Slashdot Mirror
Andean Bioexpedition To Highest Lake Mimics Old Mars
An anonymous reader writes "The analogy between the highest lake on Earth and extremes on Mars has NASA Ames and the SETI Institute collaborating to analyze microbial samples. The combination of high ultraviolet radiation, low oxygen, low atmospheric pressure approximates the closest one can come to what Mars was like 3.5 billion years ago when it was wet and warm. The expedition page has a running schedule for the next 3 weeks."
Sorry, we reserve holding guns to researchers' heads for when they are working on anti-Patriotic projects. :P
My deviantArt site
Agreed. We don't even have a complete picture of our own planet's ecology from 3.5 million years ago. It is worth studying the unique Andean environment anyway, simply because it is there, so I suppose if they have to use BS like this to get the grant, I will excuse it. I just hope that they keep their focus broad. Also, I am a little concerned that they intend to dive into the frigid lake to collect water and sediment samples. Doesn't this introduce danger and contamination to the ecosystem that they are trying to study? They should realize this considering that they admit that Perhaps humans - either the Incas in the distant past, or recreational mountain climbers more recently - introduced life to the lake in the first place. I just hope that they take the kinds of precautions that were taken at Lechiguilla where they also are drawing analogies to the Martian ecosystem.
Stop Continental Drift! Reunite Gondwanaland!
Billion with a B. Read the post, then shout.
Remember one thing before worrying too much about even someone simply jumping into such a body of water... Most human and human-symbiotic cells, like bacteria, etc, need a certain temperature to function. So, if a person jumped into the lake, shed some skin cells, some bacteria, etc, it probably would not have much of an effect, except to provide more food to that which has grown to survive the temperature.
Also, remember that people don't generally like diving into frigid water (regardless of what the polar-bear club people say), and would probably, if they even go in person, isolate themselves from the environment they're entering. I certainly would...
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
He didn't have time to read it, he wanted to get first post.
Sure, our knowledge of Mars 3.5 billion years ago is probably pretty sketchy. However, we don't have to know that much to figure out which parts of today's Earth are the best approximation. I think we can be pretty confident that a very high altitude (dry, cold, thinner atmosphere) is better than a very low one (moist, warm, thick atmosphere).
Tor
Rudimentary research should also include impacts of electronic equipments (laptops, GPS, flashlight?)
Such impact would be but not limited to gamma ray, humidity, pressure, element exposure.
I think Mars wasn't much warmer 3,5 Giga-years ago. The Herzsprung-Russel Diagram shows that a star in the main sequence (=the sun, for example) gets warmer as it ages until it reaches certain age (which we have not reached). I don't know if the temperature rise is really very significant, but over 3,5 GY it likely makes quite a big difference.
That's also why I like the hypothesis that life evolved on Venus (published couple o' days ago). When it arose (if it arose), the sun was quite colder and Venus wasn't that hot... more similar to earth.
reason defies logic
From radiometric dating you'll probably reply. So how do we get radiometric dating and prove it?
We can measure rates of radioactive decay, and making assumptions, say that rate has been constant forever and that we can guess what the initial state was. But where is the evidence for those assumptions? Have there been any tests done of volcanic rocks of known eruption dates to calibrate the method? There's no way to prove or disprove constant radioactive decay rates by conducting experiments, absent a time machine.
Speculation about how things were formed belongs in the faeirie tale camp, along with other origin myths. Sure you can exercise faith and say you know how the world and universe got here, but it's not a provable theory. It's a theory based on a set of unprovable assumptions.
Let's give the respect due scientists to those who design and conduct repeatable experiments, not to astrologers, Pons and Fleishmann, nor to origin-theory speculators. And stop posting make-believe just-so stories under "Science". Call it what it is, not science.