Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mars Space NASA Science

Seeking Signs of Ancient Martian Life 106

Posted by kdawson from the speed-dating dept.
StonyandCher writes in about a collaboration between NASA and a leading Australian exploration and mining scientist, Dr. Brent McInnes, to search for signs of ancient life on Mars. The plan is to develop and miniaturize the "Alphachron" — an exploration technology currently employed by the Australian minerals industry to determine the age of minerals. If the Alphachron can be miniaturized, it could fly with the next rover mission set for launch in 2010. "The highest priority is to understand when liquid water was present on Mars. 'The same minerals that can be found in [Western Australia]... can also be found on Mars,' McInnes said. Accordingly, by using the Alphachron to date minerals on Mars and thus tell when liquid water may have been present, it can be inferred when life may have been sustainable near the surface of the planet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Seeking Signs of Ancient Martian Life More

Seeking Signs of Ancient Martian Life

Comments Filter:
  • I've thought about this for a while and just can't figure out what the need to search for life on Mars is all about. Except for 3rd rate B-movies featuring little green men, life on Mars isn't really interesting at all.

    Why? Because no matter what is there when we finally get around to building our Mars base will be destroyed in order to develop a useful environment and atmosphere for humans. Mars life be damned.

    So this search for minerals and other natural resources (like water) is very important, but findi

    • Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Vectronic ( 1221470 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @02:49AM (#23388692)
      It's important because it would be our first chance to essentially witness the demise of a once habitable planet, its along the same lines as the immense amount of energy spent on trying to figure out how, where, and why the dinosaurs died.

      Its all very interesting, even if for day-today life, its really quite insignificant. Especially considering the same effects that have happened to Mars, could very plausibly happen to Earth aswell even if its not for many more millenium (Millenia?)

      And building bases on Mars wont really destroy all the information instantaniously, only dismiss some methods of gathering information.
      • millenia, fyi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jurily ( 900488 )

        And building bases on Mars wont really destroy all the information instantaniously, only dismiss some methods of gathering information.
        Like what? You can't gather information where the base is, and that's it. Mars is a big place. However, you do get people up there who can look for stuff much faster than the current approach.

        A Mars base should be a net benefit from this angle too.

      • Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by maquah ( 965242 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @06:04AM (#23389440)
        Looking at Google's three-layered Mars [google.com] map: dunno how they determined their 'zero' with the elevations, but it looks like there are significantly more meteor craters on the 'above zero elevation' parts of the map (Surface water = insulation from meteor impact).
        A few thoughts:
        (1) Arsia Mons - the enormous volcanic mountain - is almost exactly on the other side of the planet from the -9 km near-circular depression, Hellas Planitia (there's a map with geographic names linked to the the USGS astrogeology image gallery [usgs.gov]). I wonder if Hellas Planitia is the scar of a meteor that penetrated the planet's crust, and the volcanoes on the other side of the planet from the shock of the impact?
        (2) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Odyssey Mars radiation environment experiment [wikipedia.org] seems to have focused on the impact of solar and other cosmic radiation, rather than scanning Mars for any naturally 'hot' spots? It seems as though Argyre Planitia might be a place to 'look' for higher-than-average radiation of planetary origin: according to Google's Map [google.com] - the 'infrared' scans - it's thermally "hotter" than surrounding areas, could that be from radioactive decay? Was there a thermonuclear 'event' on Mars, millions of years ago???
        (3) It seems that most ecologists do not think all that deeply about the overall and very powerful influences of 'life' on the ecosystem: moderating temperature, plant roots bringing water back to the surface and then transpiring water vapor into the atmosphere, etc., etc. The living ecosystem has a bigger role than most people realize, in maintaining an life-sustaining environment... but if was stressed beyond certain bounds, it would collapse.
        Thermonuclear event??? Ecosystem stressed beyond life-sustaining limits??? Like the drifting dunes of what was once the Sahara Forest, perhaps we are looking at the consequences of a planetary ecological disaster, millions of years ago... and, how many 'signs of life' might a Rover find, randomly looking, on the arid drifting sand of Earth's deserts?
      • That Mars life had a demise? We have only explored a tiny fraction of the planet. You are making multiple unsupported ass-u-me-s here.
        Let me explain:
        1) Life may still exist on Mars, we just haven't found any yet, but given the only places we've really successfully landed were deserts, this isn't surprising;
        2) Any life found may possibly still be contamination from probes we've sent;
        3) You offer no evidence that Mars is: (a) "once habitable" or (b) "no longer hospitable";
        4) You are assuming Mars is similar e

    • Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pikoro ( 844299 ) <init.init@sh> on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @02:50AM (#23388696) Homepage Journal
      I think the point is to see if anything has developed on Mars before we go there and contaminate the environment, thereby making it impossible to determine if what is found came with us to Mars or was pre-existing.

      Czech out the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. Ann in those books makes a very good argument on that basis.

    • Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by religious freak ( 1005821 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @02:50AM (#23388698)
      WHHHHHHHHAT?! C'mon dude.

      So you're not the least bit interested if they share the same characteristics as us, such as: DNA, amino acids, organelles, etc, etc?

      There are a million and one things I'd prefer to see from life on Mars before I ever knew the location of water (if it exists). I know what water looks like, but extra-terrestrial life, I have no idea.
    • If we find an instance of life anywhere that is not on earth then it is highly significant.
      It will help us to understand a little better the variables in the Drake equation.
      • If we find an instance of life anywhere that is not on earth then it is highly significant. It will help us to understand a little better the variables in the Drake equation.

        Not to mention, it will piss every religious fundamentalist off big time.

    • PETM (Score:2, Funny)

      by Wild Bill TX ( 787533 )
      PETM (People for the Ethical Treatment of Martians) will focus its attention on whatever means of harming innocent Martians humanity may conceive. We will educate, protest, legislate, and even rescue Martians, with an undying dedication to preserving the valuable and sacred Martian life.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Yvanhoe ( 564877 )
      We don't know if life is common in the universe or if earth is an exceptional place whose unique conditions were the only one to allow for life to form. That is quite interesting if you ask me...

    • Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BearRanger ( 945122 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @03:37AM (#23388894)
      Finding life is important for at least three reasons. First, the philosophical--if there's life on Mars we're no longer alone. It's an age old question that will finally have an answer. Life on Mars won't be intelligent life, but our estimate of the probability that there's other intelligent life out there somewhere will greatly increase.

      Next, Mars has similarities to Earth. If it once supported life but no longer does what changed? Could that same change possibly happen to us?

      Finally, scientific curiosity. It's just darned interesting to know these things for the sake of knowing them. What's Martian life like? Is it going to kill every human who sets foot on the planet? Might it yield valuable insights into how life evolved here?

      I guarantee, if we find life on Mars there will be people who will disagree with you about who owns it. After all, manifest destiny was a great idea unless you were a Native American.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "Next, Mars has similarities to Earth. If it once supported life but no longer does what changed? Could that same change possibly happen to us?"

        Besides the whole "no magnetic sphere" and being "too small to hold down an atmosphere" there are other things that we know about Mars already!!! Check out the below link to learn more!

        http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/funzone_flash.html [nasa.gov]

      • First, the philosophical--if there's life on Mars we're no longer alone. It's an age old question that will finally have an answer. Life on Mars won't be intelligent life, but our estimate of the probability that there's other intelligent life out there somewhere will greatly increase.

        Statistically we are not alone. Given that there are billions of stars in our galaxy, and given that there are billions of galaxies and lastly given that as our ability to find planets around grows - and we ARE finding planets where we expect, and more importantly in places that we don't expect, the chances that another lifeform isn't out there, and hasn't evolved to intelligent life is staggeringly small.

        Next, Mars has similarities to Earth. If it once supported life but no longer does what changed? Could that same change possibly happen to us?

        The main chance is that Mars lost its magnetic field. As the core of Mars cooled and solidified, it

    • 1. send a "space craft" to Mars
      2. put a gadget for finding life
      3. say you might have discovered ancient life
      4. ...
      5. more funds!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nguy ( 1207026 )
      I've thought about this for a while and just can't figure out what the need to search for life on Mars is all about. Except for 3rd rate B-movies featuring little green men, life on Mars isn't really interesting at all.

      It is enormously interesting for biology.

      Why? Because no matter what is there when we finally get around to building our Mars base will be destroyed in order to develop a useful environment and atmosphere for humans. Mars life be damned.

      We'll get the DNA we need before then. And, frankly, I
    • Believe it or not, there are whole areas of science NOT concerned with finding more land, killing off the inhabitants, and consuming all the local resources. Finding life on Mars, or the evidence of past life, would impact so many areas of human life, it's hard to really fathom them all. Every expert in religion to biology would weigh in, not to mention the psychologists as we assimilate this new though suspected information into our collective psyche. If it was past life, then what happened to it? What level of complexity did it reach? Was there ever anything close to what we are, as a species?

      In fact, finding evidence of life from either the present or the past would be a prime factor in just how much we DO colonize the place. It's all well and good to think we would just bulldoze the area level and set about building, but what if the life is microbial and the wee beasties kill us off?

      Sticking a shovel in the Martian surface is NOT the same as it is on Earth, where at least we have a fairly solid understanding of what we are likely to encounter. I, for one, would want to know all about whatever might be living there, past or present, before I build a shelter in which I will shower, use the toilet, etc.
    • If you can't see why finding life on another planet wouldn't be worth the effort, you're a sad and deluded individual! There's no money to be made or material gain, but that's not the point. It's the scientific discovery that would be so amazing. If we could extract information about the life, whether it was DNA based, etc... can you imagine the knowledge we would gain? It's sad to see people losing the awe towards science. It's like there needs to be a net monetary gain for anything to be deemed worthwhil
  • Most life evolved based on water in our planet, because there's a lot of it here... that doesn't mean life couldn't have evolved based on hidrogen, or methane, or whatever substance is abundant on a specific planet.

    Even on our planet, living creatures have been found in strange places like lava and volcanoes.

    Save that money for understanding Mars as it is NOW, before investigating his history.
    • It's always possible, but the one of the most well known catalysts of life that we know about so well is water. There's also the feasibility of water on Ganymede[http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_phillips_europa_030315.html], which means aside from our very own planet, we know that there is/was water/ice on Mars, and there's the possibility of life on the presumably geothermal warmed subterranean oceans on Ganymede. All it really takes are some minerals, water, and heat to form even primitive life.
      • And even if it might have been originated in water, it could have mutated to continue living on a very different environment.

        Once upon a time on earth bacteria (algae) changed his diet from CO2 to O2.

        I think it's better searching for life than searching for corpses, and searching for water might not be the best idea right now.

      • All it really takes are some minerals, water, and heat to form even primitive life.

        You can't possibly know if this is true. If we find microbial life on Mars it would certainly go some way to confirming that hypothesis, but it could be that other processes are required for life to start - maybe a gigantic dose of luck. Perhaps we'll find dozens of potentially life-forming worlds where nothing animate ever arose. And even if we do find evidence of life on Mars, that wouldn't confirm that life appears easily in the right environment, as there could have been transfer of material from one t

        • If there was life on Mars I think we would know by now. Life is adaptive and it tends to occupy all the available space. Telescopes hundreds of light years away would have no difficulty detecting life on Earth.

          I just don't think we are going to find anything. I hope I am wrong.

          • Telescopes hundreds of light years away would have no difficulty detecting life on Earth.

            You are assuming that "life" on Mars would be as vibrant and prolific as (current) life on earth. That is an assumption that's very likely to be wrong. The big question is more along the lines of whether any form of life can or did exist in a more marginal environment - less water, lower partial pressures, more radiation, etc.

            From what we've seen on Mars, it's likely that some forms of earthly protozoa could survi

        • "Are we alone in the Universe?"... there seem to be two possibilities, either humanity is the only intelligent, technological life in the universe. Which means we have a unique gift that would be lost if we doom ourselves.

          Or there is other intelligent, technological life out there. Other civilizations.

          Either way, it is profound.

          I don't think humanity will know, one way or the other, within my lifetime. The chances of other civilizations (alive now) within the solar system are infinitesimal. Mars may hav

    • Re:why they always think water == life? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RiotingPacifist ( 1228016 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @04:56AM (#23389184)
      I cant rember where i read about it, but theres quite an interesting concept about life on a neutron star (where it would be based about nuclear interactions instead of electronic interaction, somewhere. I think it was probably sci-fi but it is a cool concept.

      Generally people consider water essential to life because:
      Chemical based life forms are much more likely than nuclear or gravitation based life forms (too small or too slow)
      Carbon based life is much more likely than non-carbon based life
      Carbon based life depends on water for alot of interactions (mainly due to hydrogen bonding)
      Considering non-carbon life forms, if life where nitrogen based, it would probably also depend on water
      There is the possibility of phosphorus based life (which would probably be hydrophobic tho)
      The possibility of silicon based life also exists (which wouldn't depend on water)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dreamchaser ( 49529 )
      From what we know now you need a good solvent. Ammonia is a potential candidate. Hydrogen is not. Methane could be used for respiration in conjunction with life that evolved in ammonia.

      Of course, there's plenty we do not know and it's always possible, but with the ubiquity of water and it's favorable properties it's the best place to start. Also, we may be more likely to recognize life that evolved using water as it's solvent. More alien types may just elude us.

      That being said, we are talking about lif

  • Venusian Life (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bananatree3 ( 872975 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @03:03AM (#23388754)
    When the solar system was cooling, both Venus and the Earth were probably in similar states. There is the possibility that oceans too formed on Venus, many billions of years ago. Of course now it's hell incarnate, but it may have been able to birth life eons ago.
    • Of course now it's hell incarnate, but it may have been able to birth life eons ago

      No, I'm pretty sure Detroit is still in Michigan...

  • Wouldn't it be really funny if some space ship that we send to Mars to look for signs of life accidently has some bacteria on it, which goes into the Martian soil and eventually evolves into an alien race?
    • Well... The 'alien' part needs to be put into perspective. Since this hypothetical bacterium originated from here, why would it be alien to us? Or would it be alien since it would evolve on another world?
    • ... they think that instead of being brought in a spaceship it was carried on a meteorite.
      • Well, technically, a meteorite carrying anything other than itself, is a spaceship.

        It aids in shipment of matter via space travel.

        Its just highly unlikely that its a "space craft" unless of course, there actually is a tangible god, then theortically its likely a craft, by some means of intentional creation.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Skybyte ( 685829 )
      In an astronomy class at uni we were told about how a NASA technician sneezed into a camera that was sent to the moon, and when it was later recovered they found a colony of bacteria had grown inside (or something like that anyway). Since then NASA is extra careful about things that are sent into space to stop what you have suggested.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by OshMan ( 1246516 )
      It would be even "funnier" if they discovered ancient signs of life on Mars that implied life of Earth started as "contamination" from Mars.

  • The title says: "Aussie Technology to help NASA" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by freedom_india ( 780002 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @03:32AM (#23388870) Homepage Journal
    It does the same experiment that the 1970s initial Mars Landers did.
    The signs then were inconclusive and will be inconclusive because: We look at other planets with the same glasses we look at Earth.
    Heck even on earth, we are still surprised daily by new findings of life we thought could not support life.
    And these were detected after so many years and with so good tools.
    What makes you say a rover-sized tincan will magically detect past life on Mars?
    Has life detection techniques improved so fast in 30 years?
    Get about 10 kgs of Mars soil from various locations to Earth orbit (ISS) and let the ISS search it for life.
    Stop wasting money and sending tincans all over again.

    • The Article is Off-Base (Score:4, Informative)

      by iamlucky13 ( 795185 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @01:23PM (#23393688)
      First of all, no this is not the same experiment the Viking landers did in the 1970's. The Viking landers carried cameras, meterology instruments, a sampling arm, a seismometer, and a small biology experiment. You're probably thinking of the last one. The results were inconclusive because they realized after the fact there were factors they didn't control for that more than likely spoiled the results. This does not mean that these factors can't be effectively controlled for.

      But that doesn't matter, because the article isn't talking about looking for life now (although I'm not sure the author realizes that). Neither Mars Exploration Rovers currently on Mars nor the Mars Science Laboratory due to launch at the end of next year will really be looking for life.

      The instrument (alphachron) referred to in the article is used to date mineral deposits. The MER's established with a fairly high degree of confidence that liquid water existed on Mars in the past, based partially on the presence of certain types of minerals. If alphachron is flown on a mission, it will be used to determine the age of these deposits, thereby constraining when liquid water, and perhaps providing some key insights over how Mars evolved.

      I'm almost certain the article is off-base in suggesting this instrument might fly on the Mars Science Laboratory, which will launch towards the end of 2009 and arrive in 2010. It's not currently manifested, and since assembly is taking place right now and instruments have already been eliminated to keep the project under-mass and not too far over-budget, I can't believe there's any chance of it flying on MSL.

      It's also not currently listed on the manifest for Europe's ExoMars rover, to launch in 2013, but I don't think its payload is currently set in stone. The next NASA opportunity under the current plans is the 2016 Mars Astrobiology Field Lab, but Alphachron doesn't sound very complementary to the goals of that mission.

      Sadly, a lot of good instruments get developed, but never fly due to priorities and engineering constraints. This may end up being such a case, but at least it has commercial applications outside the space program.

  • I just don't understand scientists. (Score:5, Funny)

    by iamdrscience ( 541136 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @03:39AM (#23388904) Homepage
    Ancient Martian life? Why bother? All they'd do is show you pictures of their grand kids and talk about how great Mars used to be. What they should be doing is looking for some young, sexy, teenage martians. For that matter, why are they looking on Mars anyways? Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.

    Has it really been so long since the original Star Trek aired that scientists have forgotten that the primary goal of space exploration is to find hot alien women to have sex with? I'm willing to forgive science for failing to deliver on its promises of flying cars and personal jetpacks, but if I don't have harem of hot alien babes soon, then I am going to be FUCKING PISSED.

    • For that matter, why are they looking on Mars anyways? Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.
      Not everyone is that much into girls, you know...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
      Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.

      Which explains the poisonous atmosphere.
  • I hope we find huge quality mineral deposits. Then mining companies will provide some serious commercial backing for space travel. Having said that, it will be a while before its more profitable to mine Mars than Earth.

    • Re:Minerals = Funding (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @06:20AM (#23389516) Journal
      If you land on Mars you have to expend lots of energy to get off, whereas if you mine the asteroids, it's a lot cheaper.

      We're doing things the wrong way.

      Steps should be:
      1) Space station with artificial gravity (classic spinning wheel, or stuff on tether)
      2) Space station with artificial gravity and decent radiation shielding
      3) Figure out how to build space stations from asteroid materials
      4) Send space stations to asteroid belts or wherever.
      5) Space colonies.

      Whereas right now, there's crazy talk of
      1) Space trip to Mars

      That sure sounds like a one way trip. That's only worth the $$$$ if we can vote for politicians to send on that one way trip. Do that regularly and it'll be a net benefit to the world ;).

  • I'm talking about all of our probes and landers, not impact events. I don't see how we can properly sterilize a spacecraft.

    I just watched a good documentary on mass extinctions and climate changes in Earth's geological past. It convinced me that nothing short of an act of God can extinguish life from this planet. We know bacteria can survive in space. The resiliency of life combined with our very human ability to overestimate our abilities leads me to believe we've already started the process.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Saffaya ( 702234 )
      We have martian rocks on Earth, and so there surely are a lot of earth rocks on Mars.
      Both are due to asteroid impacts projecting debris all around the place, including a few reaching neighbouring planets.

      Those rock were not sterilized either, so .. although it is good practice to think about germ contamination, it may not be that important to be certain to achieve 100% decontamination on gear sent on other planets.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by WalksOnDirt ( 704461 )

        We have martian rocks on Earth, and so there surely are a lot of earth rocks on Mars.
        That doesn't really follow. It is much harder to blast debris out of Earth's gravity well than the smaller one of Mars, and the greater atmospheric pressured here adds another serious difficulty. Perhaps some material from the larger impacts on Earth made it to Mars, but I'd expect the quantity to be minuscule compared to the amount going the other way.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by kanweg ( 771128 )
      "It convinced me that nothing short of an act of God can extinguish life from this planet. "

      One might think that because skydaddy doesn't exist we're safe then. However, mother Nature can do it well on its own: There are explosions in the universe so powerful that they can destroy life even if the explosion is hundreds of light years away. Google for gamma ray-bursts.

      Bert

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      First, who cares? The biology the developed here isn't going to 'infect' other biology. They didn't evolve together.

      Seconds, Maybe you should consider novas, gamma bursts, planet impacts before you start to think nothing can wipe out life from the earth.

      Started what process? 'infecting' mars or mas extinction?

  • Plenty of evidence (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @05:34AM (#23389332)
    Plenty of evidence for ancient life on mars, and the moon for that matter.
    I remember seeing websites that showed ruined buildings on both as well as many other anomalies that scientists (read closed mind almost like religious freaks, scared of speaking out as they're funding would get cut) dismissed. Keep an open mind when you look on the net for this stuff

  • Signs of life in Western Australia? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ultimately the scientists hope to establish whether it is possible for some form of life and ultimately culture to develop in Western Australia.

    • culture to develop in Western Australia.
      Well they have football....

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by trongey ( 21550 )

        Well they have football....
        Correction: They have Australian football - one of the more entertaining sports to ever grace the airwaves.

  • May as well be me. I have a few points to burn.

    *AHEM*

    I for one welcome our new alien overlords.

  • This whole project is just welfare for nerds. It should be defunded immediately. The US government is trillions of dollars in debt. The country is recession. The financial stability of the middle class is falling due to the collapse of the housing bubble. The end of cheap oil is decimating the transportation industries. Millions are starving due to mismanaged food stocks. The president-selected-by-the-pre-programmed-voting-machines is promising 'permanent endless war' that does nothing but make his c

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close