New Evidence for Life on Mars 177
The BBC is reporting on
new evidence that life existed on Mars. It revolves around
the unique properties of magnetsomes: tiny magnetic crystals of iron
that some terrestrial bacteria produce to sense the Earth's
magnetic field. Magnetosomes are far purer than magnetite
grains that occur naturally. The research of Nasa's Dr
Kathie Thomas-Keprta indicates magnetite produced by
bacteria-like microorganisms is present in the Allen Hills
meteorite, a Mars rock picked up in the Allen Hills region
of Antarctica.
Um... (Score:1)
These tiny grains, made of a material called magnetite, have a very specific size and shape. They are also very pure - far purer than magnetite grains that occur naturally.
If these things are presupposed to have evolved, then they ARE occuring naturally. Evolution doesn't leave room for anything else but nature (plus time, plus chance).
martian magnetic fields (Score:1)
That's great CS boy, but learn some physics :) (Score:2)
Hit Mars with a big asteroid. The asteroid is
slams into the surface with a speed equal to or
greater than the Mars' escape velocity. (This
should be blatently obvious... if not, take an
AC's word for it, or derive it yourself.
If it hits with escape velocity, it imparts huge
amounts of energy in to the crust, blowing
material into the sky and causing all sorts of
other bad things to happen. Since the asteroid
came in with escape velocity, it is actually very
easy to get some of the blown into the sky to have
orbital and escape velocities.
(Big impacts throw huge chunks of rock to the
opposite sides of planets... this requires
velocities quite close to orbital velocities, and
therefore on the order of escape velocities.)
By the way, just so you know, there is no
question whatsoever that some meteorite are from
Mars. Some have been conclusively identified as
Martian, and this is widely accepted be
scientists.
By the way, I assume you know all of this, and
just wanted to get a fight going, but I was scared
some people might read your post and get silly
wrong ideas into their heads.
Stupid? I feel not. (Score:1)
There gravity is less, so a smaller force is needed to send it out of their atmosphere. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but they have a lot of explosions due to heat and trapped gases. Just like our volcanos, rocks can get thrown into air; a decent size explosion could have sent it towards our planet.
The rock may have been much bigger when it began the re-entry phase; however, the heat could have broken away parts of it. Or, many other parts may still be surviving and remain unfound. It's very possible that it did; however, it's also very possible that it didn't.
In otherwords, it's not stupid; however, very puzzling.
Bacteria (terrestrial/martion) == Tool Makers? (Score:1)
Mars Colony != Freedom and New Idea's... yet. (Score:1)
There's not much land-mass left in the world for new colonists to establish themselves, so we've had idea's like Oceania and such spring up from various patriotic types over the years, as people attempt to solve the problem of a dwindling democracy in the form of the American system. (Which, by the way, is more of a result of world banking restrictions than *anything* else).
So, we look to Mars as a solution, which it isn't.
A Mars colony won't get there if it isn't for the freedom and new ideas that resulted in the birth of the American space program. The hardcore science involved in establishing a Mars colony will have come as a direct result of Earth science, which by the time we have a Mars colony up and running will consist of very closely guarded commercial secrets (as if they aren't now already) being held onto by multi-national conglomerates born from the ashes of the American democratic system. And those multi-nationals bow to the alter of the World Banking System, as we all know too well...
I find it hard to think that with all of the resources to be plundered on Mars, the world banks would allow a remote colony on Mars to be anything other than an extension of an existing government nation that can be subjected to some form of financial/economic restrictions to prevent instability in world banking economies.
So for the first 20 or 30 years or so of the existence of a Mars colony, it's sure going to be made dependent on Earth science and resources in order to survive
Any form of colonization is definitely going to result in a trade system, and since its so far away, Earth is going to be providing Mars with a whole lotta tech in exchange for whatever Mars resources have to offer.
So, Earth will definitely have the Mars colony in check, and it's leash will be science information since its going to be a *long* time until Mars would have any form of scientific organization worth even 1% of what the Earth would have.
Unless we start planning for it, and take the science/technology we've got right here and now, and make it available for future Mars colonists in some form or another...
I guess Open Source software is a start...
Bacteria (Score:1)
If the media were going around saying "potential prokaryotes, not necessarily of the bacteria phylum", nobody'd pay attention because they'd be asleep by the 2nd word.
Much easier for Johnny Newsboy to call it 'bacteria' because "it looks like a squiggly bacteria" than get really scientific about it...
Anyway, you can't complain. Just choose your media to match your intellect.
Speculation. (Score:1)
What you're basically saying is that you're tired of waiting, and want a Mars colony. I do too.
But since it takes a hell of a lot more than just saying "do it" to get up there, big corporations are ultimately involved.
Not having an understanding for those big corps, and the world banking/economic controls in place, how can you adequately plan the path to get a viable Mars economy set up?
Speculation can result in engineering. And engineering can result in opportunities for further speculation...
Humming to yourself. Quietly... (Score:1)
Martian bacteria on earth? Hogwash. (Score:1)
As a quick summary, who's to say that the earth bactiera that used magnetite didn't originate from that meteorite? (I'm not saying they did, either)
Probably... (Score:1)
BTW, I beleive X maxes out to 6 for billions of years (the sun will go `pfft' around then)
Re: Life (Score:1)
Re: martian unicellular organisms (Score:1)
Bacteria == early Linux users (Score:1)
Big Momma Fails at Futurism (Score:1)
NASA's media image versus science problem... (Score:1)
NASA if far too concerened with public image. It's projects are almost allways run for the benefit of the media, not the amount of science that gets done.
Point in case with the ISS - when it started to become obvious that it was going to be neccessary to bail out the Russian end of the project on a periodic basis, the US congress cancelled the super collider. LHERC would have cost $8 billion and left CERN for dead. Frankly, I'll take LHERC over the ISS any day. On a per dollar basis, it would have produced just as many technological spin-offs and a whole lot more useful science.
I certainly agree that the real problem is beurocracy and unfortunatly that's what NASA is - an entrenched beurocracy.
As for a telescope on the dark side of the moon - most definatly, especially if it's built as an interferometer. We could probably do that now, and for a lot less than the ISS is going to cost. With a large enough baseline, we could probably image terrestrial planets around other stars. In addition to that, being on the moon ( no atmosphere ), we could even detect the spectral signature of gases such as CO2, H2O and O3 on any planets of this type that were discovered.
Not much chance of that though while the ISS is sucking up the money for the next ten years, and human crewed flights to Mars sucking up the money for the next ten after that.
Just my several billion dollars worth of ire gang.
The damned Drake Equation... (Score:1)
I know *exactly* what your talking about. Hate the damned thing.
The term that allways cracks me up is 'L', the lifetime of a space-faring species.
The only way that you can reliably estimate this factor is by a statistically signifigant collection of data on the lifetime of intelligent space-faring species.
In short, you can't calculate it until you have actually met a large number of such species ( or estimated it by examining the archeological remains of such species ).
This tends to defeat the whole purpose of the exercise, and of course explains why it is so popular with some people. Essentially, it amounts to an argument of "You can't calculate the values, therefore your not allowed to disagree with my fantasies about a universe filled with intelligent life".
As for the other terms in the equation, I'll give them a miss. I'm still cleaning the charcoal of my asbestos long-johns from the flaming that I got the last time that I brought that subject up on
The Drake equation is acceptable for late night speculation over the coffee table. It's not acceptable as serious science.
Personally, I believe that there is almost certainly intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos. I just don't believe that it's very common.
Unfortunatly, Sci-Fi needs E.T's for interesting plots. Without them, it tends to go flat fairly quickly.
"Space, the final frontier. These are the voyagers of the starship enterprise. It's five year mission, to seek out new bacteria. To boldly examine geological features never examined by humans before...".
Hardly the sort of thing to make for a very exciting weekly episode.
Mr Spock: "It's igneous rock Jim, but not as we know it".
Don't get me wrong gang - I actually like Sci-Fi. The problem to me is that too many people arn't very critical in their thinking and as a result of that, they end up taking it far too seriously.
Ever head of Fred Hoyle's theory? (Score:1)
One of the problems with biogenisis here on Earth is that life appeared fairly soon after the crust solidified. Not only that, it appears to have made the transition from self-replicating molecules to simple cellular forms fairly quickly.
Because of this, the physicist ( and sometimes Sci-Fi author ) Fred Hoyle suggested that life may have actually begun in space and then been seeded on Earth by asteroids and comets.
While there is no conclusive proof for this, the fact that debris ejected by impacts on planets such as Mars can travel to Earth is highly suggestive. In addition to this, we must also consider the possibility of the reverse as well. Namely, that life may have been transferred by a similiar process from the Earth to Mars ( and possibly elsewhere within the solar-system, such as Europa and Titan ).
If such a transfer of living micro-organisms occured in the past when Mars had a denser ( and warmer ) atmosphere and surface water, then it is not inconceivable that such life-forms may have established themselves on the Martian surface.
So even if we discover life elsewhere within the solar-system ( either existant or in the form of micro-fossils ), this would not constitute proof for a seperate occurence of biogenesis. Before we could make such an assertion, we would need to demonstrate a fundemental difference between such life and terrestrial life ( such as differences in chirality or the basic amino acids used to store genetic information ).
One in a billion? One in a trillion? (Score:1)
*Ahem*! Excuse me jumping in, but's that not the only question. Even if a planet has the conditions that allow for the biogenesis of life, the other question is - how long can it maintain stability?
Most educated people these days know that stars eventally turn into red-giants.
What a lot of people overlook is that stars get hotter even before they reach that point.
As a result of the infall of asteroids and comets into second generation stars like our own sun, these stars gradually accumulates a small but signifigant proportion of carbon during their life-time.
As a result of this, the proportion of energy that it produces by carbon catalysed fussion increases over time. While the increase in luminosity is slight, it has far reaching consequences.
Specifically, because of the gradually increasing output of energy from the sun, within 100 - 150 million years, the atmospheric circulation of water vapour on Earth will begin to carry water above the ozone layer.
Once this state is reached, the water will undergo UV disociation into hydrogen and oxygen. Because of it's low molecular weight, the hydrogen will escape into space.
In short, the Earth will begin to dehydrate at an accelerated rate, and will become uninhabitable within about a furthur 100 million years.
So contrary to the opinions of many people, the Earth does not have 5 billion years to go. It only has about 250 million years of life left to it. In this respect, our planet is not "middle aged", but actually close to retirment.
Work on this subject ( by physisicts such as Dr David Brin ) has indicated that this is the probable fate of all life bearing planets long before their parent star leaves the main sequence and becomes a red-giant.
So even if we assume that the number of planets that are *initially* capable of supporting life might be quite large, the number that are able to retain stable conditions for life to evolve to any degree of complexity ( including intelligence ) may be microscopically small.
In short, lots of protoplasm but very few beings that you can have a conversation with.
Sorry to "pick nits" over such a small point within your posting, but it's something that is often overlooked. It's relevent to some of the other postings on this page, but it's kind of hard to work out where it should go exactly...
Radioactivity, most certainly... (Score:1)
Yes, most certainly. I don't want to repeat what other posters furthur down the page have already pointed out, but Mars seems to be somewhat deficient in heavier elements. Consider the density of the inner planets in gramms per cubic centimeter (from the "NASA atlas of the solar-system").
Mercury 5.4
Venus 5.2
Earth 5.5
Mars 3.9
I'm sure that this is pretty obvious. Mars is obviously fairly low in heavy elements ( such as iron and nickel, at least within it's interior ).
Most of the internal heat generated within the Earth comes from the decay of long half life materials such as itotopes of aluminium. Mars seems to be rather short on these.
A few other points that may be of interest to people on this thread ( I apologise, but it would take forever to reply individually. I hope no one will hold that against me, especially craw ).
1. Mars does not apear to be tectonically active. All major tectonic activity seems to have ended at least a billion or more years ago. The last big spurt of activity resulted in the formation of Olympus Mons. This estimate is based on the re-surfacing of the planet by internal lava flows and the count of craters over these re-surfaced areas. Because of it's smaller size and low density, while we can't be certain at this point in time, it does look as if the Martian core froze some time ago ( sorry craw ).
Still, look on the bright side. Because of the high internal temperature of the Earth, a Jules Verne "Journey to the center of the Earth" won't be possible for a long time. If Mars's core has indeed gone cold, a "Journey to the center of Mars" might be a different proposition.
So even though Mars is somewhat deficient in heavier elements, it may turn out that it will become a primary supplier of heavy metals and radio-actives to human settlements around the solar-system over the next few millenium if we can mine it's core.
2. Life and magnetic fields. That's one that I was able to recently discuss with some fizzy-cysts ( sorry, temporary mental block - it's that damned "nothing is slowing us down banner..." that Rob's got up at the moment. I just can't spell that word right now... ). No dice. Even without a magnetic field, the Earths atmosphere is quite capable of sheilding us from the solar-wind and cosmic radiation. There is hard evidence to prove that mass extinctions of micro-biota ( and probably macro-biota as well ) occur during magnetic field reversals here on Earth, but increased levels of cosmic-radiation because the magnetic field has collapsed doesn't fit the known stopping power of atmospheric gases.
On the basis of estimates quoted to me at the time, even a few meters of air at sea-level are sufficient to stop most of the interstellar radiation ( high speed electrons, protons and alpha-particles ) that is normally deflected by the Earths magnetic field.
So as in the case of Lord Kelvin ( a very droll historical comparison, and one that I'm sure you can appreciate ) we are therefore left with something of a mystery on the point. Obviouisly, the two events ( magnetic field reversal and micro-biota extinctions ) are related, but not in any simple or straight forward manner. Does anyone have any suggestions on this point?
The discovery of life, and *intelligent* life... (Score:1)
...would be a profound moment in the history of our species.
In some ways, I'm not sure of how to respond to the questions that you raise.
"Do we lose anything for believing there exists life outside our planet and solar system?"
Ok, I'll admit, that's a tough one. Essentially, your asking "...how unique is life...".
To me, I tend to take it for granted that life *is* important. This bizare and ridiculous self-replicating system which we know as "life" strikes me as having a purpose and a role within the universe of "dead matter".
For that matter, I couldn't help but notice that some of your questions furthur down this page are framed within a "religious context" ( ie, within the context of a concept of a "supreme being" ).
To me, these arn't the important questions. For me , personally, the important issue is what my role in all of this is. Whatever the universe ( or it's maker ) is up to doesn't bother me. I just do what I feel needs to be done.
At this point in time, that amounts to making people aware of certain possibilities ( such as the re-engineering of planets from uninhabitable dirt-balls to living planets ).
I'm sorry that I can't give you a better answer than that, it's just that here and now, that's my role.
So while I often become frustrated or exasperated with the current situation, I remain philosophical. In many ways, the universe is still very young, and what it will eventually become may be largely under the direction of intelligent species ( such as our own species ).
Snort! Chortle! (Score:1)
I'm not sure I can take your theories seriously, but they are certainly entertaining!
Have you ever considered writting book? The idea of a bunch of "spiritually enlightenend" alians who drop in to take microbes of to nirvana would certainly be good for a laugh.
As to your idea about volcanic erruptions, yes, we would expect that to show up in the fossil record. It's unlikely, but I might go and have a dig in the reference library to see if there are any factors of this type related to microbial extinctions. If nothing else, it will give me an excuse to bone up on the posibility.
See Ya! (Score:1)
When?
Enter the Flame (Score:1)
--
Python
Dark side of the moon = REALLY DARK SKIES! (Score:1)
You could automate the station, but it would make alot more sense to send the scientists there to maintain the station (everything breaks...).
I hear what you're saying, we spend so little on good research and seem to squander it on seemingly ridiculous jaunts into space - but its those jaunts that keep the tax payers interested in paying for the BORING research. And very now and then you can couple the two. You have - or the money just won't flow.
And NASA does sometimes blow money on projects just because it has it (as in the Space Pen project... the Russians used pencils! It cost us a million bucks to develop a pen that could write in space - and the Russians solved the problem for free by using PENCILS!) But this problem is, IMHO, caused by Government bureacrats and the convulted process the government uses to "solve"
problems.
--
Python
Someone needs grant money desperately. (Score:1)
Enter the Flame (Score:1)
Bacteria == early Linux users (Score:1)
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Send in the hit-man (Score:1)
>B:) We will send people to Mars over my dead body.
Cool. That can be arranged.
Face it-- NASA has added *way* more to the economy than we've ever put into it. NASA's budget for a decade doesn't even match Tang revenue, let alone the computer advances directly attributable to the space industry. More money goes into making bad movies about space than actually goes into space.
Space exploration is more than just flicking mass into space. It's about research, exploration, and adventure. Yes, other research projects need funded; the US govmnt doesn't give a tinkey-winkey about science. ALL research needs more money. Knowledge is our only path to salvation; that, and Oreo cookies and hot chocolate (the kind with the mini-marshmallows).
Question... (Score:1)
Amen, brother. (Score:1)
the Archie Bunker slobs waving flags?
Or the ones with the guts to work for some real change?
Our land, I love it too
I think I love it more than you
I care enough to fight"
Dead Kennedys -- The Stars and Stripes of Corruption
Bacteria (Score:1)
Geekyness is more than Computers! Thanks /. (Score:1)
Star Wars doesn't count--since it was a false alarm. :-)
Nice. Very nice. (Score:2)
Whether there were primitive microrganisms on Mars is still "up in the air", and I am glad to see some more evidence support that there was life there.
Supposing there was life on Mars, every known constant of the equation used to determine hoe much life there is out there is very high, which means it is very likely there are aliens. Which leads to the next question. Why haven't we met them? Or have we??
- Sam Trenholme
Enter the Flame (Score:2)
The original announcement, in 1996, sparked
almost violent arguments among planetary
scientists. Recent press on it has declared
the subject as "dead". I guess this reopens the
debate.
Personally, I think that the evidence is strong,
despite some inconsistencies in the original work.
I'm waiting for the sample-return mission in 2005
to really have a conclusion, though.
Even then, we'll never be able to prove that there isn't/wasn't
life on Mars, only that we can't find the remains of it.
Check panspermia.org [panspermia.org] for more info.
earth bacteria infiltration (Score:1)
Dan
sending machines instead of humans to Mars (Score:1)
So you might suggest to operate the machine via remote control instead of letting it run around with its own AI. Sure, operating it remotely via telepresence sounds nice, but that's not very viable when it takes over 20 minutes for a round-trip signal to go from earth to Mars. Try playing Quake with multi-minute lag, and then imagine trying to drive a rover or drill for samples. It would take a very, very long time to get anything useful done.
So the solution is to send humans. Even if the humans are merely in an underground living area on Mars driving rovers and digging for samples remotely via telepresence, that would work very nicely. And then they could even take the rocks to a Martian lab and analyze them right then and there, instead of having to fly them all the way back to Earth.
So basically, there are a lot of benefits to sending humans to Mars instead of just machines. Yeah, it's expensive. But I think it's worth it.
Dan
rocks don't fly (Score:1)
Dan
indications that the meteorites are from Mars (Score:1)
QUESTION:
How do you know that the meteorite came from Mars?
ANSWER from Cheick Diarra on September 19, l996:
Most Martian meteorites are 1.3 billion years old or less, much younger
than typical igneous meteorites from asteroids which are 4.5 billion
years old. They also have higher contents of volatiles than igneous
meteorites. The conclusive evidence that this meteorite originated on
Mars comes from the measurement of gases trapped in its interior. The
trapped gases match those that Viking measured in the Martian
atmosphere.
For more information, go to URL
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/pao/flash/marslife/inde
ANSWER from Jeff Plescia on March 10, 1997:
There are now about a dozen meteorites we believe came from Mars.
All of them are igneous rocks (which means they formed by the
cooling of molten rock - either lava erupted onto the surface or
injected into the subsurface).
We believe they are from Mars for a number of reasons:
1. Age. These meteorites solidified from a liquid state between about
200 Million years ago to over 4 billion years ago. The younger age
(200 Million years) indicates they come from a body that was able
to produce lava that recently. Asteroids and the Moon are geologically
inactive 200 million years ago, which suggests are large planet (but
not necessarily Mars).
2. Trapped Gas. When they rocks were ejected from Mars, some of
the atmosphere was trapped in the rocks. When the meteorites were
studied on earth it was discovered that the gas had a composition
identical to that of the Mars atmosphere (as indicated by the measurements
from the Viking lander missions in 1976).
3. Isotopic Composition. Each element has a specific set of cousins which
are very similar, have the same basic chemical properties, but are slightly
different in mass (in this case the number of neutrons) - these different
cousins are called isotopes (e.g., oxygen 16, oxygen 17, oxygen 18). The
ratio of the various isotopes in the martian meteorites was different from
any earth rocks or any of the lunar samples or any of the other meteorites.
All of this led to the conclusion that these rocks came from Mars.
ANSWER from Bruce Jakosky on April 27, 1997:
There are twelve different meteorites that are thought to have come
from Mars. Two of them have strong evidence tying them to Mars. In
these two, there is a glassy component of rock that is made up of rock
that was partly melted by the force of the impact that must have
ejected them from Mars. There is a gas trapped within this glass, and
this gas has a composition that is identical to the composition of the
martian atmosphere and different from any other source of gas in the
solar system. This gas is thought to have been "implanted" into the
glass, also during the impact that ejected it from the martian surface.
The presence of this gas is a very convincing tie to Mars. In fact, if
they turn out not to be from Mars, then there is no place in the solar
system where they can be from--there are only a few planets big enough
to have had active volcanism so late in history (and these rocks are
pieces of volcanic rock), the Earth and Moon are ruled out by the
meteorites' chemical behavior, and Venus (the only other possible
place) has a very different atmosphere.
So, what about the other ten meteorites (since only two of the twelve
have the trapped gas)? They are tied to the first two by their
composition. It is very likely that they come from the same planet,
but not absolutely certain.
This is just stupid (Score:1)
(Flame proof underware ON)
PS --This is just stupid (Score:1)
Stupid? I feel not. (Score:1)
That's great CS boy, but learn some physics :) (Score:1)
The field is there... (Score:1)
Except for this, I believe that everything else you wrote is correct.
bzzzz! p.u. (Score:1)
Mars -round two (Score:1)
Surveyor started the remap, Scientists revive the old-good theory. And we soon are going to start digging on photos and gathering all wiednesses and wild theories.
But I wonder. Will Surveryor end its mission in a much like Pathfinder one? A few frames for the public and a nearly silent death?
Will these British guys get on the same luck as their American colleagues? Downplays, rumours, discreditation and once more silence?
Will such guys, from serious scientists like Molenaar or Van Flandern, through McDaniel down to Vanisko, Olaf or me, jump into the bandwagon of possible life, seas, civilization, catasthrophes, scientific alternatives? And then get fire from all sides who consider such crazy ideas should be silenced?
And then will they let Hoagland create havoc once again?
I'm not convinced... (Score:1)
However the fact that there we know only two such planets does not force to consider only Mars. In fact the writer warns that this and similar rocks do not fully fit Martian Geochemistry (and much less Earth)
Nice. Very nice. (Score:1)
About meeting them. Maybe they are we? In fact we may come all from Mars... Remember that phrase?
don't knock dissenting opinions to -1 !!!!!! (Score:1)
Goodness gracious, the "censor" seems to have no sense of humour. My post was *tongue* *in* *cheek*, a *parody* of the nonsense posts that go up whenever Sengan puts up an article.
Anyone notice the "smiley" at the end of my post?
martian magnetic fields (Score:1)
I'm not a geo-scientist, so it's fair to ignore my opinion.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
"We could be happy if the air was as pure as the beer"
Enter the Flame (Score:1)
Planet heating (Score:1)
Viking missions (Score:1)
Were the tests invalid? Possibly. I know one of them involved mixing some soil into a growth medium and measuring the opacity of the solution over time, to see if any bacteria grow and cloud the water. I don't remember what the other test was. I don't anyone can really decide for sure until we have a permanent research institution, or several, on Mars.
wow! (Score:1)
natas
Big Momma sez: (Score:1)
Most of the research NASA needs to do these days needs to be done in space, hence the need for the station. PLUS it will allow us to better explore the solar system, and be our first step into a much larger world.
People like you just don't get it, and probably never will.
earth bacteria infiltration (Score:1)
Nice. Very nice. (Score:1)
intelligent life everywhere != radio using life everywhere
And even if intelligent life is everywhere AND they are all using radios AND they don't use compression or spread spectrum AND they happen to congregate around 1400-1800 MHz they might still just not be bothering to transmit actively in the same way are. Maybe we haven't met them because they just really don't care about talking to anyone else.
And all of that is even if you believe the proposition that life is out there. Last time I checked it was based on a formula that Frank Drake wrote up that had mostly guesses and wishes rather than actual (omigod) scientific, empirically derived numbers.
Kinda hard to get your hopes up about that
Let's go there now. (Score:1)
Or is this more of a "manifest destiny" kind of thing that just can't be explained in terms of logic?
Enquiring minds want to know. (Score:1)
Some people suggest that even though neurons are biologically "expensive", it may be easier to develop greater intelligence than new physical adaptations. If this is indeed the case then intelligence has nothing to do with curiosity whatsoever.
I think equating intelligence with curiosity is just another example of how we anthropomorphize intelligence and change it to mean "human intelligence".
Speculation. (Score:1)
If you want free market forces to determine the fate of Mars then I have to ask, "What are they going to sell to Earth to pay their way?" (Oh and don't forget to subtract launch and retrieval costs, risk, and time of transit. By the time that He-3 has arrived maybe the world market for energy crashed and it's worth about four cents a ton.)
Terraformed dirt? The rich people who could afford land on Mars can already afford land on Earth. It's the poor (and increasingly middle class) who can't afford housing in modern America. Perhaps corporations are going to give the land away to them? Or maybe you think the rich and spoiled will really give up their society life, their parties and galas, their fancy sports cars, their palatial estates, their gardens, their transcontinental jet setting, and all the other perks of wealth so that they can get a little more land on Mars? Gonna be one tough commute from Mars if you want to hang out at the Oscars.
All of the technological developments that people claims will develop from going to Mars are a) contigent benefits and b) not limited to just Mars. I would bet that an orbital lab would result in virtually the same developments at a much lower cost.
So far I haven't heard a single reason why we should send people and start a colony on Mars. Virtually everything of worth we could do on Mars can be done, cheaper, faster, and more efficiently by robots.
People don't say, "Hey let's colonize the inside of a volcano! Just think, a new land of liberty. All those technological developments. Lots of land. And then we could terraform it and sell hotel rooms to tourists!!"
martian magnetic fields (Score:1)
(thanks to Geology 117, at UIUC, where I skipped more than I should have)
Nit picking. (Score:1)
AS
martian magnetic fields (Score:1)
It's very high momentum rotation won't allow it to stop or change directions, in a way very similar to a gyroscope, but perhaps because there is a fluid layer between the core and the shell, one of the two just flips around because of metastability.
Imagine an eggshell with its liquid center. You could toss the egg in the air, and it would spin, but it's interior would not because there is a relatively low friction between the yolk and the shell, which could also account for the 'flip' as evidenced by the earth every couple aeons or so.
AS
I took one. (Score:1)
If we can get the funding to go to Mars, and we do find evidence of bacteria and magnetosomes, the question is why are they so similar? Maybe it is because they came from the same place; maybe it means something else. It isn't hogwash until we know they do or don't exist. It would be stunning to find out life somehow migrated from one planet to the other.
We don't even know that Martian life uses DNA, or the same set of amino acids we do... Thus the interest prompted by the Martian metorite...
AS
Sure... (Score:1)
To find out more about life, Mars, etc.
AS
PS --This is just stupid (Score:1)
Escape velocity on earth is like 11,000kph or something like that. If there were just an asteroid sitting on earth's path, the earth's velocity while orbiting around the sun is much greater than 11,000kph, so the asteroid itself will be able to reach escape velocities, and any chunks of dirt it dishes out will be able to leave with escape velocities.
On Mars, since it is smaller and less massive, has much lower escape velocities. It's very easy to imagine chunks getting knocked out into orbit; some believe Mar's moons are just this type of remnant, either pieces of Mars, pieces of asteroids caught by Mars, or pieces of asteroids that bounced off Mars. In a similar vein, some believe the moon is a result of an extraordinary impact with earth and a large fast asteroid.
While getting it into space is easy enough, getting to earth is the hard part. While not easy to imagine, much more coincindental things have occurred, like the earth getting hit by an asteroid. In fact, the probabilities are the same, since anything that leaves Mars is an asteroid, and the probabilities may be higher because Mars is closer than all the asteroid belts.
Nothing needed to live through reentry if they were fossilized remains inside the rock. Likewise, they probably didn't survive escape from Mars either, except that they were protected as fossilized remains in the rock.
AS
Dark side of the moon = REALLY DARK SKIES! (Score:1)
Of course, a wax pencil would probably be that much better than either.
I'm not sure I believe the quote of a million bucks for the Space Pen, though I'm sure it cost quite a bit...
AS
Sigh (Score:1)
The problem with science, research, and results is we don't know that we will ever get anything useful. Period. Research by its very nature is experimental and untried, with a high probability of failure. However, without it, we would still be using wooden tools and stone implements, and probably even less.
You're arguments as such are true, but they are also not the real benefits of space exploration and research.
Space exploration demands, screams for, requires new materials. However, if we don't build things like space stations, new materials don't get researched, and these materials never get used here on earth. Like titanium golf clubs, or aluminum coke cans, or millions of other products of our past space programs. Fullerines, super-conductors, super-ceramics, super polymers, and many other wacky things get worked on while designing a space station, for insulation, strength, durability, stress, radiation protection, etc. All of the above also have uses here on Earth, and are far from useless.
There is also biological information ready to be harvested from an extended space trip, such as info about human physiology, health, and maintanence. Ecosystems and recycling of wastes and other things also need to be figured out as well. Who knows but the next great advance, such as an anti-hangover pill, or a anti-alergy medication, or a preservative that keeps food fresh for weeks, or whatever, can't be found because of the space program?
Personally the space program has value in of itself, for the exploration, the barriers, the newness, the excitement. But I guess for you, and other's like you, I have to dish out explanations of convenience, worth, and viability.
Heck, what better use do we have for some of our money than space?
AS
So you're saying... (Score:1)
Isotope distributions match fairly closely to Mars
Atmospheric makeup of gas trapped within glass bubbles also match Mars; note that Venus has a hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid atmosphere..
Mars is more CO and CO2, I think.
Jupiter is also hydrogens and ammonias, with some water.
AS
Hmm. (Score:1)
Imagine the medical, technological, computing, materials science, and engineering innovations inherent in a trip to Mars!
Diet, medicine, and exercise need to compensate for the zero G environment. This also happens to translate directly into the Earth's environment, with bone loss and bone density issues of the elderly and those suffering from osteoperosis. Likewise information about our daily cycles(what without the normal day-night cycle for extended time), and about our relationship to gravity, in the zero G environs.
Technology: Too much to talk about! Imagine the compounds we would discover to facilitate travel! Radiation shielding, new super strong, super light, super hard, super everything ceramics, plastics, metals, and fibers! Energy and solar efficiences, new solar panel technologies, new high efficiency batteries, or fuel sorces, or power plants! Or superconductors? Or new polymers?
How about computing? Simulation demands, new processes to deal with the high radiation environments of space? These can also be applied to new microprocessors perhaps.
Not a very coherent reply, but I think you get some idea... Besides just the coolness factor.
AS
Life... (Score:1)
It's probably related to the US's abysmal science education in school. Most people have no clue what science or scientific thought really is, I'm sure.
Do we lose anything for believing there exists life outside our planet and solar system? If we don't all we lose our hope, and that's just a shame, so for all extents and purposes, we want to act as if the next mission, the next study, the next survey will discover intelligence of life, no?
AS
Hmm. (Score:1)
You're right about spending much time in space, but that requires a space station, and the only difference at that point is aim and control. Once you fire something off in the right direction, it will keep going in space, so there is little functional difference between a space station orbiting the Earth or something flying to Mars... Landing and getting off Mars is different, but a small module designed for such a purpose who probably accomplish that.
AS
Take a biology course. (Score:1)
Bees have wings. Birds have wings. They were developed through two seperate evolutionary paths. The reason they both developed the same function independantly is because both were in an environment where it was useful.
Whatever reason it's useful to have magnetsomes on Earth, it probably applies to Mars as well.
Enter the Flame (Score:1)
Mind you this theory is not based on any scientific investigation... There are the pyramids on Mars and there are the same pyramids on Earth. What's the possibility that they are related? High.... If this is the case then it may be possible that people from Mars colonised the Earth. It's not impossible... We're trying to colonise the Moon...
I'm open to discussion on this issue because it opens up profound thoughts.
Enter the Flame (Score:1)
martian magnetic fields (Score:1)
Thanks,
--Corey
Mars -round two (Score:1)
Hoagland might be a latter-day Galileo. Let him stir up trouble where he may. I'll get a kick out of it.
--Corey
martian magnetic fields (Score:1)
Certainly our moon aids in the tectonic renewal cycle of our planet and, while none of Mars' moons are as large as ours, certainly they exert some strain on the planet.
I have a couple of issues with the "nuclear reactions" line of thought, though. I find it hard to believe that there are nuclear reactions (which to me leads to "explosive nuclear force") going on at the core of the planet, which is a solid iron-nickel mass, from all that I have read.
I can fathom the idea that the gravitational forces from the sun and the moon which drives the tectonic activity on Earth also causes enough internal stress on the planet to keep the mantle liquified, and that the core is solid because of the pressure exerted on it, but it's hard for me to conceptualize nuclear reactions at the core.
Anyway, do you have any links to post where I could find out more?
--Corey
Martian bacteria on earth? Hogwash. (Score:1)
Okay, there's a rock from Mars. And it's got similar cell components to some things on Earth. Nifty. Who's to say that rock hasn't been sitting in Antarctica long enough for Earth bacteria to say, "Hi, I like this location. We'll put up some drapes and a few magnetized iron chunks right after we move in."
Now assume the magnetites *are* from Mars. Why would naturally occuring ones be less pure than organically made ones? Scientist's answer: Because on Earth, that's the case. Well, wouldn't it be possible that, since Mars has a pretty high iron content on the surface that their naturally occuring magnetites are rather pure?
Another point: What are the chances that two completely separate evolutionary paths would develop these magnetites? That's like assuming that all the aliens we meet have two arms, two legs, and a head in reasonably the same locations as we do. And, that they "see" the same spectrum as we do. And can "hear" the same sounds. Life which has evoloved in other systems than our own little biosphere probably won't share anything recognizably in common with us, unless of course they're carbon-nitrogen based and have some familiar looking amino acids.
-Chris
Rio vs tapes on mars? CDs? Nope. (Score:1)
Entertainment system of choice on mars? Records!
-Chris
I took one. (Score:1)
Bees wings and birds wings: sure, they're both "wings" that are used for flying, but that's where the similarity ends. They aren't structurally the same, as the magnetites from "mars" and the ones from earth are.
My arguement: A bee and a fly have the same kind of wing. If you saw a bee and a fly next to each other, it would be pretty easy to say "hey, these things probably came from the same planet." If you put a bird and a bee next to each other, even though they both perform the same function, there is no evidence pointing towards evolutionary influence. Here, we have two very similar parts which are assembled the same way, of the same material, and used (presumably) for the same purpose. I'd accept this as a sign of extra-terrestrial life if they were made of a different arrangement of iron or something, but since they are so similar, I interpret them as coming from the same place.
-Chris
Nasa building support for a Mars mission? (Score:1)
Modern science fiction authors. And everyone who mentioned them on the threads here.
-Chris
Nit picking. (Score:1)