Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Indirect Case For Life On Mars

Posted by timothy on from the nearly-almost-somewhat-approximate dept.

Deinhard writes "Space.com is reporting that '[a] pair of NASA scientists told a group of space officials at a private meeting here Sunday that they have found strong evidence that life may exist today on Mars, hidden away in caves and sustained by pockets of water.' It is all based on methane signatures and not direct observation. Now plans for using the Genesis Device on Mars are out ... unless this is just a particle of preanimate matter caught in the matrix."

6 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Nonbiological methane production by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 5, Insightful
    the only way we will find out for sure is to actually go there in person
    This is a patently false statement. I can name any number of scenarios that would make us sure there was life on mars without requiring a person landing there. Anything from a microscope on a Mars rover showing as a picture of a microrganism to it returning a photograph of a sign saying "KEEP OUT".
    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  2. Re:Nonbiological methane production by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IIRC, Mars is geologically (or "areologically," if you prefer) dead -- obviously it had significant volcanic activity a long time ago, as evidenced by Olympus Mons, but none that we've ever detected going on now or in the recent past. So fluctuating methane levels, while they don't demand a biological explanation, certainly seem to point that way.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  3. Oh, please by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Jeez, this is so transparent. Translation:

    "Because know any sort of possibility of life on other planets is a hot button, we'll pull this theory out so that we can beg for funding."

    It's all about getting more funding, and justifying what they have.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  4. Please Share Your Stash of Happy Fun Drugs by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Now plans for using the Genesis Device on Mars are out ... unless this is just a particle of preanimate matter caught in the matrix."

    Cor.

    Don't assume for a moment that we won't colonize and terraform Mars. It may take 100 years and start with little research outposts like those on Antarctica, but soon enough it'll all be plowed up and paved over and we'll bring all the plagues of earth, litter included.

    I suppose there will be an environmentalist coalition of some sort and some fine parks will be set aside, i.e. Olympus Mons, but when competing national iterests pit India and China against any other comers, it'll be a race to colonize it and damn the environment and anyone who pipes up to protect it.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  5. Re:Nonbiological methane production by DJStealth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This would contaminate the planet with human life, and as a result, if we find life, it'll be difficult to determine if it was as a result of our visit or not.

  6. Re:Sounds like a troll, but I'm not. by Angry+Toad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the long run no, I think it would be rather silly to allow a few bacteria to deny us an entire world.

    In the short run absolutely yes. Investigating a possible completely alternate abiogenic event? From a scientific standpoint that would be *more* than worth holding off the colonization for a century or two. The value of that information for understanding the distribution of life in the universe is incalculable.

    On the other hand if it's just Earth gunk transported to Mars, away with it.