Slashdot Mirror


Life Possible On 'Large Regions' of Mars

astroengine writes "Australian scientists who modeled conditions on Mars to examine how much of the Red Planet was habitable have said that 'large regions' could sustain life. Using decades of global data, the researchers have evaluated the entire planet, and found that 3 percent of the Martian volume could sustain Earth-like microbial life. As a comparison, only one percent of the volume of Earth contains life. However, the only habitable regions are below the Martian surface where the temperature and pressure could sustain liquid water."

154 comments

  1. So it's time to drill? by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd be interested to know how deep they think you'd have to drill to find water beneath the surface of mars. If it's actually a reasonable depth, it seems like it could be a good source of propellant for a return trip, were a manned mission ever to take place.

    1. Re:So it's time to drill? by FTWinston · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It could also be a good source of propellant for an unmanned sample return mission. If the drilling/refining component of this mission proved to be reliable enough for the unmanned return trip, and was able to continue producing fuel after the return capsule had left, it could conceivably then be used to provide fuel for a manned return trip. (At least for the return-to-martian-orbit part).

      But unless it had a track record, I'd be wary of risking my life on the assumption that fuel could be extracted.

    2. Re:So it's time to drill? by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But unless it had a track record, I'd be wary of risking my life on the assumption that fuel could be extracted.

      Which is just one of the reasons that you're not an astronaut. They risk their lives just to get out into space in the first place.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:So it's time to drill? by FTWinston · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is just one of the reasons that you're not an astronaut.

      The main reasons being my nationality, my height, my short-sightedness, and my wife.

      They risk their lives just to get out into space in the first place.

      You do realise that manned spacecraft tend to be rigorously tested first? The first moon landing was done by the 11th Apollo craft for a reason, you know.

    4. Re:So it's time to drill? by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

      Pffft, I'd sign up for a one way trip to Mars any day to get off this piece of crap planet.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    5. Re:So it's time to drill? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They risk their lives just to get out into space in the first place.

      You do realise that manned spacecraft tend to be rigorously tested first? The first moon landing was done by the 11th Apollo craft for a reason, you know.

      They do lots of testing. However, "astronaut" is still a very dangerous profession.

    6. Re:So it's time to drill? by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

      Drilling can be accomplished by a small, direct push rigs, which are usually hauled around in the back of pick-up trucks. But those are only good down to a hundred feet or so. It's hardly what I would call massive infrastructure. Hydraulic_rotary_drilling can also be done by a mobile rig, albeit a much larger one, and can get you down to several thousand feet.

      Nevertheless, if they want to look for life on mars, and mars might have groundwater, they are going to have to drill down to it and collect samples. If they are going to do all that anyway, they might as well be looking into using it for fuel.

    7. Re:So it's time to drill? by CPTreese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realise that manned spacecraft tend to be rigorously tested first? The first moon landing was done by the 11th Apollo craft for a reason, you know.

      Do you realize that everyone came within a hairs breadth of dying on the 13th Apollo mission? Oh yeah, everyone DID die on the space shuttle challenger AND Columbia. Also, don't forget the entire Apollo 1 crew died in a fire on the ground. Sure it's tested, but that doesn't mean it's safe.

      There are too many people on Slashdot that disagree just to be contrary

      --
      If there is no God then free will is an illusion.
    8. Re:So it's time to drill? by Tharsman · · Score: 1

      If we hit oil, does that means:

      A) We can quit looking for life and start sending our real drillers?
      B) We can complain that fosil fuel burning is warming up Mars?
      C) We can bomb Mars?

    9. Re:So it's time to drill? by RMingin · · Score: 1

      Please, take me with you! I want to ESCAPE!

      --
      The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
    10. Re:So it's time to drill? by somersault · · Score: 2

      You do realise that manned spacecraft tend to be rigorously tested first?

      Yes I do. I also realise that people make mistakes, and that even the tiniest mistake becomes a very big deal when you're surrounded by vacuum, with no AAA to dial for help.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    11. Re:So it's time to drill? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      It probably wouldn't be worthwhile to build all this just for a sample-return mission, because of the small amount of mass you'd need to return. But you certainly would want a working system in place before you attempted a manned mission.

    12. Re:So it's time to drill? by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know you were not being serious, but if they found oil it wouldn't be of any practical value since mars lacks an oxygen atmosphere. On the other hand, it would have a lot of scientific importance because it would mean either that mars had significant quantities of life in the past, or that oil can formed through processes that do not require life.

    13. Re:So it's time to drill? by FTWinston · · Score: 2

      I absolutely realise those things. And all those incidents occurred with extremely rigorous testing. I doubt that there's the political will to send astronauts on an extremely expensive trip, that would be a suicide mission unless a drilling machine works first time on a planet its never been tested on. There'd be enough potential disasters on a manned mars mission without that!

    14. Re:So it's time to drill? by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      We're kinda arguing the same thing here. I'm only really trying to say that its risky enough even with extensive testing, to the extent that I wouldn't additionally add in a massive untested risk.

    15. Re:So it's time to drill? by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      You're right, in that the additional launch mass required for the drilling mechanism would seem likely to outweigh that needed for sufficient fuel to return the payload to orbit. But as a precursor to manned return ... I'd want the drilling mechanism in place and demonstrated to be working before I set off. Ideally I'd want a nice habitat too, with a warm shower, robot butler and nice 1/3 g beds!

    16. Re:So it's time to drill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how much samples you're returning -- between something on the scale of the new rocket-crane-landing-rover (its actual name eludes me, sorry) and the extracted material from drilling for water, it's certainly possible to end up with 100s of kilograms of diverse material, then use the same ascent stage as a manned mission, providing valuable testing for the entire system.

    17. Re:So it's time to drill? by vlm · · Score: 1

      They do lots of testing. However, "astronaut" is still a very dangerous profession.

      Oh please. Your odds of a nice long healthy gray hair retirement are orders of magnitude better for an astronaut than for a logger or a farm hand.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    18. Re:So it's time to drill? by loufoque · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's nothing compared to the amount of russian cosmonauts who died, or probably also the unknown amount of chinese ones.

    19. Re:So it's time to drill? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      my short-sightedness

      You may mean nearsightedness, unless you really meant being shortsighted = not good at planning.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    20. Re:So it's time to drill? by FTWinston · · Score: 2

      Actually, not being american, I do mean shortsightedness. But I'll say Myopia if that helps.

    21. Re:So it's time to drill? by vlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know you were not being serious, but if they found oil it wouldn't be of any practical value since mars lacks an oxygen atmosphere.

      It would be of immense practical value as a reservoir of organic chems.

      Heres a weird example to think about. If we colonize mars, nothing will be painted. All plain bare metal. Why? No organic compounds and solvents to spare to make paint, and filtering paint solvents out in the air handlers is a PITA anyway. No problemo you say, we'll just power coat everything, powder coat is made out of plastic which is made out of ... Err, we'll make everything interior out of aluminum and anodize it, you just anodize aluminum and dip it in hyperconcentrated organic dyes, and those dyes are made out of ... Hmm. All those sci-fi sets with great paint jobs are just not gonna happen, are they?

      The best artsy craftsy idea I can come up with is ceramic enamel jobs done with solar powered rock grinders and solar powered kilns. But again, put up a solar powered artsy kiln and someone is gonna whine that it should be PV cells instead of a kiln at the focus...

      Technically you could turn your olive oil into paint given a huge energy intensive chemical plant, but wouldn't you rather ... eat? I'd rather spend the kilowatt hours and Kg of carbon on a nice beef steak than a nice paint job. Hmm.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    22. Re:So it's time to drill? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1, Informative

      They do lots of testing. However, "astronaut" is still a very dangerous profession.

      Oh please. Your odds of a nice long healthy gray hair retirement are orders of magnitude better for an astronaut than for a logger or a farm hand.

      31% of all astronauts have died in the process (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut#Deaths ). I haven't looked up statistics for logging and farming, but I'd be really surprised to find it was so high.

    23. Re:So it's time to drill? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      However, "astronaut" is still a very dangerous profession.

      It isn't in the top ten (although "pilot" is).

      How many astronauts have died on the job? Apollo7, Challenger, Columbia, and a couple of Russian crashes in fifty years of spaceflight! I'd say their safety record is pretty darned good.

    24. Re:So it's time to drill? by RivenAleem · · Score: 5, Funny

      There are too many people on Slashdot that disagree just to be contrary

      Oh no there isn't.

    25. Re:So it's time to drill? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      You don't even really have to go to Mars. They can just implant the memories in your head. What could go wrong?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    26. Re:So it's time to drill? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      You could use it to produce plastic products, but crude oil does need a lot of refining before it can even be used as a feedstock. You'd probably need to have a pretty large colony in place already before you could justify such an endeavor. The oil wouldn't be useful as either an energy source or a source of rocket fuel, so it wouldn't be useable early on.

      Also, you wouldn't need paint on mars, because the atmosphere there is not as corrosive as the atmosphere on earth (it doesn't have any oxygen to speak of).

    27. Re:So it's time to drill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are too many people on Slashdot that disagree just to be contrary

      Oh, come on. That's bollocks.

      Cleese: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!

      Palin: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.

      Cleese: Yes it is!

    28. Re:So it's time to drill? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Checking some dictionaries you're right, shortsighedness can mean the eye disorder. The dictionaries didn't say anything about UK vs US English either, so I guess it's just in my head. In a listing like that it's certainly ambiguous...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    29. Re:So it's time to drill? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      There are too many people on Slashdot that disagree just to be contrary

      That's not true. Everybody I know doesn't do that.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    30. Re:So it's time to drill? by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia page I links says near-sightedness (AmE) and short-sightedness (BrE) which I assume mean American and British English, respectively. Do you guys use "far-sightedness" where we'd use "long-sightedness" then?

    31. Re:So it's time to drill? by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Check your math. Your own link lists 18 dead, and 529 people "in space", for some strange value of "in space". Plenty of "astronaut" job title holders don't technically get in space, or don't get a mission assigned at all.

      That's not even a tenth as dangerous as being a German U boat sailor in WWII.

      Loggers "score" 55 deaths per 100K workers per year on the job, as of 2009. However that's a pretty broad category, including picker crane operators whos main danger is hypothermia from sitting around all day, the truck loader guys who mainly have to worry about getting run over; for the guys actually waving chainsaws in the air on a regular basis, the number is about 10 times higher.

      I'd say that further research indicates I was wrong, overall an astronaut is "about" as likely to die on the job as a logger. However, note there are a couple orders of magnitude more wounds and permanent non-fatal maiming accidents that deaths in logging, and astronauts pretty much either don't get a scratch or they die, so assuming the only danger is death, and only death, skews the results quite a bit. If your criteria for dangerous is "any permanent severe career limiting damage" then I believe I was originally correct, logging is way more dangerous.

      About a third of Mt Everest climbers die enroute. Now that, is dangerous.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    32. Re:So it's time to drill? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Yes there are!

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    33. Re:So it's time to drill? by kubernet3s · · Score: 2

      He wasn't being contrary. He was originally making a point about how it would be risky to send a manned mission to mars banking on the presence of liquid water as a source of jet propellant. Somersault saw the words "risk my life" and thought "HA! You're not risking YOUR life, you pansy, chunkity assed nerd! The astronauts are, and they'll bet their life on any long shot, no matter how suicidal it might be: they strap rockets directly to their asses and say to hell with procedure, let's do this! Those boys are heroes! Semper fi! Aughghhhhh!" or something else similarly ripe for parody, and FTWinston responded with a fairly calm, if slightly broad and a little hot, rebuttal, reinforcing his initial point that, basic risk aside, we must take every precaution with the lives of astronauts before we send them on any mission, particularly one as ambitious as a manned Mars mission. Somersaults comment may have been idle, but was flippant in a way which degrades the dialogue.

      What has actually happened, is that someone suggested the possibility of maybe having astronauts wear seatbelts, then everyone started acting like he punched a veteran.

    34. Re:So it's time to drill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      31% of all astronauts have died in the process (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut#Deaths ). I haven't looked up statistics for logging and farming, but I'd be really surprised to find it was so high.

      Please show your math. According to your own citation, there have been around 520 astronauts (depending on your definition of astronaut) and 29 deaths during spaceflight or training. My math says about 5.6%. I'll bet that's pretty comparable to a fishing or logging job, while being a log more rewarding.

      Also, please note that the above definition of astronaut does not include the hundreds of astronauts in perpetual training who have not yet flown (and now probably never will fly) a space mission.

    35. Re:So it's time to drill? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Check your math. Your own link lists 18 dead, and 529 people "in space", for some strange value of "in space". Plenty of "astronaut" job title holders don't technically get in space, or don't get a mission assigned at all.

      That's not even a tenth as dangerous as being a German U boat sailor in WWII.

      Loggers "score" 55 deaths per 100K workers per year on the job, as of 2009. However that's a pretty broad category, including picker crane operators whos main danger is hypothermia from sitting around all day, the truck loader guys who mainly have to worry about getting run over; for the guys actually waving chainsaws in the air on a regular basis, the number is about 10 times higher.

      I'd say that further research indicates I was wrong, overall an astronaut is "about" as likely to die on the job as a logger. However, note there are a couple orders of magnitude more wounds and permanent non-fatal maiming accidents that deaths in logging, and astronauts pretty much either don't get a scratch or they die, so assuming the only danger is death, and only death, skews the results quite a bit. If your criteria for dangerous is "any permanent severe career limiting damage" then I believe I was originally correct, logging is way more dangerous.

      About a third of Mt Everest climbers die enroute. Now that, is dangerous.

      Pardon my error, you are correct. It's only 3.4%

    36. Re:So it's time to drill? by vlm · · Score: 1

      You could use it to produce plastic products, but crude oil does need a lot of refining before it can even be used as a feedstock.

      Lots of refining and processing, but less than, say, vegetable refuse. Thermal depolymerization is a good although energy intensive start. Of course vegetable refuse would be under intense demand for compost... that the problem, eat, or paint.

      Also, you wouldn't need paint on mars, because the atmosphere there is not as corrosive as the atmosphere on earth (it doesn't have any oxygen to speak of).

      Nope you'd need paint or some kind of surface finish indoors just as much as you "need" it on earth. According to shows I've seen on HGTV (no I'm not in the closet, I just watch TV sometimes, you know?) buying a couple cans of paint raises the value of your trendy hip martian space station bachelor pad by at least 25000 pieces of gold pressed latinum. You'd have to pretty much live inside a bare metal tin can, or maybe more like bare concrete. Paint would actually become kind of an important "strategic asset" as a coat of paint indoors helps prevent valuable atmosphere from escaping thru almost microscopic cracks and such. I donno if you can even manufacture "air tight" concrete under ideal conditions on earth, much less in an early colony on mars. Maybe sinter in place an enameled ceramic coating for air tightness?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    37. Re:So it's time to drill? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Yep I was just being kind of snarky. I thought it was funny that you would talk of not risking your life when you've already risked it by travelling to Mars.

      I suspect there are a few people out there who would gladly take the risk just to visit Mars. I'm not one of them though - I don't really find the idea of space travel that interesting compared to life on Earth. Zero G would be a lot of fun for a while, but that's about it for the up sides.

      It would make sense to run tests first of course.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    38. Re:So it's time to drill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?!
      From your quoted article:
      "As of June 20, 2011, a total of 523 people ... reached 100 km" and "Eighteen astronauts (fourteen men and four women) have lost their lives during four space flights."

      That is about 3.4 %, if you count the training accidents you get to about 5,5%, how the ... did you manage to wiggle that up to 31?

    39. Re:So it's time to drill? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I figured you'd just build everything out of welded aluminum and then bury it. Aluminum's light, and it's easy to weld oxygen free environment.

    40. Re:So it's time to drill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait... you find life in another planet and the first thing you want to do with it is turn it into fuel ? wtf ?

    41. Re:So it's time to drill? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Yeah but then you're back to the old psychological problem of literally living inside a tin can. You're not going to convince the hot green skinned Orion girl from the bar to visit your tin can bachelor pad, your best bet is drink a few more synthahol beers until the Wookie starts looking good. Or something like that.

      Also aluminum corrodes like heck if unpainted or not anodized. It can survive awhile, but... For a good laugh, ask a machinist to flycut some aluminum and run your hand along the smooth fresh surface, your skin will be pitch black from the aluminum itself. Filthy stuff. Which explains why all consumer aluminum is either painted or anodized. The only thing filthier than a bare unfinished aluminum surface is a freshly cut cast iron surface. But I digress. Maybe a simple wax finish could be diverted from the agricultural dome? At least you could touch the shiny tin foil walls without discoloring your hands.

      One "bright" idea I just came up with is electrochemically plating everything. You're still stuck living inside a shiny tin can, but at least you can select a tarnished silver tin can, or a bright gold tin can, or a tarnished red/brown/green copper tin can, or for the extremist i-device fans, a shiny chrome plate tin can...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    42. Re:So it's time to drill? by Canazza · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, remember, the first Apollo missions were unmanned. They sent an unmanned probe further than they sent their first manned mission. Add onto that the fact that when they DID send people up, they didn't send idiots up.
      On the topic of Mars, we've already landed there, but there's generally been no reason to return those probes so it's not been planned for.

      We KNOW we can get there, the next stage towards a manned mission will be figuring a way of getting them off the surface and back again. If that means drilling then that adds a whole mess of untested unknowns to work through

      Drilling on Mars is going to be atleast as complex as drilling on Earth and will require more than just the pilot/scientist crew dynamic we're used to in space. For the first time you'd need someone who knows how to handle heavy machinery, since, even when Mars is closest, signals will take 3 minutes to reach them, so you need a specialist on hand in case the shit hits the fan. You'll also need to lug the machinery up there too, and land it. The biggest single piece of machinery we've landed so far has been the LEM + Moon Buggy. A Drill would be ALOT bigger. It would take ALOT Longer to set up too, and would require a degree of self-sufficiency and a factor of safety in their provisions incase of an accident that may prolong their stay.

      And I'm not even an expert. There's bound to be loads of things I've not thought of that needs to be tried and tested before we even think of sending someone to Mars.

      The Astronauts took a risk going to the moon. Hell, it's a risk every time they strap themselves to the gigantic firework built by the lowest bidder. I know I couldn't do it.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    43. Re:So it's time to drill? by FTWinston · · Score: 3, Funny

      So what you're saying is, we need to send Bruce Willis and a bunch of morons?

    44. Re:So it's time to drill? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Hurry - Slashdot pantomime audience

    45. Re:So it's time to drill? by Artraze · · Score: 1

      While it's true that one couldn't burn the oil for power, the carbon itself would be incredibly valuable. Nearly all of the chemical and plastics we make today use oil/natgas/coal as feedstock. Without plants and oil, any Mars base would either have to import chemicals and plastics from Earth or convert CO2 into hydrocarbons, consuming a great deal of water and energy (15kWh and 2.25kg water per kg methane produced) in the process. Even refining the iron available on Mars would be very costly without cheap carbon (the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere is bad enough).

      Simply put, cheap oil on Mars would significantly lower the cost of living on Mars, even if it couldn't be used directly as a fuel. For the immediate future, though, it would really only be a scientific curiosity.

    46. Re:So it's time to drill? by Canazza · · Score: 1

      I was hoping it wouldn't be THAT obvious.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    47. Re:So it's time to drill? by Canazza · · Score: 2

      They're behind you!

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    48. Re:So it's time to drill? by Canazza · · Score: 1

      Also the fact that he's a physical coward. He had to be slowly coaxed into attacking fleeing civilians in our last D&D Game.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    49. Re:So it's time to drill? by Canazza · · Score: 1

      "far-sightedness" - Only if you're a shaman.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    50. Re:So it's time to drill? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Yes we do, but it doesn't lead to ambiguities.

      Do you use short-sighted to additionally describe someone that cannot plan/see long-term consequences?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    51. Re:So it's time to drill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      Bloody Brit.

    52. Re:So it's time to drill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, things didn't go so well a few Apollo's later :D

    53. Re:So it's time to drill? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      There's already a method for generating fuel from Martian atmosphere that's been tested with a practical model here on Earth. You have to carry a bit of catalyst with you, I believe, and a source of energy if you're not patient enough to wait for the weak solar available on Mars.

      It's still likely easier than remote drilling, recovery, and refining.

    54. Re:So it's time to drill? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      It has been known for a long time that the formation of hydrocarbons does not require life: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia11001.html The red spots on Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus is Methane. The gas giant planets are giant Esso stations in the sky.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    55. Re:So it's time to drill? by Tharsman · · Score: 1

      In Mars most living spaces are likely going to be underground, and glass can be easily produced by melting the ground. You can make some gorgeous and fashionable living spaces just with tick glass over rock walls. Metal can be used to spice up the design here and there. Rock itself can be used to design too, who knows how many colors of soil we can find to add to glass structures creating amazing looks.

      Glass will likely become way more predominant in every day's life. I just worry about things like cabling isolation coating.

    56. Re:So it's time to drill? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Yeah. In American English, "near-sighted" is the ophthalmological condition of lacking visual acuity viewing mid- and far-distance objects, while "short-sighted" is the intellectual condition of not forseeing or planning beyond a short time span into the future.

      In contrast, "far-sighted" is the contrary ophthalmological condition of lacking visual acuity viewing near-distance objects. There is no confusion with the ability to plan and anticipate the more distant future (i.e., antonym of "short-sighted") because that doesn't happen. Ever. If something doesn't happen this quarter, it doesn't exist.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    57. Re:So it's time to drill? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Especially when compared to the number deaths caused by mining and oil dilling.

    58. Re:So it's time to drill? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      You do realise that manned spacecraft tend to be rigorously tested first? The first moon landing was done by the 11th Apollo craft for a reason, you know.

      Do you realize that everyone came within a hairs breadth of dying on the 13th Apollo mission? Oh yeah, everyone DID die on the space shuttle challenger AND Columbia. Also, don't forget the entire Apollo 1 crew died in a fire on the ground. Sure it's tested, but that doesn't mean it's safe.

      There are too many people on Slashdot that disagree just to be contrary

      Point? Airplanes are tested, and yet they crash. Cars are tested and yet they crash. And yes, they kill people also.

      Lots of close calls also.

      Maybe I'm just being contrary...

      --
      Be seeing you...
    59. Re:So it's time to drill? by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      But unless it had a track record, I'd be wary of risking my life on the assumption that fuel could be extracted.

      I would gladly go to Mars specifically in order to die so that the engineers could learn from the experience and make the trip safer for the next batch of meatsacks.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    60. Re:So it's time to drill? by OneMadMuppet · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember someone using laser engraving to produce colours...

    61. Re:So it's time to drill? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Especially when compared to the number deaths caused by mining and oil dilling.

      Not in proportion to the people doing those jobs, no. Astronaut is still quite a bit more dangerous.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    62. Re:So it's time to drill? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      In Mars most living spaces are likely going to be underground...

      Millions of years of evolution and human technological advancement to get us to another planet... where we can become cavemen again. XD

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    63. Re:So it's time to drill? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      The red spots on Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus is Methane. The gas giant planets are giant Esso stations in the sky.

      Unfortunately located at the bottom of deep gravity wells. You definitely don't want to stop there to fill up, although if you can someone fill up in passing (atmospheric skimming?) maybe you can slingshot back out with full fuel tanks without having to burn too much of it on the way back out.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    64. Re:So it's time to drill? by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      +5 insightful so apparently not

    65. Re:So it's time to drill? by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      Do you use short-sighted to additionally describe someone that cannot plan/see long-term consequences?

      Yes, but as far as I recall it being used, it tends more to describe an action (e.g. "doing that was a bit short-sighted") than the person themselves. I don't recall ever experiencing any confusion over which form was meant.

    66. Re:So it's time to drill? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, you want to drop a power plant into it that burns the fuel to power a laser pumping energy to a satellite in orbit. Either redirect the laser into a solar sail, or transduce the laser into some other energy form that does what you want. Maybe heating to vast pressures some interplanetary gas/dust that shoots out a rocket, or electromagnetically accelerates interplanetary dust, or powers an orbital station. Maybe it powers a space elevator factory that consumes asteroids or bits of moon.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    67. Re:So it's time to drill? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Aluminum corrodes in oxygen. I don't think it does in the Martian atmosphere that is mostly CO2.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    68. Re:So it's time to drill? by MenThal · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't (ex) senator Schwarzenegger and congress make a better choice? Two birds with one red rock, and all that...

    69. Re:So it's time to drill? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      But unless it had a track record, I'd be wary of risking my life on the assumption that fuel could be extracted.

      You don't have to risk your life on the assumption that fuel could be extracted. Send the fuel refinery ahead on an unmanned mission, wait for it to refine the fuel, then send the manned mission.

      Note that you don't really need water to do this, though it helps. If you have some H2 (by far the smallest fraction of your propellant), you can turn CO2 into O2 and CH4, which are more storable than H2/O2, have a decent Isp (370 range, as I recall), and have a decent density (small tanks are light tanks).

      With water on Mars, you can skip the "ship a few tons of H2 to Mars" part, and still use CH4/O2, and net an oxygen molecule for every CH4/O2 pair you put into your fuel storage tanks. Everyone wins....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    70. Re:So it's time to drill? by Muros · · Score: 1
      Interesting read. One line in the article, on the #1 most dangerous job, fishing, really caught my eye though....

      In June, a rogue wave swamped three fishermen as they were leaving the Dangerous River in Alaska. Two of the fishermen died of hypothermia before they could swim to shore.

      Helps to know the territory I guess.

    71. Re:So it's time to drill? by Muros · · Score: 1

      I think the obvious thing is that we need to have a fully operational and self sustaining (barring energy source) habitat on Mars before we send any people. Send whatever cannot be manufactured on Mars, and machinery to make what can be manufactured there. We would need shelter for humans, so earth moving machinery for construction would be needed. We would probably want machinery for production of heavy glass and sealants, both for keeping the place reasonably airtight and for some kind of greenhouse. You could build hydroponics underground but overground and with whatever sunlight is available would probably be better. Air processing for maintaining the correct atmospheric mix and pressure. Water extraction machinery. Recycling. Most importantly, in terms of life support, you'd need to figure out what plants you could grow there, and what microbial life you would need to culture to provide the correct soil for those plants. Something like this could probably be done over the course of, say, 20 years. When you have an operational base, then send out a bunch of 60 year old scientists who have lived the best years of their lives and are looking for something cool and groundbreaking to do, secure in the knowledge that, even if its a one way trip, they'll have some measure of comfort out there. Return journeys can wait until the place has a proper colony going.

    72. Re:So it's time to drill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you have plenty of atmosphere. Glass is porous, so air will pass through it (eventually). Glass is also a liquid (of sorts), so hopefully there are no weird issues with the gravity and atmosphere on Mars.

    73. Re:So it's time to drill? by swalve · · Score: 1

      Interesting that farmer/rancher is the second highest paid profession on that list.

    74. Re:So it's time to drill? by swalve · · Score: 1

      We could also send Governor McCain too.

    75. Re:So it's time to drill? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Aluminum corrodes in oxygen. I don't think it does in the Martian atmosphere that is mostly CO2.

      Just moving to mars doesn't mean we'll stop breathing oxygen. Thats the problem.

      If you assume that most of the people will spend most of their time indoors, then the outside appearance doesn't really matter anyway.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    76. Re:So it's time to drill? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, that may be a bit misleading, as it probably covers both farners and farm workers. Farming always was dangerous. But still, I'm of the opinion that dangerous jobs should pay better than safe ones. The 1%ers whine that capital gains taxes should be low because of the risk, all they risk is money. The farmer risks his money and life.

      IMO the capital gains tax should be doubled... at least. There should be no such thing as "day traders", they do nothing to help the economy and much to harm it. We shouldn't be rewarding gamblers.

    77. Re:So it's time to drill? by swalve · · Score: 1

      Not without oxygen it doesn't corrode.

    78. Re:So it's time to drill? by swalve · · Score: 1

      Day traders are taxed at the regular income rates because they hold their assets for less than a year.

    79. Re:So it's time to drill? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      No, you want to drop a power plant into it that burns the fuel to power a laser pumping energy to a satellite in orbit.

      You need to attend your employers remedial fire safety training course. you know, the one that teaches you (in slow words and large letters) to hit the alarm before doing anything else. And then goes on to extinguishing by breaking the "fire triangle" of fuel, oxidising agent and heat.

      Remember it? If you don't, you're a danger to yourself and your colleagues.

      You may (should) have done it in fire training at school ; certainly in your chemistry courses. You did do basic chemistry when you were 12 to 14, didn't you, even if you then retired to the programming basement?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    80. Re:So it's time to drill? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      A simple "no oxygen on Jupiter/Uranus/Neptune" would have been sufficient, and less obnoxiously condescending. Then we could have discussed alternative methods of exploiting the energy in the gas giants' atmosphere. Now I'm not interested.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    81. Re:So it's time to drill? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Which part of "you're a danger to yourself and your colleagues" did you not understand?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Well duh by CyberK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since Earth is a lot larger than Mars, and the habitable regions typically lie somewhere near the surface, it's no surprise that a larger proportion of Mars's volume is habitable. (The outer layer of an onion is larger in comparison to the onion when the onion is smaller.) The real question is that of absolute size: How many cubic metres of life-bearing volume is there on Mars in comparison to Earth?

    1. Re:Well duh by FTWinston · · Score: 2

      "Life-bearing" is presumably a relative term - Mars doesn't have plate tectonics, so there's not gonna be enough energy to stand-in for sunlight, like hydrothermal vents might do on Europa. I'd imagine that the only viable life would be rock-eating microbes.

    2. Re:Well duh by tgd · · Score: 2

      I didn't read the article, but it stands to reason that there may be upsides to that, as well. Presumably the core is still hot, even if there isn't active volcanism and plate tectonics, and it would seem reasonable that there could be a wider swath of the crust that may have habitable conditions, because on Earth you'll eventually get too hot and hit the mantle.

    3. Re:Well duh by mangu · · Score: 1

      Presumably the core is still hot, even if there isn't active volcanism and plate tectonics

      The core being hot is one of the causes, not an effect, of plate tectonics.

      Planets such as Mars and Earth have hot cores because of the decomposition of radioactive isotopes. That's also what causes helium to appear in underground deposits of gas and oil.

      In a physics lab course I took in college we measured the amount of radioactive gases emitted by the walls in a basement. We put a fan blowing air through a filter paper for two weeks in a sealed basement room, then measured the amount of radioactive substances in that paper. Another piece of paper from the same batch that had been kept in an envelope was used as control.

    4. Re:Well duh by Gotung · · Score: 1

      There is methane in Mars' atmosphere. Methane breaks down pretty quickly, so it had to come from somewhere recently. "No Plate Tectonics" means there are no continents still moving around, but it doesn't mean the core is cold, or that it isn't still venting interesting chemicals (like methane) to the upper crust and atmosphere. You could easily have large pools of liquid water deep underground that have methane bubbling through them. That is a fine recipe for life.

    5. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your control is flawed.
      How do you know that the radioactive gases were emitted by the walls and not by radioactive decay of the fan itself?

    6. Re:Well duh by tgd · · Score: 1

      The core being hot is one of the causes, not an effect, of plate tectonics.

      No shit, sherlock.

      The point was, I have no idea how much Mars' core has cooled. I've seen the math before, but don't actually recall it. My point was the GP was talking about plate tectonics being absent, and my point was the core is likely still hot, even without any outward signs, and that heat is a good thing, because you likely have a broader amount of the crust with habitable temperatures than Earth, with a very thin crust that heats up very quickly.

    7. Re:Well duh by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      How many cubic metres of life-bearing volume is there on Mars in comparison to Earth?

      Seriously? On this site someone has to ask this? We already have the information we need.

      Volume of Earth: 1083210000000 km^3 (Google it). TFS states 1% is habitable / life bearing.
      Volume of Mars: 163115609799 km^3 (Google it). TFS states 3% is potentially habitable / life bearing

      Divide both by 100 for 1% of each volume, multiply Mars result by 3 for 3% = Earth 10832100000km^3, Mars 4893468294km^3.

      Earth / Mars = 2.2. Earth has 2.2x the habitable volume of Mars.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Well duh by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Since they are talking about habitable / life bearing areas under ground, wouldn't you need to also subtract the volume of water from the total volume of the earth to get an accurate comparison? There is about 1,386,000,000km^3 water on earth, so the Earth /Mars ratio would be 1.93.

    9. Re:Well duh by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Since they are talking about habitable / life bearing areas under ground, wouldn't you need to also subtract the volume of water from the total volume of the earth to get an accurate comparison?

      Only if they neglected to do so when they came up with the original volume figures being cited, in which case, you're trying to correct inaccuracies in the original figure -- which is fine to do if the original figures were inaccurate. But why are we assuming that?

      Point in fact, I'm sure the 1% figure isn't perfectly accurate to begin with. Making the correction you're making is basically introducing "false precision" to your calculation, whether they took the factor you're considering into account originally or not.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    10. Re:Well duh by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      I'm just pointing out that the poster I remarked to, who was implying the original poster was stupid, didn't have it right, either. Technically speaking, the question had to deal with microbes living in the habitable portion of the crust. Since the size given was based off of the circumference of the Earth, it overstated the habitable crust. To make an accurate comparison, the earth's volume less the water needs to be used. Even that figure, is inaccurate since only a thin layer of the crust is inhabitable by microbes so the differences between Earth and Mars are even less.

      The so called 1% you are complaining about representing false precision changes the actual comparison by just under 14%. In addition, that 1% change to the Earth is about equivalent to all of Mars habitable environment. So, I don't think it is introducing false precision at all. However, as I stated, my point was that it isn't as straight forward as the poster said and therefore, the original poster had a valid question.

    11. Re:Well duh by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What does methane break down into, when there's no free oxygen to break it down? What breaks it down?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Well duh by Gotung · · Score: 1

      They don't get specific in this article but they do say that the "methane is quickly destroyed in the Martian atmosphere in a variety of ways" http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html

    13. Re:Well duh by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Aside from the whole surface area to volume ratio, I love how they only think it's possible for life to live near the surface. Our deepest holes only measure a few miles deep. Earth's core could be teaming with life for all we know. I personally doubt it, given the expected conditions, but some bacteria (more likely archaea) living down there wouldn't surprise me in the least. The thing is, we can't really know without looking.

    14. Re:Well duh by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      CH4 + [UV photon] -> H* + CH3*
      ("*" standing for an unpaired electron, i.e. a free radical)

      The free radicals then go on to react with other atmospheric species until you have a free hydrogen atom (or molecule) which can escape to space, while the carbon-containing free radical eventually makes it's way back down to the surface (driven by the relative density of carbon-containing molecules compared to hydrogen-containing ones) where the carbon will eventually react with an oxygen-containing species (metal oxide, perchlorate, or water) to release CO2.

      A carbon-containing free radical could also react with a nitrogen molecule to form cyanides, which then can react with perchlorates (found at the Phoenix location) again releasing carbon dioxide eventually.

      There are other possible reactions ; I've seen those two cited.

      Incidentally, this same process is also likely active in the gas giants, leading to the formation of carbon chain molecules which are thought to colour the belts of Jupiter and Saturn. But being further from the Sun, the UV intensity is lower.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    15. Re:Well duh by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Earth's core could be teaming with life for all we know. I personally doubt it, given the expected conditions,

      At (conservatively expected conditions) 3-5kK I personally doubt it extremely much.

      What temperature does DNA (a fair proxy for "life as we know it, Jim") start to pyrolize? Less than 1kK? Less that 0.5kK? Somewhere between the two?
      I could stretch my credibility to 1kK, just.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    16. Re:Well duh by izomiac · · Score: 1

      DNA melts at 60 - 100 degrees Celsius, depending on the ratio of GC/AT base pairs (GC has 3 hydrogen bonds, AT has 2). That's why the scientific community was surprised to find M. kandleri growing at 122 degrees, and apparently theories that it has an unusually high GC content were also disproven. The current thought is that 150 degrees (0.4 kK) is the biologic limit, but I'm skeptical.

      Life has been found in every place on Earth we thought it couldn't exist (albeit it was not always immediately discovered). E. coli can grow at 400,000 times normal gravity. The MIR space station had a problem with fungi growing on the outside of the windows... When they tried to kill it with radiation, it grew (much like the fungi inside the Chernobyl sarcophagus, something unexpected as DNA ionizes under those conditions). The core of the Earth is probably inhospitable to life, but since we haven't looked I can't say it's impossible for life to grow there.

    17. Re:Well duh by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The current thought is that 150 degrees (0.4 kK) is the biologic limit, but I'm skeptical.

      That's the sort of figures I was thinking about. Allowing for some degree of stabilisation from pressure induced increases in density and fluid viscosity, I might just about find somewhere a little over 0.5kK credible. Or at least, not "bat shit, dismiss out-of-hand crazy" (I'm watching an Inspecteur Clouseau/ Pink Panther movie with half an eye and ear ; it colours my thoughts).

      E. coli can grow at 400,000 times normal gravity.

      Errr, citatation, please. Where would such an experiment have been carried out?

      OK ; having done some calculations, I make that the acceleration in a 0.1m radius ultracentrifuge turning at 1000RPM ; not a particularly demanding piece of engineering.
      What is the pressure going to be at that "depth" in that pseudo-gravity field? I make it a smidgin under 2000 bar, which is a depth you'd get at approx 20km in seawater. Which is not actually a drastic extension of what we know already : given that the bottom of the Marianas Trench (11km) is not sterile.

      What might be more of an issue in these centrifuge experiments is the gradient of pressure : a small movement of the bacterium would lead to a large change in pressure, and all sorts of potentially troubling osmotic effects. However, clearly such experiments are not particularly turbulent (which considering that the devices are used for settling out components of mixtures in density gradients - using relatively compressible fluids - is not surprising).
      The headline figure is impressive 400,000g ! OMG!, but it's physical implications are not that drastic. See the original paper (PNAS, May 10, 2011 vol. 108 pp7997-8002) for experimental details.

      The MIR space station had a problem with fungi growing on the outside of the windows...

      Once again, citation?

      This one, perhaps? Which tells of "progressing decline of window optics" and "areas of visible growth of mold fungi on frames, TCS, insulation tubes, behind panels, rubber spacers of the hatches, metallic corrosion" (22 crew changes later). There is no mention of fungi growing on the outside of the window.

      When they tried to kill it with radiation, it grew

      Op. cit. makes it a bit more explicit that the radiation experiments were carried out on samples returned to earth, and that the fungi which grew under high radiation had significant differences of colony form. Which is rather what you'd expect for anything growing under high radiation.

      I was wondering how/ when/ why they'd taken to radiating the walls of their own spacecraft, but they didn't do that. And the fungi suffered (see the photos in op. cit.) under the radiation.

      Life is pretty resilient, but that doesn't mean that it lives and thrives everywhere. While the inside of the Chernobyl sarcophagus is not hospitable to human life, that doesn't mean that other organisms cannot live there. After all, it's only a moderately high radiation environment, not an extremely high radiation environment.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    18. Re:Well duh by izomiac · · Score: 1

      I got the MIR information second hand from a cryptococcus researcher who had a pet theory about radiotrophic fungi (back in 2007). A quick perusing of the internet reveals no credible source for those claims, so it's possible they were exaggerated. OTOH, radiotrophic fungi are known to exist, as well as microbes surviving the vacuum of space, so it's not implausible, and we only found these organisms three years ago so it's an emerging field. Unfortunately, MIR is no more, so whether that fungus was radiotrophic may never be known (the trait is quickly lost because it's metabolically expensive).

      I don't disagree that life probably doesn't exist in the Earth's core, merely due to Occam's razor. OTOH, I cannot say that with any certainty. The gravity and radiotrophic adaptations were made within a few generations. Life has had well over a billion years to adapt to the conditions in the Earth's core. We've also noticed life using essentially every source of energy on the surface, so it'd be strange if geothermal organisms didn't exist. Lack of evidence and theoretic underpinnings isn't convincing with a global paucity of data.

    19. Re:Well duh by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      I messed up my link earlier : I posted

      http://slashdot.org/ecls.esa.int/ecls/attachments/ECLS/.../russianspacecraftcontam.pdf

      When I should have posted : http://ecls.esa.int/ecls/attachments/ECLS/Russianspace-biocontaminantion/russianspacecraftcontam.pdf

      While it's not a peer-reviewed paper, it looks as if someone is (or was) working towards such publication.

      There are a number of credible references (including photos in that presentation) of fungi growing on the INNER surfaces of the rubber gaskets around the windows of Mir. Which should surprise no-one. Also, I'd expect that, like airplanes, the windows on Mir have an outer structural pressure-proof pane and an inner cosmetic pane, and therefore a potentially moist section in between which could form a biological habitat.

      Elsewhere in the presentation is discussion of other microbes retrieved from the INNER surfaces of Mir ; which again, should surprise no-one apart from a Hollywood set-dresser.

      OTOH, radiotrophic fungi are known to exist, as well as microbes surviving the vacuum of space, so it's not implausible,

      Being radiotrophic is one set of evolutionary adaptations ; surviving at low PPO2 (partial pressure O2), PPCO2, PPH2, PPCH4, and low humidity (including vacuum as an extreme ; low PPeverything) are different evolutionary adaptations. I don't see any particular reasons that mutations to help in one direction are particularly likely to help in the other direction. So I'd consider them (unless proven otherwise) to be "independent experiments" in the terminology of statistics, and their probabilities are multiplicative. (This is why multiple-drug treatments are harder to evolve resistance to, compared to surviving sequential applications of several drugs to a single infection.)

      There's a long way between implausible and impossible; but at best, I'd say we're looking at the "implausible" end of the spectrum.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. Enough of the speculation by Hentes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's bring back some martian soil, put it in a chamber emulating its atmosphere and climate, mix in some extremophiles and see what happens!

    1. Re:Enough of the speculation by FTWinston · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's bring back some martian soil and ... contaminate it??? Urgh!

    2. Re:Enough of the speculation by vikingpower · · Score: 1, Funny

      If you live in your mum's basement, you ARE an extremophile !

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    3. Re:Enough of the speculation by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Only if we can put Pauly Shore and Steven Baldwin in the chamber with them...and never, ever open it again.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Enough of the speculation by madhatter256 · · Score: 1

      Biker Mice from Mars is what we'll get from that...

      --
      Previewing comments are for sissies!
    5. Re:Enough of the speculation by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      You know, I actually find this highly amusing. Something so common - soil - would be extremely valuable to us just because it's from another planet. Can you imagine negotiating with extraterrestrials?

      "20 tons of dirt for the cow, 30 for the goat."

    6. Re:Enough of the speculation by Hentes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not the soil that's expensive, but the delivery.

    7. Re:Enough of the speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We don't need to contaminate it all, you damned hippy.

  4. Original article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The paper can be found here.

    The slant they're putting on it is slightly different. They've noted that in a large proportion of areas on Earth where there is liquid water there isn't necessarily life, so simply searching for liquid water in space isn't necessarily the best way to go about looking for other life or places which would be habitable: you need to bear in mind other factors as well if you want to narrow it down.

    Terrestrial life is known to require liquid water, but not all terrestrial water is inhabited. Thus, liquid water is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for life...If the known limits of terrestrial life do not change significantly, these limits represent important constraints on our biosphere and, potentially, on others, since ~4 billion years of evolution have not allowed life to adapt to a large fraction of the volume of Earth where liquid water exists

    1. Re:Original article by vlm · · Score: 2

      They've noted that in a large proportion of areas on Earth where there is liquid water there isn't necessarily life,

      Where are you finding this biologically empty, spectrographically pure water on earth? Supposedly a billion humans don't have access to safe drinking water, so there appears to be a demand for some of this stuff... I'm guessing they're talking about fossil aquifers miles below the surface?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Original article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The paper can be found here.

      The slant they're putting on it is slightly different. They've noted that in a large proportion of areas on Earth where there is liquid water there isn't necessarily life, so simply searching for liquid water in space isn't necessarily the best way to go about looking for other life or places which would be habitable: you need to bear in mind other factors as well if you want to narrow it down.

      Terrestrial life is known to require liquid water, but not all terrestrial water is inhabited. Thus, liquid water is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for life...If the known limits of terrestrial life do not change significantly, these limits represent important constraints on our biosphere and, potentially, on others, since ~4 billion years of evolution have not allowed life to adapt to a large fraction of the volume of Earth where liquid water exists

      That's an old 2010 paper.

      This paper is called An Extensive Phase Space for the Potential Martian Biosphere (Paywalled, can't find an open copy. It still seems to be in press rather than completely published).

      Abstract: We present a comprehensive model of martian pressure-temperature (P-T) phase space and compare it with that of Earth. Martian P-T conditions compatible with liquid water extend to a depth of 310km. We use our phase space model of Mars and of terrestrial life to estimate the depths and extent of the water on Mars that is habitable for terrestrial life. We find an extensive overlap between inhabited terrestrial phase space and martian phase space. The lower martian surface temperatures and shallower martian geotherm suggest that, if there is a hot deep biosphere on Mars, it could extend 7 times deeper than the 5km depth of the hot deep terrestrial biosphere in the crust inhabited by hyperthermophilic chemolithotrophs. This corresponds to 3.2% of the volume of present-day Mars being potentially habitable for terrestrial-like life. Key Words: Biosphere—Mars—Limits of life—Extremophiles—Water. Astrobiology 11, xxx–xxx.,

  5. Viking said that it did by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    We need to send a dragon on a mission their to get the facts. I think that one with a couple of nukes inside would be interesting. Even better would be if it had the ability to hop a few places. Perhaps modify it use methane/LOX and then at each landing sites, while science is being done, generate the fuel.

    What I find interesting is that so many ppl want to send ppl on a 2--way mission. Instead, it should be thought of as a 1-way mission and have them go there and stay at least a decade. One of the most important reasons is that Mars DOES have the likelihood of having life. If so, the last thing that we want to do, is bring it back here.

    Basically, the group of ppl would focus on survival, building out a base, and of course science. But much of the work there could be carried out by robotics, with the ppl their to control and fix them. In addition, it would actually be cheaper and safer to do the 1-way.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Viking said that it did by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      In addition, it would actually be cheaper and safer to do the 1-way.

      True, but it would be cheapest and safest not to send people at all and just send machines.

    2. Re:Viking said that it did by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Nope. Real bad idea.

      First off, we need to get off this planet with a base. By doing that, if something DOES happen here, they stand a chance of having humanity survive. But the real issue is that ppl on mars could re-program, re-build, re-think how things were happening. In addition, the amount of science that would flow would be MUCH cheaper than by doing robotic alone. No, we need BOTH there.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Viking said that it did by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Real bad idea.

      First off, we need to get off this planet with a base. By doing that, if something DOES happen here, they stand a chance of having humanity survive. But the real issue is that ppl on mars could re-program, re-build, re-think how things were happening. In addition, the amount of science that would flow would be MUCH cheaper than by doing robotic alone. No, we need BOTH there.

      You really think that providing a permanent residence on Mars (the original post was about one way only trips) would be cheaper than sending a bunch of robots? It seems that maintaining the international space station is quite costly and it is in orbit versus millions of miles away. Remember, no air, no water, no ozone or magnetic field to ward off radiation, etc. I agree that there are things in space that require human beings, but sending them is usually much, much more expensive than not.

    4. Re:Viking said that it did by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First off, the running of the ISS is NOT that expensive. It was expensive because we were building it and using the shuttle. Now, that we are at a stopping point, the running of it is pretty cheap. It is also about to be cheaper with launches in no small part due to SpaceX. However there are 2 main issues with the ISS:
      1) they manufacture NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING. EVERYTHING has to be imported, just like sending a bunch of robots to Mars.
      2) they do not do a good job of recycling. As such, it require a number of resources, namely water, hydrogen, O2, etc.

      OTH, we can send a crew to Mars with a greenhouse, a base, etc. They will need energy, but that can be done via nukes, geo-thermal, and ideally a solar sat (that can also beam energy to robots). Likewise, water is a none issue. Garbage? Not a big deal. A greenhouse for growing food is easy enough to do, though the crew should have enough food to last at least 2 launch cycles (in case one is lost). Basically, for the costs of sending less than 10 FH's, we can put a crew on mars. Then we send supplies every 2 years.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Viking said that it did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/ppl/people/, gibbering shit-stain.

    6. Re:Viking said that it did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/^.*$/Fuck Off asshole/g

    7. Re:Viking said that it did by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      if something DOES happen here

      You're making the excessively common mistake of spelling "when" with only two letters, "i" and "f".
      If it's not impossible (cataclysmic events on Earth clearly are not impossible ; Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum ; KTB ; Permo-Triassic crisis, whatever it was ; and at least two other major mass extinctions ; Snowball Earth has become consensus in the last decade or so), then "if" is simply a mis-spelling of "when".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    8. Re:Viking said that it did by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      OTH, we can send a crew to Mars with a greenhouse, a base, etc.

      You're volunteering to test the first prototype? On Earth, in space, or on Mars.

      Hint : if you test the first prototype in mid-winter, high-altitude Antarctica, we might be able to help you if something doesn't work as expected. If you're on Mars ... we'll include suicide pills in the medical pack.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    9. Re:Viking said that it did by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      There are PLENTY of ppl that would volunteer to do the mars missions today. I know that when I was single and childless, I would have done it instantly. However, long before we go to Mars, we need to test it all at Antarctica, followed by the moon. What has amazed me is that neither IDC Dover nor Bigelow have pushed to have their units go there. I would think that it would be ideal to have several of their units there. Esp. with the ability to move these around. They could serve as a quickly movable base station.

      What is really lacking is a small nuke generator. I have looked at our antarctic treaty and there is nothing that prevents us from doing small nuke generators. The issue is that they must not be left there. A small thorium generator would be ideal and could taken out quickly when done. The area is so remote that it would be easy to secure the unit. But a small unit would enable loads of exploration all around the world. In particular, it could be used in the oceans, the poles, on mountain tops, etc.. A small unit that produces 100KW with excess heat would cut it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re:Viking said that it did by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I know that when I was single and childless, I would have done it instantly.

      I'll take you seriously on that.

      When I was single, childless and dependant-free (I'm still childless, but now have dependants), I was doing various moderately dangerous sports - long distance solo winter walking, solo caving, solo cave diving, that sort of thing. I calculated risks before taking (or rejecting) them, then went to work drilling oil wells, where I (err) calculated risks before taking (or rejecting) them. (The unofficial motto of the Cave Diving Group is "Turn your back and swim away / and live to dive another day." Which is a successful exploration strategy with only a few percent per year mortality rate.)

      I'm sure there are quite a number of people ("ppl"??, or do you have a vowel tax in your jurisdiction?) who would take a trip to Mars with un-proven technology. However, for development of the technology you need people who are going to test the equipment, analyse it's performance in real time (i.e. on site, not at the end of a 30 light-minute round trip), then come back and report on it to drive the next round of development.

      See you on Dome-C next winter for testing the Mk-I habitat. Bring a scarf.

      If you get a ticket to Mars, I'll come to your launch funeral and bring you a bottle of good whisky to stow alongside the cyanide pills.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. A few kilometers. by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

    According to NASA, liquid groundwater would probably be a few kilometers beneath the surface of mars. The deepest oil wells are around 9 kilometers deep, so drilling down to it would be possible, as long as you knew where to drill for it.

    1. Re:A few kilometers. by vlm · · Score: 2

      Chicken and the egg situation, hard to bootstrap on Mars. According to my oil relatives in Louisiana, it takes a good barge full of oil or water based drilling mud to fill a hole that deep, and all our current drilling technology on earth relies on that drilling mud to cool and clean the cutting bit which would otherwise approximately instantly jam, overheat, lose its temper/hardness and thereafter fail to cut. Not saying its impossible to make that hole by an entirely new technology, just saying the entire technological infrastructure for doing it on earth relies on an "infinite" supply of oil or water, to make the hole, to get the oil/water outta the hold, to use the new oil/water to make more holes to ... repeat chicken and the egg style.

      I guess you could revisit 1840 or whatever and use old fashioned "spuds" and men in spacesuits wielding shovels, but at a foot or so per day thats gonna take awhile to get the goods.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:A few kilometers. by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are several types of drill rigs that do not require a working fluid. Probably the best one for this application is a cable tool rig which drops a bit suspend by a cable to break up the rock, and then a bailer to remove the broken rock. This is a very slow process, but depths of 3.7 km have been achieved with it and it doesn't require a drilling fluid so I think it could get the job done.

    3. Re:A few kilometers. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      According to my oil relatives in Louisiana, it takes a good barge full of oil or water based drilling mud to fill a hole that deep,

      True, with caveats below.

      and all our current drilling technology on earth relies on that drilling mud to [various tasks]

      There are several technologies that use air as a "working fluid" rather than liquids. There are also other liquid working fluids in use - ethylene glycol, for example - but you still need substantial volumes of them.

      [various tasks]cool and clean the cutting bit which would otherwise approximately instantly jam, overheat, lose its temper/hardness and thereafter fail to cut.

      Again, there are other technologies, and the "jamming" isn't instantaneous. It sounds like they are talking about tricone (or bicone) drilling bits Image rather than the (more expensive) PDC style of bit Image. Both type of bit ("roller-cone" versus "fixed-cutter") can be designed to work with "air" as a working fluid, and both can survive a time of rotating on bottom without circulation. But it sure doesn't enhance the bit's longevity.

      There are more speculative techniques such as drilling with lasers. Which is going to be interesting for directional drilling (say, you have a shallow deposit of water-rich rock ... but it's under a crater rim mountain, and you can drill a shorter hole from inside the crater, but have to drill directionally). But these, like the cable-tool drilling you also mention, need some sort of "working fluid" to clear the rock cuttings out of the hole. Even if the rock is vapourised by a laser, it's still going to condense out as dust somewhere. You don't want it to pack-off around the drill string, do you?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  7. Apples to apples by flaming+error · · Score: 3, Insightful

    3 percent of the Martian volume could sustain Earth-like microbial life. As a comparison, only one percent of the volume of Earth contains life.

    That's no comparison. Compare % volumes that could sustain life. Or compare volumes that actually do contain life. But comparing one to the other reveals nothing.

    1. Re:Apples to apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, sir, up to 100%.

  8. A reason by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

    As great as it sounds to start populating Mars, I haven't heard a whole lot on the economics of it, why would anybody want to?

    1. Re:A reason by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's why it's silly for people like Neil Armstrong to posit that private industry will do it first with government "assistance." It'll only happen as a scientific endeavor until the technology is developed enough for someone to monetize trips to Mars (how that would ever happen in the remotely near future is beyond me).

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:A reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neil Armstrong is the most famous passenger in history, and is now demonstrably senile. The world has passed him and the Space Age by. Time to move on, Neil. No one cares about test pilots sitting on top of re-purposed ICBMs, to go float in a deadly vacuum to accomplish nothing.

  9. AREN"T by chemindefer · · Score: 1

    it's aren't....

    1. Re:AREN"T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is not.

    2. Re:AREN"T by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      six of one, half dozen of another.
      "oh no there are not"
      "oh no there is not"

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  10. Shouldn't that title be.... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't that title be "Life Possible Under Large Regions of Mars", not "On Large Regions of Mars?"

    1. Re:Shouldn't that title be.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is like when people say, "get on the plane," and I say, "Fuck you! I'm getting in the plane!"

  11. Good news for microbes by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    That's good news for microbes! Now, when the earth is about to be destroyed by a rogue comet, they can all jump on a ship, head towards Mars, borrow down a few kilometers and survive. For the rest of us, though, it doesn't look too promising.

    1. Re:Good news for microbes by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      We've already sent a bunch of ships to Mars that started in Earths microbe-swarming environment. We've probably already seeded Mars with Earth microbes.

      By the time we colonize Mars, it might already be growing enough cheese for us to eat, instead of the native cheese that eats us.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Good news for microbes by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      We've already sent a bunch of ships to Mars that started in Earths microbe-swarming environment. We've probably already seeded Mars with Earth microbes.

      By the time we colonize Mars, it might already be growing enough cheese for us to eat, instead of the native cheese that eats us.

      Our microbes need water and can't handle the unshielded surface of Mars. The martian microbes are thought to be living a few kilometers underground.

    3. Re:Good news for microbes by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      More than one Mars probe have crashed through the surface. The Martian subsurface sounds like a darwinian filter for Earth extremophiles. Crash enough probes, and the race is on!

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Good news for microbes by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Most (all?) of the landers were sterilized carefully before packaging for launch. Which doesn't make it impossible to get contamination there, but does make it a lot harder.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    5. Re:Good news for microbes by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Sounds like more darwinian filters promoting extremeophiles to colonize Mars :).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Good news for microbes by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      To successfully get there, they would need to be extreme-in-2-or-3-different-directions-simultaneously-o-philes. Which is a steep hill to climb.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  12. Percentage of volume? by mattcoz · · Score: 2

    Why did they use this measure? With Mars being so much smaller, of course a higher percentage of the volume would be hospitable. Mars has 15% of the volume of Earth but 28% of the surface area. Just seems like bad comparison.

    1. Re:Percentage of volume? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would assume because most of the life on Mars, if there is any, would be miles below the surface, then extending tens or hundreds of miles below that outer boundary line. Unlike Earth where all life must cling to a very narrow area, go more than a couple miles deep and temperatures are too high for anything to survive, go more than a couple miles high and the atmosphere is too thin.

  13. Carefull by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    That's how Alien started.

  14. Catch 22 by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Once we get enough of an environment on there to sustain trees and plants, we will be able to create a natural atmosphere that will sustain itself, and create an ozone layer....

  15. Vampire Planet by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    There might be microbial life below Mars' surface.

    But there sure is undead "life" below the surface. Where Mars teems with billions of vampires. They coated the surface with blood dust and headed below, where they're protected from the sunlight above.

    More unmanned probes to root them out before we send any humans there, and no return trips.

    --

    --
    make install -not war