Antarctic Microbes Could Live on Mars

eldavojohn writes "Recent research has shown that microbes found in an Antarctic lake could survive the coldest temperatures on Mars. From the article, 'And they found that these species of microorganisms "huddled" together in colder temperatures to form a chemically linked unit called a biofilm. The finding marks the first time this phenomenon has been detected in the Antarctic species of so-called extremophiles. The findings provide more evidence for the ideas that liquid found beneath Mars' surface could harbor microbial life and that life could exist elsewhere in the solar system and galaxy, which is generally incredibly cold.' Their genes are currently being sequenced to determine which give the organisms 'cold-shock' proteins and their resistance to cold."

Comments

Study hot life instead

[Harmonious Botch]

Ok, so life can exist where it is really cold. But it will be SLOW. It will do things slowly, it will evolve slowly. And it will probably be too slow to have become intelligent yet. In short: it will be boring.
We can learn a lot more by studying something with a time scale several orders of magnitude faster.
We should be looking for life that can exist at our temp and time scale, or even higher and faster. It is likely to have evolved more, and has a better chance of being intelligent. Focus on finding life on Venus, not Mars. If it is not there, start it by seeding with a few designed high-temp organisms. We could learn a lot by studying it.
And if it eventually out-evolves us, then it probably will regard us as boring, and will leave us alone.

Re:Study hot life instead

[El Torico]

You're missing a big possibility - terraforming Mars. Mars is a far better candidate for terraforming than Venus. What we learn about these microbes could be useful in engineering microbes (and possibly other forms of life) that could thrive on Mars.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Just because it lacks intelligence doesn't mean it's not interesting. Interest is typically in the eye of the beholder, and that is the location where the intelligence needs to be as well.

Also, I think things that are boring are more likely to lack nipples, not brains. But that's just my opinion.

Re:Study hot life instead

[TheSHAD0W]

Sounds like these microbes might already be able to live on Mars. Further, the organic material they create could be used to fuel the "hotter" life Mr. Botch is so enamored of.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Zarniwoop_Editor]

Life exisiting in enviroments we consider extreem is not unlikely. While it is true that extreem cold may slow evolution due to the slower life processes that may be insignificant if the life form has been around long enough.
Here is an interesting linke on Extremophiles...
http://www.astrobiology.com/adastra/extremophiles. html
Enjoy.

Re:Study hot life instead

[kfg]

And if it eventually out-evolves us, then it probably will regard us as boring, and will leave us alone.

Proof positive that ants are more evolved than small boys.

KFG

Re:Study hot life instead

[BFaucet]

You're assuming everything in the universe started evolving at the same time. It is possible it is us catching up to another life form's abilities. I'm not saying there is advanced life on Mars, but the universe is big. Like really, really big. The possibilities are pretty big too.

Though I must agree we are quite boring.

Re:Study hot life instead

[LunaticTippy]

Those fireants in that storm drain when I was 8 must have not been very evolved then. They found my poor hide quite interesting.

Re:Study hot life instead

[osi79]

Maybe you find it boring, but one of the most interesting aspects of life are its beginnings, it's basic building blocks and mechanisms. All this happens on cell level. You don't need more than monads to study it. If we'd find life on mars or elsewhere in the solar system that has common origins with terran life, that would be interesting enough. Finding completely different organisms would be revolutionary and change our worldview forever (I think).

The two big questions regarding life:

1. is there _any_ life out there? And if, how does it work?
2. Are there "intelligent" life forms we can maybe even communicate with?

Question 1 being answered in my lifetime would suffice for me ;-)

Re:Study hot life instead

[Laur]

Mars is a far better candidate for terraforming than Venus.

While perhaps true, terraforming anything is so far ahead of our technological curve it is staggering. Far more interesting to me is initial colonization, and of the two, Venus is actually far more hospitable that Mars, at least as long as you don't mind living in floating cities about 50 km up. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus for the basics.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Clifton Beach]

Heyyyy - Chill out, dude.

Re:Study hot life instead

[OriginalArlen]

Mars is indeed a better candidate for terraforming than Venus, but then my arse painted blue would make a better President than Bush; what's your point?

Terraforming Mars is utterly, utterly impractical; not quite into the 'interstellar travel' level of physical impossibility, but well on the way and with the kids bouncing on the back seat going "are we there yet? Are we theerrrreee yeeeeetttttttt????"

Where to start. Let's suppose it were possible, with some fantasy Star Trek gizmo that you've abracadabra'd up, and that the world's population is prepared to pay for you to indulge your fantasty. Ala-shazam! Mars now has an Earth-like atmosphere, and earth-like water levels (oh BTW, that's just flooded the northern hemisphere; that reduces your land area to approximately that of South America, but WTF, the flooded craters look cool.) Now what happens? Well first all the water boils into water vapour. Can't be bothered to work it out but at a first hand-waving approximation, that takes about a week. Over the next 10-100 years your atmosphere leaks away into space (along with any UV-blocking ozone you'd also shazam'd up.) Meanwhile, any humans are going crazy from sheltering from the incredibly toxic environment outside, and getting cabin fever and chronic depression caused by the low light levels out there. (You realise how dim the sun is out there, right?) Within a century humans can't live outside underground hermetically sealed capsules (like Dubya's never-gonna-happen-either man-on-Mars people will have to, if they ever get there that is.) Within a millennium Ares has rolled back down the entropy gradient most of the way towards it's natural rest state equilibrium, which is - who'd a thunk it? - exactly what it's like today.

Zubrin fanboys make me puke ;p

Re:Study hot life instead

[CRCulver]

You're missing a big possibility - terraforming Mars. Mars is a far better candidate for terraforming than Venus. What we learn about these microbes could be useful in engineering microbes (and possibly other forms of life) that could thrive on Mars.

If you're so gung ho about terraforming, you've probably already read Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy starting with Red Mars . But if so, you've apparently forgotten that the issue of terraforming causes huge freakin' polemics about ecological responsibility, and it's certainly believable that violence could erupt over the issue.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Anonymous Coward]

They found oil^H^H^H ass of mass destruction there.

Re:Study hot life instead

[DerekLyons]

Ok, so life can exist where it is really cold. But it will be SLOW. It will do things slowly, it will evolve slowly. And it will probably be too slow to have become intelligent yet. In short: it will be boring.

Ah yes - science is only important and interesting when its Exciting! and Dangerous! and Bold!
 
Thank you Mythbusters, Junkyard Wars and Bill Nye and many other hype generators who in their feckless rush to make science 'interesting' and 'inspiring'.

Re:Study hot life instead

[apostrophesemicolon]

by the same logic, with global warming at hand, can we as human evolve to think/calculate/compute faster enough (albeit not much due to little increase in temp) to:

-invent technologies that enable us to escape earth should it become less habitable?
OR
-invent better ways to suppress/reverse global warming?

remember, living organisms work better on survival when there is threat

Re:Study hot life instead

[kfg]

Those fireants in that storm drain when I was 8. . .

Q.E.D.

KFG

Re:Study hot life instead

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not a happy person, are you?

Re:Study hot life instead

[Hugonz]

Yeah, that would be interesting. As for the time being, we are marsiforming Terra.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Iron Condor]

Mars is a far better candidate for terraforming than Venus.

No, it isn't. Because it cannot be terraformed. The gravitational field of Mars is not strong enough to hold an Oxygen atmosphere at breathable partial pressures. And certainly not at temperatures that humans could survive. Please do not misrepresent science fiction as fact

Venus has one hell of a thick sludge as an atmosphere, but most of that is CO2 and we living things have evolved pretty powerful mechanisms to turn that into building blocks for ourselves. There's mile-high hurdles to overcome, but at least terraforming Venus is physically possible. While Mars will never hold an earth-like atmosphere.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Cctoide]

On the other hand, if they're silicon-based, I'd expect them to have evolved in the blink of an eye at those temperatures...

Re:Study hot life instead

[El Torico]

And certainly not at temperatures that humans could survive.

Humans in their present form.

You are correct; I overstated the possibility of terraforming Mars. It is probably just as likely (very, very small), that we will terraform Venus. It is interesting to think of possibilities however.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Orange Crush]

This is incorrect. Mars *can* hold a thick enough Earthlike atmosphere, just not indefinitely. It will slowly bleed off into space, but it would take many thousands of years to cause any problems. If a civilization is capable of terraforming Mars in the first place, topping off the atmosphere every few thousand years shouldn't be much hassle.

The cold temps can be overcome with greenhouse effect, solar mirrors, etc. Heck, the cold weather might even be a selling point. A far-future civilization is likely to face challenges to keep themselves from roasting in their own waste heat--moving to a cold planet could then be desirable.

Re:Study hot life instead

[megaditto]

-invent better ways to suppress/reverse global warming?

Nucular winter?

Re: Study hot life instead

[ruckerz2k]

Organisms that are able to survive at cold temperatures are very interesting. From a structural point of view, these organisms contain adaptations that prevent their proteins from cold denaturation. From a food science point of view, it is these kinds of organisms that allow us to have "creamy" ice cream.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Iron Condor]

This is incorrect. Mars *can* hold a thick enough Earthlike atmosphere, just not indefinitely.

I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense. The same can be said of every body in the solar system. No matter how small the pebble, it'll hold an atmosphere. Just not indefinitely.

In the same vein, all living things on earth can survive on Mars. Just not indefinitely. Hey, I can survive on Jupiter for what that's worth. Just not indefinitely.

The notion of terraforming usually means "turn into something like terra". Not "fake the appeareance of terra for a short while".

Terraforming is going to take a long time. If you're losing your atmosphere while you're trying to build it up you're not going to get anywhere. And you'll run out of oxygen "top it off" with if you keep bleeding it off into space.

And the warmer you make it, the faster it is going to boil off...

Re:Study hot life instead

[oddeirik]

Just a reminder: Space Corps Directive #723: Terraformers are expressly forbidden from recreating Swindon

Re:Study hot life instead

[Rogerborg]

Venusiforming.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that there is stuff on Mythbusters that is more exciting than Kari Byron. Damn, I thought I was using Tivo to fast forward to the good parts!

Re:Study hot life instead

[SevenHands]

"And it will probably be too slow to have become intelligent yet. In short: it will be boring."

I think you're missing the point here. If Life (and I mean any type of life) is discovered elsewhere, that would be a huge discovery. Maybe one of the largest discoveries of all times.

Re:Study hot life instead

[outsider007]

So add some mass to it. We'll need water anyway.

Re:Study hot life instead

[adyus]

Besides, there's more chance of finding life on Venus because, as we all know, that's where women are from.
 
And we all know exactly how women create life, riight?
 
I mean c'mon, we've all been there, riight?
 
*crickets*

Re:Study hot life instead

[Dragonslicer]

Who let Dubya get a Slashdot account?

Re:Study hot life instead

[eonlabs]

I for one welcome our new Venutian Overlords

Re:Study hot life instead

[khallow]

While perhaps true, terraforming anything is so far ahead of our technological curve it is staggering. Far more interesting to me is initial colonization, and of the two, Venus is actually far more hospitable that Mars, at least as long as you don't mind living in floating cities about 50 km up. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus for the basics.

Not really. Humans have become quite adept at terraforming Earth. And it's a non sequitur to claim that building floating cities, a task which has never been accomplished on Earth, is somehow easier than building traditional ground habitats on Mars.

Re:Study hot life instead

[snarkth]

Now you've done it. Some idiot is going to read this thread and produce a SciFi infomer-, er, quasi-documentary-original-movie called "Revenge of the Ants". And they'll use this plot. But the end will be that the butterfl-- naw, can't spoil it.

snarky

Re:Study hot life instead

[Anonymous Coward]

actually we are Venusifying earth -Venus has an incredibly high temperature due to a think layer of CO2.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so life can exist where it is really cold. But it will be SLOW. It will do things slowly, it will evolve slowly. And it will probably be too slow to have become intelligent yet. In short: it will be boring.

Generalizing from observations of Minnesota is not scientifically justified.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure about that? Scientist think that the atmosphere thinned to the point of today over a course of many millions of years. The atmosphere does not just go missing over the night even if the planet lack a magnetic field.

Re:Study hot life instead

[xigxag]

If you're gonna be pedantic, be REALLY pedantic. Veneraforming. ;)

Re:Study hot life instead

[Petersson]

Ok, so life can exist where it is really cold. But it will be SLOW. It will do things slowly, it will evolve slowly. And it will probably be too slow to have become intelligent yet. In short: it will be boring.

OMG did you just say that penguins are slow and boring???

Re:Study hot life instead

[n3m6]

Also as the number of organisms on the surface increases, so does the temperature of the surface of the planet to an optimal temperature- creating an environment that sustains life.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Laur]

Humans have become quite adept at terraforming Earth.

Not to be rude, but do you even know what the word "terraforming" means?

And it's a non sequitur to claim that building floating cities, a task which has never been accomplished on Earth, is somehow easier than building traditional ground habitats on Mars.

Your reading comprehension skills are similarly lacking. I never said it would be easier to built floating habitats, I said that Venus' atmosphere about 50 km up is more hospitable than anywhere on Mars, indeed, it is more Earth-like than anywhere else in the Solar System (other than Earth itself, of course). The temperature is Earth-like, the air pressure is Earth-like (meaning that if your habitat leaks, it will leak at atmospheric diffusion rates. Try that in the thin atmosphere of Mars! In addition, structures do not need to be built as pressure vessels.), and gravity is near-Earth-like. Also, solar energy is abundant in this area, you can fly around the planet (or let the wind carry you) to generate close to a 24 hour day, and to top it off Venus is closer than Mars!

I'm not sure what you consider "traditional" about building sealed ground habitats on a planet with very little atmosphere, 1/3 of Earth gravity, and where it is very cold. It's true we've never built a permanent floating habitat on Earth, but that is more because there's never been a perceived need, not because it's technically difficult. We have been building Aerostats and balloons for hundreds of years, plus breathable air is a lifting gas in the Venusian atmosphere. While it may be more difficult to build floating habitats on Venus than ground habitats on Mars, this is only one aspect of colonization. Dealing with Mars' differences in temperature, pressure, gravity, lower solar energy, etc. may make it a far more difficult proposition overall.

Re:Study hot life instead

[nowonder]

You mean the same text that says in Chapter 7 first:

'A "reducing atmosphere" could have had carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and nitrogen.'

and a few lines later:

'But a reducing atmosphere has neither oxygen nor carbon dioxide!'

Syntacic refutation is all which is needed her ...

Re:Study hot life instead

[khallow]

Not to be rude, but do you even know what the word "terraforming" means?

Yes. Making some region more habitable to humans or life in general. Irrigation is a classic example of Earth-based terraforming. So are cities.

Your reading comprehension skills are similarly lacking. I never said it would be easier to built floating habitats, I said that Venus' atmosphere about 50 km up is more hospitable than anywhere on Mars, indeed, it is more Earth-like than anywhere else in the Solar System (other than Earth itself, of course). The temperature is Earth-like, the air pressure is Earth-like (meaning that if your habitat leaks, it will leak at atmospheric diffusion rates. Try that in the thin atmosphere of Mars! In addition, structures do not need to be built as pressure vessels.), and gravity is near-Earth-like. Also, solar energy is abundant in this area, you can fly around the planet (or let the wind carry you) to generate close to a 24 hour day, and to top it off Venus is closer than Mars!

Mars has water, ground, and plenty of solid matter near at hand. Ground means no mass restrictions on your colony other than what the ground can structurally bear. Where are you getting solid matter from on Venus? For a Venus habitat to make sense, you'll either have to move mass to Venus from elsewhere, or mine it on the surface or from the atmosphere. Metals in particular will be difficult to come by on Venus. Venus also has sulfuric acid, including the altitude you want. So it has a corrosive atmosphere. It appears that Mars might have a salty and hence corrosive environment as well, but the low temperature is an advantage in that it greatly slows corrosion. The increase solar flux means that anyone outside the Venusian atmosphere (eg, people traveling to Venus) would experience increased exposure to radiation for what that's worth. Mars is somewhat easier to obtain useful rocket fuels since CO2 and H2O can be readily decomposed into methane and oxygen and due to the lower gravity has a far weaker gravity well (the lower atmospheric pressure helps a lot too). Venus would be almost as difficult as launching from the Earth's surface.

I'm not sure what you consider "traditional" about building sealed ground habitats on a planet with very little atmosphere, 1/3 of Earth gravity, and where it is very cold. It's true we've never built a permanent floating habitat on Earth, but that is more because there's never been a perceived need, not because it's technically difficult. We have been building Aerostats and balloons for hundreds of years, plus breathable air is a lifting gas in the Venusian atmosphere. While it may be more difficult to build floating habitats on Venus than ground habitats on Mars, this is only one aspect of colonization. Dealing with Mars' differences in temperature, pressure, gravity, lower solar energy, etc. may make it a far more difficult proposition overall.

The gravity may or may not be a problem, but the temperature and pressure are not. We can have people live for months in earth orbit, a harsher environment.

Aerostats and balloons typically aren't intended to stay in the air for long periods of time. On Venus you will need these structures to stay aloft for decades.

So to summarize, floating Venus colonies would face restrictions on mass because they need to be light enough to float, would have some difficult obtaining solid matter particularly metals and water, exist in a corrosive environment, somewhat harder to obtain rocket fuel, and Mars is far easier to launch off of (weaker gravity and the low atmospheric pressure helps a lot here).

Re:Study hot life instead

[Anonymous Coward]

'A "reducing atmosphere" could have had carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and nitrogen.'

and a few lines later:

'But a reducing atmosphere has neither oxygen nor carbon dioxide!'

Keyphrase being "could have had". Based on the last sentence in your quote it seems that it[atmosphere] doesn't. Therefore no contradiction.

Re:Study hot life instead

[Laur]

Yes. Making some region more habitable to humans or life in general. Irrigation is a classic example of Earth-based terraforming. So are cities.

No. Try reading http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terraform and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming. From dictionary.com: "To transform (a landscape) on another planet into one having the characteristics of landscapes on Earth." It comes from "terra" (Earth) "form" (to make). You can't "terraform" Earth, since Earth is what you are comparing to in the first place.

Mars has water, ground, and plenty of solid matter near at hand. Ground means no mass restrictions on your colony other than what the ground can structurally bear.

The restrictions on colony building are limitations on resources, of which "ground" is only one factor, and probably not really an important one. Having "solid matter" isn't the same as having processed raw materials, such as metals. Some of the real questions to ask are which type of colony "takes more resources," "how cheap/available are these resources" and "are there other benefits (higher/lower gravity, temperature, pressure, etc.) which may offset any resource advantage"? This will take more study and evaluation, and is really more of a long term self-sustaining question.

For the short term, initial colony founding, and probably for a relatively long time thereafter, raw materials will most likely need to be shipped in from off-planet, for both Venus and Mars. Filtering and processing gasses from the atmosphere is one thing, mining, smelting, and ore-processing in an extraterrestrial environment is quite another. While it's true that this will almost certainly be easier on Mars, it probably won't be a concern for quite some time.

For a Venus habitat to make sense, you'll either have to move mass to Venus from elsewhere, or mine it on the surface or from the atmosphere. Metals in particular will be difficult to come by on Venus.

As I said, you'll have to import mass from off-planet for a good long while with any extraterrestrial colony. Mining metals from asteroids may be a good idea here. Mining on Venus is not currently technologically feasible, but I'm sure it will be at some point. Perhaps the high temperature and pressure will actually make smelting and processing easier? Again, more study is needed. "Mining" the atmosphere is technologically feasible, at least for some materials. The largest component of the Venusian atmosphere is CO2, from which you can extract carbon, useful for carbon fiber structures, nanotubes & similar (once the technology is further developed), even diamond for integrated circuits (with even more technological development).

Venus also has sulfuric acid, including the altitude you want.

The sulfuric acid is really a double-edged sword. Yes it is corrosive, and will need to be protected against, however it is also a very useful industrial chemical. You can even generate water and hydrogen from it, making it quite useful indeed.

The increase solar flux means that anyone outside the Venusian atmosphere (eg, people traveling to Venus) would experience increased exposure to radiation for what that's worth.

At least the trip is shorter to Venus than Mars, although we will need to develop good methods for shielding for trips to both planets. It's doubtful that we can develop shielding which makes it possible to go to Mars safely, but not Venus.

Mars is somewhat easier to obtain useful rocket fuels since CO2 and H2O can be readily decomposed into methane and oxygen

CO2 is certainly plentiful on Venus, and H2O can be generated from H2SO4.

Due to the lower gravity has a far

Re:Study hot life instead

[khallow]

No. Try reading http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terraform and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming. From dictionary.com: "To transform (a landscape) on another planet into one having the characteristics of landscapes on Earth." It comes from "terra" (Earth) "form" (to make). You can't "terraform" Earth, since Earth is what you are comparing to in the first place.

Saying it has to be a planet other than Earth is IMHO an artificial distinction, which incidentally, the Wikipedia article and the first dictionary definition don't make. Irrigation, urban development, even reforestation and channel dredging are forms of terraforming on a small and local scale. Among other things, it's a positive example that terraforming can be done once people live somewhere else.

And my point about Mars is that it requires a lot less mass imported than Venus does. And I can't emphasize enough the advantage of ground. Floating structures have mass restrictions. If there is too much mass, the structure won't be sufficiently buoyant to remain in the desired part of Venus's atmosphere. Further, there's plenty of space in a Martian environment to dump stuff that doesn't require human environment conditions. And there's plenty of material to mine on Mars.

The sulfuric acid is really a double-edged sword. Yes it is corrosive, and will need to be protected against, however it is also a very useful industrial chemical. You can even generate water and hydrogen from it, making it quite useful indeed.

Good point.

Well, that's the tradeoff of lower gravity. Yes, it's far easier to launch things on Mars, and I believe it is even possible to build a space elevator with current engineering materials! On the downside, you have potential health effects from living at significantly reduced gravity. If this turns out to be a large concern (again, more study is needed), then it may be a deal breaker for permanent settlement on Mars, unless everyone want's to live in centrifuges on the Martian surface, or never be able to travel back to Earth.

Another good point. My opinion though is that existing human life can be adapted to low gravity environments. We probably will be able to do this for adult humans in a modest amount of time using sufficiently advanced biotechnology, allowing one to live in arbitrary gravity environments (along with lower pressure and temperature in the case of Mars) as long as the adaptation process is followed first. And I might add, I think that developing this sort of biotech partial solution (in a reversible way!) will probably end up easier than terraforming Mars or Venus.

I already addressed this. The fact that aerostats aren't currently designed to stay aloft indefinitely is a function of need, not technological limitations.

I don't think it's that simple a problem, but Venus would be a considerably better environment for such things, and the technology isn't that far out of reach.

There are pros and cons of both planets, engineering is a study of tradeoffs. My main point is that Venus' atmosphere is the most Earth-like environment of any other place in the solar system, and deserves more study and attention. Besides, it doesn't have to be "either-or", why don't we work to colonize both?

I agree. I just don't think Venus would be as easy to colonize as Mars would be and as a result would be more difficult to terraform. OTOH, you outline an incremental approach for colonizing and terraforming Venus which I think is important for any viable terraforming project.

Like me

[ReidMaynard]

They too probably have long underwear *under* their jeans...

Extremophiles

[viper21]

Basically, extremophiles are organisms that can survive at both extermes of the temperature spectrum. There is another article over at LiveScience that covers the basics for those not familiar.

Re:Extremophiles

[Red Flayer]

Basically, extremophiles are organisms that can survive at both extermes of the temperature spectrum.

False.

Extremophiles can survive at one or more extremes of any of a number of spectrums, including temperature, pressure, background radiation, salinity, etc.

Little Rockets?

[acvh]

how would they get to Mars? do they have an extremophile space program?

Re:Little Rockets?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Nah, The CIA has a program called "extrodinary rendition" that will take care of critters such as these, I suppose. After all the dividing line between extremophiles and terrorophiles is quite fuzzy ;-)

Re:Little Rockets?

[arthurpaliden]

Actually rocks get passed back and forth between the planets quite regularly, well regularly in the planitary time scale that is, as a result of major meteor hits and the bactreia would just hitch a ride.

Re:Little Rockets?

[GoatMonkey2112]

No, it's more like the bugs in Starship Troopers. The small extremophiles get launched out of the butts of the large extremophiles.

Are these the fossiles they found?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read somewhere that some fossiles have been found on mars which had the imprints of not just single cell organisms, but something far more complex. The encased organisms have been described by many scientists as a mars 'bugs'.

10 years ago we only speculated on the possibility of life on Mars. Now we have incontrovertable evidence of it. I wonder what we will know 10 years from now.

Re:Are these the fossiles they found?

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing we probably will never know, is who your daddy is.

Even cooler:

[jbeaupre]

Microbes that live off of radiation: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/524387/

Is it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yougurt?

Re:Is it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that that new soylent yogurt?

But they thrive only when it gets warmer

[dargaud]

Yup, one thing the summary forgets is that those critters thrive and reproduce only when the temperature gets warm enough, which happens for about 2 months a years in Antarctica, while it never happens on Mars. Yes, you can have small springs with running water in Antarctica. I am not a microbiologist but I've spent 3 years in Antarctica.

Re:But they thrive only when it gets warmer

[kfg]

Do not confuse atmospheric temperatures with local temperatures. If you'd had a blacktopped parking lot in Antarctica you might have found its temperature to be well above freezing and Martian soil, where the microbes live, can be as warm as 80 degrees F.

It's a radiation abosorbtion thing.

KFG

Re:But they thrive only when it gets warmer

[dargaud]

Entirely correct. I've observed liquid water at -25C on the high Antarctic plateau, on black metal in the sun without wind. But it is a rare occurence and doesn't last very long. What occurs naturally are black rock which get plenty warm enough in the sun, also on Mars I believe. Or much more interesting and on topic to this discussion: cryptoendolith (or more simply endolith): life forms that hide inside clear rock: they get sunlight through the clear rock, protection from the elements, air by porous diffusion... It's a whole ecosystem in a few mm of thickness. It shows if you break a clear rock as a green line about a cm underneath the surface. I have a picture of an endolith here and Wikipedia has, of course, more information.

Re:But they thrive only when it gets warmer

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty neat.

Another interesting Mars story

[LaughingCoder]

This story from Oct. 30th Boston Globe is interesting. It talks about how we may have missed detecting life on Mars back in 1976 during the Viking 1 and Viking 2 missions. http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/1 0/30/could_we_have_missed_life_on_mars/

It's possible, but is it likely?

[Henry V .009]

The origin of Earth's extremophiles is that of life that evolved from organisms which existed in relatively benign environments, but were pushed into extreme environments through competition. You need someplace where the conditions are right for life to originate (what those conditions might be is still under a very high amount of conjecture), and someplace for that life to evolve long enough to begin taking advantage of the extreme environments.

Re:It's possible, but is it likely?

[Red Flayer]

The origin of Earth's extremophiles is that of life that evolved from organisms which existed in relatively benign environments, but were pushed into extreme environments through competition.

Not necessarily. It's quite possible (likely, even) that life existed/began in what we would consider extreme environments, then evolved according to the changing conditions on the planet. Today we have what we would consider benevolent conditions on most of the planet's surface, yet many of the organisms of a billion years ago might have a very hard time surviving.

Re:It's possible, but is it likely?

[kfg]

You need someplace where the conditions are right for life to originate. . .

Mars has not always been as Mars is.

KFG

Re:It's possible, but is it likely?

[edxwelch]

Exactly what I was thinking. These microbs could surivive on Mars, but could they *evolve* there?

Re:It's possible, but is it likely?

[larkost]

Actually, this is most definaely the case. Durring the Paleoproterozoic era Cyanobacteria evolved and strted pumping out oxygen which killed off all of their anaerobic ancestors. This was known as the Oxygen Catastrophe, and is one of the great mass extinction events, in fact probably the most complete culling of life on this planet.

Prior to that there was very little free oxygen in the atmosphere, so the majority of life that lives on the surface today could not have survived at that time. And here we are talking about everything from single-celled organisms on up.

Humans, the ultimate extremophiles

[Anonymous Coward]

We can survive on Mars too. We just need to be able to carry our equipment there (solar panels, raw materials, women etc).

However unlike most bacteria, we'll soon start fighting each other there'll be problems.

Re:Humans, the ultimate extremophiles

[khallow]

However unlike most bacteria, we'll soon start fighting each other there'll be problems.

No. While there's a great deal of cooperation in nature, the level of cooperation among humans is extraordinary. I think you should keep that in mind. Bacteria wouldn't have stopped eating each other.

Re:Humans, the ultimate extremophiles

[plopez]

our equipment there (solar panels, raw materials, women etc).

Men are, in fact, superfluous. It would make more sense to send up a sperm bank + women than to waste resources on men. Men have greater average body mass and also higher average metabolism. In a situation where resources are expensive, men are a liability.

Re:Humans, the ultimate extremophiles

[Xybot]

...Until it's time to park the spaceship.

Re:Humans, the ultimate extremophiles

[snarkth]

Actually, it makes sense to have viable samples from both men and women in the "bank", and methods to combine and bring them to term artificially - given the high possibilities of radiation damage to interplanetary travelers. If they want to have kids some day, they have relatively undamaged resources to produce them with. Space travel is kinda risky that way and will likely remain so for a while, although there are plenty of ways around it.

  Of course, the real advantage there, is that everyone can screw as much as they want to with no other implications than the social ones.

  Hmm. Where have I seen that before? ;-)

snarky

Ya they're called....

[Anonymous Coward]

plants.

Only on Slashdot...

[DragonWriter]

Only on slashdot are women decribed as "equipment".

Re:Only on Slashdot...

[kfg]

Only on slashdot are women decribed as "equipment".

They're geeks talking about a geeky exploration project. Of course they're going to use language appropriate for such, rather than the colloquial "furniture."

KFG

Re:Only on Slashdot...

[arthurpaliden]

Soylent green is the best, much better than yellow or red.

Re:Only on Slashdot...

[snarkth]

Or "kit"

snarky

living...

[kurt165749]

> What is he, an idiot?? Of course it would be considered living...

Hope springs eternal

[patio11]

People are so romantic about the idea that life exists outside earth that, despite the lack of any evidence for its existence, and the consistent failure to find it or even find evidence that there is any environment capable of supporting it, they still believe in it. And the rest of us get to foot a couple gazillion dollars to shoot off probes which invariably return the result: "Have arrived on Mars. Still red, dry, cold, and rocky. Moved 100 yards, was kind of fun. Please insert $250 million to continue."

I suppose microbes can probably live in thetans, too, and evidence for their existence on Mars is about as good as evidence for the existence of liquid water.

Re:Hope springs eternal

[jotok]

That "the absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence" is standard boilerplate when it comes to empiricism. Your comparison to Scientology is inapt because it is impossible to empirically test for the presence of thetans. Or, given another example--the above quote is ridiculous in the context of the WMD search because just about every place had been searched. It was still true--because it is possible that the Iraqis had perfected a cloaking device or something--but extremely unlikely.

However, we CAN test for life on other planets using empirical methods, and we have not NEARLY exhausted all of the places to look in the universe. In addition, if it's theoretically possible for known species to survive on Mars, then searching for an unknown species that does or did at one point live on Mars is reasonable. Ergo, your reasoning is unsound.

If you want to make a criticism based on the amount of money being spent, that's one thing--but when it comes to pure science, the whole "We did some experiments and found no evidence to support the hypothesis, so the hypothesis is wrong, even though observational data backs it up" thing just doesn't fly. Imagine Oppenheimer: "Well, my math says that we can split the atom, so I tried it with a knife, a crowbar, and a turkey sandwich--none of these worked, so I guess it's impossible to split the atom."

Re:Hope springs eternal

[Gilmoure]

As opposed to spending money on...digging to Pellucidar? I hear that there are cool cave women down there.

...if it weren't for the Peroxide

[OriginalArlen]

Microbes could live on the surface if it weren't for the peroxide snow: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/06 0807-mars-snow.html

Take a look at the typical chemistry found by the MER rovers. check out those nice thick drifts of magnesium salts just below the surface (both rovers have ploughed into soft talc-like drifts of white salts of various sorts. ) Nah, if there's microbes still living on Mars they're much more likely to be way below the surface. (There's also the UV and high-energy cosmic rays to contend with, oh and water subliming away immediately... )

Re:...if it weren't for the Peroxide

[jotok]

I think you might need to examine the definition of "extremeophilic" microbes again. Pay special attention to the use of "extreme" this time.

Re:...if it weren't for the Peroxide

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at least we will know to look out for all the peroxide blond aliens living on Mars.

just playing the odds

[khallow]

It's one thing to continue to hope that life exists in a particular location, Mars. That's betting on a long shot that has already disappointed in the past. And it's an easy bet that there is a second instance of life elsewhere in the universe.

Not just in the cold..

[schmiddy]

You'd be amazed at where life can exist. Coincidentally, just a week ago they found bacteria living 2.8km down in a mine, that also fueled speculation of 'life on Mars'.

Some really cool critters we've known about for a while exist in the Deep Sea ocean vents, and subsist off the chemicals coming through the cracks in the Earth's crust. Another one people didn't hear too much about were bacteria that lived on top of the Surveyor 3 craft that went to the moon and back with the Apollo 11 crew, and basically survived for 3 years in space on nothing. (I remember this stuff because I wrote a paper on the feasibility of life on a planet without a Sun.)

Re:Not just in the cold..

[MichaelSmith]

Surveyor 3 craft that went to the moon and back with the Apollo 11 crew

Apollo 12. Neil Armstrong landed 5km beyond the intended target. I was a good thing they left the precision landing to Pete Conrad.

basically survived for 3 years in space on nothing

This might interest you

I have an idea!

[XxtraLarGe]

Why don't we send them up there and see how they do? That'd end all the speculation!

Re:I have an idea!

[soft_guy]

Yeah, I'm all up for watching another CGI movie made by NASA of one of their "space missions".

Re:I have an idea!

[arthurpaliden]

The environmentalist lobby won't let you do that.

Rich microbes

[itoleck]

I sure Antarctic microbes don't live on Mars, they live in the Antarctic. They just have vaction homes on Mars.

yes, but could extremophiles evolve on Mars?

[Montecristo6]

There's been a lot of great work done on characterising extremophiles, and every time a new astonishing variety is discovered, someone (often not the authors themselves, in fairness) emphasises that this would allow them to survive on Mars, hard vacuum, etc. The problem is that unless you stretch the panspermia hypothesis (life is seeded by microbe-bearing ejecta from meteor impacts onto other, life-bearing planets) a long way, isn't the barrier to overcome not "microbe with 3 billion years to evolve here could survive on Mars under horrible conditions", but rather "under said horrible conditions, enough organic chemistry is possible for life to evolve in the first place"? The extremophile nature of an indigenous Martian life-form would then be a matter of course ...

As usual, the submitter and the editor are morons.

[Iron Condor]

Yes, these could survive the cold. They could NOT survive the pressure on Mars. People keep talking about Mars "atmosphere" as if there were any to speak of. The atmosphere on mars is hundreds of times thinner than it is on earth. The difference between the top and the bottom of a hill can mean a factor of two in residual thinness.

Just because something can survive cold (we already know that that is possible) doesn't mean it can do so without any water whatsoever, exposed to a hundred times the radiation it would see on earth and with an atmostphere so thin it rivals what we call "vacuum" inside neon tubes.

Good... Well fly them over and see how they do.

[Colin Smith]

If they survive they can be the first stage of the eventual teraforming of mars.

Microbes?

[traveller604]

They could be a little bit more specific. What are they? Arch bacteria? Bacteria?

The real ./ questions is

[postmortem]

...whether they can live on Linux?

Hurry up, wouldja?

[Mignon]

Their genes are currently being sequenced to determine which give the organisms 'cold-shock' proteins and their resistance to cold.

When they figure it out, I will volunteer my wife for some of that gene therapy. No more of that 8 months a year of "I'm cold."

Survive Yes; Develop????

[jIyajbe]

Even given that such microorganisms can *survive* extremely low temperatures, I wonder if they could *evolve into existence* in such conditions. With such low temperatures, the rate of chemical reactions would be awfully slow, it seems to me. Has there been enough time, either on Earth or on Mars, for life to develop in these areas? Are the microorganisms found in Antartica "native", or did they move there with migrating ocean life, then adapt to the cold conditions?

jIyajbe

Re:Survive Yes; Develop????

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

(1) Antarctica has a warm history and (2) the commonality of biochemistry between all known organisms suggests that all life on Earth appears to be descended from a common ancestor. Either of these points on its own makes your question moot.

Moo

[Chacham]

I, for one, welcome our new Martian virii overlords.

DISCLAIMER: I mean this only if they exist. Should they not exist, i still hold allegiance to my three-headed Venetian overlords, and support their attempt to make Earth more like their atmosphere so they can live here in peace.

DISCLAIMER: I mean this only if the Venetian can make it here. Should they not be able to make it here, i still hold allegiance to the People's Republic of China, and believe that China is the center of the world.

DISCLAIMER: I mean this only if the People's Republic of China does not filter this comment. Should they filter this comment, i still hold allegiance to the Republicans, and believe that dubya is the second only to his father.

DISCLAIMER: I mean this only if the Republican's pay me off. Should they not pay me off, i still hold allegiance to the Democrats, and believe that Hillary is our best chance at survival in the new millenium.

DISCLAIMER: I mean this only if the Democrats give me a ride to the voting booth. Should they not give me a ride to the voting booth, i still hold allegiance to Oprah's Book List, and believe she is the greatest thing since Jerry Springer.

DISCLAIMER: I mean this only if Oprah's Book List arrives on time this month. Should it not arrive on time this month, i am availible for alleigance. I have a very supportive and flexible belief structure. Please email me for details.

Why delay?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Just dump a bunch of them on Mars. This would be the most awesome and interesting biological experiment in the history of biological experimentation. Will the lack of competition mean they take over the planet? Or will they die of for some unforeseen reason. And if they do take over, what exactly will happen? How will they change the environment? How long before we can see adaptations to the local environment?

IFOWONCRO

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new cold-resistant overlords.

"Lack of any evidence"

[Flying pig]

Of the planets which we have extensively explored, 100% are inhabited. There is no "consistent failure to find life" anywhere else, because we have hardly even started to look. Given the size of the Universe, and the size of the Earth relative to it, your argument is equivalent to saying "I have just found three pebbles. One is red. One is green. I have looked with a microscope at a tiny part of the third pebble and it was not red. It is now dark and I cannot see any other pebbles. I conclude that there cannot be any other red pebbles on Earth."

Wait a minute!

[Harlow_B_Ashur]

I thought Antactic microbes came from Mars.

The conclusions are way overstretched

[mapkinase]

Long shot, in other words.

Not Digg

[4D6963]

Excuse the obvious trolling, but this is not Digg, this is not news, we've known that for eons, and polluting celestial bodies with such microbes is not a new concern.

And I obviously didn't read the article. If I had, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have made this comment because I would have seen how it's news. But I'm not new here anymore.

Will it even live?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the organisms I've seen don't really "live" at these temps, they merely survive/go into stasis/etc. Could this organism actually withstand anything other than the Martian temperatures? (E.G. can it survive and *grow* in a Martian atmosphere with Martian temperatures, etc.?)

Until it can do that, it's just yet another extremophile and someone is just trying to make news out of it with a crazy comparison.

extremophiles??

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm and I always thought an EXTREMOphile was a man who molests an EXTREMELY large number of children (such as Michael Jackson.) Thanks for clarifying what an extremophile is for me :)

Paul

Off-topic, but I can't resist...

[CoolGopher]

What do you mean "cold-shock"? I thought it was called "frost-shock"...?

How is this "News"?

[GNious]

How on earth, or other flying rocks, is this news, when I remember reading about this over a decade ago, in biology-books even??? /G

Re:Extremophiles - Alternative Definition

[BiggerIsBetter]

Extremophile: Michael Jackson, bungy jumping.