Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
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.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
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.
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.
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.
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)
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
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?
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
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.
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.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!