Slashdot Mirror


New Clue for Life on Mars?

thhamm writes "Recent analyses of ESA's Mars Express data reveal that concentrations of water vapour and methane in the atmosphere of Mars significantly overlap. This result, from data obtained by the Planetary Fourier Spectrometer (PFS), gives a boost to understanding of geological and atmospheric processes on Mars, and provides important new hints to evaluate the hypothesis of present life on the Red Planet."

192 comments

  1. It's probably... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
    It's probably a bug that once exposed to humanity will wipe it out.

    all but the 5th planet are yours, oh, you might want to avoid that nasty 4th planet, too..

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:It's probably... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that joke about Kirk telling Scotty to beam down a 6-pack ?

    2. Re:It's probably... by Nellex · · Score: 1

      Now what is that quote from?

    3. Re:It's probably... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like it's based on 2010: "All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landings there"

  2. Fantastic! by cephyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's really awesome, and really amazing, that as we study Mars more, the evidence suggests more and more that life is possible. In other words, the body of evidence isn't ruling life out even as we gather more evidence. It's STILL premature to assume this is life-generated, but its another awesome piece of support for the increased possibility of life.

    --
    Moo.
    1. Re:Fantastic! by DanielJosphXhan · · Score: 2

      It's actually really awsome to notice how scientist's rabid speculation and extrapolation from insignificant data can be called "news".

      I mean, really. What is this but saying that they think it is possible (again) that there could be or have been life on Mars at one time? Is life on Mars possible? Sure. Probable? Not really.

      --
      [ think ]
    2. Re:Fantastic! by CodeWanker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I read the article. It seems to me that they would get the same results from comet impacts slowly melting/evaporating in the equatorial regions, too.

      I really hope life is there, but nothing short of shipping a bunch of naked apes with petri dishes, nutrients, and microscopes will resolve it.

      --


      "Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
    3. Re:Fantastic! by cephyn · · Score: 1

      that would take some pretty big comets, and we'd be able to notice them...

      --
      Moo.
    4. Re:Fantastic! by cephyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the more evidence you gather that can be explained best by life, the more probable it is. Occam's Razor and all that.

      Why do you find this to be insignificant data? It's really interesting regardless of the implications for life...why are the water vapor concentrations highest around the methane concentrations? Any way you look at it, its an important mystery to be solved.

      --
      Moo.
    5. Re: Fantastic! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful


      > Is life on Mars possible? Sure. Probable? Not really.

      Could you show us those probability calculations?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Occam's Razor says nothing about probability. Please learn to use it properly before you cut yourself.

    7. Re:Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's really awesome, and really amazing, that as we study Mars more, the evidence suggests more and more that life is possible.

      I guess this is a glass half full/empty kind of thing, because I see the exact oposite. People used to be sure there were men living on Mars. Look at the history of the Martian canals. Even in recent years they've rules out much possible life on Mars. Now they are looking for a few slow growing niche bacteria.

      I still believe there are bacteria on Mars, but we seem to be having a real hard time finding them.

    8. Re:Fantastic! by DanielJosphXhan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well in the grand scheme of things, it's really not an important mystery to be solved; at least the cost-benefit ration is skewed. On the other hand, I didn't say it was insignificant.

      I just find it suspect that every discovery coming from the surface of Mars is treated in light of the assumption that life exists/existed there. Talk about trying to prove your own presuppositions. It makes me wonder that if, in the rush to find evidence for life, we might be ignoring other data.

      --
      [ think ]
    9. Re: Fantastic! by XMyth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since when does pure conjecture require calculations?

      Someone forgot to send me the memo.

    10. Re: Fantastic! by DanielJosphXhan · · Score: 1

      I looked at the surface the other day. I didn't use a calculator, but it looked pretty rough on any life that might be around.

      --
      [ think ]
    11. Re:Fantastic! by cephyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it says the simplest explanation for a given body of data is probably the correct one.

      as we gain more data on martian phenomena, and if life increasingly becomes the most common simple explanation....

      --
      Moo.
    12. Re: Fantastic! by cephyn · · Score: 1

      Oh, so now there IS life but its just a rough one. So you're saying that a rough life is probably no life at all?

      --
      Moo.
    13. Re: Fantastic! by DanielJosphXhan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I dunno, my life's been pretty cool. On the other hand, if you're an example of a rough life, I'd say yes.

      --
      [ think ]
    14. Re:Fantastic! by dep01 · · Score: 1

      I'm still blown away by our ability to hurl an object (the landers) from one giant rock in the middle of space (earth) to another giant rock in the middle of space (mars). i don't think people typically wrap their heads around what is involved in that... holy crap! :) dep

      --
      "hey, could you pass me a paper towel? er.. I mean... DEPLOY ABSORBTION PANEL!"
    15. Re:Fantastic! by Cujo · · Score: 1

      That's a testable hypothesis - the data wold then be associated with large, fresh impact craters. It's not clear from the article that this is the case.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    16. Re:Fantastic! by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People used to believe the reason for lunar eclipses was a dragon was swallowing the moon. They'd shoot cannons at the "dragon" to scare it off, and sure enough the moon came back into view. Guess that, in the lack of any better data or means of observation, the conclusion was rather scientific...

      The same goes for the "men" living on Mars idea. You have very limited data, poor observation techniques, and a starved imagination. Result? Wild hypotheses. As data quality improves we can get a better understanding of what's going on, fantasies be damned!
      =Smidge=

    17. Re:Fantastic! by coupland · · Score: 1

      I share your sense of excited pragmatism. All we have at this point are hints, and a tonne more exploring to do, but it's tremendously exciting to think that we also haven't been able to disprove present life on Mars.

      I don't know about you, but my heart literally starts to race when I think that maybe... MAYBE... we could find evidence of life on another planet in my lifetime. It would boggle the mind.

    18. Re: Fantastic! by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I looked at the surface the other day. I didn't use a calculator, but it looked pretty rough on any life that might be around.

      Here on earth they've found organisms living embedded deep in solid rock, living in superheated water vents, living in deep boreholes, living in highly radioactive reactor cooling systems, and all sorts of places that look just as inhospitable as Mars.

    19. Re:Fantastic! by tsa · · Score: 1

      Is life on earth possible? Sure. Probable? Not really. That nasty oxidizing atmosphere must kill most of it.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    20. Re:Fantastic! by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is life on earth possible? Sure. Probable? Not really. That nasty oxidizing atmosphere must kill most of it.

      Quite contrary. If I were an alien watching Solar system plantes, I would guess Earth has huge biosphere just by detecting so high concentration of pure oxygene in atmosphere. Oxygene is highly reactive and without biosphere, it would quickly return to CO2 and other oxides - that's how it is on planets with no lifeforms. "If there is Oxygene, something must produce it" - that would be my guess (of course, as an alien I'd say something like "Ghrrbrghrgzzz wzgzhzzzz wzstktsch").

    21. Re: Fantastic! by sabernet · · Score: 1

      When all that we know about something suggests a probability that life is not currently present(and even NASA will say so), then is is not probable

      he never said it was not possible

    22. Re:Fantastic! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      what is involved in that..

      Gravity?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    23. Re:Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's spelled "oxygen". One E.

    24. Re:Fantastic! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      The simplest explanation to YOU is not necessarily the simplest explanation to ME.

      See the abortion issue for a good history of two points of view on the same issue.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    25. Re:Fantastic! by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      I'd say "Wow! They've discovered Jarre"

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    26. Re:Fantastic! by transatlantique78 · · Score: 1
      what is involved in that..

      Gravity?

      Plus some mathematics, and a good deal of engineering, to a level of accuracy that's not to be made fun of...

      (Yes, I got the sarcasm, but the GP has a point. It's quite an achievement, really)

      --
      You are finite. Zathras is finite. This... is wrong tool.
    27. Re:Fantastic! by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      Life on Mars? Absolutely! NASA knows all about it, and has been covering it up since the Viking probe. Read these informative articles: http://www.uncoveror.com/martians.htm http://www.uncoveror.com/mars2.htm http://www.uncoveror.com/zhtitikofft.htm http://www.uncoveror.com/outage.htm

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    28. Re:Fantastic! by Anonymous+Coed · · Score: 1

      If they were scientific they would wait for another eclipse, then refrain from scaring the dragon away to see if the moon came back regardless.

    29. Re: Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found it quite easy to believe that there could be bacters or other very primitive organisms living inside the solid rock of Mars within 1-2 kilometers from surface. Just like here.

    30. Re:Fantastic! by iNetRunner · · Score: 1

      I don't know.. but how does shipping naked apes help? Wouldn't we just find dead naked apes. *But their possible future generation cousins might be very baffled when they are discovered.. =)*

      --
      Store with salt
    31. Re:Fantastic! by DanielJosphXhan · · Score: 1

      Yes, so say the word "life" is pretty simple thing to do. On the other hand, life itself is one of the most complex things you can get your hands on. Even the most "primordial" organisms are incredible. So if you want to satify the Razor with a simple explaination, perhaps you might look elsewhere.

      --
      [ think ]
  3. Water!! by allden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the assumption that life can't evolve without water??

    1. Re:Water!! by Trigun · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stop drinking it and I'll tell you in a week.

    2. Re:Water!! by Nos. · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is actually a fairly common viewpoint. And its a common way of limiting your viewpoint based on previous experience. Life must be carbon based, requires oxygen and water to survive. (I think there may be silicon life on earth near deep ocean vents, but I can't remember). Most people do this in there every day lives. Make assumptions based on the experiences they have lived through. Remeber the Earth was flat because it looked that way. The Sun orbits the Earth because it looks that way.

    3. Re:Water!! by Tribbin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because the creature would scratch itself to death because it can not stand the ache caused by skin dehydration.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    4. Re:Water!! by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Noone assumed life can't evolve without water.

      It's just that life as we know it evolved with water.

      The only type of life we could hope to positively detect and identify would be life as we know it.

      It's possible there's life made out of magical moonbeams and fairy farts but unless you've engineered a gizmometer to test for it, it's hopeless.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    5. Re:Water!! by nijk · · Score: 0

      It's not that life can't exist without water, it's that if they find water, they're sure they'll find life!

    6. Re:Water!! by jericho4.0 · · Score: 5, Informative
      This page has a look at some of the reasons why. Basicly, no (known) combonation of a common element, a solvent, and temperature range display the chemical flexibility of H20 + C + (0 - 100 degrees).

      Of course, life could probably exist in a totally different paradigm, but it's kind of hard to design space probes or experiments to test for the unknown.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    7. Re:Water!! by eggstasy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      If you studied some chemistry and biology you might get a clue.
      Chemistry tells us that carbon and water are very special substances, exhibiting many properties that I am too lazy to bore you with.
      Evolutionary biology tells us that "nature", if you'll excuse the personification, pretty much tries all possibilities at random and selects the ones that work.
      And, like the other guy said, we can only build sensors for things we know very well.

    8. Re:Water!! by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm pretty postive that there is no verified example of silicon based life. Rather, due to the chemical similarities between carbon and silicon it is speculated that life (as we know it) could have or could in the future evolve based on silicon rather than carbon.

      This is not a limitation of the viewpoint, but rather an acknowledgement of our intrinsically limited conception of life: life which we will recognize as being life must have certain characteristics to differentiate from..."not life", and it those characteristics hinge on certain chemical processes.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    9. Re:Water!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A big part of the reasoning is that, for the most part, we already know how Earth-like carbon-based, water requiring life works and already know how to detect it. Our understanding of carbon-based life isn't complete, but it's still lightyears ahead of our understanding of silicon-based or other purely theoretical forms of life (while the life around deep sea vents is very peculiar, none of it is silicon based). While there may be other types of life out there, we have no idea what sort of environment, waste products, etc. we're looking for, making the search much, much more difficult.

    10. Re:Water!! by kippy · · Score: 1

      (I think there may be silicon life on earth near deep ocean vents, but I can't remember)

      I think you might be watching too much Star Trek TOS.

    11. Re:Water!! by Charvak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the textbook fo biochemestiry by Lehinger, he asked this question about silcon based life and then answer the question in negative. The reason he gave was that the bonding between silicon and oxygen is very strong and difficult to break.

    12. Re:Water!! by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      Or the Crystaline Entity from TNG.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    13. Re:Water!! by bpd1069 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you mean H2S based life, as opposed to H20 based...

      In any case these worms are proof that you don't have to have water to support life...

      --
      --
    14. Re:Water!! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I had a biology teacher that once speculated that aside from chemical concerns, environments with pools of liquid made up of something that did not float when frozen would present a nearly impossible environment in which to grow, because if the crystals sank, then a pool could end up freezing anything that grew in the bottom of it, rather than providing the insulating environment that ice and other similar floating-when-frozen materials do.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    15. Re:Water!! by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      All your carbron base are belong to us.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    16. Re:Water!! by brainstyle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seth Shostak of SETI has an interesting article on the silicon-vs-carbon life thing here. Among other thing, carbon dioxide is a much nicer waste product than silicon dioxide.

      --
      "Why can't everyone just be straight with me?"
      "Because we live in a bendy world, dear."
    17. Re:Water!! by mikael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do a google search on the Horseshoe Crab, which isn't actually a crab, but a 350 million year old ancestor of spiders. It's blood is actually based on copper rather than iron (hemocyanin) and contains a enzyme called limulus amoebocyte lysate (LAL) which is used to test all pharmaceutical products for bacteria. No-one yet has been able to create this enzyme synthetically, which means that these critters have to be harvested for their blood (around $15000 per vial).

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    18. Re:Water!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Life must be carbon based, requires oxygen and water to survive.

      There wasn't any free oxygen until the plants made it. They count as life by the way.

    19. Re:Water!! by mmontour · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In any case these worms are proof that you don't have to have water to support life

      Yes, these worms that live at the bottom of the freaking *OCEAN* provide ample proof that life can exist without water.

    20. Re:Water!! by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Informative

      IIRC, the big discovery about life near ocean vents was that they got their energy from metabolizing the nasty (read, highly reactive) checmicals that spew out of the vents, rather than make energy through photosynthesis, or eating other organisms.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    21. Re:Water!! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      So far, no Silicon life found, but that is probably due to the weakness of the Silicon bond. OTH, there are plenty of anarobic life all over the planet. But lake of H2O? Not yet.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    22. Re:Water!! by wass · · Score: 2, Informative
      I think there may be silicon life on earth near deep ocean vents, but I can't remember

      Close. scientists used to say light was essential for life to develop, but then found life forms in deep ocean vents that had a modified photosynthesis chemistry based on heated sulphur, instead of light, stimulating the construction of sugars.

      I have alot of problems when scientists claim carbon or water is essential for life. What they should claim instead is that carbon or water is essential for life as know it.

      --

      make world, not war

    23. Re:Water!! by wickedsk · · Score: 1

      "Do you ever wonder if--well, if there are people living on the third planet?"
      "The third planet is incapable of supporting life," stated the husband patiently.
      "Our scientists have said there's far too much oxygen in their atmosphere."
      -Bradbury - The Martian Chronicles

    24. Re:Water!! by Charvak · · Score: 1

      H2S is hydrogen sulphide, S here is for Sulphur. Formula for silicon is Si

    25. Re:Water!! by cruachan · · Score: 1

      It's extremely difficult to come up with any other chemisty that could support life that isn't carbon-based. Carbon's ability to create a near infinite variety of different compounds, and in particular complex macromolecular structures, isn't found with any other element or combination of elements. Silicon doesn't come anywhere close.

      Water OTOH might be more open to negotiation. It's difficult to concieve of life without some form of polar solvent cycle, but ammonia might substitute. Slightly more out on a limb and a non-polar solvent might work - such as ethane. The moons of the gas giants might be the best place to look for this.

      Oxygen of course can be largely dispensed with. Indeed life almost certainly evolved with only a trace of it.

    26. Re:Water!! by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Funny

      the Horseshoe Crab, which isn't actually a crab, but a 350 million year old ancestor of spiders. It's blood is actually based on copper

      The most logical of all crabs... ;-)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    27. Re:Water!! by concatenation · · Score: 1

      The episode called "Firewalker" from X-Files' 2nd season also had a silicone-based organism, although it was found from a live volcano.

      --
      "5... 4... 3.. 1... OFFBLAST!"
    28. Re:Water!! by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I think because if it did evolve without water, it wouldn't be a form of life we would recognize anyway.

    29. Re:Water!! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Only if silicon dioxide is more posionous or reactive to you.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    30. Re:Water!! by barawn · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm pretty postive that there is no verified example of silicon based life. Rather, due to the chemical similarities between carbon and silicon it is speculated that life (as we know it) could have or could in the future evolve based on silicon rather than carbon.

      Silicon's unstable on long chains. Carbon is not, as evidenced by proteins, DNA, and other "let's make a molecule out of a few thousand atoms!" gigantic molecules that make chemists hide underneath their blankets shuddering, whimpering about pi bonds.

      OK, OK, that was a bit severe. :) But looking to silicon to replace carbon is a bit silly - carbon will always exceed silicon in abundance by orders of magnitude, as it's one of the end products of the triple-alpha process (hence the reason that CNO are roughly tied for the third-most abundant elements in the Universe, after hydrogen and helium). So silicon-based life will, quite simply, never exist.

      As for why you need water - that's also pretty easy. Water's the simplest strong dipole you can make out of hydrogen, and you need a dipole to make very very weird chemicals like life needs. Ammonia might be possible, but the full dynamics would need to be worked out.

    31. Re:Water!! by CanadianCrackPot · · Score: 1

      Who said silicon dioxide has to be a waste product? It might make great gray matter for the future brains with it's electical properties.

      --
      Good programmers drink beer to relieve job stress.
      Great programmers drink hard liquor and work best hungover.
    32. Re:Water!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of lakes of H2O which have been found, there is one right here in my backyard called "lake ontario". What are you smoking? I want some of that.

      lol

    33. Re:Water!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't make beer without water
      Can't evolve without beer

    34. Re:Water!! by Y2 · · Score: 1
      No-one yet has been able to create this enzyme synthetically, which means that these critters have to be harvested for their blood (around $15000 per vial).

      For "vial of blood" read "quart of enzyme."

      More info is at http://www.ocean.udel.edu/horseshoecrab/Research/l al.html

      --
      "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
    35. Re:Water!! by Bush+Pig · · Score: 1

      Silicon dioxide is hardly a waste material ... after all, without it, what would you drink beer out of?

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    36. Re:Water!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather, due to the chemical similarities between carbon and silicon it is speculated that life (as we know it) could have or could in the future evolve based on silicon rather than carbon.
      SkyNet was unavailible for comment.
    37. Re:Water!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silicon dioxide, also known as, for example, glass, and sand. Well, okay, it does have one electrical property, it's damn good insulator. Which is not usually the electrical property you're looking for...

    38. Re:Water!! by juhaz · · Score: 1

      carbon will always exceed silicon in abundance by orders of magnitude, as it's one of the end products of the triple-alpha process

      That's true for the universe in general, but that doesn't mean it's always true on every place that could possibly bear life. Let's take the only place we know for certain life exists in, yup, that's Earth. Guess what? Silicon is orders of magnitude more abundant than carbon on/in this ball of rock.

      Earth is basically made of iron, oxygen, silicon (15.2% by mass, that's a lot) and magnesium. Nickel and sulfur get a special mention by managing to stay over one percent.

      And that's pretty much it, others, including carbon, are insignificant trace materials, and that's pretty fricking huge amount of Si we have here.

      Silicon based life is probably quite unlikely but that's mostly because of the long chain instability others keep mentioning and not because there's not enough silicon.

    39. Re:Water!! by CanadianCrackPot · · Score: 1

      Strange when I searched google I found it was Quartz... don't those crystals make rather important electrical components?

      --
      Good programmers drink beer to relieve job stress.
      Great programmers drink hard liquor and work best hungover.
    40. Re:Water!! by barawn · · Score: 1

      That's true for the universe in general, but that doesn't mean it's always true on every place that could possibly bear life. Let's take the only place we know for certain life exists in, yup, that's Earth. Guess what? Silicon is orders of magnitude more abundant than carbon on/in this ball of rock.

      If Earth sat in a vacuum, you'd be right. It doesn't.

      Carbon outdoes silicon when the whole solar system is considered by an order of magnitude. (log(C)=8.55, log(Si)=7.55)

      The chance of a planet of silicon forming in a void of carbon is virtually nil. Pointing out that carbon always outdoes silicon wasn't intended to say that life formed because Earth has more carbon than silicon - of course it has more silicon than carbon. It was to point out that wherever you find silicon, you will have carbon. And lots of it. This is just because the solar system that the planet formed from had more carbon than silicon!

      Silicon based life is probably quite unlikely but that's mostly because of the long chain instability others keep mentioning

      The long chain instability simply means that silicon would be very difficult to develop complex chemistry out of, not impossible. Silicon life would develop much, much slower - much harder to develop new combinations without the chain breaking down.

      However, life's choice on Earth of carbon over silicon was no accident. My point was you are never going to find a planet with silicon and not enough carbon for life, because wherever you find silicon, you'll find carbon. And if by some freak chance the planet forms with no carbon, it will get carbon in a relatively short time frame. So again, silicon life will never form because the evolution of carbon life will always outdo it, and you'll never "not find" carbon for carbon-based life.

      And unfortunately, unlike issues the choice between ammonia and water (you might have ammonia-based life if water isn't liquid on the planet), there's no way that silicon-based life would be "more resilient" than carbon-based - the chains would be weak, and easily broken, and thus very susceptible to damage.

  4. Tens of centimeters? by Nos. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They used the phrases "tens of centimeters" and "tens of degrees celsius". I really hate these terms, especially in what should be a scientific article. This could mean anywhere from 20-100 (or more) which is a pretty broad range. Would it be so difficult to say 20-50 (or whatever the measurements are) which would give a much more accurate picture?

    1. Re:Tens of centimeters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Would it be so difficult to say 20-50 (or whatever the measurements are) which would give a much more accurate picture?

      Yup. Yup.

    2. Re:Tens of centimeters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      They used the phrases "tens of centimeters" and "tens of degrees celsius". I really hate these terms

      That's not what they said. It was "a few tens of centimetres" and "many tens of degrees Celsius below zero". These phrases are very clear. Giving an exact range could be misleading as it implies you know the exact range. Scientists are very careful with the wording and use inexact phrases when the exact information isn't known.

      I'd like to suggest your hatred of these terms is a personal problem you need to work on.

    3. Re: Tens of centimeters? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > They used the phrases "tens of centimeters" and "tens of degrees celsius". I really hate these terms, especially in what should be a scientific article. This could mean anywhere from 20-100 (or more) which is a pretty broad range. Would it be so difficult to say 20-50 (or whatever the measurements are) which would give a much more accurate picture?

      How 'bout "tins of dogfood". Then we could use the same units for mass, volume, chemical energy content, and ickyness.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:Tens of centimeters? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "They used the phrases "tens of centimeters" and "tens of degrees celsius"."

      What they've done there is given you the order of magnitude for the measurements. Letting you know that it's in "tens of centimeters" is very accurate since you now know it's not picometers or kilometers. You now know the proper exponent to use in scientific notation.

      <SARCASM SLANT="anti-metrication">
      Of course, now the question is "Why 'tens of centimeters' instead of 'decimeters' and why 'tens of degrees Celcius' instead of 'dekadegrees Celsius?" After all, standardized symbols "dm" and "daC" are supposed to be all metric and international and more understandable than the English word "ten," yadda yadda...
      </SARCASM>

    5. Re:Tens of centimeters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imperial being better, of course, because of the wonderful surprise you get when you mix something and then discover that the instructions meant "US gallons", and not "Imperial gallons".

    6. Re:Tens of centimeters? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you don't hear many people crying out to make the metric system illegal in the US, do you? Nor do you see people get bent out of shape by measuring in decimal gallons, but try to use common fractions in a metric unit and you can start a riot.

      And knowing what year a measurement in US gallons was made isn't as important as knowing what year a liter measurement was made, by about a factor of 20. If only BIPM stuck with defining the unit of volume by the unit of length (like the US has done since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century) instead of flip-flopping back and forth between cubic decimeters and kilograms the way they did...

      Back to the topic of prefixes, they're all well and good until you have to deal with the historical error of basing the unit of mass first on the mililiter instead of the liter. 10 meters is a dekameter, 10 seconds is a dekasecond, 10 kelvin is a dekakelivn, but the BIPM won't allow you to say "dekakilogram" any more, even though the base unit of mass in SI is the kilogram. Nothing is stopping you from saying "dekapound" though; there's no SI monopoly on prefixes.

    7. Re:Tens of centimeters? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      You could use miriagram, though I doubt it's accepted by SI.

  5. If there's no life on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where the hell do the Martians come from?

    1. Re:If there's no life on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada.

    2. Re:If there's no life on Mars by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      Next time I date Deja Thoris I will ask her. Barsoom is a state of mind...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  6. Easiest way to settle the question definitively: by physicsphairy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Put life on mars.

  7. afterlife by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Funny

    Vampires don't breathe, and they're teeming beneath the dried-blood surface of Mars. Those telltale methane/water signals must be more residue from the victims from which the iron-rich surface powder was derived, shielding the biters from the rays of the Sun.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  8. so they found a geiser..... by leav · · Score: 0, Insightful

    so they found a geiser..... big deal...

    i dont think it's likely they will find life, although i wish they did...

    i mean, think of drakes equation, what are the chances that of the small amount of planets that can sustaine life, the first one happens to be next door....

    unlikely, since were sitting in the golden spot for life, anywhere farther or closer to the sun wont be very good for life...

    --
    I own a pump action golf ball cannon. I made it myself.
    1. Re:so they found a geiser..... by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      There are creatures everywhere on our planet. Why whould these places fall exactly within the boundries of possible life.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    2. Re:so they found a geiser..... by maunleon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the other hand, I think it's more likely that a planet would develop life in close proximity to another planet with life, rather than have them equally distributed through the universe.

      I'm assuming that cross-insemination through meteorite impacts, etc... is possible.

    3. Re:so they found a geiser..... by leav · · Score: 0

      i never understood that theory...

      i mean if a meteor hits ANYTHING thats alive... wouldnt it kill it/ incinerate it?

      --
      I own a pump action golf ball cannon. I made it myself.
    4. Re:so they found a geiser..... by julesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i mean, think of drakes equation, what are the chances that of the small amount of planets that can sustaine life, the first one happens to be next door....

      Well, given that we know Mars is a planet that (a) exists and (b) is approximately suitable for life, we're now looking for the value of f_{l}.

      Estimates range from 1e-{very big} (i.e., Earth is the only planet on which life arose, ever) to 1.0 {to a rather large number of significant digits} (i.e., almost all suitable planets have life).

      There are good arguments in both directions. Let's just say I would be unsurprised with whichever outcome turns up.

      unlikely, since were sitting in the golden spot for life, anywhere farther or closer to the sun wont be very good for life...

      I believe that temperatures on Mars would be reasonable if it had a working greenhouse effect. Temperatures on Venus would be reasonable (although a _little_ on the warm side) if it didn't. Also note that there is a very wide degree of temperatures to which life has adapted here on Earth. The habitable zone is probably a lot wider than you think.

    5. Re:so they found a geiser..... by tsuliga · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering." -- Arthur C. Clark

    6. Re:so they found a geiser..... by RsG · · Score: 4, Informative

      >Mars would be reasonable if it had a working greenhouse effect. Temperatures on Venus would be reasonable (although a _little_ on the warm side) if it didn't.

      OT: actually this is not strictly true; a greenhouse effect is the least of Venus's problems. Venus is an Earth-sized world which never underwent a large collision in it's formation and never aquired a lunar body. Earth, conversely, had a small planetoid smack into it some four billion years ago, blasting away most of the atmosphere and putting enough debris in orbit to form a very large moon. The impact combined with the subesquent lunar gravity skimming away the upper atmosphere ensued that the Earth wound up with a _very_ thin atmosphere for a body it's size.

      In the case of Mars, the planet is much smaller (around 40% the size of Earth or Venus IIRC). Furthermore Mars has not one but two samll moons in orbit (unlike ours, they're really just captured asteroids but that's beside the point). And Mars has no protective magnetic field, and is consequently exposed to charged solar radiation, further thinning the atmosphere. Thus the pressure on the surface is way lower than terrestrial norms, whereas on Venus the pressure is obscenely high by our standards. The temerature differences are a matter of insulation largely (and solar proximity) but a greenhouse effect is almost moot. You might as well say that lunar nights would be warmer if the moon had a greenhouse effect; it's true but misleading given that the major issue is the simple presence or absence of a gas envelope. And no, the greenhouse effect does not refer to just insulation; it refers to the presence of gases that are trasparent to visible light but reflective to InfraRed (IIRC).

      The theory I've heard is that Mars had a higher pressure and surface water at one point before its magnetic field quit. At this stage it would have still been fairly cold, but otherwise suitable for limited life. Life could have evolved then and subsequently died off; the interesting question is whether any life could have survived in niche environments.

      Any astrophysicists or biologists care to elaborate/correct?

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    7. Re:so they found a geiser..... by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Drake's equation gives an estimation of how many intelligent technological civilizations with the capacity to communicate on interstellar level. However, you could change the equation to give an estimation on "life" in general in the universe.

  9. hrm. by anzha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It just seems that there are some spots that might be a little warmer than others, or so goes the hypothesis as I understand it, from geothermal sources. It seems like a little bit of a stretch to link it directly with life on Mars. Perhaps this gives some ideas where to look for life on Mars, but the article itself doesn't seem to make much in the way for claims about Martian life.

    Am I reading this wrong?

    If I am not, does every discovery about Mars need to really be linked to life for it to be fascinating? Or does the press feel that's the need these days?

    --
    Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    1. Re:hrm. by cephyn · · Score: 1

      What makes this news interesting, life or not, is that it appears to be indicative of some sort of geothermal activity. Mars is thought to be a frozen solid planet, no liquid core, no mantle, etc, just a rock. Geothermal, or in this case, Areothermal activity would shift a lot of current thought on mars.

      --
      Moo.
    2. Re:hrm. by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

      Am I reading this wrong?

      If I am not, does every discovery about Mars need to really be linked to life for it to be fascinating? Or does the press feel that's the need these days?


      Well, to the averge joe, it is much more interesting than stories about the latest geological formation. Really, I hate to break it to you, but no many everyday people care much about the "changes in our understanding of Martian history" that these probes are creating.

      Life is cool.

      --
      Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
  10. silly h00mans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The martians have your rover in a containment unit that makes you humans think that you're exploring their world!

    1. Re:silly h00mans by leav · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      containment unit
      i.e a planet....

      --
      I own a pump action golf ball cannon. I made it myself.
    2. Re: silly h00mans by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


      > The martians have your rover in a containment unit that makes you humans think that you're exploring their world!

      And the funny part is that the containment unit is in Arizona!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  11. ObQuotes by YetAnotherName · · Score: 3, Funny
    • I for one welcome our new Martian overlords.
    • Methane? See, overfarming of cattle on Mars is what wiped them out and the same thing is happen here!
    • All your Mars are belong to us.
    • Martian business plan
      1. Advertise life-supporting real estate
      2. ???
      3. Profit!
    • Don't we have a Starbucks on Mars already?
    • Where's the Cowboy Neal option?
    1. Re:ObQuotes by cephyn · · Score: 0

      You forgot
      "In Soviet Russia, there's Mars on Life!"

      --
      Moo.
    2. Re:ObQuotes by justkarl · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, the correct answer was, "In Soviet Russia, Martian Life finds evidence of YOU!!"

      Thanks for playing.

    3. Re:ObQuotes by skimitar · · Score: 1

      These microbes are all very well, but can you run Linux on them yet?

    4. Re:ObQuotes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot..

      Netcraft Confirms: Life on mars.

  12. Re:Easiest way to settle the question definitively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right after we...

    Put Max in space.

    -Jinx

  13. Of Course by bluewee · · Score: 4, Funny

    the Wong's have all those herds. Of course they have methane and ammonia. Duh.

    --
    [blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
    1. Re:Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably should have gone with a more universal Futurama theme, like Mars University, probably something about frats and farts...

    2. Re:Of Course by deander2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      don't you mean "Buh"? :-P

  14. Alternating Bands of Water and Methane by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Found on Uranus. Especially after drinking a few too many Beers and eating some mexican food.

  15. A little O/T.. seeding life? by maunleon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I do wonder if and when it is decided that mars could support life but no life exists, wouldn't it make a damn cool experiment to start planting life there? Could start with some sort of simple plant life (algae?) that would help prime the atmosphere for higher life forms. They may need to be genetically altered to survive in the environment.

    And if Mars does turn out to have some sort of life, could we do it on the next candidate that matches the requirements? Europa maybe? That in fact may be an even better candidate because there is less chance of indigenous life making it to earth (by hitching a ride on a rock after a meteor impact). That is, until they develop space flight. ;)

    The only bad thing would be that I wouldn't be around to see the end results of the experiment.

    1. Re:A little O/T.. seeding life? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd just as soon leave it alone. We don't encounter new planets every day, and I'd really hate to have future generations say, "If only they'd left it alone rather than screwed it up." History is full of well-meaning scientists who didn't understand what they were doing and therefore lost valuable information. How many artifacts have been cut open or broken before we had X-rays and CAT scans?

      Humanity will be around for a long, long time. There will be plenty of opportunities to seed Mars with whatever we want, but only one chance to see the untouched Mars and perform experiments we haven't yet conceived.

    2. Re:A little O/T.. seeding life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break it to you but if there is no life on mars currently then mars is just another planet like the millions around us with no special historical or scientific purpose. It just happens to be the closest planet to us, and, at this point of human evolution, it is the only accessible planet. Mars should be used for our purposes to experiment and colonize as we wish. If we ever need another dormant planet for any reasons in the furture there will be more found.

    3. Re:A little O/T.. seeding life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're talking about is called "Terraforming". People have been considering how to do this for many moons.

      One of the more commonly spate methods involves doing something to melt some of the polar ice caps - use some type of nuclear (or nucular) thingy to cause some melting. Most people don't realize that water is a really great greenhouse gas. Keep doing that and eventually you get self-sustaining (relative) warmth. I wouldn't go out in my skivies, but warmer than dry ice.

      The problem comes when you try to keep the atmosphere instead of having it eroded away by the solar wind. Mars has no global magnetic field like Earth, so any atmosphere would be stripped away in millions of years

    4. Re:A little O/T.. seeding life? by bmalia · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder if we were seeded by an alien race?

      --
      There's no place like ~/
    5. Re:A little O/T.. seeding life? by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure....

      And myabe Columbus should have waited for super-sized ocean liners before crossing the Atlantic.

      We have to start somewhere, might as well be now. (But lets be careful not to cut EVERYTHING open, or dig up EVERY site, since there's a probability of 1 that there will be a better way of doing later.)

    6. Re:A little O/T.. seeding life? by freqres · · Score: 1

      How do you think we got here? Maybe we just out lived our Alien Biologist Overlords.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    7. Re:A little O/T.. seeding life? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Breeding life on Mars has the tendency to affect the entire planet all at once. The poster was talking about changing the entire atmosphere, which will weather the rocks differently and change the chemistry at least meters if not kilometers down. That will make it hard to determine, for example, if there ever was life. I'd kinda like to spend a few centuries examining the planet in its pristine state first.

      I don't think Columbus should have waited before crossing the Atlantic, but I'd have preferred it if Cortez and Pizarro hadn't destroyed the Aztec and Inca cultures before we got a good look at them. Not just because they were human beings (there aren't any on Mars) but also because a lot of the knowledge they represented has been lost.

  16. Just finding Hydrogen? by kippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I didn't RTFA so please mod me down if this was already addressed.

    I thought that the probe was just able to discern hydrogen. Since water and methane are both hydrogen rich, couldn't it be mistaking one for the other?

    1. Re:Just finding Hydrogen? by thhamm · · Score: 1

      Planetary Fourier Spectrometer (PFS) - guess they can detect a bit more than just hydrogen with that.

    2. Re:Just finding Hydrogen? by kippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      right, but water and methane are just H+O and H+C. Since that would all be swimming in a sea of CO2, how are they able to tell if the H is attached to an O or a C? Wouldn't a spectrometer just tell you that there's a bunch or Hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen down there rather than what compounds its formed into?

      I'm almost certainly wrong since they wouldn't have made this announcement if I was right but I'll continue to fight a loosing battle.

    3. Re:Just finding Hydrogen? by Seanasy · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, a spectrometer measures reflected (or scattered, trasmitted, emitted) electromagnetic radiation (EM). Methane and water have different spectral signatures. They reflect EM -- or light -- differently. Probably, they're measuring the absorption patterns in the atmosphere.

    4. Re:Just finding Hydrogen? by Dr_Makarov · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are looking at the stretching vibrations of hydrogen attached to oxygen and carbon. These vibrational frequencies are pretty distinct in the infrared reqion due to the differing masses of carbon and oxygen, and also changes in electron density in the bond.

  17. Re:Easiest way to settle the question definitively by Tribbin · · Score: 1

    Or blast the hell out of mars.

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  18. Wooo! by Klowner · · Score: 2, Funny

    Little farty green men!

    We should capture them as use them as fuel

    1. Re: Wooo! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Little farty green men! We should capture them as use them as fuel

      Ah, so that's how the Matrix produced power!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: Wooo! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Little farty green men!

      Fartians?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  19. Breaking News! by bluewee · · Score: 1, Redundant

    "folks, we've discovered life on mars, and boy, is it stinky!"

    --
    [blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
    1. Re:Breaking News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Redundant, pfft, it was posted before the other comment.

      and no that was not my behind making that pfft...

  20. YACC by mooingyak · · Score: 1

    yet another cliche cliche post.

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  21. In Related News... by Artie_Effim · · Score: 4, Funny

    Noted scientist Marvin, native to Mars, had disclosed his observations concerning the 3rd planet from the Sun. From his latest discourse "... ohhh, you are making me very angry.." Critics agree, he is green with envy and possibly has access to a BFG. One warns "... be on the lookout for a 'flying saucer' type craft in the Earth's moon's orbit..." and suggests getting some local wildlife, perhaps a rabbit, to meet the threat. Stay tuned for details.

  22. Funding problems? by bluewee · · Score: 3, Funny

    If NASA were to say collect some of the water vapor, bottle it, and get it back here, then they would have no need for goverment funding...

    --
    [blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
  23. now... by scaaven · · Score: 1

    now all we need to do is send a giant robot armed with machine guns and an AI "hunting" mode and some M&M's that defy the laws of physics.

    --
    I know I'm going to be modded up on this
  24. Still Waiting for Bones and fossils and stuff by H8X55 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know. I'm stil not sold. I wanna see some physical evidence. Bones, fossils, physical junk that can be hauled back to DC, put on display at the Smithsonian Museum, and drooled on by elementary school students.

    Hypothesizing over gases and trace h20 evidence, and similar will not get me interested. Just like I told the church, faith won't get me there alone, I wanna see something.

    1. Re:Still Waiting for Bones and fossils and stuff by thhamm · · Score: 1

      nobody said, there IS life. but with this finding, its again a bit more likely. there has still been no definite "show stopper".

  25. Tin-foi Hats by CdnShaggy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Does this mean that I have to put mine on ?

    1. Re: Tin-foi Hats by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      Is that what they're wearing in Paris this year?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  26. Re:Easiest way to settle the question definitively by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

    "Put life on mars."

    But we've all* seen what that will lead to, thanks to DooM ]|[

    *all of us with recent video hardware, that is...

    --
    I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  27. It's just residue.... by Himring · · Score: 2, Funny

    water vapour and methane in the atmosphere

    Nah, that's just residue from the Uranium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    1. Re:It's just residue.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, that's just residue from the Uranium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator...
      Which is completely different from the Illudium Q36 explosive space modulator.

    2. Re:It's just residue.... by Himring · · Score: 1

      Which is completely different from the Illudium Q36 explosive space modulator.

      Which is totally different from your bucketofshit head....

      http://www.tvacres.com/aliens_martians_marvin.htm

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    3. Re:It's just residue.... by nekonoko · · Score: 1
    4. Re:It's just residue.... by Himring · · Score: 1

      Right, but Q36 is a mistake. He's saying "PU-36" as that link you post makes note of (people who don't know any better think the "PU" is actually "Q"). Honestly, when reading about it on the web in the past (yes, I'mma sad geek) it was obvious that both were used, albeit, "PU" is correct whereas "Q" is simply a folk etymology....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  28. atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The only problem with terraforming mars is the lack of magnetic field and its weak gravity. The weak gravity allows the atmosphere to escape http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosphere.htm l and the lack of magnetic field allows the solar wind to blow the rest of the atmosphere away. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan_1 .htm So, we could make it fit for human habitation, but we would have to continually replenish the atmosphere making it uneconomical.

    1. Re:atmosphere by jcarreiro · · Score: 1
      the lack of magnetic field allows the solar wind to blow the rest of the atmosphere away .. we would have to continually replenish the atmosphere making it uneconomical.

      The important thing for terraforming would be the rate at which the atmosphere is lost due to the solar wind; I don't have exact figures on hand, but since Mars retains some atmosphere 4 GYr after it's formation, I can't imagine that it's substantial. At worst, this would force you to add more materials to the Martian atmosphere (perhaps through altering the orbits of medium-sized comets so that they burn up in the Martian atmosphere) every several thousand years or so, something that the low gravity on Mars would require you to do anyway.

      Terraforming, I'm afraid, will never be economical, regardless of the march of progress.

    2. Re:atmosphere by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Pardon me if this is foolish, but what about terraforming craters, thus limiting the amount of atmosphere you need to replenish?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  29. OK, but I want O2 by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah. If we see the sig of *both* methane and
    oxygen then its pretty much a nobrainer there's
    life.

    Methane on it's own, given mars' current atmosphere
    composition is just a teaser. Annnoying, real sexy, but geologic processes could be responsible.

    I hope we see lots more surprises. Heck. we are just
    starting to play with this place. Its one big planet even though it looks small and I for one pray that no
    nasty stupid monkey hobnail boots it before we get
    to do serious science...

    1. Re:OK, but I want O2 by dgagley · · Score: 1

      Actually there is methane because the martians pass alot of gass (to be crude - farting).

      Latest finding: someone or something tagged the rover with some odd writing.

      --
      I can't use my sig - my computer can't read my handwriting.
    2. Re:OK, but I want O2 by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 1

      OK. I'll chuckle. But nobody else here will.

  30. Proof of Life by supersmike · · Score: 1
    It's STILL premature to assume this is life-generated, but its another awesome piece of support for the increased possibility of life.

    How 'bout seeing something moving or swimming or something? How about bones, or old rusted-out flying saucer wrecks or something? If there was life on Mars, we'd know by now.

    1. Re:Proof of Life by cephyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's absurd. look at all the unexpected places in the past 10 years where we've found life -- on Earth. and the majority of life doesnt have bones, or saucer wrecks, or is visible to the naked eye.

      --
      Moo.
    2. Re:Proof of Life by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For a good part of the history of life on earth, you wouldn't find any of those things either, because macroscopic organisms had not yet appeared.

  31. Re:I have a clue... by dr_erick · · Score: 0

    I'll bite.

    no life on mars? i admit it's a little drab, but it does look like a good location for a few ridiculously fashionable nightclubs.

    and with a little bit of good decorating to break up all that red, I bet you'd feel completely different about the place.

  32. Hypothetically speaking... by solarlux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If there is indeed life on Mars, and a future sample retrieval mission obtains a sample, AND the replicating mechanism of that sample is NOT RNA/DNA (but perhaps, a more primitive form of it), would that be enough to convince significant numbers of creationists of evolution? The body of evidence keeps growing -- there's gotta be a point somewhere when the argument is as straight-forward as round Earth -vs- flat Earth.

    (Of course, one might say we're already at that point, but we also don't have Ph.D. scientists from Berkeley and the like advocating a flat earth...)

    1. Re:Hypothetically speaking... by lawpoop · · Score: 1
      I don't think you can ever convince them. From most of what I've seen, they aren't looking for an honest evaluation of the ideas, but are just out to support they viewpoint they already hold.

      Leaving the origin of life aside for now, I would say the evidence for divergence of species from a common ancestor is pretty good, yet people still refuse to accept the theory. IMO, what would be really nice is an experiment where we keep a population of well-understood organisms (both morphologically and genetically, like fruitflies) in a highly selective environment, for throusands of generations. Perhaps something like a glass cage with a small space for flying, but a large water part, with lots of food in it. Something where they would be rewarded if they ventured into the water. Preserve each dead one as you remove it from the experiment. After a while you should notice changes in the population, enough to call them a new species. You can then look back at the entire set of ancestors for a good example of how evolution works, though you couldn't really call it natural selection.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:Hypothetically speaking... by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      hehe,

      http://www.flat-earth.org/platygaea/faq.html

      shows what you know ;)

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    3. Re:Hypothetically speaking... by brainstyle · · Score: 1
      Man, I was worried for a second there glancing at that FAQ, until I got here:

      "19. What is the "Springfield Effect"?

      The Springfield Effect is the name given to the phenomenon by which every place named Springfield is hard-linked in hyperspace to every other place of this name. In other words, there is only one place named Springfield, but it is "linked" to various locations in the world."

      Sadly, creationist FAQs aren't quite so amusing. (Well, okay, there's this one.)

      --
      "Why can't everyone just be straight with me?"
      "Because we live in a bendy world, dear."
  33. We will never stop looking for life on Mars... by halivar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...and hence we will never be able to do anything useful with the place.

  34. My favorite toxic chemical. by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yey Bro. It sure is an interesting chemical. SO interesting in fact that if you go look in a serious university library you'll find a shelf + of books just called "water".

    We don't understand why. Both O and H are pretty common, but H2O is darned weird. So darned weird
    I'd guess we'll *still* be writing books about it
    1000 years from now.

    I like the stuff myself (from a distance). My Cretan
    friend here Manolis loves it and insists on risking his life on a yacht. Personally I'm too damn scared. You can never drown on a nice
    sandy clay or chalky soil can you..

    The debate about life using NH3 or HF is long dead. Hydrogen and Oxygen are about as common as anything you can imagine. So is Carbon . Even the
    astrophysicts (who disparingly refer to anything heavier than helium as metals much to this chemists disgust (we love these guys though...))
    don't fantasize about worlds where life uses Boron
    and Fluorine (excuse me, where would they come from Mr. Sci Fi author?).

    H2O is excellent stuff. Sometimes though even careful researchers forget that it can even dissolve glass - Oh yes, the big polywater fiasco.

    God. I'm showing my age aren't I...

  35. New Clue for Life on Mars? by grape+jelly · · Score: 0

    New Clue for Life on Mars?

    Great! When can I send my boss?

  36. Nah. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    We will prove it by doing Genesis II on Mars and capturing it over texas.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  37. Who needs water by samberdoo · · Score: 0

    If life on earth evolved from anaerobic heterotrophes, which did not necessarily need water, then why not on Mars? There are still microbes who live in volcanic vents that thrive on hydrogen sulfide. They can live in or out of water, but do not need it to live.

  38. Earth Evidence for Mars life by RumorControl · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There is already evidence of life in extreme conditions on earth. Our biosphere extends from as deep as we can measure to space. There is evidence that life can sustain radiation that would kill a city.

    To look at a rock in space and say, " I doubt there is life there" is to ignore the fact that we have yet to find a place where life can't exist (maybe the sun...). In essence, if there is energy, then there exists the potential for something to exploit that energy. And more often the not, something does.

    The question should be "What is living on this rock, and why can't I find it?"

    1. Re:Earth Evidence for Mars life by Vicsun · · Score: 0

      if there is energy, then there exists the potential for something to exploit that energy. And more often the not, something does. ...and water. Energy and water are the requirements for life as we know it. Energy alone isn't enough - if it was the Sahara desert would be booming with life.

    2. Re:Earth Evidence for Mars life by Xilman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Energy and water are the requirements for life as we know it. Energy alone isn't enough - if it was the Sahara desert would be booming with life. The Sahara desert is booming with life. Just because you can't always see it easily doesn't mean it's not there. It is completely infested with bacteria. There's a good smattering of plants of various kinds. Arthropods are relatively common. There's even a goodly smattering of birds and mammals.

      The reason, of course, is that there is water in the Sahara desert. Less than there is in, say, Amazonia or the Pacific but plenty for life to get along nonetheless.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
  39. Re:Easiest way to settle the question definitively by EdMack · · Score: 1

    They have a PFS test tell them life maybe there, well I've played a FPS test that shown me that there's one hell of a party on Mars.

    --
    puts ("Python r0cks\n");
  40. What about the life we sent? by ActionJesus · · Score: 0

    If memory serves, there's already life on mars. Tiny bacteria (bacterium?) that attached themselves to the hundreds of probes we've landed on/crashed into mars are still alive, despite the inhospitiable conditions. Of course, i may be wrong and it may be something else like the moon, but dont go discounting the obvious.

    1. Re:What about the life we sent? by kylegordon · · Score: 1

      That'll be where Planetary Protection comes into play.

  41. Re:Not Likely.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If God can create Earth he can certainly put anything he wants on Mars. A test of faith, a lesson to be learned, a haven off Earth or a mystery to contemplate. With God, all things are possible. Of course this sort of belief system does not realy offer much to the testable hypothesis realms of science.

  42. Re:naked apes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you mean hairless apes? :)

  43. Re:Rejected in about 3 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Oooh... that must mean that ./ editors are politically motivated, and not that your article is old news, is being reported everywhere else, and that Slashdot is primarily a news site for science and technology news.

  44. Re:Terrible news! CBS and Kerry going down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go boil your head, you stupid Deaniac. The Doctor never stood a chance against Bush, even if none of you or your on-campus cronies had enough of a brain to realize it.

    John Kerry, on the other hand, is awesome.

    4JKB4IA

  45. I'm a creationist: No, and here's why... by Goldenhawk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    • If there is indeed life on Mars, and a future sample retrieval mission obtains a sample, AND the replicating mechanism of that sample is NOT RNA/DNA (but perhaps, a more primitive form of it), would that be enough to convince significant numbers of creationists of evolution?

    Thanks for a great question - allow me to jump into the fray.

    <DISCLAIMER>Okay, first of all, let me offer a caveat: I'm a creationist, but I don't believe that evolution is impossible: I just don't believe that God chose to use evolution to create man. More specifically, the Bible says God created Man - it doesn't say HOW, but since it says He created us "in His image", I don't believe that leaves much room for "in the image of a monkey". </DISCLAIMER>

    Given that disclaimer, as a Christian, I have no problem believing in life on Mars. Why should I, as an intelligent, thinking, yet finite creature, believe that I can understand how an infinitely powerful God decided to create things? Why should the concept of life on Mars offend my sensibilities? Rather, it would increase my sense of awe at the variety of God's creation and abilities. See, I'm a logical Christian - I believe that the very definition of "god" implies infinite ability - and I don't believe it's my place to artificially limit His ability simply because it's too difficult to comprehend. Instead, I have to continually adjust MY thinking about God to suit the evidence around me.

    The church in the years since the Enlightenment has constantly had the same struggle - how to reconcile the Bible with new scientific data. But that didn't end up destroying the Church - instead it gave greater awareness of the awesome, majestic creation around us. The Bible states that the universe itself sings God's praises, and that no man has any excuse for not believing in God, because God has presented Himself to us via everything we see around us.

    Now, before the evolutionists and atheists out there jump on me for a perceived inconsistency in my logic, let me go a step further. I do NOT believe, given this framework, that just because God CAN use scientific processes to create, that He always DOES so. The Bible is very clear about the process whereby man was created - and it was very different than the process by which animals and other life were created. It clearly specifies that God "breathed life into Adam". This description makes it clear that there was a separate, unique step of creative endowment with "life" - meaning a spirit, not just "life" as purely reproductive ability. So, no, I don't see man as having evolved. That does NOT, however, discount the possibility that evolution is possible and even responsible for the fossil record.

    Let me make one other useful point. I don't believe that evolution is overall God's tool of choice for creation. There are huge gaps in the fossile record between monkey and man, and huge gaps between many other species. From a strict scientific-process viewpoint, evolution is still a hypothesis: it has never been proven as the means by which all the current diversity of life exists. In fact, there are many very convincing reasons to believe that the fossil record and many other observable facts all illustrate that evolution is NOT a possible explanation for what we see around us. If you disagree, just do a Google search for the data. There are plenty of SCIENTISTS that believe in creation.

    At this point, most Baptists and other fundamentalists reading this are probably seething with righteous indignation. Still, I'm a fundamentalist in this manner: I believe that the Bible is the complete, wholly accurate, inerrant, and literal word of God, at least in its original form (the original documents in the original languages, not any of our English translations). I've had this discussion with many fundamentalist friends - and they can no more convince me that I'm

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

  46. Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no conclusive evidence demonstrating life having spontaneous begun on *Earth* let alone Mars.

    1. Re:Nonsense by Anthony · · Score: 1

      You missed the whole point. But you probably already know that. There are theories about abiogenesis and exobiogenesis. Mars is an excellent opportunity to make falsifiable predictions from these theories and testing those predictions. That is all.

      --
      Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
  47. Re:Dear Jeebus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those probes and the people that work on them are in a containment quarantine. Thus the reason for the neat lil white suits, respirators, and isolation chambers while the probes are being worked on and deployed. Any lifeforms that may be picked up by contamination would have a hard life in the vacuum of space and entry ento the atmosphere.

    Please stick to your ancient book of fairy tales, leave science to scientists and those without primitive superstitions.

    Sincerely,

    Science

  48. Scientific process by jerometremblay · · Score: 1

    1. Once all "simplest" explanations are exposed by everyone interested, devise experiments to disprove each one of them.

    2. Remove proved-false explanations OR return to stage 1 to explain the failures.

    3. Take the remaining hypotesis and accept it as THE BEST CURRENT EXPLANATION.

    This is called the scientific process. It has nothing to do with YOU or ME. If done properly, it should end up with CONCENSUS.

    Which is the closest to truth you'll ever get.

    And before you bring up any "but", take your conter-proposals and return to 1.

    1. Re:Scientific process by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      There's still people involved, none of whom have full knowledge of these systems. This is the fundamental flaw in step 1.

      And is what I really meant by YOU and ME.

      Also, your steps assume only one hypothesis makes it to be the best. There can be, and often are, several hypotheses that explain all the KNOWN facts. Thus, you rarely end up with only one hypothesis for complex and relatively unknown systems such as the martian atmosphere and history.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  49. Possible life announcement may be pending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here's an interesting article about a speech that could take place at the International Mars Conference: Enterprise Mission.

  50. So those little vials of bacteria by Zapdos · · Score: 1

    That we sent up there in the Mars Polar Seeder are doing well?

  51. My theory.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that MARS was once thriving and even reached an industrial or "iron age". It has since all decayed and rusted away, hence the red in the dirt.

    tee hee

  52. ROTFLMAO by ynotds · · Score: 1
    This is so funny I couldn't leave it unremarked:
    I'm a logical Christian - I believe that the very definition of "god" implies infinite ability - and I don't believe it's my place to artificially limit His ability simply because it's too difficult to comprehend.
    having just disclaimed ...
    I just don't believe that God chose to use evolution to create man. More specifically, the Bible says God created Man - it doesn't say HOW, but since it says He created us "in His image", I don't believe that leaves much room for "in the image of a monkey".
    which fails "logical" at every step:
    • You admit your Bible doesn't say how, and immediately use that fact to arbitrarily exclude the only credible possibility.
    • You proclaim "in His image" and then insist that he not choose "the image of a monkey" as His own image when starting out on His logistical nightmare.
    • Definitions are not to be confused with facts. They are just a way to give a name to something, or meaning to a name. You need more than a definition to draw an implication.
    BTW, I'm way post-logic and post-intelligence when it comes to trying to beneficially explore the possibilities of the world we find ourselves in. Neither logic nor intelligence have shown any sign of solving even a fraction of the problems that they are popularly expected to solve.
    --
    -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.