Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Life on Mars? Why Not?

Posted by michael on from the little-fuzzy-aliens-with-big-sharp-teeth dept.

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.'"

6 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. It's life, Jim, but not as we know it... by Bonker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There may be things that reproduce and show signs of life on Mars, but we'll spend a lot of time trying to cram the stuff on Mars into the categories we have on Earth.

    Hint: Chances are, no matter what we do, we're never gonna see a green spectral line or test for clorophyll.

    Instead, we need to examine soil for the most basic types of life we know of... creatures or cells similar to viruses, bacteria, and amoeba.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  2. why water? by SHEENmaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why do we assume that life on other worlds would have the same requirements as life on earth?

    We were either created for this world or evolved into what we are by it. Doesn't it make sense that life on other worlds would be fit for theirs in the same way?

    Why is water so damn important? Couldn't life be based upon a different liquid than water? A different solid than carbon?

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:why water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can't answer the "why water" question but I do know that Carbon is the only reasonable element for basing any kind of sufficiently complex molecules needed by living organisms.

      Of all the hundreds of elements that exist in the universe, only the Carbon atom is capable of connecting to (up to four) other Carbon atoms and thus creating arbitraily large molecules. For example, a strand of DNA is single Carbon based molecule about 2 meters long. I like to think of Carbon molecules as the Lego of the universe. It's why the profession of chemistry has been divided into organic (the study of Carbon based molecules) and non-organic (the study of molecules containing every other element but no Carbon). For the record, the organic chemists have many, many times more molecules to play with than all of the molecules non-organic chemists have to play with.

  3. Airborne by SUB7IME · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If life had existed in the presumable oceans on Mars back in the day, then it is possible that there is life in the water vapor in the atmosphere (just as there is life in our atmosphere). Of course, I'm not sure that there is much (any?) water in the atmosphere on Mars. Furthermore, Mars didn't overheat, and there is not as much water in the polar ice caps as we had expected. To me this indicated that most of the water must have gone down below the surface; it could have easily brought microbial life down with it, as Earth has much microbial life beneath the earth.

  4. Re:Oh Brother by FortKnox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Umm, I believe we have already proven that life exists in the void of space. IIRC, wasn't MIR 'infected' (yes, it was a bad case, from what I heard) with a type of mold that wasn't terrestrial to our planet?

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  5. Re:Why water is nifty by barawn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's not to say that life cannot exist without water, but it certainly makes life much more plausible.

    You're not giving water enough credit. Basically, the important thing is to qualify what is life: life is the creation of complex systems that can adapt and increase in complexity over time. That's a decent definition of life - it excludes fire, for one, which is always a difficult one. In order to satisfy that definition, you need a framework which allows you tons of complexity, which is what water gives you. Gotta love water.

    Water is the simplest dipole that can form. You can't make a dipole out of HX, and if you want H2X, water's the easiest choice. Is it really any amazing wonder that nature, needing a dipole (which allows for complex arrangements), chose the simplest one? Hmm. Bout as surprising that the elements used in life happen to be the most common in the universe (barring helium).

    -Maybe- ammonia. Maybe.

    Life -needs- a dipole. Life also needs a 'backbone' - a framework. Carbon's your only choice for that.

    A carbon-silicon combo might work.

    Why in the world would life EVER use silicon, when carbon is so much more abundant than it, and will be no matter where you go in the universe, and carbon doesn't need silicon? All it does is weaken the structure.

    Carbon's a given - it's the only one that'd work.