Slashdot Mirror
Life on Mars? Why Not?
Guillaume Filion writes "IEEE spectrum has an interesting article about a new probe sent to Mars searching for life: 'Recent missions to Mars have focused on the search for water, past or present, as a surrogate for life itself. But now a British-led team is working to renew the search for life directly, fueled by doubts about the equipment that prompted NASA to declare Mars a dead world some 26 years ago.'"
First off, the article is worth the read. They are going to do a pile of cool things, and with the PAW robotic arm, they'll be very adaptive based on what they discover. Tres' cool.
But I must object to the following:
Clearly, if the British lander does find life on Mars, a scientific symposium will have to be convened to sort out who may have discovered it first: NASA or ESA.
Must we? Could we for once view science as the continuous stretch of micro-advances that it really is? Whether it's flight, or the TV, or beer the credit for doing it "first" seems to overwelm the real credit that I will lavish on the Brits at the end of the mission, and that is: the credit for doing it well.
Honestly, NASA will probably never learn that - it's impossible to learn such a negative. For instance, it's impossible to 'learn' that there is no God - you cannot scientifically disprove God's existence.
On that same token, it's impossible for NASA to 'learn' that there is no life outside of Earth until it has visited all of the other planets throughout the Universe.
So, no, NASA will never learn that there is no life outside our planet - but in their quest, they will probably learn many other things (perhaps even useful ones).
Now, IANA Astronomer/physicist/biologist (I'm just an engineer), but here's my input.
What you said is ENTIRELY true. We have no clue as to how other types of life can be formed. However, we DO know that water CAN cause life (worked for us, right?), so that's the 'first step' to finding life. Find stuff that formed like we did. Once we rule that out, we go into the void known as theoretical life, and try to piece something together.
Its easier to prove something exists when you have a good understanding of it before looking at something that could be 'anything'.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Definately a good point. Too often, scientists are so intent on studying planets like the earth, and ignore other possibilities. Not to say they are ignorant in doing so: if there is life on our planet, why not narrow down the search to planets like the earth, i.e. similar amount of water, carbon based life, similar atmosphere, similar pressure, etc.
Also, it is possible for life to take different forms based on the environment. Here on earth, water is a liquid, neutral, and readily found. If a planet has a different amount of gravity and pressure, other substances may be found in liquid form, and could harbor life. And Carbon doesn't have to be the building blocks of life forms, it just so happens it has good properties for such on earth. Elsewhere in the universe, Carbon may not be as easily found in solid form...
So... there are infinate possibilities to be honest. But there may be a greater chance to find life similar to what we find on earth if we search first through the earth-like planets.
take off every sig for great justice
To find life, we need to look for chemical imbalances that are not supported by known non-living forces. Life is very effective at changing the rates and directions of typical chemical reactions.
For example, oxygen combines with a large number of elements to oxidize them (at a wide range of pressures and temperatures).
When you have oxygen coming out of something when the chemistry says it should be going in, that is a hint of life. This could apply to a wide range of reversals of expected chemical reactions.
What would lead you to that belief? All life needs to exist is the right materials, many of them quite plentiful in the universe; the right conditions, which Mars might not have had, but which many other places in the universe probably did; and enough time to get things done, again, Mars might not have provided.
As it is we have only looked at nine planets out of the possible trillions in the universe. How can we say that life has only existed here? Sure, we can not say for certain that life has or does exist elsewhere, but that's more a lack of evidence than proof.
And just looking at the pervasive nature of life, the fact that it will live anywhere it can makes me believe that it exists elsewhere if conditions allow.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I know your joking but that that reminds me of the people who say that seriously... Where in the bible does it say "And god created Humans on Earth and didn't create any other planets with life because he's weird that way, so there!"
It doesn't. Finding aliens would mean jack shit for religion, just means god is even cooler because he created a race of smarter people with big heads, hell yeah!