New Evidence For Ancient Life On Mars

siddesu writes in with "compelling" new data that chemical and fossil evidence of ancient microbial life on Mars was carried to Earth in a Martian meteorite. The finding is being highlighted by the same NASA team who made the initial discovery 13 years ago. Spaceflight Now has more details of the analysis.

Comments

Panspermia

[jpmorgan]

I'm rooting for panspermia. There's something kind of cool at looking at Mars and thinking: that's where we came from, and the rovers are just us coming home.

Re:Panspermia

[danlip]

I'm rooting for independent evolution. It would make it far more likely that the universe is teaming with life. But unless we find current life on Mars, it may be hard to tell the difference.

Re:Panspermia

[Anonymous Coward]

Either case means the same thing, that life can travel and spread. It takes millions of years for a rock from mars to reach earth, and vice versa. If life can survive that journey, why couldn't it survive in some small way between stars, over billions of years.

If life once existed on Mars, it will exist now. It is highly unlikely the entire planet became 100% sterile. There will be pockets of life surviving the harsh climate.

The big question is exploration of Mars. If life evolved independently, we will have a much harder time mucking around there, especially colonizing it. Folks will want to leave it alone to its own devices. It life on Mars and life on Earth share a common history, it makes it much easier to muck around on Mars, because it'll just be another extension of life here so no worry about contamination.

Re:Panspermia

[Tibia1]

It's going to be funny when they find a fossil of an ancient rover on mars.

Re:Panspermia

[cheesecake23]

I'm rooting for panspermia.

Naw, too messy.

On a side note, can someone tell me the best way to clean my monitor?

Re:Panspermia

[jc42]

It could be hit and miss. Just because fossil evidence got here doesn't mean anything living made the trip. But, it does open up a lot of questions. If the Mars microbes didn't make it, that doesn't mean something else didn't. We'll figure it out in a few centuries, ...

Actually, astronomers figured it out a few decades ago. They concluded that, while the Mars -> Earth trip is difficult and unlikely, the other direction has happened with probability around 0.999999.... The mechanism is the Earth's "dust tail", a stream of gases and dust much like a comet's tail, but even thinner. It is thick enough to cause a problem for some astronomical observations, though, which is why some astronomers studied it during the 1960s and 70s. They found that the tail includes "dust" as large as bacteria, and since high-altitude airplane and balloon samples had shown bacteria at all altitudes, our default assumption should be that there are bacteria (mostly in spore form) in our planet's dust tail. This wouldn't be a million-year trip. The solar wind blows Earth's dust tail outward along the plane of Earth's orbit. It would sweep over each of the outer planets about once per year, contaminating each planet with bacterial spores in each pass.

So if we find life on any outer planet that is chemically similar to bacteria here, we can't conclude anything about where it originated, except that the most likely source is Earth. It could have reached Earth from the outside, of course, and is just making the return trip.

A fun part of these studies was the conclusion that this thin stream of bacterial spores does eventually get blown out of the solar system. Distances out there are large, of course, but if you look at the numbers, you find that the Earth takes roughly 4 trips around the galaxy every billion years. Since the earliest known bacterial life developed here, we've made 15-20 trips around the galaxy, spewing bacterial spores along our path the whole time. Chances are that they've pervaded the entire galaxy (very, very thinly). If they can survive the millions or billions of years in interstellar space, then we're one of the sources for the panspermia hypothesis.

Of course, the astronomers didn't know anything at all about the survivability of bacterial spores in space. We still don't know much about it. That's the weak link in the whole guessing game.

But it's highly likely that there are bacteria living underground on Mars, and they came from Earth. It would be a lot more fun if we found some there whose biochemistry was different from the micro-organisms on this planet.

(I googled for this topic a couple of years ago, and didn't find much of anything. I wonder if there are any astronomers here who could point us to more details.)

Re:Panspermia

[Walkingshark]

If your hypothesis is right, then any other earthlike planets are also spewing bacterial spores into deep space, which means that life all over the galaxy should be pretty similar.

So maybe the aliens really will be coming to eat us.

Re:Panspermia

[c6gunner]

Either case means the same thing, that life can travel and spread

No, they don't mean the same thing. If life began once and was seeded via meteorites, then it's a giant crap-shoot, and the vast majority of solar-systems are probably sterile. On the other hand, if abiogenesis took place twice in a single solar system, then the universe is probably teeming with life.

If life evolved independently, we will have a much harder time mucking around there, especially colonizing it. Folks will want to leave it alone to its own devices.

Hardly. It might raise some ethical conundrums, but it certainly won't make colonization any more difficult.

If we ever colonize mars, we're going to start by building habitats. We'll have hundreds of years to live on a planet which we haven't even begun to terraform. That will give us plenty of time to have the People for the Ethical Treatment of Martian Lifeforms present a convincing case for why we should abandon an entire planet to a bunch of alien microbes. If they fail in convincing the rest of humanity, then we'll carry on with our terraforming effort, and the Martian bacteria will be relegated to sample jars, museums, and computer databases.

Re:Panspermia

[Tablizer]

Actually, astronomers figured it out a few decades ago. They concluded that, while the Mars -> Earth trip is difficult and unlikely, the other direction has happened with probability around 0.999999....

Mars-to-Earth is 100% because we found a dozen or so meteorites from Mars, proving it happens. (Kudos to Viking Landers for the chem analysis to compare.)

Because of Earth's size compared to Mars, Earth was still a hot coal when Mars was almost like Earth today, with mild temperatures, relatively thick atmosphere, and lakes, possibly even oceans. Thus, life is more likely to have had evolved on Mars early in the solar system's history than Earth, if it was around then. Mars was the happening club in town back in the days.
   

Re:Panspermia

[Hammer79]

If the Earth is leaving a dust & bacteria trail behind, the dust would still be caught in orbit around the Sun. The dust would orbit the galaxies core at the same speed as the Sun unless it was forced out the Sun's orbit by something else.

Re:Panspermia

[Tablizer]

And you were able to deduce all this from the presence of a "worm-like" object associated with a meteorite?

No. It's from various studies of Mars. It's had almost a dozen successful orbiters and 5 successful landing vehicles on it. There is plenty of evidence that Mars was once much wetter.

It also comes from knowledge of Earth. Our atmosphere and water is largely protected from space radiation due to our magnetic field, which based on commonly-accepted theories is generated from currents within Earth's semi-liquid-metal core. The field acts as a radiation shield.

Bigger planets take longer to cool. Mars, being about half the diameter of Earth cooled off much quicker, it's core now almost solid (or at least stationary). All planets and large moons had a hot core at one point in time soon after formation, and thus probably also had a magnetic field (assuming sufficient metal content). The difference is in part how fast the core cools, which is largely a function of body mass. (It's expected that Earth's magnetic field may give out in a couple of billion years.)

In fact, Mars' ancient magnetic field left slight magnetic patterns in rocks, almost like tape-recorder tape, which can be detected from orbiters. This tends to confirm that Mars once had an ample magnetic field also, explaining how all that water was able to stay on the surface. A thick enough atmosphere allows water to stay liquid and not evaporate into space via ionization.

Also, the cratering rate of the solar system has been estimated and modeled from studies of the moon. Based on these rates, one can estimate the age of various larger-scale surface features of Mars using crater density. If you know the rate of bombardment throughout history, you can estimate the age of surface features. It's sort of like estimating the age of a car by looking at the pebble nicks on the front bumper.

Sure, it could all be wrong, but it's the model that currently best matches the evidence: Mars used to be "nice".
     

Re:Panspermia

[caywen]

I wonder, though. If Jupiter is the solar system's vacuum cleaner, eliminating much of the deadly debris that might destroy Earth, then wouldn't it also act in the same with with panspermia dust from Earth?

Re:Panspermia

[jc42]

Yeah, Jupiter would be a sinkhole for a lot of the debris being pushed out by the solar wind. But it's not all that effective. After all, Earth has a couple hundred recognizable impact craters, things the Jupiter wasn't able to grab. Astronomers have also been able to measure the smaller incoming particles, and they amount to several tons per day. (I wonder whether this is more or less than the loss via the dust tail. Anyone know the numbers?)

I've seen a few references to an astronomer's comment that the Solar System is the sun, Jupiter, and a lot of insignificant rubble. I've also seen a suggestion that this could turn out true for living things, too. Of course, the sun would tend to dissociate the molecules of any living thing that falls into it, unless there's "life" that exists in a plasma state. But if you look at the chemical constituents of Jupiter's atmosphere, it does look a lot like a huge biochechemical reactor system. Lots of yummy molecules with C, H, O, N and trace elements. It just might turn out that most of the life in the Solar System is inside Jupiter are various depths. It may be a while before we have a good Jupiter Explorer bot, though. There aren't any Earth-like conditions there anywhere.

Re:Panspermia

[Tablizer]

[If] life on Mars and life on Earth share a common history, it makes it much easier to muck around on Mars, because it'll just be another extension of life here so no worry about contamination.

That may not be a safe assumption. When Earth organisms go into new environments on other parts of Earth, they often encounter microbes they are not accustomed to, and become ill or die. It could be a big risk.

If ANY life on Mars is found, regardless of origin, it may be best to leave it alone. Send only one-way labs or colonies to Mars. Don't risk the sci-fi Andromeda Strain come real.
   

Re:Panspermia

[Solandri]

Hardly. It might raise some ethical conundrums, but it certainly won't make colonization any more difficult.

If we ever colonize mars, we're going to start by building habitats. We'll have hundreds of years to live on a planet which we haven't even begun to terraform. That will give us plenty of time to have the People for the Ethical Treatment of Martian Lifeforms present a convincing case for why we should abandon an entire planet to a bunch of alien microbes. If they fail in convincing the rest of humanity, then we'll carry on with our terraforming effort, and the Martian bacteria will be relegated to sample jars, museums, and computer databases.

Yeah, that sounds great if you're the one doing the terraforming. I suppose you'll have no problem when the Vogons come by to eliminate Earth to make room for a hyperspace bypass, relegating all of Earth to a computer database entry of "Mostly harmless"?

Re:Panspermia

[timmarhy]

what makes you think it won't be the other way around, that our environment will be hosile to the martian bacteria?

Re:Panspermia

[Tablizer]

what makes you think it won't be the other way around, that our environment will be hostile to the martian bacteria?

That could be true also. Hopefully at least we can study Mars life before we destroy it. Something tells me human curiosity will investigate Mars closer one way or another. We may already have contaminated Mars because early probes were not cleaned sufficiently by some accounts.
           

Re:Panspermia

[Bigjeff5]

He's saying if all life in the solar system came from the same source, it will all look essentially the same (with overall minor variations). I'll be more specific, so you can understand the analogy.

Suppose you toss a bucket of yellow paint in five directions, making five splashes on the ground. One may land on concrete, and look completely different from the one that landed on grass, which looks totally different than the one that landed on the bush, etc. But when you take a sample of what they are all made of, you'll find they are made of exactly the same stuff: yellow paint.

For a car analogy, suppose there are five models of vehicle in existance. They are very different, some are bigger and tougher, others are smaller and faster, etc. If they were all made at a GM factory, though, then they are similar at the fundamental level - they are all made with the same type of steel, rubber, and plastic, and they have similarities in design across the board.

That's what he's talking about when he talks about all life coming from the same source. It makes it seem less likely that the rest of the universe will be teaming with life if we find that it only happened once to our solar system. In truth, the chances don't change at all, it just seems different. There could just as well be cans of red, or blue, or white paint, as well as fords and toyotas and hondas out there. We already know it can happen once, the chances that it can happen again don't really change whether it happened once and migrated across our solar system or if it happened several times in our solar system, or if it only ever happened once in our solar system. It doesn't do anything for the likelihood of life in a completely separate system.

Re:Panspermia

[greyhueofdoubt]

Eh, I have to disagree on that point. It has historically gone more like this:

-microbe evolves side by side with a human (or close human relative) population; the humans build up defenses against that particular microbe

Then either:
-Something changes (environment, nutrition, domestic animals, etc.) that tips the scales in one direction or the other, giving you a plague or a reduction in disease
-A previously unexposed group of humans encounters the microbe; the microbe has evolved to deal with human defenses, these humans don't have the defenses, bam, you got yourself a plague.

I have yet to hear of a real human-killing pathogen that just appeared out of nowhere. HIV, for instance, crossed over from our close ape or monkey relatives. Rabies is another one. Anthrax, certain flues, many parasites. My point is that it's very unlikely that life on mars would be deadly to us as an infectious agent because it had spent millions of years focusing on surviving heat, cold, radiation, drought or flood, etc.- and most importantly, there are no food sources that even remotely resemble warm-blooded animals on mars. So the microbes would have to make an evolutionary leap from eating iron, sulfur, or other inorganic substance to dealing with the intricate and extraordinarily hostile environment of a human body.

I'm really not worried about it. There are so many other difficulties to overcome that by the time we actually send people to mars, I'm sure we'll have a pretty good picture of what kind of life, if any, exists there.

-b

Re:Panspermia

[danlip]

RNA probably came before DNA, and some life uses only RNA (some viruses for example). DNA is not just 2 RNAs put together, there are substantial differences. So even on earth there are 2 different solutions to the basic problem. Even keeping the basic structure of DNA/RNA there are probably lots of ways to hang a few extra atoms of the bases to create completely different bases (which would then need different transcription enzymes, etc.). And I still wouldn't rule out a completely different structure, since there are so many ways to link carbons together to form complex structures.

I've seen this movie

[Monkeedude1212]

FTFA:

According to scientists, the meteorite was broken off the surface of Mars by the impact of an asteroid, and reached Earth after floating through space for about 16 million years. It landed in Allan Hills in Antarctica.

I instantly thought of John Carpenter's "The Thing"

Oh wow

[Dartz-IRL]

It's life.

Or was life.

If this is true. It's just staggering to me. If there was life on Mars.... there may still be. If there was life on Mars, then how common is life elsewhere in the galaxy? If it can exist on ancient Mars, there's no reason it can't exist on any of the other millions of planets scattered through the billions of stars in our Galaxy.

If life is found on Mars... or found to have existed.... then it can be anywhere.

Under the ice of Europa aswell?

While we may never meet our neighbours..... it would still be nice to know that yes, they may well be out there.... somewhere. The Galaxy may well be teeming. I sure hope it is. I mean, if it becomes clear that rather than being just blacks, whites.... whatevers.... on a cosmological scale where there is actual non-terrestrial life.... shouldn't it be clear that we all are just the one race?

Well

[Dunbal]

This would certainly widen the belt for what we consider to be the "habitable" range, in our search for habitable exoplanets.

Re:Well

[wizardforce]

As a iochemist, it was my understanding that the habitable zone was already known to extend out toward Mars. Although really, I'd say that the concept of a habitable zone needs to be expanded anyway considering the possibility of life in the Jupiter system. I believe that it is becoming increasingly clear that there isn't just a single habitable zone around a star like our sun but also pockets of habitable space underneath the surface of various moons and terrestrial planets like Mars.

Re:Well

[danlip]

I think Mars was already considered habitable range. We know that billions of years ago Mars was warmer and wetter, and if it was a little more massive, so it could better hold an atmosphere, it might still be. All this is true regardless of whether or not Mars once had life.

Re:Well

[Kjella]

As a iochemist, it was my understanding that the habitable zone was already known to extend out toward Mars.

Well. there's a difference between being potentially habitable for a species, and finding remnants of actual life. Either life appear on both Earth and Mars independently, meaning there's actually a quite wide band of possible conditions - or life really transports across space. Either way is much more compelling arguments for the habitable zone actually being habitable than a theoretical zone based on temperature.

Re:Well

[lena_10326]

or life really transports across space

Humans are generally considered a form of advanced life and we've transported ourselves and microbes across space. The thing I don't understand is why it's such a wild and crazy concept to consider the possibility of advanced life traversing space from Mars to Earth millions or billions of years ago.

Either way is much more compelling arguments for the habitable zone actually being habitable than a theoretical zone based on temperature.

If it isn't already, the habitable zone should be stratified into layers indicating habitable for humans down to microbes. Some people are only interested in discussing habitable for humans while others think more expansively. Thinking in layers would clear up any confusion.

I propose using alphabetical labels. An "A" class for single cell organisms, "M" class for humans, "Z" class for .. hmm.. not sure yet.. maybe beings requiring hot conditions under high pressure.

Mars origin

[Velox_SwiftFox]

Can someone explain to me why the set of meteorites are considered more likely to have originated on Mars than from an impact on Earth itself?

Are there Earth-origin ones known to distinguish them from, since debris from such an earth impact would more likely have orbits intersecting earth's, or is some other evidence used? I'm having trouble finding it.

Re:Mars origin

[wizardforce]

Can someone explain to me why the set of meteorites are considered more likely to have originated on Mars than from an impact on Earth itself?

Gas bubbles found in the meteorite have a composition that is very much like the atmosphere on Mars. The gas inclusions don't resemble those of Earth.

Re:Mars origin

[MichaelSmith]

TFA:

Scientists were able to trace the meteorite back to Mars, as its chemical composition matched the relative proportions of various gases measured in observations of the atmosphere of Mars made by the Viking spacecraft in the 1970s.

Re:Mars origin

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain to me why the set of meteorites are considered more likely to have originated on Mars than from an impact on Earth itself?

Are there Earth-origin ones known to distinguish them from, since debris from such an earth impact would more likely have orbits intersecting earth's, or is some other evidence used? I'm having trouble finding it.

Got to actually read the articles. They explain the traces of atmosphere match Mars not the Earth. A number of other Mars meteors have been identified. The article even mentions two others with the same structures. Lots of good info if you read the articles. Once people throw in the towel and accept that there was or is life on Mars then the argument will be did it evolve there and is it part of the same evolutionary cycle as Earth? Those are the fights that will likely take decades and there may never be a clear answer. It's a massive question because if it did evolve independently then anywhere life could evolve it probably has evolved meaning there are millions of planets with life just in our Galaxy. I think within the next 20 years there will be a resolution to the question of life based on direct sampling but the second question of it's source will be a fight to the bitter end.

No wonder we look at Mars.

[cefek]

It is our genes that push our kind to the Space, and it is our genes that are calling home. Wonderful thing that somewhere in our DNA strands lies our extraterrestial legacy.

It could be the nature that put us here. It must be our civilizational effort to get outta here... before we shred this planet to pieces.

Re:Methodical Research Trumps Tantalizing Evidence

[Beelzebud]

It's a 9 month journey to mars, and 9 months back. I don't think we'll need warp drives for that. The only thing that stops us is the will to do it.

Re:So here we have spent huge amount of resources.

[ianare]

If it wasn't for the spacecrafts sent to Mars, it would not have been possible to identify the meteorite as coming from Mars. From the article : "Scientists were able to trace the meteorite back to Mars, as its chemical composition matched the relative proportions of various gases measured in observations of the atmosphere of Mars made by the Viking spacecraft in the 1970s."

As for the rovers sent later, they were not sent to investigate life but mainly to study the geology and climate.

Ancient Life on Mars? Big Deal.

[gyrogeerloose]

I found no shortage of ancient life when I was in Miami last year.

Re:Methodical Research Trumps Tantalizing Evidence

[khallow]

Humankind's only hope is the development of a hyper-drive (a. k. a. warp-drive) engine based on the science discovered by Burkhard Heim.

Nonsense. Such a drive would still take us too long to get to another world. It would take us minutes perhaps even hours which we don't have. We already know that's too long! We must use the power of sarcasm to move without moving! That way we don't have to consider anything remotely difficult at all.

More seriously, even with chemical propulsion, the worst case, you can get to Mars in about six months. Sure it's a hard problem, but that's all that it is. There's nothing impossible about getting to Mars. It would be nice to have some far faster means of getting there, but it's not necessary.

Re:Methodical Research Trumps Tantalizing Evidence

[cameigons]

There's a whole lot of people with lots of will and wits to do it. It's just that the 'money people' doesn't seem to be an expressive crowd among them, and the government thinks it's better to spend our taxpayer's money giving it away to banks or killing and starving already dirt-poor people in the middle east. Also, It all sounds very exciting when some promising report such as this one comes out on the media. But there's a few engineering and life-sustaining problems to be overcome so the trip becomes reality, and research in that area is more often than not preceded by years of seemingly(or 'from a business perspective') fruitless research. Imo, that seems to have driven some potential investors away.

Re:Methodical Research Trumps Tantalizing Evidence

[Beelzebud]

Well that's sort of what I meant by the "will to do it". The people that can green light a project like that, won't, because of political fear, and short-sightedness.

Re:Methodical Research Trumps Tantalizing Evidence

[cameigons]

More seriously, even with chemical propulsion, the worst case, you can get to Mars in about six months. Sure it's a hard problem, but that's all that it is. There's nothing impossible about getting to Mars. It would be nice to have some far faster means of getting there, but it's not necessary.

But, considering that's the way to go, can you estimate how much would that cost to assemble,test, launch, deploy, etc? Would the astronauts have canned food for a year or would have some sort of greenhouse to grow their own? Can they carry the necessary amount of fuel to be used in the years they'll spent on the trip? How much would the payload be.... How exactly would they avoid the martian windstorms(this might pose a problem specially to the launch back to Earth) and extreme temperature variations.. I'm just saying, we can't overlook the "details".

Re:Methodical Research Trumps Tantalizing Evidence

[CrimsonAvenger]

You know, humans from Africa colonised the entire world several times over before 50000 years ago.

Nah, they didn't get to the Americas that long ago.