Slashdot Mirror
Bacteria Could Survive In Martian Soil
Dagondanum writes "Multiple missions have been sent to Mars with the hopes of testing the surface of the planet for life — or the conditions that could create life. The question of whether life in the form of bacteria (or something even more exotic) exists on Mars is hotly debated, and still lacks a definitive yes or no. Experiments done right here on Earth that simulate the conditions on Mars and their effects on terrestrial bacteria show that it is entirely possible for certain strains of bacteria to weather the harsh environment of Mars."
Perhaps this is something that will be tested further in a few years by the Mars Science Lab, also known as "Curiosity" and (as reader Nova1021 points out) "the Mars Action Hero."
Sounds like we should get started with the terraforming.
Allow me to be the first to point out that we already know that some bacteria can survive interplanetary space travel and life on the Moon.
Now the real question is, can these bacterias be formed on Mars?
You just got troll'd!
To my knowledge many species of bacteria can survive indefinitely in practically any environment, but not while actively metabolizing. I am curious whether any of the species the article is talking about could actually survive and spread, if they would just stick around for a while and die out, or if they would only survive in a dormant state.
Buzz Lightyear steps off his lander to be the first human being on Mars. Six hours later, he is a puddle of goo. Two hours after that, all his crewmates are puddles of goo as well.
...
Mars Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game:
Dumbest Question: How I Mine Microbes?
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
The fact that modern bacteria can survive in those conditions says nothing about whether life could arise or even evolve there. Its a bit like assuming that because cockroaches can survive high doses of radiation there's potential for a 6 legged lifeform to arise inside nuclear reactors.
If that is the case then we have already failed. Any number of bacteria could have survived on the rovers could now be contaminating the surface. With no known competition they could be flourishing. I see little that can be done to figure out what is now native bacteria (if any) and what was brought via the rovers.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Remember that the Earth has had several large impacts in the past, and that many of these events hurled tons of rocks and debris into space. Some of them at the proper angle and with enough force to leave orbit.
We have found extremophiles hibernating in air pockets within rocks that had been air tight for hundreds of years. Is it so much of a stretch to assume that some of these debris might have carried life from earth to another planet? Realize that Mars doesn't have anywhere near the same level of atmosphere as the earth. It isn't as protected against small meteorite impacts. I could easily imagine life originating from Earth arriving on another world in the form of microorganisms. It might not be Mars, but maybe Europa instead. Maybe Earth life is already spreading itself throughout the Orion Arm.
Disclaimer:
Distances in space reduce the chances of this scenario considerably. It really isn't that likely that this has happened. Even supposing that life survived the trauma of leaving Earth, it would most likely settle into a slowly decaying orbit and fall back down. Any impact powerful enough to send debris beyond the pull of earth's gravity would probably kill anything that lived within them. But that doesn't remove it from the realm of possibility, and it's still a nice thought.
Now, Matians will think we are creating a biological warfare. Well, it's been nice to post on /. over the past few years. See you all on the other side.
The question of whether life in the form of bacteria (or something even more exotic) exists on Mars is hotly debated, and still requires a resolute yes or no
Ho hummm... We have had this debate going on since the "canals" were discovered on mars only to be debunked.
Once upon a time 600 years ago, people "knew" they are at the center of the universe. We were unique, chosen by heaven to lord it over the animals and created in the image of heaven. That was the view of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and also of the eastern empires (remember the "Emperor of Heaven") ?
Nowadays there is a large substantial minority of people whose thinking is guided by science. For this very substantial minority - debunking the "humans are at the center" myth is an article of faith. Finding the aliens - little green men or bacteria on mars - is important as an act of faith not just science.
It is important to separate real empirical science from the pseudo-science that is really an alternative system of belief. If we just look at empirical facts, the probability of finding life twice in the same solar system is not huge.
Anthropo-centric theology/philosophy was rightly debunked by Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin and Einstein.
Anti-anthropo-centric thinking equally deserves to be debunked. Science is about empirical evidence. Full stop.
... that we've already transferred terrestrial bacteria via the robots that we've sent there?
I think, if it's possible (may not be, because of the trip), it puts science and Mars in general in an interesting situation.
OK, TFA suggests that Martian soil could harbor dessicated bacterial spores that don't do anything. They don't reproduce, they aren't active, they're just sitting there inert. And that's pretty cool from the standpoint that we can dig up the remains of a former Martian ecosystem that existed long ago and far away.
But, for the average taxpayer interested in funding missions, NASA, rocketry, exploration and grand scale achievements, that is pretty much a yawner.
There is no way at all that anyone representing the USA, NASA, the Russian Federation and China would be willing to take back any microbes to Earth for further study unless those microbes were in a sealed environment and definitely rendered incapable of infecting anyone and anything on Earth.
(For you young whippersnappers out there, I watched all of the Moon landings and I recall the disappointment of having to wait until the World Famous Astronauts emerged from their custom-made Windstream Mobile Home to actually see them in person and live and doing well after their trip to the sterile Moon.)
And, while I appreciate the wonderous MSL "Action Hero" robot (Transformer?!) we're about to send up there, there is nothing aboard that gizmo that will actually prove the existence of a microbe on Mars. Because if said microbes are dormant, they're not going to be emitting methane or any other byproduct of active organisms. And any results of the testing will be circumstantial and easily explained away as "possibly life or possibly something else we don't yet understand about the Martian environment."
We won't settle this issue until a human being with a microscope, or an electron microscope actually goes there and sees those little dormant Martian neighbors with human eyes and some other human reproduces that experience. And that is not going to happen under current NASA funding. Ever.
While I'm not in the camp saying "all these Martian rovers are misspent money," I don't agree that anything they find out will be conclusive, where life is concerned. Unless, of course, some Martian happens to stroll by one of our cameras on his or her way to work.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
We should just send containers full of bacterias and wild things there... and see what grows.. In fact I think we should send bacteria-filled pods to as many planets/asteroids we can afford to.. this should be cheap.. Populate the whole thing..
Rather than maintaining the question "is there life out there?" we should just force the most pleasant answer:
"Yes.. and we did it!"
That's called the "Panspermia" hypothesis.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
The levels of Methane on Mars are much higher than expected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars#Methane . If bacertia could easily survive under the soil in the red planet, than that could explain the source of methane.
prepare the survey weasels.
It seems that if the conditions permit certain strains of bacteria to live for a while, that almost guarantees that a million years later the planet would be covered with bacteria perfectly adapted for the environment. The harsher conditions and greater difficulty pulling energy out of the environment might result in equilibrium being reached at a much less active biosphere than on Earth, but it seems almost inevitable. I guess the critical question is how realistic is it that bacteria have survived the trip from Earth to Mars on the backs of meteorites?
seeded Mars with our dirty landers feet?
They're a bit late to the party...
http://www.shot.com/docs/Newsdesk/Press%20Release%20Library/MarsSHOT.pdf
+1 Hypocritical "science"
Mars is dead because it's magnetic field stopped after it's cores cooled. When a planet has no magnetic field, charged particles from the sun bombard the planet stripping the atmosphere. Mars' surface gets nasty amounts of radiation from the sun. If we could find a way to heat the cores again we could grow anything we wanted on the surface in 20 million years or so.
...it's "bacteria" dammit, "bacteria"! "Bacteria" is already plural to begin with!!1!
Dang...
What about bacteria that we have eventually brought there on Mars' surface, also against all possible care to avoid that?
Maybe bacteria or other forms of life 'catched' during the trip and then landed in one of the relatively many exploration missions?
For what we know, we might have unwillingly brought life on Mars. There is no water? Who says there must be for a different sort of life?
For what we know that's how maybe life was brought on earth ever, maybe by Martian exploration missions billions of years ago..........