NASA Says Mars Once "Drenched With Water" 1048
NASA is currently holding a press conference (carried live on NASA TV) where they are discussing findings from the Mars rovers. They are saying that the crater that the second rover has landed in has convincing evidence that it was once drenched or covered in liquid water. They cite the tiny spherules, odd holes in the rocks, sulfur in the spectrometric analyses, and evidence of an iron sulfate hydrate (a hydrate is a chemical compound which includes water molecules in the crystal lattice). Update: 03/02 19:45 GMT by M : CNN has a story, or see the NASA press release.
Key point (Score:5, Interesting)
Not very surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
Where did it go? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:1, Interesting)
If I already believe that daily events on planet Earth are influenced by a 2,000-year-old dead guy, it'll take more than a few microscopic bacteria on Mars to make me reconsider my stance.
you might still get your free giant shrimp!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the news may not have been announced by feb 29, but the evidence may have been found by feb 29.
Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:5, Interesting)
Anybody out there like to comment? Is it a possibility? Could we come back with another rover and get Opportunity working again after it runs out of juice?
New info (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
St. Augustine, back in the day, posited that if there are other planets with life on them, Jesus would have had to visit them all in order to "save" them.
If Jesus did in fact do this, it would remove the uniqueness of Jesus. Since the bible states that Jesus' is unique, this could not have happened.
Thus he surmised that there is no life on other planets.
Re:gun jumping (Score:3, Interesting)
~Berj
Re:Where did it go? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:3, Interesting)
Some can quite well actually. But I'll get to that in a second.
First off, we need to make the distinction between "theology" and "belief." A particular theology may not survive this sort of revealation, but in most cases that just means it will adapt. Most major religions of today have gone through huge adjustments and adaptions. This will just simply be another one.
Secondly, beliefs die hard. The fact that one's religious belief is based on faith and not evidence means that in most case no amount of evidence is going to shake a strong belief, especially if one is determined to hold it no matter what. So if this is the "end" of someone's faith, well, such an individual was bound to drop that faith at some point anyway.
Finally, there are many religions in the world in which this sort of discovery will not contridict their core theology and beliefs at all. In fact, to some, it may validate it. So don't be so quick to announce the end of religion. It has survived much and will continue to do so.
Re:Where did it go? (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know what the rms of water vapor is at Martian conditions, but I do know that the escape velocity is a bit lower than Earth's.
Would that mean that the concept of terraforming would be infeasible on Mars?
John
Remember the Taco Bell Mir target? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sulphates and Amino Acids (Score:1, Interesting)
In a different environment, it's likely that other methods would be more successful.
For example, there are microbes that live happily in the superheated water in volcanic vents on Earth.
The likelyhood of two legged animals walking around on mars is really zero. _Maybe_ there were some spores or microbes there, but anything beyond that would be shocking, and unexpected.
First Life (Score:4, Interesting)
Dune (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:5, Interesting)
*Nuclear power (oooh the scary word!)
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:5, Interesting)
RIP hubble (Score:4, Interesting)
*sigh* The bell tolls for yet another victim of society's apathy.
Re:A great breakthrough... (Score:5, Interesting)
Even Dawkins admits that selection can't work until the right proteins are in place and can replicate. In his book the Blind Watchmaker, he basically admits that abiognesis is required involving some VERY unlikely chemical combinations, before evolution can get started and then, in my opinion, offers a huge copout by basically saying: Well, with so many planets in the universe, the odds of it happening at least once may not be so improbable.
The odds of it happening twice in the same solar system strain credibility.
I suspect the explanation will be that life on Earth actually started on Mars.
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
St. Augustine, back in the day, posited that if there are other planets with life on them, Jesus would have had to visit them all in order to "save" them. If Jesus did in fact do this, it would remove the uniqueness of Jesus. Since the bible states that Jesus' is unique, this could not have happened. Thus he surmised that there is no life on other planets.
Well, you could say the same thing for different continents. Jesus didn't have to visit all the continents to save everybody. The word of God was carried there at a later date by evangelists. Sam thing could be said for other planets with life.
Perhaps Jesus was on all these places, and then I'm sure that angels will come down and reveal themselves and the truth just as they did with the Mormons and Jesus' history in the new world.
Is this news??? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The images obtained to date are not adequate for a definitive answer. So scientists plan to maneuver Opportunity closer to the features for a better look. "We have tantalizing clues, and we're planning to evaluate this possibility in the near future," Grotzinger said.
Besides hydrated minerals were already hinted by Spirit. One of the very first press releases pointed to that fact. Besides this is not the only weird thing between Opportunity and Spirit outputs. If one compares the first wave from results from Spirit with Opportunity's then it seems that the second robot is clearly giving very thiny results. Until now I could not see broadscale spectral and infrared analysis like the ones Spirit did. Maybe I'm missing something but frankly it seems that data feed from Meridiani goes a long way from it could.
PS: To those who are discussing theologies... Frankly don't get you people. Try to find a super SF author by the name of Nicolau Cusanus and his bestseller "De docta ignorantia". He already discussed a lot of what you keep rumbling till now...
Re:Key point (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure how much of a fossil bacteria-like creatures would leave behind. There might have been life, but still be no discernible fossils (even assuming that fossils would have been preserved). Chemical signature would be more likely method of identification. Then again, we might find fossils and not even recognize them! Life need not be organic. For example, A.G. Cairns-Smith's book "Genetic Takeover and the mineral origins of life" argues that the first forms of life on earth were colloidal clay organisms without organic chemistry. If Cairns-Smith is correct, then perhaps we should be looking for something like that on Mars instead.
Re:Key point (Score:5, Interesting)
NASA has never lost a human in space, so sending them on a 1.5 year mission is actually safer than throwing them to orbit.
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:3, Interesting)
God: Well, it took a few billion years to... oh, never mind, let's call it "seven days".
The opening story in Gensis resembles a Pharaonic Drama [christdot.org]. It is more poetic than literal. People sometimes need to look beyond the words written on the page...funny how my fellow members of a religion, where the founder was dissatisfied with how the current religious leaders had lost sight of the meaning of the words and instead focused on strict literal adherence to the law, are hell bent on making people accept a little story written a very long time ago in a very different time literally.
Re:and this couldn't have come sooner? (Score:3, Interesting)
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-11 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
Re:and this couldn't have come sooner? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Key point (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Key point (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, according to this Penatgon report [yahoo.com] we've already finished here...
Re:A great breakthrough... (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't go that far. The odds on the particular reactions occuring at any given time are low, but we're talking about extraordinary time scales: hundreds of millions or billions of years. Even very unlikely things happen several times during a period that long.
The trick with life processes is that once it happens, it tends to replicate, so it "sticks". Once you have life, it's really, really hard to get rid of it entirely. That's one unique feature of life that makes it distinct from non-living processes. (The other is change, the key element of evolution and distinct from, say, growing crystals, but the exact defintion of life isn't the purpose here.)
None of this comprises proof, of course. Working out the exact odds involves way too many assumptions for me (or anybody else) to be specific. But it does not, to me, strain credibility that somewhere in the hundred-million-year history of "wet Mars", the reactions that kick off life to have started.
Nor does it conclusively rule out intelligent creation or many of the other competing theories. But the discovery of some sort of life on Mars would tend to suggest that evolutionary theory has good explanatory power, which is all you can ask of a theory.
What happened to the "Mud" (Score:4, Interesting)
Other images show the rover tracks clearly are being made in "mud", with water being pressed out of that material, Levin said. "That water promptly freezes and you can see reflecting ice. That's clearly ice. It could be nothing else," he said, "and the source is the water that came out of the mud." [space.com]
Why they are all talking about the water of the past and not about the "mud" which is more exciting news about the "current" water. Also why nobody asking the question regarding this?
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:3, Interesting)
Not all religions consider man to be centrally important in the universe (in fact some, like Taoism and some forms of neo-Paganism, stress man's existence as a nondistinct part of the cohesive whole of nature). Furthermore, many practitioners of religions which do assign a special value to humanness or sentience understand that such value is entirely spiritual and not to be confused with any external physical value. Even members of western religions which feature an active creator God (Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, etc.) are often open to the possibility of even intelligent extraterrestrial life, as they see such beings as also being God's children. Theories as to the religious inclinations of such extraterrestrial beings abound (I heard from a Berkeley astronomer working on extrasolar planets that he had recieved a letter from the Vatican asking if he had any inkling as to the hypothetical religious beliefs of hypothetical aliens. He replied that his data was as yet insufficient for a meaningful answer). Even assuming that intelligent extraterrestrials do not possess practices akin to human religion, I'm sure some members of "missionary" faiths (i.e. some sects of Christianity, Islam, and Mahayana Bhuddism) might believe that such beings would need to be exposed to the tenets of their religion and possibly converted. Less aggressive religious persons might find very interesting insights in the philosophical ideas of an alien race, even as people today can learn a great deal from other religions and cultures.
You need to remember that religion and science need not be antagonistic. I, for one, am a scientist and also a man of faith. I do not believe in the literal truth of any religious text, but I do believe that many different faiths around the world contain spiritual truth or "divine inspiration" if you will. I personally was raised in a (mainstream protestant) Christian environment and today choose to worship as a (Quaker) Christian, but I do not, by any means, believe that my religion has a monopoly on the truth.
I also believe that science is another powerful source for truth, and a unique one in that its claims can be tested, measured, and verified (unlike religion). Science has in the past disproven the very literal-minded interpretations of religious conservatives with regard to cosmology and biology, and it will likely continue to do so in the future. Keep in mind, however, that there are those of us who hold religious beliefs and also believe in the veracity of Evolution, the Big Bang theory, and even consider the prospect of extraterrestrial life likely. I recognize that science does not offer proof of my belief in a diety, or in a moral purpose for intelligent life, but I also know that science does not disprove these beliefs. I accept that, going on empirical evidence, Atheism is just as valid and just as likely a belief system as my own, and so I don't seek to disprove it. Saying that science disproves all religion, however, is just as ridiculous as the claims of so-called "creation scientists" who insist that scientific evidence proves that the Universe was created by God some ~6000 years ago, and thus that science disproves Atheism.
In the end, you'd do well to remember the scientific method. In order for a scientific hypothesis to be valid, it has to be falsifiable. A statement like "God created two human beings in Eden 6000 years ago, and the entire human race is decended from those two ancestors" is falsifiable, as we can find older and more varied human remains around the world. A statement like "God exists", however, is not falsifiable, and therefore is not testable by science. You can disprove certain ideas about God's interaction with human affairs, or you can disprove the literal correctness of certain creation accounts, but you can not disprove the existence of God (him|her|it)self. And, even if you could, many people would still choose to believe in God anyway, just as many people choose to believe in a literal creation now. As a scientist, I have
Re:A great breakthrough... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you do the math on the chances of the right precursor molecules spontaneously forming without selection pressures, the odds are ridiculously low. I'd have to look it up, but it's on the order of 10^26 against, and that's with ridiculously optimistic concentrations of the right chemicals in the soup. In that time frame, a trillion years is nothing, thus Dawkins' comments.
To be fair, Dawkins does try to get around the limitation by assuming that the precursor molecues got a kick start from a non-organic matrix that could undergo selection (clays), but he fails to explain how the molecules would be embedded in the right amounts in the clay (a random process). A critical analysis shows the argument to be basically flawed, and we're back to the abiogenesis requirement again. Even Dawkins' doesn't give the clay idea much more than a "just-so" story treatment.
Re:What happened to the "Mud" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Key point (Score:5, Interesting)
One good way that has been used here on Earth is to look for isotopic anomalies in the carbon 12/carbon 13 balance. Life preferentially selects the lighter carbon 12 isotope, so carbon minerals in rocks show carbon 12 enrichment.
Graphite found in 3.85 billion year old gneiss from Greenland is suspected of being organic in origin from isotopic evidence, even though the original rock has been distorted almost beyond recognition. Since these are the oldest rocks known on Earth, it seems reasonable to attempt similar techniques on Martian rocks when we have some decent samples.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Bacteria *do* leave fossils! (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, bacteria do in fact leave fossil records [berkeley.edu]
I don't know much (actually, anything) regarding purported non-carbon "life," but regular ol' bacteria can leave fossils, believe it or not.
Re:Biggest story of all time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably? Life on Mars would be the biggest scientific discovery in all the human lifetimes lived thus far, I would say.
I mean, maybe Copernicus... no... or Galileo... no... Darwin... maybe, but I'd really say that each of those would be mere stepping stones on the way towards the discovery of exobiology. Personally, I'd give my right leg to live in a time when extraterrestrial life is discovered. Maybe others don't feel that strongly, but it would be history-changing.
Good point about this discovery, though. This is significant, but I agree, maybe more on the level of the peak of an individual's career, and a milestone that people will point to later. But not quite lifetime status. :)
You're behind the times a little (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I wasn't eager to combine our "bouncing with airbags" landing approach with nuclear power -- until I googled a little and found the RHUs (Radioisotope Heater Units) on Sojourner. The Viking missions also used nuclear reactors in some capacity. As of a year ago, there also seemed to be specific plans for a long-term Mars rover with a reactor, to be launched in 2009.
They've worked some on the idea, anyway: Design Concept for a Nuclear Reactor-Powered Mars Rover. [aip.org]
Re:What happened to the "Mud" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:We will infect Mars (Score:5, Interesting)
A NEW MODEL OF MARS AS A FORMER CAPTURED SATELLITE (Score:3, Interesting)
ABSTRACT
Conventional models of Mars, based on measurements by initial Mariner unmanned spacecraft, found an arid, apparently ancient environment without current liquid water. This prompted subsequent, highly negative assessments regarding Mars' history, and the difficulty for the origin and/or evolution of higher forms of life. Later, the unmanned Viking missions (as well as the 1997 Pathfinder Lander) seemed to confirm this barren model. Complex, sometimes contradictory geologic theories to explain this desolate Mars environment have been proposed, based on a wide variety of observed surface phenomena and features. A new model that reconciles major puzzling contradictions among past models is now put forth, using new observations from MGS high-resolution images of Mars and a reevaluation of certain Viking era experiments. Small-scale surface features are identified which, it is proposed, are the direct product of wide spread ancient and recent bursts of subsurface liquid water. These water "stains" are shown to cluster (beyond statistical chance) in an unmistakable tidally-determined, bi-modal distribution on the planet: centered near the Tharsis and antipodal Arabia "bulges." A revaluation of Mars ancient history is therefore proposed, suggesting that Mars (well after solar system formation) was captured into synchronous orbital lock with a larger planetary companion ("Planet V"), accounting for the clustering of present day water bursts around the former beds of two bi-modally distributed "Mars ancient oceans" as a direct result. The current Tharsis and Arabia mantle uplifts are shown to be an inevitable additional fossil signature of such former tidal stresses, induced by a close gravitational relationship with Planet V. Other heretofore inexplicable Martian surface features are shown to be consistent with such a simple "tidal model": Valles Marineris (as an eroded ancient tidal bore, formed immediately post-capture); the presence of the extremely flat terrain covering the northern hemisphere (via deposited sediments from the once tidally supported oceans, when released); and the current trench or "moat" around the Tharsis bulge (from relaxation of Tharsis back into the mantle, after tidal lock was broken). The long-mysterious "Line of Dichotomy" is explained as a remnant of a "blast wave" of debris from this sudden severing of the former orbital lock relationship with Planet V, due to either a catastrophic collision or explosion. Chemical signatures of this extraordinary destruction event on Mars are shown to be consistent with the model; including the distribution of olivine preferentially below the line of dichotomy; the presence of primitive mantle and core materials such as iron and sulfur in unusual abundance on Mars surface; and the concentration of proposed "water stains" in areas bereft of olivine. Mars unusual magnetic field "striping" is now shown to be another unique southern hemisphere signature of this destruction event, caused by standing P and S waves reverberating through the planet's crust as a result of the massive simultaneous impacts from Planet V debris. Recently published research showing unprecedented outflow channels from the Tharsis and Arabia bulges are shown to be consistent with the sudden relaxation of the two tidal oceans, as is the sculpting of huge amounts of material by fluvial processes north of the Arabia bulge. Two possible mechanisms for the destruction of Planet V and the breaking of this tidal lock are outlined. Finally, a new timeline for Mars geologic evolution is proposed that is consistent with these observations, placing these events between capture ~500 MYA and the destruction of Planet V at 65 MYA.
Re:Key point (Score:3, Interesting)
They have digging sites for tourists [jkrieger.de]. With my nine years old it took me about half an hour to find a fossil there wich I still possess. If you know where to look they are all over.
Lispy
Re:So? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:5, Interesting)
If there was already an appropriate rover on the way, yes.
The death of the rovers will likely be slow and gradual. First a camera goes, then the arm, then it doesn't have power to move, then the batteries die, not having enough heat to keep the rover warm at night, the one or two functional devices left only operate during daying hours. Then, eventually, they can only ping the things. And, then everything goes quiet.
Once the batteries fail, many other components will fail due to lack of heating during night and thermal cycles.
Decades from now, we might still be getting signals from the rovers. The orbiters from viking lasted over a decade. One of the russian lunar rovers operated for 10 months. I would hate to think we can't surpass what the Soviets pulled off 30 years ago.
The last successful rover lasted several times longer than it was expected to, in fact the rover outlasted the lander that served as a transmitter and a relay station. Upon death of the lander the Soujourner probe was to try to return to the lander. I wondered how long that thing circled the lander, if it if got back at all.... Part of the reason these rovers are all in one units, capable of communicating with earth (at low baud) on their own, was because the last rover outlasted the lander.
In the two weeks Spirit was useless a few weeks ago, they were afraid components would fail. Now, try to imagine the years it takes to design/launch/wait on/land rovers? What would keep working? One of NASA's pre-Bush-Space-Initiative goals was to build a robot colony on mars. These rovers are not the start though.
I for one, would like to see them relaunch at least one rover similar to these in the next launch window. They are (were) planning on relaunching the polar lander. And, it would be nice if the next gen non-nuclear rovers could dust themselves, think $20 wiper blades.
The God question (Score:3, Interesting)
i sure as hell wouldn't, and i don't think anyone else imaginative enough to create something as simply beautiful as our planet would either...
ones creative urges would prevail, and other intelligent life forms would be created; simply for the hell of it if not for any other reasons...
An end to religion? Not any time soon. (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed.
I also think that it's important not to patronize the ancient scholars who put Genesis together. Clearly the account has been compiled from several sources, a fact that the compilers, if not future generations, would be quite clear on. I also suspect they were also well aware that they were not writing a natural history text, although they probably attempted to be consistent with the known cosmology of their time.
The main point of the creation story, in particular the story of the fall is this:
To this, they answer the question with another question:
This way of answering is especially poignant if you imagine the compiler as a religious scholar or scribe, an educated sensitive person who would as part of his job think about things like the inevitability of death. What he is saying that knowledge and self awareness may be a blessing, but they are also a burden.
Taking Genesis as a text on natural history reduces a profound statement about the human condition to an obsolete and disproven speculation.
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:3, Interesting)
It all really depends on how literally the religious adherents take scripture. There is a strong Bible Literalist movement within Christianity. Intelligent Extraterrestrial Life could easily be rationalized away as demons trying to steer us from the truth, etc.
But there are also a great many Christians who don't believe that the Bible is the literal unaltered Word of God. (Like me). Often, I feel like we're a dwindling minority. It's as if the strength of their faith depends on the crutch of rationalized physical evidence the Bible represents to them. Sad that their faith is really so weak that they require physical evidence.
Magnetite signature for bacteria (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Key point (Score:5, Interesting)
Why?
(Don't dismiss this. It's a hard question. Give it some thought.)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:3, Interesting)
Encountering an intelligent, human-or-above race with absolutely no conception of God as I know him, and absolutely no conception of such anywhere in their history (perhaps they've strayed, after all), is another one. The logic is hard to verbalize but at least for myself it would be a deathblow. It is possible that something in the encounter would cause some other belief to be viable (perhaps they had some other conception that clearly showed ours to be a misinterpretation), and I can see middle grounds where it would a toss-up, but if they were clearly 100% atheistic and always had been, that would leave my faith in tatters.
On a somewhat weaker note, I don't expect to actually meet any extraterrestrials in this life; Original Sin is clearly highly contagious and we should be kept isolated. There's been some science fiction in similar veins. On the "100% confirmation" note, it would be interesting if we encountered a race that had no original sin. Regardless, while I can't speculate what would happen well until it actually happens, meeting extraterrestrial intelligent life would have some effect on me.
Non-intelligent life doesn't faze me in the slightest; besides, it may still be of Earthly origin even if it's on Mars. If life is found and it has identical DNA (same acids, et. al.), that will be the most likely conclusion, that both planets have the same basic source of life, carried via cosmic events like asteroid impacts. (Which planet it started on would probably be absolutely impossible to determine, if it turns out both were capable of supporting life at roughly the same time.)
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:4, Interesting)
Incorrect. The Plutonium is encased in a box explicitly designed to survive reentry. There have been several instances where launches have failed and RTGs have reentered the atmosphere. In one case, NASA actually reused the RTG. Previous to NASA's use of black box style technology, they simply burned up the RTGs in the atmosphere. Eventually they figured that wasn't such a good idea.
Russia continued to burn up RTGs even after we'd stopped. One satellite actually burned up over Canada. No deaths were ever linked to the incident, but Canada made a big stink over it and had Russia pay for reparations.
But you need to make sure that your arguments in favor of them are well-thought and appropriate, or you sound just as stupid as the vehemently anti-RTG nutjobs.
You'll have to forgive me, but they *really* piss me off. Even a *little* bit of research would show them that the risk is practically nill. In fact, there's much more risk from all the other chemicals on the rocket than from the RTG.
Re:Key point (Score:3, Interesting)
According to NASA [nasa.gov], a meteorite that was discovered in Antartica contains indications that life once existed on Mars. If life was abundant enough that a rock could be ejected from Mars and subsequently make it to Earth with some evidence of life (structures similar to Earth fossils and organic molecules) then I think the chances of finding a fossil in a targeted sample are much greater than you assume.
What I want to know is ... (Score:5, Interesting)
What was that Rabbit thing. [weirdload.com] opportunity photographed on Mars and why did Nasa destroy it ??
Re:Where did it go? (Score:3, Interesting)
It most likely went down. Into the rocks (locked up forever in the rock crystalline structures), into subsurface ice, into aquifers where the pressure and temperature are high enough to sustain liquid water.
The ONLY reason we have liquid water available to us on earth is because we have a very active geochemical cycle. Water is "lost" into the mantle at subduction zones and seep into cracks. Some is lost by becoming chemically locked up in rocks. Some is lost as vapor to space. That dumped into the mantle is recycled to the surface via volcanic activity.
Also, earth's gravity is substantially higher than Mars' so the atmospheric pressure is sustained (though we lose atmosphere to space all the time) and rejuvenated via an active geochemical cycle, and this atmospheric pressure allows for stable liquid water.
Mars has no major, active geochemical cycle. It likely retains enough heat from the core deep down in the crust to sustain liquid water (and possible extremophile organisms) - where pressures are also higher. As for atmosphere, without a constant geochemical cycle to keep it replenished AND with a low gravity, its atmosphere is lost virtually irretrievably to space and into becoming chemically locked up in rocks (most of the oxygen on Mars is locked up in rocks).
Re:A great breakthrough... (Score:4, Interesting)
And many of the precursor chemicals do NOT exist outside of living organisms. You may find Adenine in a nebula, but I don't think you're going to find N10-Formyl-THF in an interstellar gas cloud.
Re:A great breakthrough... (Score:3, Interesting)
So you start with molecules that self-organize -- crystals. These molecules tend to provide a focal point for other similar molecules; the crystal structure grows bigger and bigger.
Eventually, parts of the crystal recombine in a way that produces faster replication, at the expense of having a larger and more complex molecule. You now have a different crystal, one which is more complex, and which is 'better suited' towards survival because it can increase in size more rapidly (eating food, in effect).
Repeat this a number of times, and you eventually get a molecular structure that is both complex and capable of self-replication; you would expect that this molecule would follow its crystaline roots, by having a more-or-less fixed structure composed of simple compounds that interact with other readily available compounds to replicate.
Sounds like DNA to me.
Re:Key point (Score:3, Interesting)
Religion (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, since there is a big section of Christians who already believe that Genesis is not exactly literal and/or chronological, they could easily fit life on Mars into the story of creation, somehow. The real question is, which of them will WANT to, and which will just add to their belief that science is evil.
Personally, I'd like to see the whole thing blow up. Pat Robertson lives in my neck of the woods, and he is a constant source of entertainment. I would love to tune in one day to something like, "Today on the 700 Club - Life on Mars: Scientific Proof of God's Love, or Evidence of the Location of Hell?" (Mars being the planet of War, ruled by Aries the Ram, a Fire Sign, etc. and so on...)
Re:Key point (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, NASA has lost a disturbingly high percentage of spacecraft sent to mars -- and it's a lot harder to build a successful manned mission than it is to build a successful non-return robotic probe.
First thing, for a lot of good reasons, would be a robotic returnmission. Once we've proven that we can successuflly return anything from mars, then we can look at returning something with a PhD.
Re:Key point (Score:3, Interesting)
FWIW, that's my call on the issue too, so this isn't intended as antagonistic. I just find that too many people hold this position due to a knee-jerk environmentalism, which if examined, rests on axioms that don't apply to Mars. Thus, the knee-jerk reactions often differ from what the person would really think if they sat down for a bit and thought about the issue, starting from whatever axioms they hold dear.
Re:Key point (Score:2, Interesting)
Bacterial contamination of samples is a problem that is solved on a daily basis here on Earth. There is no reason to suppose the same conditions could not be replicated on Mars. It's not like the astronauts are going to be carrying these samples in their jeans pockets...
Where The Water Went: Richard C Hoagland's Theory (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a long but awfully interesting read. You can find it here, though it is in PDF:
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/TIDES.pdf
Google claims you can view it in HTML, however this isn't working for me:
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:aM0G3cEtDy
Richard's main site is http://www.enterprisemission.com/ . Some of his stuff is waay out there, but some of it is truly interesting and possible.
Re:Religion (Score:2, Interesting)
Mars is already contaminated (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Key point (Score:5, Interesting)
Your first premise, "I am having thought", assumes the very thing you're trying to prove, namely that "I" exists. You have no right to use "I" in your premises if what you're trying to prove is that "I" exists. So nothing has been proven here.
Re:Religion (Score:5, Interesting)
The Bible was not written as a scientific text book. It has a different purpose: To reveal God's interaction with humankind. Some of the language is poetic, some historic, some is written in a very pictorial language. This shouldn't be surprising if you consider the Bible is composed of 66 books written by many different people in different times and different cultural contexts.
My personal view that those who say the Bible is to be read completely literally ignores the historical context and we can easily apply our cultural norms to a situation and get something completely different out of it. I don't believe that the world was created in 7 days, although I do believe that God could do it that way if He wanted to. The point of the opening part of Genesis is to establish that God was around before the world, that He was responsible for creation (the actual details are pictorial) and that the mess we are in today is a result of us rebelling against God. That's the important bit - the relationship between God and us.
Now to stay on topic, I believe in a Creator God. A God that looked at His work and was pleased. We have a pretty rough idea of how big the universe is and the thought that it's all empty apart from this little planet may be true, but the God portrayed in the Bible is more likely to have created a universe that is teeming with life.
Was there life on Mars? I wouldn't be surprised, because if God wanted to put it there (or created the laws of physics that enable it to start) he could.
Re:Key point (Score:5, Interesting)
Earth Life Survives Martian Conditions
Most of the organisms quickly die. But in every sample of terrestrial soil we have found varieties of micro-organisms that survive the Martian conditions, some indefinitely. They find the lack of oxygen and the temperature extremes to their liking. They find perfect safety, under small particles of soil, from the deadly ultraviolet light. When the subsurface water content increases slightly, they thrive in the seemingly hostile environment"
Carl Sagan
Mars Jars experiments over the past 30 years have shown that Earth Microbes CAN survive in a Martian enviroment, so don't even try to pretend that it can't happen.
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Key point (Score:4, Interesting)
Or do you live where all your ancestors have lived since the beginning of life itself?
And what is "Playing God", anyhow? I've never heard a coherent definition that doesn't boil down to "living life normally".
(There are legitimate ethical concerns here. I'm saying "playing God" isn't a useful way to think about them. We are. We exist. By existing, we affect the Universe around us. By not existing, we affect the Universe around us. This is just sloppy thinking.)
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:2, Interesting)
Cooling is an issue. NASA couldn't use the high-gain transmitter on the Spirit rover at first because it generated too much heat. They had to wait until they touched soil to have the additional heat sink (the soil) where they could safely use the transmitter. See:
...taken from the bottom of this article on USAToday [usatoday.com]. During a summer day Mars is room temperature, so any equipment that would run hot on earth would run hot there as well. Also, you have less ability to lose heat to air, because of the thinner atmosphere.
That's not so far fetched, actually (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:First Life (Score:1, Interesting)
Anaerobic metabolism is very common. Our muscle cells will engage in this form of metabolism when it's not getting oxygen fast enough. The byproduct is lactic acid and the cause of muscle cramps.
Also from what I recall it's regular eubacteria that "go dormant" when conditions are unfavorable. Most notably Bacillus. It becomes a spore and drastically slows it's metabolic rate. Intrestingly Bacillus is the source of Bt toxin (an insecticide) and Antrax (a biological weapon). Also autoclaves are designed to kill bacillus spores, since that's the most hardy form of life we've found so far.
Re:Key point (Score:3, Interesting)
The current rover is the size of a golf cart, and the spaceship itself smaller than a minivan. We simply could not get a man on Mars for the weight/price of one of these unmanned missions.
To do a rational comparison, you are going to have to compare a manned mission against an unmanned mission of the same size and/or cost. If we assume an Apollo-sized lander with two guys, let me point out that we could probobly fit a fully automated geology and chemistry lab in the space that would otherwise be taken up by crew and their supplies. We could even have more room in a sample return capsule if we didn't also have to bring back two humans with them. If you're going to propose a 1.5-year mission, the weight of all the food and water(or a large hydrophnoics system) we would need to bring along could go to a nuclear reactor or additional rovers & labs that would make the mission even more efficent.
The limitations of the Mars rovers are chiefly that there is a delay in communications, and that there is a bandwidth limit on communications. A manned mission would suffer from both problems.
Come to think of it, the most efficent way to run a mission in terms of science/cost would be a large-scale rover mission with a large sample return system. After all, on the Apollo missions the majority of the science was done after the rocks were brought back to Earth, to be studied by many trained geologists instead of one or two on the moon.
Re:Mission Accomplished (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I may be pretty darn low on the totem pole here (I develope portions of the rigorously engineered ground data systems software, and solve random technical/mathematical problems for the scientists) however there's a nontechnical, human side to this exploration effor that I feel I"m qualified to shed some light on regardless of my rank. I work with a lot of qualified, amazing people, (Squyres really is as cool as he seems on TV) and it's something I wish more
I hope everyone here takes what I post as it should be - the thoughts of an intern who's been working with the team for 4 years, caught up in something so much bigger that never ceases to surprise, amaze, and overstress
I would like to put forth something that many
Yes most of the comments are people randomly shouting about things they know nothing about, but there's always that insightful/informative gem in there that's educational, enlightening, or maybe just brings a chuckle to my workday (though I have a tendency to laugh rather loudly, probably not good for at the office).
Thanks to all of you who post, especially those with something good to say!
Cheers,
Justin Wick
Mars Exploration Rovers
So will Earth lose it's water sometime? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What happened to the "Mud" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Religion (Score:2, Interesting)
We have a pretty rough idea of how big the universe is and the thought that it's all empty apart from this little planet may be true, but the God portrayed in the Bible is more likely to have created a universe that is teeming with life.
Was there life on Mars? I wouldn't be surprised, because if God wanted to put it there (or created the laws of physics that enable it to start) he could.
He could by why would he? What part of the portrayal of God would lead you to believe we aren't alone? The Bible doesn't mention another planet or another group of humans on another planet or anything else along those lines that might be anywhere but here on Earth. God could have made life there if he wanted to but only humans have souls and I don't see why God would separate 2 species that have souls by putting them on different planets. There definitely is no reason to have animals there and God never created aliens so that rules them out. Could there have been humans? I guess since I can't say there wasn't you would say there could be but then I have to ask what the point of that would have been since we have never been in contact with them and I'd have to question why their existence has been hidden from us?
I'm a Christian and not beating up on you but I don't see a reason for God putting life on Mars, let alone any humans. That is what Earth is for, we (and all animals as God made animals for us to use as we deemed necessary) were confined at Creation to this planet but that doesn't mean we can't move off of this planet on our own volition.
Re:If there was water... (Score:5, Interesting)
But i'd say the chances are pretty good, since it's known (or at least highly possible) that primitive live like one-cell-organism could survive in space for a long time through hybernating. And it is known that planetary material could be ejected into space (like from meteor impacts or violent vulcanic explosions like in Krakatau - see here [irfamedia.com] and here [sdsu.edu] and land on another planet like mars.
Although the chances of survival for one-cell-organisms in a single incident are fairly small, there must have been thousands - if not millions - of these catastrophic events in earths past. One of the biggest was presumably the asteroid that created a thermonuclear winter about 65 million years ago. This one is known to have ejected material out of earths orbit.
So, all things considered, chances are that some bacteria could have survived an ejection from earth, the travel through interplanetary space, reentry into mars' atmosphere and adaption to mars' climate.
For the chances of complex life-forms: Well, it pretty much depends on many factors: The past climate of mars, if the first life-forms were native or not - and if not - how sucessfull presumed introduced life-forms from other planets adapted to the given and changing climate on mars.
As for fish, i'm don't really know, i'll rather bet on plant-life and rather primitive water-based or sand-based animal life-forms.
Re:reaction rates (Score:2, Interesting)
that's a theory (Score:3, Interesting)
But once Mars has been contaminated by bacteria from earth, that opportunity is gone because we won't be able to distinguish bacteria we brought from bacteria that traveled via meteor impact.
Re:Key point (Score:2, Interesting)
If life did select -12, then radio-carbon dating would simply say that all dead things are exactly the same age.
RC dating works because when alive, an organism like a plant takes up carbon from the atmosphere which has c-12 and c-13 at a known ratio (approx.). This maintains the atmospheric ratio in the organism's body. When it dies, it ceases to take up from the atmosphere. Since the c-13 decays (known half-life) then the current ratio of c-12 to c-13 implies the time passed between death and now.
alex
Re:What I want to know is ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean really, why?
And why say "whoa, slippage!" to the press, when it doesn't look as though there was any slippage of any sort whatsoever?
And why is there no better image of the 'bunny' in any of the panoramic pics? Even if it was just junk from the lander, it would be interesting, but it didn't look to be the case as it seemed to be buried in the soil somewhat.
I mean, does it not look to most of you as though the lander intentionally backed over that specific object at least once if not twice? Does it not strike you as at least a little wacky that the 'slippage' should eradicate the bunny junk so completely?
Forget the Masons, Meninblack and UFO's. Just explain to me what's in the freekin' picture!