Seeking Signs of Ancient Martian Life

StonyandCher writes in about a collaboration between NASA and a leading Australian exploration and mining scientist, Dr. Brent McInnes, to search for signs of ancient life on Mars. The plan is to develop and miniaturize the "Alphachron" — an exploration technology currently employed by the Australian minerals industry to determine the age of minerals. If the Alphachron can be miniaturized, it could fly with the next rover mission set for launch in 2010. "The highest priority is to understand when liquid water was present on Mars. 'The same minerals that can be found in [Western Australia]... can also be found on Mars,' McInnes said. Accordingly, by using the Alphachron to date minerals on Mars and thus tell when liquid water may have been present, it can be inferred when life may have been sustainable near the surface of the planet."

Comments

Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I've thought about this for a while and just can't figure out what the need to search for life on Mars is all about. Except for 3rd rate B-movies featuring little green men, life on Mars isn't really interesting at all.

Why? Because no matter what is there when we finally get around to building our Mars base will be destroyed in order to develop a useful environment and atmosphere for humans. Mars life be damned.

So this search for minerals and other natural resources (like water) is very important, but finding life (or even making finding evidence of Martian life a priority at all) is a waste of time.

It's a little like buying a used car. It may be interesting to know a little about the previous owner, but the state of the car is no longer attached to the previous owner. It is what it is, and how well it performs after you buy it is wholly up to you. Mars is ours, no matter what kind of critters we find up there.

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[Vectronic]

It's important because it would be our first chance to essentially witness the demise of a once habitable planet, its along the same lines as the immense amount of energy spent on trying to figure out how, where, and why the dinosaurs died.

Its all very interesting, even if for day-today life, its really quite insignificant. Especially considering the same effects that have happened to Mars, could very plausibly happen to Earth aswell even if its not for many more millenium (Millenia?)

And building bases on Mars wont really destroy all the information instantaniously, only dismiss some methods of gathering information.

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[Pikoro]

I think the point is to see if anything has developed on Mars before we go there and contaminate the environment, thereby making it impossible to determine if what is found came with us to Mars or was pre-existing.

Czech out the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. Ann in those books makes a very good argument on that basis.

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[religious freak]

WHHHHHHHHAT?! C'mon dude.

So you're not the least bit interested if they share the same characteristics as us, such as: DNA, amino acids, organelles, etc, etc?

There are a million and one things I'd prefer to see from life on Mars before I ever knew the location of water (if it exists). I know what water looks like, but extra-terrestrial life, I have no idea.

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[Yvanhoe]

We don't know if life is common in the universe or if earth is an exceptional place whose unique conditions were the only one to allow for life to form. That is quite interesting if you ask me...

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[religious freak]

millenia, fyi

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[BearRanger]

Finding life is important for at least three reasons. First, the philosophical--if there's life on Mars we're no longer alone. It's an age old question that will finally have an answer. Life on Mars won't be intelligent life, but our estimate of the probability that there's other intelligent life out there somewhere will greatly increase.

Next, Mars has similarities to Earth. If it once supported life but no longer does what changed? Could that same change possibly happen to us?

Finally, scientific curiosity. It's just darned interesting to know these things for the sake of knowing them. What's Martian life like? Is it going to kill every human who sets foot on the planet? Might it yield valuable insights into how life evolved here?

I guarantee, if we find life on Mars there will be people who will disagree with you about who owns it. After all, manifest destiny was a great idea unless you were a Native American.

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[crazybit]

1. send a "space craft" to Mars
2. put a gadget for finding life
3. say you might have discovered ancient life
4. ...
5. more funds!

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[Jurily]

And building bases on Mars wont really destroy all the information instantaniously, only dismiss some methods of gathering information. Like what? You can't gather information where the base is, and that's it. Mars is a big place. However, you do get people up there who can look for stuff much faster than the current approach.

A Mars base should be a net benefit from this angle too.

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[nguy]

I've thought about this for a while and just can't figure out what the need to search for life on Mars is all about. Except for 3rd rate B-movies featuring little green men, life on Mars isn't really interesting at all.

It is enormously interesting for biology.

Why? Because no matter what is there when we finally get around to building our Mars base will be destroyed in order to develop a useful environment and atmosphere for humans. Mars life be damned.

We'll get the DNA we need before then. And, frankly, I doubt we're going to have a Mars base this century, or do any terraforming for many centuries to come; it's just too expensive.

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[maquah]

Looking at Google's three-layered Mars map: dunno how they determined their 'zero' with the elevations, but it looks like there are significantly more meteor craters on the 'above zero elevation' parts of the map (Surface water = insulation from meteor impact).
A few thoughts:
(1) Arsia Mons - the enormous volcanic mountain - is almost exactly on the other side of the planet from the -9 km near-circular depression, Hellas Planitia (there's a map with geographic names linked to the the USGS astrogeology image gallery). I wonder if Hellas Planitia is the scar of a meteor that penetrated the planet's crust, and the volcanoes on the other side of the planet from the shock of the impact?
(2) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Odyssey Mars radiation environment experiment seems to have focused on the impact of solar and other cosmic radiation, rather than scanning Mars for any naturally 'hot' spots? It seems as though Argyre Planitia might be a place to 'look' for higher-than-average radiation of planetary origin: according to Google's Map - the 'infrared' scans - it's thermally "hotter" than surrounding areas, could that be from radioactive decay? Was there a thermonuclear 'event' on Mars, millions of years ago???
(3) It seems that most ecologists do not think all that deeply about the overall and very powerful influences of 'life' on the ecosystem: moderating temperature, plant roots bringing water back to the surface and then transpiring water vapor into the atmosphere, etc., etc. The living ecosystem has a bigger role than most people realize, in maintaining an life-sustaining environment... but if was stressed beyond certain bounds, it would collapse.
Thermonuclear event??? Ecosystem stressed beyond life-sustaining limits??? Like the drifting dunes of what was once the Sahara Forest, perhaps we are looking at the consequences of a planetary ecological disaster, millions of years ago... and, how many 'signs of life' might a Rover find, randomly looking, on the arid drifting sand of Earth's deserts?

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[BrianRagle]

Believe it or not, there are whole areas of science NOT concerned with finding more land, killing off the inhabitants, and consuming all the local resources. Finding life on Mars, or the evidence of past life, would impact so many areas of human life, it's hard to really fathom them all. Every expert in religion to biology would weigh in, not to mention the psychologists as we assimilate this new though suspected information into our collective psyche. If it was past life, then what happened to it? What level of complexity did it reach? Was there ever anything close to what we are, as a species?

In fact, finding evidence of life from either the present or the past would be a prime factor in just how much we DO colonize the place. It's all well and good to think we would just bulldoze the area level and set about building, but what if the life is microbial and the wee beasties kill us off?

Sticking a shovel in the Martian surface is NOT the same as it is on Earth, where at least we have a fairly solid understanding of what we are likely to encounter. I, for one, would want to know all about whatever might be living there, past or present, before I build a shelter in which I will shower, use the toilet, etc.

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[HungSoLow]

If you can't see why finding life on another planet wouldn't be worth the effort, you're a sad and deluded individual! There's no money to be made or material gain, but that's not the point. It's the scientific discovery that would be so amazing. If we could extract information about the life, whether it was DNA based, etc... can you imagine the knowledge we would gain? It's sad to see people losing the awe towards science. It's like there needs to be a net monetary gain for anything to be deemed worthwhile.

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Next, Mars has similarities to Earth. If it once supported life but no longer does what changed? Could that same change possibly happen to us?"

Besides the whole "no magnetic sphere" and being "too small to hold down an atmosphere" there are other things that we know about Mars already!!! Check out the below link to learn more!

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/funzone_flash.html

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you. It's a waste of money. I mean it's interesting to know, and just like everyone else, I would like to know, but I can't see how knowing whether or not there was at one time life on Mars could improve our situation here. I can think of lots of ways all that money could be better spent, like investing in renewable energy research.

I also don't see how building a base on Mars could benefit mankind. All I see is a lot of money pumped into a project that will most likely end up fizzling out. Anyone living on Mars would be in need of constant delivery of resources from Earth. It is very, very improbable that we could set up a self-sustaining colony on Mars, even 200 years from now.

Also, I believe the majority of problems Mars has faced that would have led to the extinction of whatever life may have existed there, are completely different problems than the ones we face / will face here on earth.

Re:Finding water = important; Finding life = ?

[Fluffeh]

First, the philosophical--if there's life on Mars we're no longer alone. It's an age old question that will finally have an answer. Life on Mars won't be intelligent life, but our estimate of the probability that there's other intelligent life out there somewhere will greatly increase. Statistically we are not alone. Given that there are billions of stars in our galaxy, and given that there are billions of galaxies and lastly given that as our ability to find planets around grows - and we ARE finding planets where we expect, and more importantly in places that we don't expect, the chances that another lifeform isn't out there, and hasn't evolved to intelligent life is staggeringly small.

Next, Mars has similarities to Earth. If it once supported life but no longer does what changed? Could that same change possibly happen to us? The main chance is that Mars lost its magnetic field. As the core of Mars cooled and solidified, it no longer generated convection currents, which no longer generated a electrical current - which then no longer generated an electromagnetic field. What's that mean? It means that the sun was then able to gradually blow away the atmosphere of the planet that was no longer shielded by a lovely magnetic shield like we have.

Finally, scientific curiosity. It's just darned interesting to know these things for the sake of knowing them. Yes, isn't it?

What's Martian life like? Is it going to kill every human who sets foot on the planet? Might it yield valuable insights into how life evolved here? The more mainstream views on the subject are that it is likely that there are micro-organisms that are currently living in the earth of mars underneath the surface. The soil content contains some moisture level, and given where we have found life on earth, and how robust it generally is, life on Mars in the subsoil seems very plausible.

I guarantee, if we find life on Mars there will be people who will disagree with you about who owns it. After all, manifest destiny was a great idea unless you were a Native American. Sadly, until there is a cultural revolution in the way the majority of people think about this (or start to actually think about this) then it is very very unlikely that there will be anything done by any politician towards acting in a more ethical way to a global approach to our earth.

why they always think water == life?

[crazybit]

Most life evolved based on water in our planet, because there's a lot of it here... that doesn't mean life couldn't have evolved based on hidrogen, or methane, or whatever substance is abundant on a specific planet.

Even on our planet, living creatures have been found in strange places like lava and volcanoes.

Save that money for understanding Mars as it is NOW, before investigating his history.

Re:why they always think water == life?

[JavaBasedOS]

It's always possible, but the one of the most well known catalysts of life that we know about so well is water. There's also the feasibility of water on Ganymede[http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_phillips_europa_030315.html], which means aside from our very own planet, we know that there is/was water/ice on Mars, and there's the possibility of life on the presumably geothermal warmed subterranean oceans on Ganymede. All it really takes are some minerals, water, and heat to form even primitive life. Life is much more resistant than we thought to things such as the vacuum of space. All we need to do is find it.

Re:why they always think water == life?

[RiotingPacifist]

I cant rember where i read about it, but theres quite an interesting concept about life on a neutron star (where it would be based about nuclear interactions instead of electronic interaction, somewhere. I think it was probably sci-fi but it is a cool concept.

Generally people consider water essential to life because:
Chemical based life forms are much more likely than nuclear or gravitation based life forms (too small or too slow)
Carbon based life is much more likely than non-carbon based life
Carbon based life depends on water for alot of interactions (mainly due to hydrogen bonding)
Considering non-carbon life forms, if life where nitrogen based, it would probably also depend on water
There is the possibility of phosphorus based life (which would probably be hydrophobic tho)
The possibility of silicon based life also exists (which wouldn't depend on water)

Re:why they always think water == life?

[dreamchaser]

From what we know now you need a good solvent. Ammonia is a potential candidate. Hydrogen is not. Methane could be used for respiration in conjunction with life that evolved in ammonia.

Of course, there's plenty we do not know and it's always possible, but with the ubiquity of water and it's favorable properties it's the best place to start. Also, we may be more likely to recognize life that evolved using water as it's solvent. More alien types may just elude us.

That being said, we are talking about life on Mars here, so water would be the most likely substance based on temperature and it's prevalance in the early Martian surface.

Re:why they always think water == life?

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful?

1) There's no evidence of life existing in lava. Solidified lava, sure, but you may as well say "rock", because life will live in all sorts of rocks in the pore spaces.

2) while I suppose it's hypothetically possible for life to evolve based on hydrogen or methane, there isn't any evidence for such a medium on Mars, and it hardly matters, because if Mars used to have a hydrogen or methane-dominated atmosphere, it sure doesn't now, and such life would be extinct. Maybe if we were talking about Titan your suggestion would make sense.

3) while life does occur on Earth in the vicinity of volcanoes, at such places as deep sea vents and hot springs, it is always in association with water, and past or present deposits of this type are *exactly* what they are looking for on Mars. The tough part is using remote sensing to narrow down where the deposits might occur before trying to land in the area to look in more detail.

4) the rationale for looking at ancient deposits on Mars is that the conditions for life -- as we know it -- appear to have been more suitable in Mars' past. That doesn't mean people will fail to look for any signs of modern life at the same time.

5) why focus efforts on exotic life we don't even know is possible rather than looking for life we do know, and that lives in extreme environments on Earth that plausibly could occur on Mars today or in the past?

6) you can't really understand the modern Earth without understanding the history that led to this point. Why would it be any different on Mars?

Re:why they always think water == life?

[Keeper Of Keys]

All it really takes are some minerals, water, and heat to form even primitive life. You can't possibly know if this is true. If we find microbial life on Mars it would certainly go some way to confirming that hypothesis, but it could be that other processes are required for life to start - maybe a gigantic dose of luck. Perhaps we'll find dozens of potentially life-forming worlds where nothing animate ever arose. And even if we do find evidence of life on Mars, that wouldn't confirm that life appears easily in the right environment, as there could have been transfer of material from one to the other.

What would be really exciting would be to find life of a substantially different kind to what we know on Earth - different genetic code, for example.

And to those who are poo-poohing the whole exercise - get a sense of wonder! We may soon know the answer to the question: "Are we alone in the universe?" Could science ever be any more exciting than that?

Re:why they always think water == life?

[MichaelSmith]

If there was life on Mars I think we would know by now. Life is adaptive and it tends to occupy all the available space. Telescopes hundreds of light years away would have no difficulty detecting life on Earth.

I just don't think we are going to find anything. I hope I am wrong.

Re:why they always think water == life?

[MichaelSmith]

That was Dragons egg by Robert Forward. A great book.

See also Rocheworld by the same author.

Re:why they always think water == life?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Why do we "assume" that life can be based on elements other than carbon? Is there any evidence at all that life can be in any other shape or form than life as we know it?

Re:why they always think water == life?

[ColdWetDog]

Telescopes hundreds of light years away would have no difficulty detecting life on Earth.

You are assuming that "life" on Mars would be as vibrant and prolific as (current) life on earth. That is an assumption that's very likely to be wrong. The big question is more along the lines of whether any form of life can or did exist in a more marginal environment - less water, lower partial pressures, more radiation, etc.

From what we've seen on Mars, it's likely that some forms of earthly protozoa could survive on current day Mars. Have they? Did they?

Stay tuned.

Re:why they always think water == life?

[Anonymous Coward]

Life is adaptive and it tends to occupy all the available space. All available space that isn't being fried by Solar radiation. Remember, the Earth still has a magnetic field, which helps maintains our atmosphere, which filters out much of the Sun's radiation.

Mars has no magnetic field and has less than 1% of the atmosphere as Earth. Solar radiation has probably wreaked havoc on the surface of Mars, to the point that life may only exist underground.

I hope you're wrong, too but, moreover, I expect you are wrong.

Re:why they always think water == life?

[OwnedByTwoCats]

"Are we alone in the Universe?"... there seem to be two possibilities, either humanity is the only intelligent, technological life in the universe. Which means we have a unique gift that would be lost if we doom ourselves.

Or there is other intelligent, technological life out there. Other civilizations.

Either way, it is profound.

I don't think humanity will know, one way or the other, within my lifetime. The chances of other civilizations (alive now) within the solar system are infinitesimal. Mars may have supported life for long enough to make searching there interesting.

Interstellar communication is hard and slow, and interstellar travel orders of magnitude harder and slower.

Re:why they always think water == life?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any evidence at all that life can be in any other shape or form than life as we know it? As a statistician, I have to say that the sample size Earth offers is too small. If we tried to make any predictions based on it, we would probably only succeed in making asinine statements such as yours.

That's probably why we use terms like "life, as we know it" and not "life, the only way it could exist in the entire fucking universe because, we haven't seen any examples to the contrary."

To rephrase it: I don't think lack of evidence can be used as evidence.

Re:why they always think water == life?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never read it, but to my understanding, the story you're referencing is called Dragon's Egg. Robert Forward is the author.

Re:why they always think water == life?

[Anonymous Coward]

Water and dust creates mud or mudd (martin spelling). Dust is already plentiful on Mars.
If water is discovered, can "Mudd's Women" be far behind?

Re:why they always think water == life?

[kciibe]

It would be interesting to see the DNA strand of a phosphorus-or-silicon-based life form ...

Finding life = also important

[sakdoctor]

If we find an instance of life anywhere that is not on earth then it is highly significant.
It will help us to understand a little better the variables in the Drake equation.

Re:Finding life = also important

[KnowledgeKeeper]

If we find an instance of life anywhere that is not on earth then it is highly significant. It will help us to understand a little better the variables in the Drake equation.

Not to mention, it will piss every religious fundamentalist off big time.

Re:perhaps we could just look in the mirror?

[Vectronic]

Is it just me, or is the spelling getting worse in this spam?

Perhaps its a pre-emptive measure against the the whole "string blocking" thats been suggested by some...

Or I need some sleep...

PETM

[Wild Bill TX]

PETM (People for the Ethical Treatment of Martians) will focus its attention on whatever means of harming innocent Martians humanity may conceive. We will educate, protest, legislate, and even rescue Martians, with an undying dedication to preserving the valuable and sacred Martian life.

Re:PETM

[RazzleDazzle]

I don't know man, Valentine Michael Smith never seemed to need much help once he got going. I am sure if properly motivated he could kick even Chuck Norris's ass without much effort and he was not even really Martian.

Re:PETM

[Merls the Sneaky]

I thought it was People Eating Tasty Martians

Re:PETM

[KDR_11k]

It was but they starved.

Re:PETM

[PakProtector]

And while Ziggy Stardust was indeed abused at the hands of humans, wasn't that his purpose? Can't be the messiah without the abuse and dying.

Re:PETM

[Smidge207]

Naw. They're all gristle.

oh dear....

[thermian]

Life in Lava? I hope you're joking, because if you're not, you've been reading the wrong books.

If you read books that is.

Re:oh dear....

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably meant igneous rock, not magma... :)

Venusian Life

[Bananatree3]

When the solar system was cooling, both Venus and the Earth were probably in similar states. There is the possibility that oceans too formed on Venus, many billions of years ago. Of course now it's hell incarnate, but it may have been able to birth life eons ago.

Re:Venusian Life

[LynnwoodRooster]

Of course now it's hell incarnate, but it may have been able to birth life eons ago

No, I'm pretty sure Detroit is still in Michigan...

Wouldn't it be really funny...

[suck_burners_rice]

Wouldn't it be really funny if some space ship that we send to Mars to look for signs of life accidently has some bacteria on it, which goes into the Martian soil and eventually evolves into an alien race?

Re:Wouldn't it be really funny...

[JavaBasedOS]

Well... The 'alien' part needs to be put into perspective. Since this hypothetical bacterium originated from here, why would it be alien to us? Or would it be alien since it would evolve on another world?

Re:Wouldn't it be really funny...

[Skybyte]

In an astronomy class at uni we were told about how a NASA technician sneezed into a camera that was sent to the moon, and when it was later recovered they found a colony of bacteria had grown inside (or something like that anyway). Since then NASA is extra careful about things that are sent into space to stop what you have suggested.

Re:Wouldn't it be really funny...

[OshMan]

It would be even "funnier" if they discovered ancient signs of life on Mars that implied life of Earth started as "contamination" from Mars.

Life in a Lava Tube (link)

[crazybit]

http://astrobio.net/news/article1260.html

http://www.nathanstravels.co.uk/southamericaphotos-galapagossealifelava.php

Re:Life in a Lava Tube (link)

[Anonymous Coward]

They're CAVES formed by lava. Life in lava tubes is no different from life occurring in any other type of cave. Life doesn't live in the lava while it is lava. It lives in spaces -- tiny pores to cavern-sized -- in otherwise solid rock.

some people say the same thing about life on earth

[crazybit]

... they think that instead of being brought in a spaceship it was carried on a meteorite.

life always evolve...

[crazybit]

And even if it might have been originated in water, it could have mutated to continue living on a very different environment.

Once upon a time on earth bacteria (algae) changed his diet from CO2 to O2.

I think it's better searching for life than searching for corpses, and searching for water might not be the best idea right now.

Re:some people say the same thing about life on ea

[Vectronic]

Well, technically, a meteorite carrying anything other than itself, is a spaceship.

It aids in shipment of matter via space travel.

Its just highly unlikely that its a "space craft" unless of course, there actually is a tangible god, then theortically its likely a craft, by some means of intentional creation.

The title says: "Aussie Technology to help NASA"

[freedom_india]

It does the same experiment that the 1970s initial Mars Landers did.
The signs then were inconclusive and will be inconclusive because: We look at other planets with the same glasses we look at Earth.
Heck even on earth, we are still surprised daily by new findings of life we thought could not support life.
And these were detected after so many years and with so good tools.
What makes you say a rover-sized tincan will magically detect past life on Mars?
Has life detection techniques improved so fast in 30 years?
Get about 10 kgs of Mars soil from various locations to Earth orbit (ISS) and let the ISS search it for life.
Stop wasting money and sending tincans all over again.

I just don't understand scientists.

[iamdrscience]

Ancient Martian life? Why bother? All they'd do is show you pictures of their grand kids and talk about how great Mars used to be. What they should be doing is looking for some young, sexy, teenage martians. For that matter, why are they looking on Mars anyways? Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.

Has it really been so long since the original Star Trek aired that scientists have forgotten that the primary goal of space exploration is to find hot alien women to have sex with? I'm willing to forgive science for failing to deliver on its promises of flying cars and personal jetpacks, but if I don't have harem of hot alien babes soon, then I am going to be FUCKING PISSED.

Re:I just don't understand scientists.

[apt-get moo]

For that matter, why are they looking on Mars anyways? Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. Not everyone is that much into girls, you know...

Re:I just don't understand scientists.

[Anonymous Coward]

OMFGROFL

Re:I just don't understand scientists.

[KDR_11k]

Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.

Which explains the poisonous atmosphere.

Re:I just don't understand scientists.

[iamdrscience]

True, but I'm talking practicalities here. For whatever reason, probably a good two thirds majority of scientists are heterosexual men, so it's only fair that the main goal should be finding beautiful, three-breasted, venusian astro-nymphs. I mean, don't get me wrong, I know gay scientists and lady scientists need space-lovin' too, but we've got to stay focused.

Re:I just don't understand scientists.

[Anonymous Coward]

> but if I don't have harem of hot alien babes soon, then I am going to be FUCKING PISSED.

"PISSED": that's how you nicknamed your hand, right ?

sorry, couldn't resist...

No Total Recall reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be now in the older geek generation. Time to get my ass to Mars.

Minerals = Funding

[Dersaidin]

I hope we find huge quality mineral deposits. Then mining companies will provide some serious commercial backing for space travel. Having said that, it will be a while before its more profitable to mine Mars than Earth.

Re:Minerals = Funding

[TheLink]

If you land on Mars you have to expend lots of energy to get off, whereas if you mine the asteroids, it's a lot cheaper.

We're doing things the wrong way.

Steps should be:
1) Space station with artificial gravity (classic spinning wheel, or stuff on tether)
2) Space station with artificial gravity and decent radiation shielding
3) Figure out how to build space stations from asteroid materials
4) Send space stations to asteroid belts or wherever.
5) Space colonies.

Whereas right now, there's crazy talk of
1) Space trip to Mars

That sure sounds like a one way trip. That's only worth the $$$$ if we can vote for politicians to send on that one way trip. Do that regularly and it'll be a net benefit to the world ;).

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[Thanshin]

Take a look around you folks -- this is our planet. We're stuck here. Get used to it. Stuck here for how long?

20 years? 50? 1000?

It's no reason to stop investigation. Your line of reasoning can be compared to saying studying distant galaxies is useless because we won't reach them anytime soon.

Maybe you find researching new forms of energy is useless because the petrol we still have will last at least for your life's length.

Climate change? The earth will most probably endure us for a couple hundred years, leave the investigation to our sons.

Exploring Mars may be useless if you're looking for instant rewards, but sooner or later we'll establish colonies there.

Maybe only jump bases for longer trips. Maybe sun energy collectors. Maybe "martian soy" production fields with robotic managers that regularly send the crop back to Earth. Who knows?

The problem with investigation is precisely that you need to start to be able to know where you're really going; sometimes you even reach a completely unexpected benefit.

And still, life's quite better now than in the 13th century.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[Ihlosi]

It is inferior to Earth in every possible way.

It's still available. You don't have to kill anyone (well, except for some microbes, maybe) for it. (Yes, yes, I know. Killing people and taking their stuff takes much, much less energy than getting anything to Mars. Some people may find the former ethically objectionable, though).

Someone has been reading too much sci-fi -- just try playing around with high school physics for about five minutes on exactly how much work would be required to lower an entire atmosphere one stinking degree, and then compare that to the power consumption of the human race.

Oddly enough, humanity has managed about +0.8K here on Earth in about a century, and that was entirely unintentional.

How do we know we haven't "infected" Mars?

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'm talking about all of our probes and landers, not impact events. I don't see how we can properly sterilize a spacecraft.

I just watched a good documentary on mass extinctions and climate changes in Earth's geological past. It convinced me that nothing short of an act of God can extinguish life from this planet. We know bacteria can survive in space. The resiliency of life combined with our very human ability to overestimate our abilities leads me to believe we've already started the process.

Re:How do we know we haven't "infected" Mars?

[Saffaya]

We have martian rocks on Earth, and so there surely are a lot of earth rocks on Mars.
Both are due to asteroid impacts projecting debris all around the place, including a few reaching neighbouring planets.

Those rock were not sterilized either, so .. although it is good practice to think about germ contamination, it may not be that important to be certain to achieve 100% decontamination on gear sent on other planets.

Re:How do we know we haven't "infected" Mars?

[kanweg]

"It convinced me that nothing short of an act of God can extinguish life from this planet. "

One might think that because skydaddy doesn't exist we're safe then. However, mother Nature can do it well on its own: There are explosions in the universe so powerful that they can destroy life even if the explosion is hundreds of light years away. Google for gamma ray-bursts.

Bert

Re:How do we know we haven't "infected" Mars?

[WalksOnDirt]

We have martian rocks on Earth, and so there surely are a lot of earth rocks on Mars. That doesn't really follow. It is much harder to blast debris out of Earth's gravity well than the smaller one of Mars, and the greater atmospheric pressured here adds another serious difficulty. Perhaps some material from the larger impacts on Earth made it to Mars, but I'd expect the quantity to be minuscule compared to the amount going the other way.

Re:How do we know we haven't "infected" Mars?

[geekoid]

First, who cares? The biology the developed here isn't going to 'infect' other biology. They didn't evolve together.

Seconds, Maybe you should consider novas, gamma bursts, planet impacts before you start to think nothing can wipe out life from the earth.

Started what process? 'infecting' mars or mas extinction?

Some people get used to Utah.. so why not?

[neonux]

Fry: I'm impressed. In my time we had no idea Mars had a university.
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: That's because then Mars was a uninhabitable wasteland, much like Utah. But unlike Utah, Mars was eventually made liveable when the university was founded in 2636.

Plenty of evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty of evidence for ancient life on mars, and the moon for that matter.
I remember seeing websites that showed ruined buildings on both as well as many other anomalies that scientists (read closed mind almost like religious freaks, scared of speaking out as they're funding would get cut) dismissed. Keep an open mind when you look on the net for this stuff

Re:Plenty of evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

The aliens were smarter than we thought - the sneaky sods disguised their buildings as JPEG artifacts!

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[ta bu shi da yu]

I find it very interesting that all negative comments to finding life on Mars have been modded down. Seems to me that certain people don't like criticism or contrary opinions.

Signs of life in Western Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately the scientists hope to establish whether it is possible for some form of life and ultimately culture to develop in Western Australia.

Re:Signs of life in Western Australia?

[MichaelSmith]

culture to develop in Western Australia. Well they have football....

Re:Signs of life in Western Australia?

[trongey]

Well they have football.... Correction: They have Australian football - one of the more entertaining sports to ever grace the airwaves.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[Arimus]

Oddly enough, humanity has managed about +0.8K here on Earth in about a century, and that was entirely unintentional.

The important bit in that statement is the + sign - we can raise temperatures ALOT easier than we can lower them...

Somebody Had to Say It

[superslacker87]

May as well be me. I have a few points to burn.

*AHEM*

I for one welcome our new alien overlords.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[Ihlosi]

The important bit in that statement is the + sign - we can raise temperatures ALOT easier than we can lower them...

There are also plans for lowering a planets temperature, and they don't involve building a big honkin' planet-wide AC to send the heat off into space (which would require tons of energy). Removing even a small fraction of the solar power input to a planet is going to cool it off quite a bit. That could be achieved with a bunch of launches, which take much less energy than the AC plan mentioned above.

Then again, most of the solar system is too cold for humans. The only rock in this solar system whose atmosphere is too hot for humans is Venus.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[JerkBoB]

I find it very interesting that all negative comments to finding life on Mars have been modded down. Seems to me that certain people don't like criticism or contrary opinions.

When I have mod points, I rarely mod things down. However, I think that the other moderators are actually correct in their downmodding of these posts.

It's not so much that they're quieting dissenting voices -- it's that they're weeding out comments that don't add to the discussion.

Anyone familiar with the concept of Stop Energy will understand. I linked to that particular blog post (not mine), because it underlines the point that Stop Energy is bad behavior.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[pipatron]

And yet you don't find it strange at all that that all the flamebait trolls with negative comments about our dark-skinned human friends are getting modded down. Hint: They're modded down because they're stupid, ignorant and backwards.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[ta bu shi da yu]

Really? Are you saying that the following comment has no validity whatsoever?

"Terraform a planet? Someone has been reading too much sci-fi -- just try playing around with high school physics for about five minutes on exactly how much work would be required to lower an entire atmosphere one stinking degree, and then compare that to the power consumption of the human race."

Probably not couched in very gentle terms, but seems a reasonable position to hold!

Perhaps you don't like dissenting comments? Just because you don't like the comment does not make it invalid you know.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[ta bu shi da yu]

Wow... if by "Stop Energy" we mean "don't point out flaws" then this seems a fairly bad approach to things. Or perhaps this is my bad behaviour in causing stop energy for Stop Energy. Yet the concept has flaws - big ones!

The parent poster made some reasonable comments. It would take a lot of effort to terraform a planet. He also made the point that we really should be looking after our own planet before we consider looking for life on Mars - let alone colonize the planet.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[MichaelSmith]

"Terraform a planet? Someone has been reading too much sci-fi -- just try playing around with high school physics for about five minutes on exactly how much work would be required to lower an entire atmosphere one stinking degree, and then compare that to the power consumption of the human race." Air temperature over the US increased by two degrees C in the days after 9/11 because aircraft were grounded and unable to release particles into the air. More heat got to the ground as a result.

You can lower the temperature by reflecting heat away. You don't have to do the work yourself.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[JerkBoB]

You're missing the point.

Here's a scenario: Someone says, "I want to do X. Here are some thoughts/plans that I've put together for accomplishing my goal. Please help me refine my plans and give me constructive criticism."

Response A: "Don't do that. Your idea is stupid/doomed to fail/a waste of time. Here is a list of reasons why you shouldn't do it."

Response B: "Well, I may not agree with the overall premise, but there are some interesting ideas. Here are some thoughts of my own about how to refine your plans. For example, you're working from flawed assumptions here and here ..."

Do you see the difference? Do you see why response A is seen as not contributing to the discussion? Anyone can quickly come up with reasons why something is not worth doing. It takes time and thought to actually contribute to a discussion.

For example, I could have just called you a stupid hoser and left it at that. But instead, I decided to try and contribute to the discussion. I'm not sure I added much signal to the noise (especially since it's off-topic), but I'm trying.

Response C: ""

And finally, there's the "didn't your mother teach you that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" approach. By "nice", I mean constructive. There's nothing wrong with ignoring something that you don't agree with.

This is Slashdot, not Congress. No one is deciding on funding for NASA here. You can rant all you want on Slashdot, but I can guarantee you that your congress-critters aren't going to read your pithy screed about why Mars colonization is a bad idea.

So, I was correct, no life in Lava

[thermian]

A Lava TUBE does not equal Lava. Lava Tubes are left when molten lava drains away from inside an outer shell of hardened lava, leaving a solid rock tube.

And a beach formed by the gradual breakdown of former lava flows isn't Lava either, it's rock that used to be lava..

Lava, on the other hand, being melted rock, would not be a viable habitat.

What a boring article

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't even begin to explain how an alphacron works.

Science journalism at its worst.

K

Just welfare for nerds

[Simonetta]

This whole project is just welfare for nerds. It should be defunded immediately. The US government is trillions of dollars in debt. The country is recession. The financial stability of the middle class is falling due to the collapse of the housing bubble. The end of cheap oil is decimating the transportation industries. Millions are starving due to mismanaged food stocks. The president-selected-by-the-pre-programmed-voting-machines is promising 'permanent endless war' that does nothing but make his campaign contributors rich.

    And the only people whom the world can turn to for help and guidance, the technical/scientific community, is obsessed with moronic chickenshit fantasies like 'could there have been life on Mars?'. Folks, Mars is just a dot in the night sky. Your life, your future, your destiny, your challenge is right here on Earth. Forget this Mars madness. It just makes you look bad to the people who believe and depend on you. It's not 1969 anymore.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oddly enough, humanity has managed about +0.8K here on Earth in about a century, and that was entirely unintentional."

Nonsense. There isn't a single shred of scientific evidence that humanity has changed the temp on this planet by *any* amount.

The Article is Off-Base

[iamlucky13]

First of all, no this is not the same experiment the Viking landers did in the 1970's. The Viking landers carried cameras, meterology instruments, a sampling arm, a seismometer, and a small biology experiment. You're probably thinking of the last one. The results were inconclusive because they realized after the fact there were factors they didn't control for that more than likely spoiled the results. This does not mean that these factors can't be effectively controlled for.

But that doesn't matter, because the article isn't talking about looking for life now (although I'm not sure the author realizes that). Neither Mars Exploration Rovers currently on Mars nor the Mars Science Laboratory due to launch at the end of next year will really be looking for life.

The instrument (alphachron) referred to in the article is used to date mineral deposits. The MER's established with a fairly high degree of confidence that liquid water existed on Mars in the past, based partially on the presence of certain types of minerals. If alphachron is flown on a mission, it will be used to determine the age of these deposits, thereby constraining when liquid water, and perhaps providing some key insights over how Mars evolved.

I'm almost certain the article is off-base in suggesting this instrument might fly on the Mars Science Laboratory, which will launch towards the end of 2009 and arrive in 2010. It's not currently manifested, and since assembly is taking place right now and instruments have already been eliminated to keep the project under-mass and not too far over-budget, I can't believe there's any chance of it flying on MSL.

It's also not currently listed on the manifest for Europe's ExoMars rover, to launch in 2013, but I don't think its payload is currently set in stone. The next NASA opportunity under the current plans is the 2016 Mars Astrobiology Field Lab, but Alphachron doesn't sound very complementary to the goals of that mission.

Sadly, a lot of good instruments get developed, but never fly due to priorities and engineering constraints. This may end up being such a case, but at least it has commercial applications outside the space program.

Let me fix that for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Steps should be:
1) Space station with artificial gravity (classic spinning wheel, or stuff on tether)
2) Space station with artificial gravity and decent radiation shielding
3) Figure out how to build space stations from asteroid materials
4) Send space stations to asteroid belts or wherever.
5) Space colonies.
6) ????
7) Profit!

How do you know ....

[celtic_hackr]

That Mars life had a demise? We have only explored a tiny fraction of the planet. You are making multiple unsupported ass-u-me-s here.
Let me explain:
1) Life may still exist on Mars, we just haven't found any yet, but given the only places we've really successfully landed were deserts, this isn't surprising;
2) Any life found may possibly still be contamination from probes we've sent;
3) You offer no evidence that Mars is: (a) "once habitable" or (b) "no longer hospitable";
4) You are assuming Mars is similar enough to Earth so that we can project environmental changes from one to the other.

Most of your assumptions are invalid, but let's just look at #4. Mars has considerably less atmosphere and of largely different composition. Earth is covered by water on over 2/3 of it's surface, we have not found sufficient evidence that Mars is capable of close to this. The core of Mars is much smaller than Earth's and as such has cooled significantly, but may still be churning out enough lava to cause more eruptions on the planet's volcanoes, but we have yet to record an eruption on Mars. It will be more than "many millennium" before Earth is cooled this significantly. While most anything is plausible, it is highly improbable, scientifically speaking, that Earth will ever have all of it's water extracted from the atmosphere and locked in ice in the polar regions or in subterranean locations. Or in plain speech, it's not going to happen here save we cause it with WWIII, or we get hit with and ELO.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess... The Designer wished it to happen?

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[4D6963]

The earth will most probably endure us for a couple hundred years, leave the investigation to our sons.

lol. This is not the end of the Earth at all. I'm sure distant history will remember the 21st century as the transition from carelessly ruining the planet to learning how to preserve it and eventually improve. Sure, maybe a few hundred millions of us will die, at the very worst, from the effects of climate change, but those of us who will remain will do what it takes to change the situation, even if it takes decades (and it will take decades, even more). But this planet isn't doomed. We haven't killed it. Surely some things will never be the same again, thousands of species have disappeared and will disappear, but the damage will one day stop. And what do you know, maybe one day thanks to our leet 23rd century genetic bio-engineering stuff we will bring back the dodo, à la Jurassic Park.

I think that ultimately to consider terraforming Mars and living there will sound silly, and I'd be surprised if in 200 years from now there were more inhabitants on planet Mars than inhabitants in Greenland or Antarctica.

Re:Backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, Flamebait

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[ta bu shi da yu]

I think that this seems a somewhat reasonable response, but slightly flawed.

The problem was not that they said that "Here is a list of reasons why you shouldn't do it.", the problem is that they said that "Don't do that. Your idea is stupid/doomed to fail/a waste of time."

I would have just said "I see what you are trying to do, but this is a bad idea because of x, y and z".

The problem wasn't that they were providing "stop energy", the problem was that they got personal.

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[ta bu shi da yu]

And you know this how?

Re:Finding water = finding life = meaningless

[MichaelSmith]

You can google for it. I found this document.