Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Instrument For Detecting Life On Mars
Roland Piquepaille writes "With the financial help of NASA, American and European researchers have developed a new sensor to check for life on Mars. It should also be able to determine if traces of life's molecular building blocks have been produced by anything that was once alive. The device has been tested in the Atacama Desert in Chile. It should be part of the science payload for the ExoMars rover planned for launch in 2013."
NOW they invent something that can tell if life was ever there! Now we have to start all over.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
so we can take turns strolling it through the marketing department to detect if life was ever there... oh wait, that would be 'intelligent life'
never mind
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
This device was also claimed to work as a Sahara rain detector.
Perhaps NASA could use one as a Life On Mars detector too.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
We know a lot about chemistry here on Earth but I think we make a lot of assumptions about what is considered proof of life or liquid water. Unless we see cells dividing under a microscope we won't know anything for sure.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
"This is an emergency broadcast by the MBC. The city of Xrg'kht is being evacuted due to a strange mechanical object that has appeared from above. Citizens in it's path are being sucked into it and ground into dust. We urge everyone not to panic and quickly make your way to the outskirts of the city where you will be transported to safety. Message repeats... This is an
ACK NAK RST
The cruise phase and orbiter operations sound quite a bit like Cassini, so I have a good feeling about that. But the Europeans have never landed a vehicle on Mars. The Russians pulled it off once or twice but NASA is the only organisation which could deliver a payload to the surface with any certanty.
I would be happier to see the science payload come from the ESA, and the vehicle from NASA. Seems a lot safer that way.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Can't they just use a tricorder?
Well I know if they were building a strawman detector, it would be exploding right about now.
Do we now know whether there was life in the Atacama Desert in Chile?
Come on, this is the least successful troll going right now. No one cares anymore. You've got to change it up a little if you hope to stir the pot, otherwise you risk turning into the markov chain guy.
Who tells them that life on Mars is similar to life on earth? You could find that "life" on Mars is based on an entirely different system not similar to that on earth.
I'd like them to modify their finding to some thing like..."Scientists develop tools to detect life similar to Earth's life on Mars."
This is excellent news, because we're running out of people to kill on our own planet. I can't wait to see who our next enemy is. Maybe we can even enslave the ones we don't nuke the shit out of!
Does it test for carbon-based life only? Or does it have the capability to test silicon-based life? Ideally, it should test for both. I believe it was either Ray Bradbury or Arthur Clarke who wrote about a silicon-based lifeform on Mars.
Life has been defined. And it's probably going to be redefined when we find extraterrestrial life.
NASA's Instrument For Detecting Life On Mars:
a calculator.
let's see... temperatures reaching minus 180 degrees Centigrade...
absolutely zero water... but plenty of frozen carbon dioxide!
that totals up to 0 life, excluding the now-dead microbes carried over from Nasa equipment (if you really must count it)
So seriously, what's next, a new device to measure the IQ of president Bush?
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
But not as we know it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Why don't we just send David Bowie?
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
We already sent Sam Tyler, and he's not back yet.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
$750,000 seems to be trying to get by on the cheep to me. I recently read an article labeling a $1,000,000 grant to the Allen Telescope Array as "pork barrel." Never mind most of its funds come from private sources, the fact that some (not all) of its science is for SETI makes it a target.
Religious types would explain its all about not wasting sources because it is a self-evidently pointless search. I would have to suspect there is an element of not-wanting-to-know because ignorance will make religious dogma true in some magical way.
It costs hundreds of millions to send these crafts to Mars. I would rate the possibility of finding life or past life on Mars as one of the most important things they could do, and thus deserving of a reasonably share of the cost in a mission, say 10%-20%, not the less than point-2-percent I reckon this is. Granted there are probably other life related experiments, but I'm betting they are feeble in scope in compared to the original Viking missions. They may be more effective with improved technology and decades to review Vikings' data, but they are pitifully small compared to what we could be doing I'll wager. Our little shop that works on Government contracts nets 5 million a year for a staff of about 70 people, and that's every year. I almost feel guilty getting a pay check when this kind of science appears to be starving.
Letter To Iran
While, I am all for looking for life outside of earth (I am a firm supporter of the concept of Extra Terrestrial Intelligence), I have difficulty comprehending, why we keep looking for life signs that resemble that on Earth. We (life on earth) had a unique set of conditions and situations that led to life forming here and eventually to humans evolving.
... for all we know, they might be moving or have some phenomena that we don't observe simply because we are not either in a position to know how to look for it, or we can't observe it... We can see light and UV and IR (by instruments)..how if life there exisits in some pure energy form ? (and we can't see/feel/observe it ?)
There doesn't seem to be (to my knowledge--correct me if I am wrong) anything to support the fact that similar chain of events have taken place on Mars... so why should life there , resemble in anyway what we expect it to do ?
The article says key molecules associated with life. How do we know what Martian Life forms have these molecules ? For all we know, one of the rocks that sit alongside one of the many instruments we sent there, maybe representative of Martian Life.
I am all in support of this mission, but I believe that the space exploration agencies should try to keep a more open mind as to what they expect to find life to resemble out side of our planet.
I hope this thing has a corkscrew or straps on to the back of a mole because it's gonna need to dig DEEP.
Liv Tyler's mother, was apparently Bowie's and some others girlfriend long before she met Tyler
t ing/bebe-buell.htm
http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrities/people/da
If you really want an accurate and super-sensitive way for detecting life, just send a mother to Mars. If there is life, she will seek it out and nag the hell out of it.
All NASA would have to do is wait for the screams of microbes begging to be taken back to Earth and locked in a secure, solitary chamber for study.
Unfortunately, locking myself in a secure, solitary bedroom as a means of escaping the Vulcan Death Nag has been somewhat of a failure.
I wish the microbes better luck.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
It took me a while to look it up on youtube, but we've had this before, no? So what's new in the new device?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ryd9udbh6X8
When does this nonsens stop? Based on so little evidence this Mars life search, is rather a WILL to believe there is life. There are better candidates for life in our solar system then Mars, take jupiter's moons. But the fact is it is easier to make people think that life is from mars. As well 50% of american (might even be higher) believe in little green men. Rather a mass pscyhose of watching to much startrek and other SiFi, funded by Nasa (to get their budget in return) Oh men, get a life.... (here on earth...)
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Its on BBC 1 tuesdays at 9pm
Absolutely. Which is why it's more effective to go looking for life, and study what you get, than it is to attempt to define it first. I personally prefer to define life as self-propagating information. That opens up a can of worms since computer viruses then are technically "alive" (and for some reason people don't like that viewpoint), but it's not a problem for me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Pardon my stupidity, but how can you go looking for something when you don't know what exactly it is you are looking for? And as an issue that requires public funds, its like handing someone a blank check -- completely foolish and unaccountable.
Objectively, even if you don't know what you are looking for, life and other interesting things are observable, if you happen to look at it in the right way. These missions aren't what I'd consider "blank check". They make specific promises. Ie, they'll bring particular instruments and make observations. Detecting life isn't to my knowledge the only goal of these programs. They also will acquire substantial geological and chemical information, for example.
At any rate, that wasn't the thrust of my original post anyway. The post was essentially about the fact that humanity knows about one millionth of one percent about human life, and yet rather than focus on understanding what life we *do* know exists, there's an obsession with finding new life. Rather than playing games with the definition of life here on Earth to manipulate moral responsibility to it, how about we demonstrate good stewardship with the life we *know* exists, and has been entrusted to us, rather than going in search of life elsewhere that may not even exist.
My take is that if you can recognize a human walking down the street, are acquainted with the society, culture, and history of humans, and interact on a regular basis with humans, then you probably know a lot more than "one millionth of one percent about human life". That is an absurd claim to make.
Second, IMHO finding new life would help us to understand the life we currently have. And we are stewards of life elsewhere, even if we haven't found it yet. Finally, there are more important things than the mere preservation of life and natural diversity. Two are establishing new habitat elsewhere and using our knowledge to increase the diversity and capabilities of life whether it be Earth-based or not.
... the Dutch will find it.
Here's how
I liked my next sig a lot better
a new sensor to check for life on Mars.
It's a giant silver robot and you stop it from vaporizing all life on Mars by saying Klaatu, barada, nickto.
Who said searching for extraterrestrial life was complicated?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think you are kind of missing the general gist of what I'm getting at. Science *already has* found the unknown, intelligent form of life: its humanity. Science knows little about the human body, and the answers to fundamental questions of what it does know are altered, revised, and bartered for political / moral convenience. In other words, science's answer to "what is life?" isn't based on real science -- its based on the bias of the scientist. If a scientist wants to support abortion, he'll say that a fully-developed baby in the womb is an "unviable tissue mass", while on the other hand say that a water molecule found in space is evidence for intelligent life elsewhere. It isn't science, its a self-authored world view.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree on the first point. If you would explain why you hold your opinion, then I might understand. As it is, it appears to me that you are equating degrees of ignorance. Or perhaps some sort of binary model of ignorance. Either I know everything about humanity and its quirks or I know little. My take is that human knowledge about itself is somewhere in the middle and it's not accurate to say scientists know little of these things.
Second, it is well known that scientists are biased. And there are many historical examples of definitions made in a way that continue to support the biases of the definition makers. But this seems to support my contention. If you want to make a less biased definition of life (and answered meaningful questions as can be addressed by science), then you need to look. Pondering the definition in the absence of examples is fruitless. And I don't think your last remark is on target. For some reason, it is considered important in some circles to determine when human life begins. The above definition is (so I gather) when the fetus can survive outside the womb. Before that, it is a "unviable tissue mass" according to the viewpoint of said scientist. Since you bring it up, I gather you understand the problems with such a definition (eg, what does "unviable" really mean?). My take is that the debate on abortion is fundamentally not a scientific question though advances in technology do change some of the answers. I don't really see the semantic games associated with pro- and anti-abortion propaganda as relevant to whether we should look for extraterrestrial life.
As there is no respect for the sanctitiy of our own life, I don't buy into the earnest desire to respect the sanctity of life not found. The search for life eslewhere is just an ego trip, and I wouldn't give one dime for it. Its the scientist equivalent of a high school kid's quest for more horsepower in a hot-rod to impress girls.
This appears to me to be a biased viewpoint not entirely based on fact. First, you appear to exhibit respect for life which if correct would make you a counterexample to your own argument. And my take is that respect for life is pretty widespread.
I will withdraw my comment about being stewards of life we may not even know about yet. It's not a reasonable thing to demand. But calling the search for life an "ego trip" isn't particularly accurate. Whose ego are we gratifying? Not mine though I support missions which search for extraterrestrial life. I have genuine curiousity about life elsewhere especially since it will probably be radically different from life on Earth. I suppose searching for extraterrestrial life is not the optimal use of public funds, but better than most purposes that use or squander public funds.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The reason I don't care is because it's a semantics issue not a moral or scientific issue. There's also no opportunity to respect or disrepect life. Fundamentally the problem is whether to permit abortions of a fetus. Is it right or wrong? I imagine everyone thought it would be helpful to determine when a fetus is "human", but this isn't turning out to be helpful. The problem is that humanness is not discrete. A fertilized egg doesn't watch TV or sing, pay taxes or read a book. But if things go well, it will eventually do those things. It gradually accumulates the characeteristics of a human as we see them every day. To make a certain point on this transformation, the spot when it becomes human is a highly subjective and in my humble opinion flawed decision.
Coy pro-abortion arguments that argument that a fetus isn't human ignore that you are killing potential. Somehow it's not ok to kill babies who are only a little further along, but it's ok to kill pre-babies. They attempt to ignore deep ethical problems with abortion. Nor do they seem that interested in reducing the amount of abortions that occur. On the other hand, anti-abortion arguments are notoriously brutal on the living. Unwanted children and overpopulation do exist. And if anti-abortion supporters can't or won't take care of those children now (which is the case), then they won't take care of even more children that would be born in a world without abortion. And given that overpopulation is one of the great ills of humanity now, contributing to poverty, social instability, environmental harm, and disease. Again those who oppose abortion have not rid the world of these things. It strikes me that the world is such that one needs to decide what life to respect. In other words, there is a genuine dilemma in that if too many are born, then it harms the lives of both the children and those already alive.
I really don't see an obvious ethical place in this debate. Great evil occurs no matter what choice is made. And it is aggrevated by the arguers that have no interest in reducing the harm caused by their side. In particular, I see no point in a phony argument that ignores the harm and instead focuses on highly subjective definitions. That is not respect for life.Check out the data they've gathered. They've already detected sailors fighting in a dance hall, and they believe they've found evidence of a lawman beating up the wrong guy.
There's nothing you have that they can't take away: Absolute zero, Gentle Jack, bottom line.