Life Possible On 'Large Regions' of Mars

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Life Possible On 'Large Regions' of Mars

Posted by samzenpus on Monday December 12, 2011 @01:55AM from the quato-approved dept.

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."

22 of 154 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So it's time to drill? by mosb1000 · 2011-12-12 02:02 · 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 · 2011-12-12 02:06 · 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 · 2011-12-12 02:11 · 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 · 2011-12-12 02:17 · 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 kelemvor4 · 2011-12-12 02:27 · 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.
5. Re:So it's time to drill? by CPTreese · 2011-12-12 02:31 · 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.
6. Re:So it's time to drill? by mosb1000 · 2011-12-12 02:41 · 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.
7. Re:So it's time to drill? by loufoque · 2011-12-12 02:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That's nothing compared to the amount of russian cosmonauts who died, or probably also the unknown amount of chinese ones.
8. Re:So it's time to drill? by vlm · 2011-12-12 02:59 · 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
9. Re:So it's time to drill? by RivenAleem · 2011-12-12 03:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  There are too many people on Slashdot that disagree just to be contrary
  Oh no there isn't.
10. Re:So it's time to drill? by vlm · 2011-12-12 03:22 · 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
11. Re:So it's time to drill? by kelemvor4 · 2011-12-12 03:29 · 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%
12. Re:So it's time to drill? by Canazza · 2011-12-12 03:51 · 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.
13. Re:So it's time to drill? by FTWinston · 2011-12-12 03:56 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  So what you're saying is, we need to send Bruce Willis and a bunch of morons?
Well duh by CyberK · 2011-12-12 02:05 · 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?
Enough of the speculation by Hentes · 2011-12-12 02:12 · 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 · 2011-12-12 02:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Let's bring back some martian soil and ... contaminate it??? Urgh!
2. Re:Enough of the speculation by Hentes · 2011-12-12 03:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's not the soil that's expensive, but the delivery.
Original article by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 02:31 · 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
Apples to apples by flaming+error · 2011-12-12 03:16 · 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.
Re:A few kilometers. by mosb1000 · 2011-12-12 03:56 · 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.
Re:A reason by GodfatherofSoul · 2011-12-12 05:33 · 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!