The Indirect Case For Life On Mars 334
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."
Nonbiological methane production (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Funny)
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:To the girl with the mousy (Score:2)
Not the Future Legend, but the past... (Score:3, Informative)
Getting slightly back OT, the answer to the question "Is there life on Mars?" would seem to be a "definite maybe"
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:2)
You make the only argument I can really understand (Score:3, Interesting)
But I think that long term, it's far more useful to have an extended manned presence through the solar system that will enable even more such missions than we might be able to manage only from Earth. Not to mention the mental boost we would get from really having a permanent human presence on Mars itself. It's a question of sending many questionable one-off mission rather than increasing
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Interesting)
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. . .
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.
Re:Methane Lifetime on Mars (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Another explanation (Score:3, Informative)
Regardless of the mechanism, the discovery of methane in the atmosphere is a very important result. . .
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.
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean other than puffs of methane in the atmosphere?
Seriously. To claim trace amounts of methane in the atmosphere is a signature of life is a huge stretch. Methane is naturally all throughout the solar system. This could be nothing more than a subterranean fissure opening into a methane pocket in the crust of Mars and venting periodically.
Heck, the amounts they are talking about are so small, it could be the remnants from a comet
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:2)
why? for the cost of sending any number of human to mars, we can probably send even more non-manned missions, each having equipment with much greater observation and data acquisition/analysis capabilities than any number of human beings.
there is no sure way to find life on mars. but the easiest and most direct way to survey the largest area and greatest depth of mars for signs of life certainly do not require manned missions to
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.
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.
More importantly (Score:2, Funny)
I recommend we send Governor Schwarzenegger to investigate.
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:2, Insightful)
Only if there is a common DNA signature for life on the two planets.
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:3, Informative)
hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:2)
Re:Nonbiological methane production (Score:2)
I know that ethanol produced by biological processes is always of one isomer only, whereas ethanol produced by industrial processes (ie from ethane gas) is equal proportions of both left- and right-isomers.
Any chance that methane isomers might be a way to check? Or does methane come only in one version?
PROOF!!! (Score:5, Funny)
http://xmlx.ca/images/37/o_martian.jpg [xmlx.ca]
Re:PROOF!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:obligatory (Score:2, Informative)
Re:obligatory (Score:2)
Hiding in caves (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hiding in caves (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hiding in caves (Score:2)
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
Re:Ancient Life (Score:2)
In other news.... (Score:4, Funny)
How long... (Score:2)
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!
Martian Life! (Score:2)
Another false alarm? (Score:2, Interesting)
On a slight tangent, I wonder if Larry Lemke is related to the savant Leslie Lemke.
Under Rocks? (Score:5, Interesting)
To the, uh.. Martian Cave!, .... Rover! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:To the, uh.. Martian Cave!, .... Rover! (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Waiting for Mars Science Laboratory? (Score:3, Informative)
Unlike the current Mars Exploration Rovers, MSL is designed specifically to look for the possibility that lifeforms existed on Mars either in the past or even now. Also, because it will most likely use the same type of "nuclear" battery that powered the Galileo and Cassini spacecraft, it could run for two Earth years or more doing soil sampling, with the rover travelling well o
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:2)
"Sure, I spend six hours a day on company time reading
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.
Proof that martians exist... (Score:2)
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:2, Funny)
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.
taking the heretical position (Score:2)
really
if we were in some hypothetical situation where a mars genesis project would commence or not depending upon the fate of the POSSIBILITY of martian microbes, i would push the button
because the sum total of what MIGHT be lost does not outweigh what WILL be gained
Re:taking the heretical position (Score:2, Interesting)
and that is why humans will need another planet to live in the first place , because we dont respect the "lower" lifeforms
what WILL be gained now WILL be your doom tomorrow
"Humans are like virus"
and after mars? where will we go?
what respect (Score:2)
in the time it took you to compose your post, your body killed a couple thousand such life forms
we might learn something from them, and that would be a loss, but that is about it
oh and btw, after mars, we'll go to venus
yes, humans are like a virus... so what?
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.
Re:Please Share Your Stash of Happy Fun Drugs (Score:2)
My guess is we are going to get fusion in 30 - 80 years and have energy costs drop to 1/10th what they are now within 80 years after that. At which point we start a few HUGE scale projects. Think underwater tunnel from Europe to the US. Freaking HUGE desalinization projects to create fresh water. But, instead trying to turn deserts into rainforests we are going to take the desert formerly known as the Amazon rain forest among others and t
Here's why we haven't colonized Antarctica (Score:2, Interesting)
Decades ago, a treaty was signed stating that Antarctica would be used for scientific purposes only.
Also, terraforming there would not be a good idea. We would have to warm up the climate, and before the temperature would rise, the glaciers there would melt, raising the ocean level significantly. The resulting death toll would make the recent tsunami look like a small splash. The same thing goes for draining the Mediterranean. The water has to go somewhere.
Eventually, we will have to expand out into s
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...)
Re:Yup, life is there... (Score:2)
Re:Yup, life is there... (Score:2)
Finally ... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Finally ... (Score:2)
Uhm, Was that "Why am I so f*ing strange?"?
Sounds like a troll, but I'm not. (Score:2)
We displace plenty of animal life here on Earth; after all, we are the dominant species. Why should Mars be any diffent? Because in 2 billion more years something may evolve? Doesn't sound like a reason to stop to me.
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.
Re:Sounds like a troll, but I'm not. (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like a troll, but I'm not. (Score:2)
case for Genesis Device test site (Score:2)
I don't think that the preponderance of evidence suggests that any present life on Mars has any chance at all of evolving into an intelligent species. Given the current environmental conditions, and the planet's very stable geology, there's no likelyhood of a climate shift favoring such developments.
Unless we terraform the bitch.
Re:case for Genesis Device test site (Score:2, Funny)
As compared to say, Earth, you mean? There's not much evidence of intelligent life here either...
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
Re:It's not just methane.... (Score:2)
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)
Wait for peer review (Score:3, Interesting)
Scientists releasing papers and ideas, especially ones that are obviously controversial, before the peer review/publication process has been completed is poor science. While the peer review process is not perfect with the potential to overemphasize mediocre/bad work or miss good work, the system is the checks and balances upon which science has relied for decades to ensure quality work.
For an example of how releasing scientific results to the media before it is fully evaluated can have disastrous effects, check out cold fusion [wikipedia.org].
Real evidence.. (Score:2)
Having said that, I believe it is even probable
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.
NASA Press release (Score:4, Informative)
Source: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052
Re:Genesis device?! (Score:2)
and no there is no genesis device. Nor any ancient device to reorganize matter built by people long ago. However there are some very large fire letters that spell out something. Alas the message escapes my memory...
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:Genesis device?! (Score:2)
I meant one.
Let us see if my typo-Troll notices...
Re:books (Score:2)
Re:It make sense (Score:2)
If there is life there, it's Martian or came from Earth back when Mars was more habitable. And yes, just as Mars rocks can make it to Earth, Earth rocks might have been blasted to Mars by a meteor impact, and life could have survived both the impact and the trip.
Re:Possible source of life: (Score:2)
Re:Possible source of life: (Score:2)
On the other hand, common cold corona viruses won't last for many hours outside of a host. Hopefully, they are shattered to pieces if they got there.
The possibility of remnants of ancient Earth life on Mars is, IMHO, a possibly larger threat of disease for humans getting there anything separately evolved on Mars, as that's more likely to be differen
Re:Life transplanted from earth... (Score:3, Interesting)