lander Results (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to explain that the Viking biology experiments package was very carefully designed to answer the question "is there life on Mars?". The two Vikings landed, carefully performed their experiments, and broacast back the message "could you repeat the question?".
Of course, if Martian soil were that rich in superoxides, it's hard to imagine methane lasting even 300 years.
Parent
NASA Press release (Score:4, Informative)
Source: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
It's a god-awful small affair (Score:3, Insightful)
But her mummy is yelling "No"
And her daddy has told her to go
But her friend is nowhere to be seen
Now she walks through her sunken dream
To the seat with the clearest view
And she's hooked to the silver screen...
But the film is a saddening bore
For she's lived it ten times or more
She could spit in the eyes of fools
As they ask her to focus on -
Sailors fighting in the dance hall
Oh man! Look at those cavemen go
It's the freakiest show
Take a look at the Lawman
Beating up the
To the girl with the mousy (Score:3, Funny)
How about the word "hair" ?
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:4, Informative)
I'd call speculation on the origins of such a simple molecule without any evidence "really stretching it". Heck, few suspect that there's life on Titan, and yet the place is awash in methane. We don't know the source of it there, either (some speculate vast subsurface resevoirs). Why didn't it all react during it's formation? Titan, like Mars, has a reducing atmosphere (not an oxidizing atmosphere). There's insufficient free oxygen to react with everything, so in the absense of forces breaking it down (such as solar radiation in the upper atmosphere), it will last indefinitely.
On Mars, we have no clue what is going on beneath the surface. For all we know, the subsurface ices are packed with methane hydrates, or that there are giant hydrocarbon deposits. Just assuming that the source of methane is life without any other evidence but the methane itself seems like going so far out on a limb that you might as well just cut the limb off.
Parent
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Interesting)
Its lifetime in the atmosphere is ~ 350 (earth) years. Thus, for the amount of methane detected, either there was recent (years ago, not Ma or even Ka) volcanic activity, or there is life currently producing the methane. Either of these two speculations is valid.
Your other suggestions are valid also, but require something to help them release their trapped methane. Ices/clathrates need to be melted, which means they need energy input. Hydrocarbon deposits would require life to have existed in the past, and would require something to release just the methane form rather than a bunch of other stuff. i.e., we would see other (than just methane) evidence for a degassing hydrocarbon resevoir.
The volcanism argument is very difficult to sustain because we don't see evidence for it NOW (however, as my advisor is always looking for opportunities to point out, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."). I like the volcanism argument because I like volcanism, but the most recent flow fields are 10 Ma, and seem to have been the last gasp of a dying planet. Unless they released a LOT of methane into the atmosphere, the current methane is not from those flows.
The life argument has some major problems, but it's at least worth investigating. There needs to be some sort of energy to maintain these putative methanogens, and that's one of the issues right now (we don't know where to look for life because we don't see any* evidence for subsurface energy).
We can't directly look for concentrations of methane because the in situ measurements would provide something like 1 PPM, and averaged through the atmosphere would be undetectably low compared with the amount of the methane in the (presumed well-mixed) atmosphere (ppb).
* There are small east-west trending fissures (canyons) that may be the best places to search for life-sustaining energy because they collect daytime sunlight but don't effeciently reemit it at night, thus increasing their temperatures relative to the surroundings and possibly conducting heat to the subsurface and possibly collecting enough heat to sustain life. . . I'll let you know in a week or so if this pans out. . .
Parent
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Informative)
Its lifetime in the atmosphere
> is ~ 350 (earth) years.
300-600. On Titan, it's about 10 million earth years - a ~20,000fold difference. However Mars has methane at 10.5 parts per *billion*, while Titan has 2-5% methane; methane on Titan is over *3 million* times more concentrated. Consequently, Mars is actually producing a rather small amount of inorganic methane compared to Titan. Titan has the advantage of being in deep-freeze, of course, but it's still an example of how huge quantities of methane can remain subsurface and be released steadily on a geologically inactive (presumedly) world.
> Thus, for the amount of methane detected, either there was recent (years ago,
> not Ma or even Ka) volcanic activity
Incorrect. There are many ways methane can be released inorganically; they're just not known by your average slashdotter. There's methane hydrates, which only need variations in temperature to outgas (which we know happen on Mars, and have happened to an extreme extent over its history). There are dozens of subsurface reactions apart from vulcanism that can produce methane - for example, it is an *expected* product of low temperature fluid-rock interaction; all it takes is enough low-level residual heat to melt ice:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/2
However, even concerning vulcanism itself, the jury is still quite out. There is evidence of recent vulcanism on Mars, as you hinted to:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsyst
Contrary to how you tried to make it sound, 10 MY is very recent geologically. I see no reason to suspect that, if volcanoes have been erupting that recently, that it's suddenly going to peter out at the exact time (geologically speaking) that humans start observing the planet.
> Hydrocarbon deposits would require life to have existed in the past,
Not true. Hydrocarbons form in all sorts of circumstances; you can get short chains from UV interaction with methane alone. You can even have hydrocarbons formed from such basic reactions as the subduction of calcium carbonate and water in with Iron(II) oxide. Hydrocarbons are all over the place; for example, the Saturnian system is littered with organic "goo" (not just on Titan, but all over the place, from Phoebe to the rings).
People here just seem way too ready to grasp onto anything that could remotely be a product of life - even if it's something that forms inogranically all across our solar system, and is constantly outgassed from dead worlds.
Parent
Re:Methane Lifetime on Mars (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:4, Interesting)
The idea that Mars is geologically dead is based on old data. After the Mars Global Surveyor mission, alot of new information came about. One of the estimates was that Mars had volcanic activity about 20 million years ago. Considering a 4.5 billion year existance, 20 million years is hardly dead. This data was from crater counting. Older structures will have many craters and younger structures will have few craters. Obviously this has a fairly large margin of error (but a 2 billion year old structure still won't be confused with a 20 million year old structure). New studies [bbc.co.uk] from the Mars Express mission have said that vulcanism may have occured as early as 4 million years ago. This tends to support the idea that volcanos on Mars are dormant, not dead.
As far as having a magnetic field or having plate tectonics, yes Mars is dead. Mars may have had plate tectonics (which in general is due to convection of the mantle) in one localized region in its early history, but there is no evidence of it now.
Recent studies of gullies, volcanism, and the planet's precession tend to indicate that Mars may be alot more active than we think.
Parent
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Interesting)
Heck, there's even proposals for robotic missions to "hop" across wide ranges of Mars via multiple takeoff/landing cycles, taking samples and examining the soil in each location. Such a mission would be many times more expensive if it had to carry humans, life support, food, etc, but is feasable for a robot-only mission.
Really, the only thing humans get you is slightly better local mobility and much reduced latency, and neither of those are particularly critical issues. The "baggage" that comes with people - tons of food, water, air, shielding, housing, etc - can't really justify the mobility and latency benefits.
Parent
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:4, Informative)
People On Earth.
We're not sending people over to Mars just to crunch numbers here
On Mars, people would only give two benefits: greatly improved latency, and slightly increased mobility. Neither of these are serious problems. The cost? A 50-fold increase in your mission budget. Hardly worth it.
Parent
Re:Genesis device?! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, you exist, right? So there is at least once...
I just feel sorry for the microbes which inhabited this planet before the device went off...
The show's not off apparently
Re:Sounds like a troll, but I'm not. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the short run absolutely yes. Investigating a possible completely alternate abiogenic event? From a scientific standpoint that would be *more* than worth holding off the colonization for a century or two. The value of that information for understanding the distribution of life in the universe is incalculable.
On the other hand if it's just Earth gunk transported to Mars, away with it.
Parent