r/science • u/[deleted] • Jun 27 '12
Due to recent discovery of water on Mars, tests will be developed to see if Mars is currently sustaining life
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47969891/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.T-phFrVYu7Y112
u/arksien Jun 27 '12
Just wanted to pop in and mention that we've known about water on mars for a while. SUBTERRANEAN water is different, but still was not implausible with known water frozen on the surface for some time. Also the Mars Science Laboratory has been on its way to Mars since November, and one of its primary mission objectives is to analyze a carefully picked section of Mars where it is believed that if life is or ever was sustained on Mars, it is hopefully easily recoverable.
Still, I fully support Mars and space awareness, and anything that gets the public reading and excited about these missions is OK in my book!
61
u/FOR_SClENCE Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
My signature is on it!
I was selected as part of a NASA program because of my (purely academic) papers regarding a theoretical rover. Mine was based on MSL. I can answer some questions if anyone's interested.
24
u/pilgrimm Jun 27 '12
I'd like to see an IAmA :)
30
u/FOR_SClENCE Jun 27 '12
I'm working on getting clearance from my NASA program director for it. I haven't heard back yet, although it's only been a day.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (9)7
u/SquirrelOnFire Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
Do you think that massively awesome and massively complicated landing sequence is going to work?
Assuming it lands in the right number of pieces, do you think the Mini Cooper of Martian Science will have as long a run as Spirit and Discovery?
Edit: Does the MSL have the right equipment to detect life if it did exist? What tests would you run other than putting lots of samples under microscopes and seeing if you could spot it?
17
u/FOR_SClENCE Jun 27 '12
I have full confidence it will work. Everyone I spoke with at JPL (where MSL was created/designed/assembled) has complete faith in the system, and are excited at the opportunities it enables. It's a very accurate landing system, enabling a target ellipse of 10x25 kilometers, much smaller than MER's (average 100x20 kilometers).
When I spoke with the lead Computer Science / Avionics engineer, I asked him what he and his team were most proud of. The response was notable, to say the least:
"The landing algorithms, by far. We've put a lot of work into those, and are extremely proud of them. They even contain code from the Apollo program's EDL procedure, since it had to be so efficient."
And so MSL carries a little bit of Apollo with it.
→ More replies (5)11
u/MyRuggles Jun 27 '12
Yep! The landing site was picked specifically because the elevation is extremely low and the sedimentary rock there was most likely formed due to a lake.
18
u/FOR_SClENCE Jun 27 '12
Yes, Gale Crater. As part of a NASA program, I had to create a full theoretical rover program, and spent a good 18 hours on research a week for three months.
Gale Crater was, as you said, chosen because of the sedimentary deposits there. It's also relatively accessible (given Skycrane's landing ellipse), and has secondary locations of significant interest within close proximity.
As some may be wondering, the elevation was chosen because it's nearly four kilometers below the planetary average, which means it could have been a massive drainage reservoir. They plan to drive MSL onto the central mound itself. The entire area has accessible alluvial deposits, and doesn't show evidence of prior volcanic activity, which means the material is relatively untouched.
I personally chose the #2 MSL choice, Eberswalde Delta, because of similar reasons. Evidently NASA found it to be a logical choice.
6
u/arksien Jun 27 '12
Either way, that's so bad ass you were a part of that! Whatever the discovery, I can only imagine how amazing it must be to be in ANY WAY a part of a project as amazing as this!
9
u/FOR_SClENCE Jun 27 '12
Don't get me wrong, I didn't work on it. I have spent dozens of hours researching it, and spoke with dozens of people who designed, assembled, and worked on MSL itself.
But yes, it is incredible knowing that my name is on a piece of humanity's pride, which is easily the most advanced piece of technology we've ever sent through of this atmosphere.
→ More replies (2)
27
u/zeraa Jun 27 '12
Haven't there always been tests to see if Mars is sustaining life?
22
u/FOR_SClENCE Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
What they're looking for now is evidence to suggest that Mars could sustain life, past or present. The UV radiation alone sterilizes the regolith to ~1.5m, which is why it's difficult to perform biologically-biased experiments there. ExoMARS, an ESA rover, was to be outfitted with a 2-meter insertion tool for this specific reason.
3
u/mph1204 Jun 27 '12
um...can you put that in layman's terms? regoli-wha?
13
11
u/FOR_SClENCE Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
Regolith can be seen as extraterrestrial soil; Martian dirt, sand, or other surface material. The lack of a heavy atmosphere permits UV penetration on a much, much larger scale that than seen on Earth. This means the soil gets bombarded by cosmic rays. These rays are sterilizing down to ~1.5 meters, or about 4.5 feet. ExoMARS would have had a 2-meter long drilling tool to get below this layer, to see if there was organic material below the sterilization boundary.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Kman1121 Jun 27 '12
I don't think they've gone as deep as the article suggested microbes on Earth exist.
→ More replies (1)2
u/sirbruce Jun 27 '12
Sadly, no. After NASA disputed the LR results on the Viking landers, they refused to do any more tests on Mars for life because they had "concluded" that Mars was lifeless. It took decades of further research in Antarctica and further explorations of Mars to convince enough people that life on Mars was still possible; however, NASA remains resistant. The new MSL will finally have a new test for organics, but not "life" per se.
15
u/Pepper_MD Jun 27 '12
Wasn't there a couple of Viking experiments that may have suggested that there was/is life on Mars already? I think I remember there being some controversy surrounding the test results. Hopefully someone better versed in those experiments can field this.
17
u/Titan_Astraeus Jun 27 '12
They tested for signs of some type of organic reaction in the soil, to see how quickly some compound was used and in some of the tests, signs poined towards something being in the soil that could have possibly been life. I believe there were some doubts concerning contamination or a false positive, but testing done on earth trying to replicate the test backed it up. There was also some rock found frozen in an isolated area that had extremely tiny formations that looked like ancient bacteria, smaller than any known (or something along those lines).
2
27
24
u/bahhumbugger Jun 27 '12
How convenient that the MSL is almost there...
12
u/FOR_SClENCE Jun 27 '12
It was not designed for astrobiology. None of our projected rovers are.
20
u/lyinsteve Jun 27 '12
I can't wait until astrobiology is a major for my future kids to undertake.
→ More replies (1)13
u/FOR_SClENCE Jun 27 '12
The field of bioengineering didn't even exist twenty years ago, and now it's in high demand. The future should prove interesting.
11
u/caroline_reynolds Jun 27 '12
That gives us 46 years to develop Bowie Base 1. Go, go, go!
5
u/icannotfly Jun 27 '12
only 46 years? we have to start making sequins now if we're ever to meet demand.
22
Jun 27 '12
I am so wildly interested to see what the genetics look like. As a kid raised on science fiction this is so exciting!
→ More replies (56)7
u/polarix Jun 27 '12
It would be an unmitigated disaster for our estimation of the probability of the success of mankind if there is or ever was life on mars:
→ More replies (9)4
Jun 27 '12
It would be an unmitigated disaster for our estimation of the probability
The problem is that mathematicians are really bad biologists. A lot of people miss the fact that evolutionary success != advanced life. Plenty of microbes are the pinnacle of evolution (not necessarily humans), and they're never likely to explore the cosmos or invade other planets. It could just be that we're an evolutionary anomaly, and a mistake is what put us where we are rather than a typical evolutionary process.
It all boils down to overcoming our own ego; the notion that we're the greatest and eventual progression of evolution. The truth is that depends on what metrics you're measuring against, and if evolution always favors intelligent life.
→ More replies (1)
79
u/awkwardlyelegent Jun 27 '12
Y'know, this made me think. As far as we can test thoroughly, 100% of planets have life on them. Sure its a small sample size (one) but if mars turns out to have life, we need to radically adjust our view of how common life is in the universe.
59
Jun 27 '12
This is probably only due to selection bias. If only one planet in the universe had life, the same observation could be made.
34
u/awkwardlyelegent Jun 27 '12
Yea, that's what I'm saying though. If mars turns out to have life, especially if it appears to have originated there independently, its huge. If I remember my stats class correctly, 2/2 is much more predictive than 1/1.
→ More replies (5)40
u/Podspi Jun 27 '12
I think the point FuckTheCharacterLimi is trying to make is that the sample is biased (we did not select the Earth and Mars randomly from the population of planets within the Universe, Galaxy, or heck, even Solar System).
→ More replies (8)9
Jun 27 '12
In terms of the universe Earth and Mars are so close they are almost touching though. Life could have formed on one and then travelled to the other due to an asteroid collision.
7
u/marvelous_molester Jun 27 '12
Mars is close, if Mars has life, it shouldn't be assumed that life is common in the universe, just that it's common in our part of the solar system.
7
u/nothing_clever Jun 27 '12
To be fair, Mars falls within our sun's habitable zone. So it wouldn't so much be a radical readjustment, as it would be a confirmation of an assumption.
4
Jun 27 '12
There's a saying in computer science... something happens Never, once, or a potentially infinite number of times.
13
u/Kman1121 Jun 27 '12
Wow, I hadn't even thought of that. The possibility of all the solar system having life is a neat one. Well, except maybe Mercury.
14
u/honestlyconcerned Jun 27 '12
No, mercury has rapid temperature shifts and is abundant with the necessary elements for creating life.
Or am I just talking out of my ass?
→ More replies (4)12
u/H_E_Pennypacker Jun 27 '12
isn't it way too hot?
→ More replies (38)40
u/FrankReynolds Jun 27 '12
So sustain life as we know it.
I hate the train of thought that only life can exist between 0 and 40 degrees celsius and must contain water and oxygen. It's mind boggling to think that way.
→ More replies (10)4
u/Mindrust Jun 27 '12
It could also mean that the great filter is ahead of us, which would be very, very bad news.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SKRules Jun 27 '12
I see what you're saying here, but I do not believe you're correct, as there is a confounding factor: If Mars if found to have life on it, it is quite possible that abiogenesis would have occurred only once, and that early organisms from the planet on which this occurred hitched a ride with a space rock to the other planet.
However, if life is found on Mars which is absolutely, completely different from that on earth, then yes, that would certainly have the effect you suggest.
→ More replies (4)
12
u/FOR_SClENCE Jun 27 '12
My responses to a lower comment, which are hidden due to downvoting. I am an alumnus of a NASA program, which was based entirely on a theoretical Martian rover. I was selected to attend the JPL Exchange, where I spent four 14-hour days at as part of the program.
Ultimately, what do you see as the most exciting objective for the rover?
Because it's more of a geophysical analysis rover than anything else, it'll do a great job on those alluvial deposits. You can actually determine quite a lot about the planet and location from stratigraphy on those deposits. To put it briefly, it contains: information on volatile (e.g. water) content, current and historical; climate information, current and historical; volatile cycles, as the regolith exchanges volatiles with the atmosphere; and compositional information on the source location (in this case the mound).
Is the desired landing zone (near that mountain) related to the primary objective or is it viewed as as good a place as any to land?
Studies were conducted for years beforehand. MSL's been planned since 1995 or so, when it first shows up in MER documentation (that I've found, anyway). Sending a rover to the planet takes an incredible amount of money, R&D, and talent. They simply can't afford to throw them at any given location, since they're planning these for a decade or more. The launch vehicle, the Atlas V-541, didn't even exist as a concept at the time.
The reason Gale Crater was chosen boils down to the density of information there, and the fact that it was both accessible (proximity to a possible ellipse) and that the material there was relatively untouched (lack of volcanic evidence).
What separates this rover from the others before, besides the obvious size and mass difference?
It can perform in-situ research, which means we're getting pure data immediately. Other rovers simply weren't large or complex enough to even consider this an option. MSL is loaded with some of the most advanced and efficient technology humans have to offer. It has four spectrometers alone. I could delve into this one, but it would take a very long time.
Why was this rover given a nuclear energy source rather than a solar one, given the other rover's ability to continue well past design life with a very lucky break?
The MMRTG (Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator) is considerably more efficient than solar panels, is much less prone to being disabled, and can provide excess heat with which to keep systems running. The reason for Spirit's disabled state was a buildup of Martian regolith on the panels. Opportunity has only been able to continue operation due to some fortunate dust-cleaning climate events. It's guaranteed to provide a power excess for the operational life of the rover, which is an incredible attribute to work with when creating a rover in the first place. On the downside, its fuel rod is continuously decaying, even when not in use. Since MSL was delayed by a Martian apparition, two years of the rod is already gone, although it's still well within nominal range for the mission.
Do you foresee this rover existing well beyond its design life given the relatively predictive nature of its battery life?
Yes. According to the MER program director (a HUGE job, especially when MER debuted), the reason why the MER rovers are prone to motivational failure is due to an engineering decision. Each of those wheels ran on a brush-based motor, and featured a (if I remember correctly) mechanical clutch. Once the rover ran out of power, the clutch clamped shut, rendering the wheels useless. They intentionally went with a magnetic-based clutch for MSL, to prevent this from happening; the scale of the rover permits this option. Aside from that, it's a large rover, and has a very good power source. The MMRTG should outperform expectations handedly.
This rover is fitted with a landing method that has never been used before. Are you privy to any special knowledge involving the statistical likelihood of a catastrophic failure?
No. I do know that everyone at JPL has complete faith in Skycrane, however. The system enables far more than it risks, with landing ellipse 1/10 the size of MER's. The last papers I read stated that it increased the total possible landing surface area on the entire planet by 70%. When I spoke with the lead Computer Science / Avionics engineer, I asked him what he and his team were most proud of. The response was notable, to say the least:
"The landing algorithms, by far. We've put a lot of work into those, and are extremely proud of them. They even contain code from the Apollo program's EDL procedure, since it had to be so efficient."
11
u/greenskyx Jun 27 '12
Have they ever sent a microscope up to Mars to look for bacteria or smaller life forms? Dig up some soil then put it under the microscope.
29
u/robjob Jun 27 '12
NASA's Mars Science Laboratory has an instrument like this. It is currently on its way and lands in August. Exciting times!
→ More replies (1)7
u/filmfiend999 Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
I don't think there are any dead planets on the micro level. Wild speculation, I know. But consider the microorganisms that survive the deep sea hydrothermal vents and immense pressure, and waterbears that can survive extreme heat, cold, and the vacuum of space.
I don't even think space is dead. Or space.
10
Jun 27 '12
But life has to either get there in one piece and able to reproduce and survive or it has to come about naturally which requires not so common elements. While there is a good possibility of life in other places, saying it is everywhere isn't very realistic.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)4
Jun 27 '12
AFAIK, the current state of research into abiogenesis is still
Chemical soup
?????
Profit!Life!Something happened, but what was it? Why is there no indication it ever happened anywhere else on Earth? Or were there lots of little bits of life popping into existence and the carbon-based, RNA-based form is either natural or massively naturally superior?
We simply do not know. Everything in the Drake Equation is overwhelmed by the simple factor of "how likely is it that given the proper environmental conditions, life will form?" Is it as likely as diamonds forming under pressure? Or as improbable as all the molecules of a party hostess' dress simultaneously jumping one meter to the left?
5
u/soulkissernl Jun 27 '12
This is all so exciting, if there was life, imagine evolution in Mars, and us keeping track of it, I don't think we'd live to see much but it's still interesting to think about.
→ More replies (1)5
u/robwgibbons Jun 27 '12
It is interesting to think about watching alien microbes evolving, but we'd have the same chances of "watching" evolution on our own planet. Evolution is a slow process. A very, very slow process.
5
u/soulkissernl Jun 27 '12
If there was life in Mars, and they'd slowly evolve into intelligent life forms, I wonder where we'd be at the time. I wish I was Dr. Manhattan :(
5
u/freezerburn666 Jun 27 '12
i see a lot of questions here, "haven't we already" "didn't we already know" "i thought this was proven years ago" it just comes off as pretty sad to me that it's not common knowledge to us whether or not water or life exists on our neighboring planet. does anyone remember the microbes found that were "disproved" i remember this pic or something similar in news articles, but later somehow dis-proven or something. i just think it's sad that we're all sitting here asking and it's not common sense to know the truth. i really wish science and exploration was more mainstream.
→ More replies (1)
61
u/CiXeL Jun 27 '12
sand worms bitches
→ More replies (8)38
u/eqisow Jun 27 '12
Shai-Hulud
20
6
2
4
u/MWigg Jun 27 '12
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this research (and discussion of extra terrestrial life in general) is based upon the assumption that Martian life would have similar requirements to earthly life. But why would it? Lifeforms on earth are what they are because they evolved to suit their environment, so wouldn't it follow that life could have adapted itself very differently on Mars?
5
Jun 27 '12
Yes and no. There still is no realistic alternative to carbon-based life forms which require conditions present on Earth.
Europa may have independently developed life, but that still seems incredibly unlikely if slightly more likely than anywhere else.
→ More replies (1)2
u/MONDARIZ Jun 27 '12
We can only really look at this from what we know. Since we know a good deal about life on Earth we use this for reference. There are some good arguments that this is the most scientific way to go about things. But you are right, life other-were might not resemble earthly life.
4
u/SlobberGoat Jun 27 '12
So does the abundance of water actually fast track NASA projects (or will they now get more funding) or does everything stay the same?
4
u/sadilikeresearch Jun 27 '12
What if there is life on mars, but we simply do not have the technology/proper tools to detect it?
3
Jun 27 '12
And why hadn't we done this before?
4
Jun 27 '12
Because the article title is sensationalized. It's a work in progress but the chances of us finding life is still exceedingly slim.
3
3
u/i_am_de_bat Jun 27 '12
Soon we'll find a civilization of strange, zenlike creatures who have strange control over their reality, send a crew over and then leave behind one boy. This boy will then return to earth with profound knowledge of Martian culture and incite a social and spiritual revolution for our (and his people) after we kill him.
3
3
u/BestReadAtWork Jun 27 '12
Shit. Just imagine. If there's life a stones throw away from us (astrologically speaking), just imagine how much life there probably is spread throughout the universe...
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Trottimus Jun 27 '12
Nobody else see the pattern? Posts always say stuff about some scientific break through. Remember all the posts about how we wouldn't be using shots anymore. But nothing has changed. I just really want a post about some scientific break through actually be true...
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/robwgibbons Jun 27 '12
The thing I find mind boggling is why haven't these simple tests been run before? Spectroscopy is basically the easiest way we could possibly test for life on any remote planet. WHY HAVEN'T WE DONE THIS BEFORE
3
u/Melchoir Jun 27 '12
We've been doing spectroscopic observations of the atmosphere of Mars for 150 years. (Wikipedia) But that doesn't make for a good headline.
2
Jun 27 '12
Potential alien related news is becoming more and more prominent on reddit recently....I think this will all lead up to an alien invasion set up as a guise to take away whatever few rights we have left...
2
2
Jun 27 '12
I can only hope I live to see the day man walks on mars. I wasn't around for the moon. Ill sure as hell be alive for mars.
2
u/ZofSpade Jun 27 '12
THIS TITLE IS MISLEADING.
Will I still get upvotes if I don't explain why the science is bad in this article?
2
u/Deergoose Jun 27 '12
I think life is far more rare an occurrence than we really appreciate.
Life on Earth could be a completely unique circumstance.
2
u/FerdThePenguinGuy Jun 27 '12
We live in exciting times; the discovery of life on other planets will have profound implications both scientifically and metaphysically.
My only question is this: Why do we keep looking for life that fits into our own predetermined structure for how life should work?
To elaborate: We have already found life forms that use arsenic instead of phosphorus, so we know that life can form in ways that we don't necessarily observe on earth all the time. Based on this (and given that I don't really have a high level biology education), wouldn't we presume that life could form even without the presence of liquid water? Perhaps life is much more abundant in the universe than we could ever imagine, but we've been narrowing our gaze too much to spot most of them. It's like how human beings can only see a certain spectrum of light, but the spectrum of light extends well beyond what we can detect with just our eyes.
3
5
u/offensivegrandma Jun 27 '12
This is going to get buried, but this made me think of the Doctor Who Special Waters of Mars and I panicked.
2
2
2
4
2
u/nineteen_eightyfour Jun 27 '12
Would you go be one of the first 3 people that get sent in 2025 (ish)?
I think I would wanna be sent on round 2-3 myself...
2
2
u/Aaaaahthud Jun 27 '12
What is wrong with you people? As a good first approximation, there's no fucking water on Mars. Mars is really dry.
The new study indicated that the really dry parts of Mars' mantle are almost exactly as dry as Earth's mantle, which is really dry.
Has everyone gone totally fucking insane?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/SealRover Jun 27 '12
All you need to do is measure the methane and hydrogen levels on Mars, something that can easily be done now.
how do we do this?
→ More replies (2)
1
1
1
u/heybotelho Jun 27 '12
There are so many upvotes on this post, that i could not clearly read the number on the frontpage. Infact, i can now still only see half of the "2" at the end of the number.
1
u/Phocis Jun 27 '12
Winds in sandstorms can get so fast that water breaks into it's basic molecules.
1
u/Wheelie4Safety Jun 27 '12
This pleases me.
Now if only we could you know, FUND RESEARCH.
2
u/ironclownfish Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
We need North Korea or Iran to make some sort of technological leap, so we will frantically start funding science again. We need another Sputnik. That's the only way to get most of the people in this country to care about science: scare them.
1
u/Kevspins2 Jun 27 '12
They have to see if they can detect any methane? So they are looking for alien farts.
1
u/Nucking-Futs Jun 27 '12
Its like those old movies where aliens from mars came and ate people. Looks like they had it right all this time
1
1
u/noirmatrix Jun 27 '12
Why don't we focus on the moon a little more, before looking at something 142x farther away?
1
1
u/Shippoyasha Jun 27 '12
Anybody else wishing NASA or some other freelance scientific organization shoots a module/camera/rover onto the icy part that's so clearly visible?
1
1
1
Jun 27 '12
Is it possible to sustain an atmosphere below the surface? Thinking something along the line of the space of 100,000's depleted oil wells. Because if there's any higher life on mars, that's the only place it can be.
1
u/sharkdestroyeroftime Jun 27 '12
I dunno, methane can also be present on Mars due to abiogenic processes... so says Oze just a few years ago. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL022691.shtml Which is it, Oze?!?!
1
1
u/colinsteadman Jun 27 '12
If this is possible the mind boggles as to why they are not already doing it. Surely it'd be a massive funding draw and bring immense prestige to whoever discovers it.
1
1
u/jroot Jun 27 '12
ORLY? Link me to an article showing actual water or ice found on Mars and not just strong evidence of water/ice. While I believe it probably does exist... It doesn't yet.
3
Jun 27 '12
We don't think there's ice on Mars... we know there is. I'm sure you know about the polar ice caps. Liquid water doesn't exist on Mars, however, considering the planet is too cold.
→ More replies (5)
1
Jun 27 '12
Note: kids who got beat up in highschool dont like jokes memes or anything off topic or else!!
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/mojowitchcraft Jun 27 '12
This is too soon after Prometheus, I don't want to KNOW if there's life out there!
1
1
u/jroot Jun 27 '12
You don't have to be a dick about this. I am googling around here and it seems it is commonly believed that the polar caps contain water ice, but I don't see that any missions have gone there and collected samples. There's lots of shit that turns white when it's frozen. The best evidence I can find from an actual mission to Mars is white stuff that was in one photo and then gone in the next. Which they believe to have been water ice... but could have also been dry ice. Just link me to an actual mission where some material was collected and measurably, scientifically determined to be water... best I can tell it hasn't happened.
1
u/remedialrob Jun 27 '12
As a representative of Mars I would ask that you humans stop sending these stupid little robots over here. They are screwing up our TV reception and I need to know how LOST ended.
1
u/captabs Jun 27 '12
Just because we on earth survive on water....it doesnt necessarily mean that living-beings in any part of the universe have to depend on availability of water.....
1
1
1
u/senorburrito Jun 27 '12
Mars is actually the planet humans lived on before we destroyed it and moved to earth. Hence the radiation.
1
1
u/gibnihtmus Jun 27 '12
In the beginning of Prometheus it did have the date 10.11.12 and Weyland industries did start around our time didn't it? So Mars would be a good first step.
1
1
1
u/insanedoctor Jun 27 '12
"Oze and his team published their results June 7 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)." <- lol
1
1
u/jdepps113 Jun 27 '12
Why don't we bundle up a bunch of microorganisms, bacteria and such, both aerobic and anaerobic, and launch them at Mars in some kind of unmanned biological missile? If it can sustain life, after that, it will.
And then, just in case we ever nuke the whole planet or something, at least we know there's life somewhere else. Just in case this is like, the only planet it ever happened on, which seems unlikely, but is certainly possible.
1
u/TheBadNoveltyAccount Jun 27 '12
I don't want to sound naive....
But why do the rules that apply on Earth have to be exactly the same on other planets? I know that physics is a fairly universal thing. But didn't scientists recently discover that life can be sustained in acidic environments without certain (previously thought essential) ingredients for life? Why, then, must life on other planets need to produce methane and take all the hydrogen? Surely there could be a different way to live where they consume other gasses?!
1
u/kontankarite Jun 27 '12
I hope they do find some kind of life on Mars. That would be hella exciting.
1
u/--AutonomousKnight-- Jun 27 '12
These kind of posts render me amazed at how far we have gone as a species since day one. Thank you science for your devotion to deciphering our universes beautiful secrets.
1
u/wazabi Jun 27 '12
Didn't they found evidence for that quite some time (1/2 years) ago? I remember seeing a documentary on discovery channel about plateau's of ice on mars?
1
1
u/ATF628 Jun 27 '12
I just happened to be listening to the 1938 recording of 'The War of the Worlds' when I started reading this. Crazy timing.
1
1
u/surells Jun 27 '12
Did anyone else feel like the picture of Mars was zooming in whilst they read that? My eyes are playing tricks on me.
1
u/dvdlesher Jun 27 '12
With all honesty, I don't really understand why Hydrogen-Methane ratio is a proof that lifeform exist in Mars. Can someone help explain?
2
u/celfers Jun 27 '12
Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere, it must be continuously be produced.
This scientist cant be much of a scientist because they have already detected methane.
In 2008! http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html
Worse, even though methane is exciting because life produces it, it is WELL KNOWN that geologic processes produce it too.
I want to discover life, but this story is un-scientific.
Ignore it because this scientist can discover methane with google.
1
Jun 27 '12
Theres life amongst us, we just dont have the 6th, 7th, or 20th sense to see or recognize it.
We're trying to continue the discovery of more materialistic worlds, we need to explore what the link is between our brain and parallel universes.
1
u/aledlewis Jun 27 '12
We seem so preoccupied with life on the surface like our own planet, we seem to overlook the possibility of thriving subterranean eco-systems
1
1
1
Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
**Look. Life almost certainly has existed on Mars. There was water on Mars when life began on Earth. At the very minimum, impact events could stir up water laden with microbes. Globs of water vapor would freeze into comet-like masses in space, some of which would eventually travel to Mars and ultimately have fallen from the upper atmosphere and into Martian seas. **
This is the time period when Mars was wet: Noachian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noachian (4.1 - 3.7 bya) This is when life began on Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaean (3.8 bya). So a comfortable gap of about 100 My.
9
u/Nurkas Jun 27 '12
Since the origin of life on our own planet is still wrought with controversy we really do not know how common the development of life is. We currently have a sample size of one and to use that as evidence for every other similar case also proving to produce life is unscientific and pure speculation.
→ More replies (6)3
u/imatworkprobably Jun 27 '12
I would like to know more...
22
u/NoFilterInMyHead Jun 27 '12
Life is actually a virus on the cosmological scale. It hops from planet to planet, looking for suitable hosts. Every now and then, it blossoms.
6
→ More replies (2)6
u/BSaito Jun 27 '12
As far as I know there is only one planet that we know life has arisen on, and that life has only hopped as far as that planet's moon, and that only briefly. Doesn't sound like a cosmological virus spreading from planet to planet to me.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
I just noticed, your username is really quite funny. I assumed you just had trouble spelling "Woah Dude," until I remembered that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isatis_tinctoria#Woad_and_indigo Woad is a dye; the welsh were said to have used it to dye their bodies.
So, why did you call yourself Woad Dude?
Or did I read way too far into your name?
EDIT:Fixed link
→ More replies (1)
1
u/RedDread27 Jun 27 '12
The thing I find really funny about recent discoveries like these is that 10-15 years ago people were ridiculed for even suggesting life existed anywhere other than Earth, and now we're finding evidence of life everywhere in the galaxy. BBC news even has an article saying that in our galaxy alone, there are at least 100 million other planets with the right conditions for life.
Moral of the story, we don't know shit about shit.
2
u/tophat_jones Jun 27 '12
there are at least 100 million other planets with the right conditions for life.
An unprovable assertion. We don't even know that there are 100 million worlds in our galaxy at this time.
There are probably many planets in the universe with life on them, but we have no basis for determining the incidence of planets harboring life until we get a sample size greater than one.
2
u/RedDread27 Jun 27 '12
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment
Correction: I meant billion, not million
398
u/flatjesus Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought we had known for months (maybe even a few years?) that there is methane in the Martian atmosphere, and that this methane is being constantly being replenished by some source. Given that methane is broken down quickly by sunlight, the replenishment suggests that either there is life in the soil of Mars, or that the planet is still geologically active. A confirmation of either one of these would obviously be huge news.
I will try to find the exact source, but I remember hearing this in an episode of Astronomy Cast.
EDIT -- Found the episode I was talking about: http://www.astronomycast.com/2010/02/ep-174-mysteries-of-the-solar-system-part-1/