Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Curiosity has found proof that there was once abundant, fast-moving water on Mars that could have supported life   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Mars Science Laboratory, NASA, Mars landing, imaging science, Planetary Science, John Grotzinger, streambeds, pebbles  
•       •       •

14282 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Sep 2012 at 11:16 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-09-27 06:47:52 PM  
Awesome!
 
2012-09-27 06:49:47 PM  
I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-09-27 06:51:19 PM  
Toss this press release on top of the stack of other "water! life!" press releases. When the bottom page turns to diamond, read the top page and believe it.
 
2012-09-27 07:11:01 PM  

markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..


I wonder if the folks at NASA are kicking themselves right about now?

Curiosity rover: why Nasa isn't looking for life on Mars
 
2012-09-27 07:48:44 PM  
COULD HAVE, but unlikely.
 
2012-09-27 08:30:52 PM  

markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..


I believe we will find one as well. Too bad the people who humanity most desperately needs to change will never incorporate this new information into their worldview.
 
2012-09-27 08:38:33 PM  
So what happened to it?
 
2012-09-27 08:41:56 PM  

Ambivalence: So what happened to it?


Probably someone on our planet had some sort of tame-travelling predestination paradox into the past and somehow killed all life on Mars by accident. When it comes to destroying life, we humans are #1
 
2012-09-27 08:56:37 PM  

Ambivalence: So what happened to it?


I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.
 
2012-09-27 09:00:24 PM  

markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..


Mars Jesus!
 
2012-09-27 09:02:48 PM  

fusillade762: markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..

I wonder if the folks at NASA are kicking themselves right about now?

Curiosity rover: why Nasa isn't looking for life on Mars


That's just like, your opinion,of his opinion, man
 
2012-09-27 09:07:27 PM  

fusillade762: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.


I'm not a scientician, but I do have an internet degree in doctorology.
 
2012-09-27 09:08:49 PM  
It's NASA, not Nasa, though I am probably guilty of it too.
 
2012-09-27 09:12:01 PM  

fusillade762: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.


True. The atmosphere, even of Earth, needs a constant refresh of gasses to replenish the losses to space and the solar wind. Having a magnetic field is crucial to not having your gas shield stripped away.

Now pass me the sunblock. And don't forget to do the tops of your ears - you'll thank me when you're 90.
 
2012-09-27 09:20:50 PM  

cman: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

Probably someone on our planet had some sort of tame-travelling predestination paradox into the past and somehow killed all life on Mars by accident. When it comes to destroying life, we humans are #1


You betcha.
 
2012-09-27 09:30:18 PM  
Just because it's a fluid, does not mean it's water...

/or did I not get the memo?
 
2012-09-27 09:38:27 PM  

Ambivalence: So what happened to it?


Oh, sorry, my bad.

We're cool though, right?
 
2012-09-27 09:55:41 PM  

markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..


Trilobites look pretty advanced, all things considered. I'd settle for fossilized bacteria, if the rover can detect it.
 
2012-09-27 10:10:29 PM  

FloydA: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

Oh, sorry, my bad.

We're cool though, right?


I can't believe you drank the whole planet...
 
2012-09-27 11:18:04 PM  
and it is this water that gives Jack Daniels a flavor that cannot be copied.
 
2012-09-27 11:18:09 PM  

Richard Saunders: Just because it's a fluid, does not mean it's water...

/or did I not get the memo?


Other solvents tend not to wear rock in the same fashion. Mars rock is composed from a lot of silicon and lesser basalts than Earth, but water erosion is distinct from streams of, say, liquid methane. Water is polar; it hydrates silica minerals, and has an astonishing vapor pressure to atomic weight ratio.

Meanwhile the chances of Mars getting cold enough to liquefy methane in volume and rain it from the sky in sufficient quantities to erode rock is between slim and none.
 
2012-09-27 11:19:55 PM  
The Doctor approves.
 
2012-09-27 11:21:30 PM  

markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..


We'll have to buy it a cell phone?

www.theblaze.com
 
2012-09-27 11:23:43 PM  
Water? You mean, like, from the toilet?
 
2012-09-27 11:24:39 PM  
I'm sure it did -- right before politician-run energy companies raped it dry, destroyed the atmosphere, and destroyed the entire planet.
 
2012-09-27 11:27:03 PM  
Hey, look what else they found!

img3.imageshack.us

/stop calling jeebus a zombie
//he was a martian
 
2012-09-27 11:27:14 PM  
When it comes to destroying life, we humans are #1

Yeah, because nothing died out before humans came along... Remember the first time humans rode on dinosaurs?


Dumbass
 
2012-09-27 11:29:00 PM  
The science that will be accomplished by the robot will run circles around the accomplishments of the International Space System.

For most space exploration tasks in the foreseeable future, robots > humans.
 
2012-09-27 11:29:10 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Richard Saunders: Just because it's a fluid, does not mean it's water...

/or did I not get the memo?

Other solvents tend not to wear rock in the same fashion. Mars rock is composed from a lot of silicon and lesser basalts than Earth, but water erosion is distinct from streams of, say, liquid methane. Water is polar; it hydrates silica minerals, and has an astonishing vapor pressure to atomic weight ratio.

Meanwhile the chances of Mars getting cold enough to liquefy methane in volume and rain it from the sky in sufficient quantities to erode rock is between slim and none.


well sure. but what if it wasn't liquid methane but rather iced tea? didn't think of that, did ya?
 
2012-09-27 11:30:23 PM  
You're right, no human being would stack books like this.
 
2012-09-27 11:30:29 PM  

Xaxor: It's NASA, not Nasa, though I am probably guilty of it too.


It can be either. It depends entirely upon the style guidelines of whatever organization is publishing the material or the personal preference of the copy editor. Maybe you should make sure you actually know what you're talking about before you get all preachy.

Pronunciation-dependent style
At the copyediting end of the publishing industry, where the aforementioned distinction between acronyms (pronounced as a word) and initialisms (pronounced as a series of letters) is usually maintained, some publishers choose to use cap/lowercase (c/lc) styling for acronyms, reserving all-caps styling for initialisms. Thus Nato and Aids (c/lc), but USA and FBI (caps). For example, this is the style used in The Guardian,[41] and BBC News typically edits to this style (though its official style guide, dating from 2003, still recommends all-caps [42]). The logic of this style is that the pronunciation is reflected graphically by the capitalization scheme.
Some style manuals also base the letters' case on their number. The New York Times, for example, keeps NATO in all capitals (while several guides in the British press may render it Nato), but uses lower case in Unicef (from "United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund") because it is more than four letters, and to style it in caps might look ungainly (flirting with the appearance of "shouting capitals").
 
2012-09-27 11:30:45 PM  
So THAT'S where Jesus put all the water left over from the flood!
 
2012-09-27 11:31:21 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: fusillade762: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.

True. The atmosphere, even of Earth, needs a constant refresh of gasses to replenish the losses to space and the solar wind. Having a magnetic field is crucial to not having your gas shield stripped away.

Now pass me the sunblock. And don't forget to do the tops of your ears - you'll thank me when you're 90.


If I recall the Science Channel thingus I saw a while back, the composition of Mar's core was insufficiently dense to sustain proper magnetic poles. Instead it may have have multiple smaller, wandering magnetic poles. Eventually, the atmosphere and the water held therein burned off in the solar winds - dead planet.
 
2012-09-27 11:32:01 PM  
Yeah, the Alien Brain was trying to tell me something about that when I took it out with the Blaster Launcher.

lparchive.org
 
2012-09-27 11:33:42 PM  
Fast moving water ?
 
2012-09-27 11:34:13 PM  

brianbankerus: fusillade762: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.

I'm not a scientician, but I do have an internet degree in doctorology.


Actually it's more like Mars never really had one worth mentioning. Nor does it have much gravity. So the atmosphere escapes, temperature drops and thus liquids can't survive on the surface any more.
 
2012-09-27 11:35:40 PM  

Lsherm: markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..

Trilobites look pretty advanced, all things considered. I'd settle for fossilized bacteria, if the rover can detect it.


The problem being that finding life, or fossil life, would set a mandate for a manned mission to study one of the most revolutionary discoveries in the history of mankind.
I'm going to play the conspiracy thoery card and say that no scientist or politican with a fiefdom to protect wants their hands tied like that.

Whatever piece of equipment disovers anything will be declared faulty and the results inconclusive.
 
2012-09-27 11:35:43 PM  
has anyone actually googled my penis shrank ?
 
2012-09-27 11:35:59 PM  
Pretty much Mission To Mars covers where the water went.
Big farking Rock, massive atmosphere exodus and the water dissipates into space.

/causing life on earth
//Taa Daa
 
2012-09-27 11:37:16 PM  

mudpants: Fast moving water ?


It's an old river bed.
 
2012-09-27 11:37:21 PM  
yeah, plenty of water -- just don't drink any.

dvdmedia.ign.com
 
2012-09-27 11:38:11 PM  

mudpants: has anyone actually googled my penis shrank ?


We're all very sorry for your loss and society's gain.
 
2012-09-27 11:39:13 PM  

doglover: mudpants: Fast moving water ?

It's an old river bed.


You have taken euphamisms out of the parkkk
 
2012-09-27 11:40:55 PM  

cman: COULD HAVE, but unlikely.


Bacteria, while not particularly interesting, are still technically life. Damn things can live anywhere.
 
2012-09-27 11:41:04 PM  
Oh if I only speek english
 
2012-09-27 11:42:04 PM  

soosh: Marcus Aurelius: Richard Saunders: Just because it's a fluid, does not mean it's water...

/or did I not get the memo?

Other solvents tend not to wear rock in the same fashion. Mars rock is composed from a lot of silicon and lesser basalts than Earth, but water erosion is distinct from streams of, say, liquid methane. Water is polar; it hydrates silica minerals, and has an astonishing vapor pressure to atomic weight ratio.

Meanwhile the chances of Mars getting cold enough to liquefy methane in volume and rain it from the sky in sufficient quantities to erode rock is between slim and none.

well sure. but what if it wasn't liquid methane but rather iced tea? didn't think of that, did ya?


That would explain the red color, no doubt. But given the convenience stores wars we have on this planet between Wawa and 7-11 and the Gook-n-Go, I think we can assume that Taco Bell won the war on that planet.

Sad, really.
 
2012-09-27 11:42:33 PM  
because water is the only liquid in the universe
 
2012-09-27 11:42:56 PM  

markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..


That means another planet I'll never get to go fishing on. :(
 
2012-09-27 11:44:30 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: soosh: Marcus Aurelius: Richard Saunders: Just because it's a fluid, does not mean it's water...

/or did I not get the memo?

Other solvents tend not to wear rock in the same fashion. Mars rock is composed from a lot of silicon and lesser basalts than Earth, but water erosion is distinct from streams of, say, liquid methane. Water is polar; it hydrates silica minerals, and has an astonishing vapor pressure to atomic weight ratio.

Meanwhile the chances of Mars getting cold enough to liquefy methane in volume and rain it from the sky in sufficient quantities to erode rock is between slim and none.

well sure. but what if it wasn't liquid methane but rather iced tea? didn't think of that, did ya?

That would explain the red color, no doubt. But given the convenience stores wars we have on this planet between Wawa and 7-11 and the Gook-n-Go, I think we can assume that Taco Bell won the war on that planet.

Sad, really.


are you gay cause I have a couson that't gaay. and he is really cute and stuff.
 
2012-09-27 11:44:40 PM  

mudpants: Fast moving water ?


Slow-moving brain?
 
2012-09-27 11:44:48 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Other solvents tend not to wear rock in the same fashion. Mars rock is composed from a lot of silicon and lesser basalts than Earth, but water erosion is distinct from streams of, say, liquid methane. Water is polar; it hydrates silica minerals, and has an astonishing vapor pressure to atomic weight ratio.

Meanwhile the chances of Mars getting cold enough to liquefy methane in volume and rain it from the sky in sufficient quantities to erode rock is between slim and none.


Those pictures....it's like I'm at the beach. Smooth rocks, different colors - meaning different compositions - meaning - from different places. That would require a substantial sustained flow. And since Mars has one/third the gravity, it was probably flowing for a good long time to smooth out those rocks. Amazing.

Fossils may be a problem though. With less gravity a life form could spread out more, would/could be more "feathery?" They may be hard to spot.
 
2012-09-27 11:45:47 PM  
how fast does water usually move?
 
2012-09-27 11:45:49 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: fusillade762: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.

True. The atmosphere, even of Earth, needs a constant refresh of gasses to replenish the losses to space and the solar wind. Having a magnetic field is crucial to not having your gas shield stripped away.

Now pass me the sunblock. And don't forget to do the tops of your ears - you'll thank me when you're 90.


Unless you are Venus.
 
2012-09-27 11:46:23 PM  

redly1: because water is the only liquid in the universe


i45.tinypic.com

YOU

i47.tinypic.com

EVERYONE ELSE

 
2012-09-27 11:48:01 PM  

NewportBarGuy: redly1: because water is the only liquid in the universe

[i45.tinypic.com image 500x568]

YOU

[i47.tinypic.com image 432x359]

EVERYONE ELSE


well no at some tempitures every thing is fluid, like water
 
2012-09-27 11:48:15 PM  
Of course, as soon as they stop looking for water they find it.
 
2012-09-27 11:48:43 PM  
There is almost certainly life on Mars.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.
 
2012-09-27 11:49:03 PM  

mudpants: how fast does water usually move?


Speed of gravity, in this case about 1/3rd Earf so 11 ft/sec.
 
2012-09-27 11:49:25 PM  

WelldeadLink: Of course, as soon as they stop looking for water they find it.


NASA found my car keys!
 
2012-09-27 11:50:36 PM  

mudpants: NewportBarGuy: redly1: because water is the only liquid in the universe

[i45.tinypic.com image 500x568]

YOU

[i47.tinypic.com image 432x359]

EVERYONE ELSE

well no at some temptures every thing is fluid, like water


Well, pressure is part of the equation too. Liquid water can't exist on Mars at any temperature. It sublimates directly from ice to a gas.
 
2012-09-27 11:50:57 PM  

mudpants: Marcus Aurelius: soosh: Marcus Aurelius: Richard Saunders: Just because it's a fluid, does not mean it's water...

/or did I not get the memo?

Other solvents tend not to wear rock in the same fashion. Mars rock is composed from a lot of silicon and lesser basalts than Earth, but water erosion is distinct from streams of, say, liquid methane. Water is polar; it hydrates silica minerals, and has an astonishing vapor pressure to atomic weight ratio.

Meanwhile the chances of Mars getting cold enough to liquefy methane in volume and rain it from the sky in sufficient quantities to erode rock is between slim and none.

well sure. but what if it wasn't liquid methane but rather iced tea? didn't think of that, did ya?

That would explain the red color, no doubt. But given the convenience stores wars we have on this planet between Wawa and 7-11 and the Gook-n-Go, I think we can assume that Taco Bell won the war on that planet.

Sad, really.

are you gay cause I have a couson that't gaay. and he is really cute and stuff.


Why, no, thank you mudpants, I am only happy. Alas Alack. But I bet if your cousin's peener was small enough and he was hairles like a mole rat and could hold his tiny balls back between his legs like you most likely can, I could mock him for the relative he is of yours.
 
2012-09-27 11:51:09 PM  

fusillade762: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.


As a professional planetologist, I have to agree with this.
 
2012-09-27 11:51:17 PM  

redly1: because water is the only liquid in the universe


Really? Please be double, reverse sarcasm.
 
2012-09-27 11:51:36 PM  
F*ck yeah! Science! In space! Two of my favorite things together.
 
2012-09-27 11:52:00 PM  
without any force, it will not move at all. If ya don't poke it it will just sit there. I refrazed an old theory
 
2012-09-27 11:52:01 PM  

StopLurkListen: well no at some temptures every thing is fluid, like water

Well, pressure is part of the equation too. Liquid water can't exist on Mars['s surface] at any temperature. It sublimates directly from ice to a gas.


[It could exist as liquid underground. FTFM]
 
2012-09-27 11:53:22 PM  

markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..


i112.photobucket.com

Hey baby, wanna come to my party boat on the river? On MARS?
 
2012-09-27 11:53:33 PM  
Picture 3 is a fossilized penis.
 
2012-09-27 11:54:12 PM  
Oops I mean picture #2
 
2012-09-27 11:56:10 PM  
Maybe I AM TOO SERIOUS now
 
2012-09-27 11:56:42 PM  

Metaluna Mutant: yeah, plenty of water -- just don't drink any.

[dvdmedia.ign.com image 480x270]


One of my favorite episodes right there.
 
2012-09-27 11:57:01 PM  

justtray: There is almost certainly life on Mars.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.



So what you're saying is that there are cows in the sinkholes, is that right then?
 
2012-09-27 11:57:30 PM  
When water formed on earth, was it as vapor in the atmosphere or terrestrial liquid?
 
2012-09-27 11:57:34 PM  
again, fast moving?
 
2012-09-27 11:57:57 PM  
Was this before or after it killed the cat?
 
2012-09-27 11:58:39 PM  

cman: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

Probably someone on our planet had some sort of tame-travelling predestination paradox into the past and somehow killed all life on Mars by accident. When it comes to destroying life, we humans are #1


It was a sound of thunder...
 
2012-09-27 11:59:30 PM  

Ambivalence: So what happened to it?


God used it for the great flood, and forgot to put it back when he was done.
 
2012-09-28 12:02:48 AM  

Piestar: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

God used it for the great flood, and forgot to put it back when he was done.


Sooooooooooooo close!

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-28 12:04:34 AM  
I'm sort of hoping there is no life on Mars, at least not currently. Then we won't have any ethical issues should we ever want to terraform the planet.

'Cause I can definitely see some 23rd century version of PETA protesting Martian terraforming because it will kill off the native bacteria.
 
2012-09-28 12:08:51 AM  

grinnel: When water formed on earth, was it as vapor in the atmosphere or terrestrial liquid?


African or European?
 
2012-09-28 12:10:15 AM  

adeist69: justtray: There is almost certainly life on Mars.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.


So what you're saying is that there are cows in the sinkholes, is that right then?


More likely a plethora of microbial bacteria.
 
2012-09-28 12:11:56 AM  

NewportBarGuy: WelldeadLink: Of course, as soon as they stop looking for water they find it.

NASA found my car keys!


NASA found me a parking spot at the mall... at CHRISTMAS!
 
2012-09-28 12:11:57 AM  

way south: Lsherm: markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..

Trilobites look pretty advanced, all things considered. I'd settle for fossilized bacteria, if the rover can detect it.

The problem being that finding life, or fossil life, would set a mandate for a manned mission to study one of the most revolutionary discoveries in the history of mankind.
I'm going to play the conspiracy thoery card and say that no scientist or politican with a fiefdom to protect wants their hands tied like that.

Whatever piece of equipment disovers anything will be declared faulty and the results inconclusive.


Are you kidding?

I'd gladly beat the myself half to death with my own arm which I ripped off for the purpose just to see the day we find current or past life on Mars.

The politician who greenlights a mars mission will get a fanbase a mile wide and a league long. He could be President if they find and return life.

Scientists are morons when it comes to anything but science. PR is most certainly not their strong suit. I mean, in a world where you can get a billion dollars for an ICBM to use on Sadam's house, how is NASA's funding being cut? Bad PR, that's how.
 
2012-09-28 12:12:00 AM  

way south: Lsherm: markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..

Trilobites look pretty advanced, all things considered. I'd settle for fossilized bacteria, if the rover can detect it.

The problem being that finding life, or fossil life, would set a mandate for a manned mission to study one of the most revolutionary discoveries in the history of mankind.
I'm going to play the conspiracy thoery card and say that no scientist or politican with a fiefdom to protect wants their hands tied like that.

Whatever piece of equipment disovers anything will be declared faulty and the results inconclusive.


It wouldn't require a "manned mission" - just a more focused mission like the one they're already doing. Expensive, but not that expensive, especially given all the time in the world, which we have. They managed to hit a targeted landing zone once within a 20 mile radius on a mission that was planned over a decade ago. They could do the same thing again with better accuracy at the same cost today.
 
2012-09-28 12:13:22 AM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-09-28 12:13:59 AM  

StopLurkListen: mudpants: NewportBarGuy: redly1: because water is the only liquid in the universe

[i45.tinypic.com image 500x568]

YOU

[i47.tinypic.com image 432x359]

EVERYONE ELSE

well no at some temptures every thing is fluid, like water

Well, pressure is part of the equation too. Liquid water can't exist on Mars at any temperature. It sublimates directly from ice to a gas.


Today. A couple hundred million years ago?

Who knows?

/curiosity of course
 
2012-09-28 12:15:20 AM  
I'm pretty sure the next thing they're going to find is a fossilized skeleton of a hominid.
 
2012-09-28 12:15:37 AM  

mudpants: again, fast moving?


Isn't it time to get off daddy's computer?
 
2012-09-28 12:16:01 AM  
Mars and Earth once shared an orbit. They crashed sending Mars to where it is now.
 
2012-09-28 12:21:35 AM  

justtray: There is almost certainly life on Mars.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.


Because, like I said, scientists suck at everything but science.

Microbiologists know EXACTLY how horrificly destructive even one Earth microbe could be to a native martian organism population. And of course vice versa.

The engineers know how hard it would be to actually search for life up there like you can in elementary school pond water, because optics and shovels are farkin' heavy and require things an interplanetary probe can't do without sacrificing other important functions.

The Astronomers need the "boring" rock analyses to test their extrapolations based on orbital readings for, hopefully, exploring other planets quicker in the future.

But I'm with you. fark scientists. fark the millitary. fark the martians. Let's send a probe to places with the most potential for life and give that farker a shovel and microscope and a microphone/speaker system.

"Hey martians! Come out, come out whereever you are!" *plays freebird* Now let's dig!
 
2012-09-28 12:22:27 AM  
I'm watching Ancient Aliens right now
 
2012-09-28 12:23:15 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: cman: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

Probably someone on our planet had some sort of tame-travelling predestination paradox into the past and somehow killed all life on Mars by accident. When it comes to destroying life, we humans are #1

You betcha.


It was just one lousy little crushed butterfly.
 
2012-09-28 12:24:19 AM  

Salmon: I'm watching Ancient Aliens right now


You're the reason I cancelled cable. Thanks for saving me money!
 
2012-09-28 12:26:06 AM  
blog.gadgethelpline.com
 
2012-09-28 12:26:46 AM  

doglover: The Astronomers need the "boring" rock analyses to test their extrapolations based on orbital readings for, hopefully, exploring other planets quicker in the future.


Okay, I'll accept this assertion. Now, why does that prevent us from searching in places where we have a high probability of finding life?

And what's wrong with sending probes to places that very likely have life with a shovel and a microscope? Is that not exactly what we are doing with Curiosity?

I really hope my sarcasm meter is just broken and you aren't a retarded NASA apologist....
 
2012-09-28 12:29:15 AM  

TastyEloi: 'Cause I can definitely see some 23rd century version of PETA protesting Martian terraforming because it will kill off the native bacteria.


upload.wikimedia.org

Way ahead of you.
 
2012-09-28 12:29:53 AM  

TastyEloi: I'm sort of hoping there is no life on Mars, at least not currently. Then we won't have any ethical issues should we ever want to terraform the planet.

'Cause I can definitely see some 23rd century version of PETA protesting Martian terraforming because it will kill off the native bacteria.


Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.
 
2012-09-28 12:33:53 AM  

tuxq: I'm sure it did -- right before politician-run energy companies raped it dry, destroyed the atmosphere, and destroyed the entire planet.


"I don't believe human activity causes global climate change. Mainly because I'm makin' bank, biatches!"
 
2012-09-28 12:33:59 AM  
The proof was...

ronaldweinland.info

Sure sign the life was intelligent
 
2012-09-28 12:34:39 AM  

justtray: doglover: The Astronomers need the "boring" rock analyses to test their extrapolations based on orbital readings for, hopefully, exploring other planets quicker in the future.

Okay, I'll accept this assertion. Now, why does that prevent us from searching in places where we have a high probability of finding life?

And what's wrong with sending probes to places that very likely have life with a shovel and a microscope? Is that not exactly what we are doing with Curiosity?

I really hope my sarcasm meter is just broken and you aren't a retarded NASA apologist....


Because getting a decent microscope lab on a robot that can actually dig a proper hole to mars is one piece is A LOT harder and more expensive than sending the kinds of missions we do send, and the value to science of finding microbes on Mars is minimal. Meanwhile, learning the geology of mars to double check what we think we know is important for reliability of future observations.
 
2012-09-28 12:34:47 AM  

Lsherm: It wouldn't require a "manned mission" - just a more focused mission like the one they're already doing.


I've got to disagree based on previous missions.
Yes the equipment keeps getting better, but truly satisfying scientists can be an impossible task.

Its been forty years of maybes on water. They see evidence from space, they see ice and dew forming on the ground, they see stuff gushing out of fissures and none of it is ever conclusive. No ones going to be satisfied till they can taste the red mud for themselves.

That in mind, I don't think there is any microscope or test you can engineer that will satisfy them to answer the question of life.
No ones going to be happy until they can personally scoop the crap strait off the surface of mars and dump it in a glass dish.
 
2012-09-28 12:36:17 AM  

whatshisname: So THAT'S where Jesus put all the water left over from the flood!


Wait a sec, was Jesus born yet when the flood happened?
 
2012-09-28 12:36:23 AM  

James F. Campbell: markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..

I believe we will find one as well. Too bad the people who humanity most desperately needs to change will never incorporate this new information into their worldview.


The way I see it people have no trouble with alien life, but there is still too much institutional power riding on it not existing. It is those institutions which instill these views in people, so once what benefits them changes so will the worldview. For instance, the catholic church has already accepted alien life. Why? because it became in its best interests to do so because of the image they wanted. A more modern, scientific image. So they incorporated alien life so seamlessly and easy most people didn't even notice. Now any life in the universe is God's creation.

It's that people buy into what those in these institutions tell them, church, school, government, etc and so on. If they have to suddenly confront alien life when the institution(s) they believe in says it doesn't exist they'll have issues. But if the institution had changed its view and then the announcement is made later well... they still have their faith in authority and how they were told things worked when they were 7 years old but with official changes. No problem at all.

The problem is for the institutions which want to seem as if they have a handle on everything. The institutional insecurity, not for people. That's why there are so many cover-up fairy tales. Insecurity of the people running things first and foremost.

That's my take on it. I really don't think people have a problem with alien life. Tell someone in some isolated third world country life was found on mars and the problem he'll have is believing someone got to mars to find it.
 
2012-09-28 12:37:20 AM  

doglover: Because getting a decent microscope lab on a robot that can actually dig a proper hole to mars is one piece is A LOT harder and more expensive than sending the kinds of missions we do send, and the value to science of finding microbes on Mars is minimal. Meanwhile, learning the geology of mars to double check what we think we know is important for reliability of future observations.


You are a moron. Not much more to say. I bolded the especially stupid parts. Welcome to the ignore list.
 
2012-09-28 12:38:30 AM  

Mr. Carpenter: Xaxor: It's NASA, not Nasa, though I am probably guilty of it too.

It can be either.... (long explanation)


Oh, well thanks. I learned something today.
 
2012-09-28 12:39:28 AM  

brianbankerus: fusillade762: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.

I'm not a scientician, but I do have an internet degree in doctorology.


blacksportsonline.com
 
2012-09-28 12:40:28 AM  

justtray: doglover: Because getting a decent microscope lab on a robot that can actually dig a proper hole to mars is one piece is A LOT harder and more expensive than sending the kinds of missions we do send, and the value to science of finding microbes on Mars is minimal. Meanwhile, learning the geology of mars to double check what we think we know is important for reliability of future observations.

You are a moron. Not much more to say. I bolded the especially stupid parts. Welcome to the ignore list.


Oh noes! Not justtray's ignore list!
 
2012-09-28 12:41:41 AM  
With all due respect to the science and technology that went into this project, there is no money in this. Mars is a frozen wasteland. Useless.

Put the money into agriculture. We're going to need it.
 
2012-09-28 12:44:10 AM  

ciberido: TastyEloi: 'Cause I can definitely see some 23rd century version of PETA protesting Martian terraforming because it will kill off the native bacteria.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x329]

Way ahead of you.


Love that series of books.
 
2012-09-28 12:45:22 AM  
www.freewebs.com

leave our water alone, earthling scum!
 
2012-09-28 12:45:29 AM  

NewportBarGuy: redly1: because water is the only liquid in the universe

[i45.tinypic.com image 500x568]

YOU

[i47.tinypic.com image 432x359]

EVERYONE ELSE


Under Martian conditions, the only possible liquids in quantities large enough to matter are (salt) water and ammonia. The presence of aqueous minerals and absence of ammonium minerals leaves only one option.
 
2012-09-28 12:45:39 AM  

fusillade762: TastyEloi: I'm sort of hoping there is no life on Mars, at least not currently. Then we won't have any ethical issues should we ever want to terraform the planet.

'Cause I can definitely see some 23rd century version of PETA protesting Martian terraforming because it will kill off the native bacteria.

Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.


Because Mars would need a magnetic field to deflect dangerous charged particles--is that it?
 
2012-09-28 12:47:33 AM  

TastyEloi: fusillade762: TastyEloi: I'm sort of hoping there is no life on Mars, at least not currently. Then we won't have any ethical issues should we ever want to terraform the planet.

'Cause I can definitely see some 23rd century version of PETA protesting Martian terraforming because it will kill off the native bacteria.

Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.

Because Mars would need a magnetic field to deflect dangerous charged particles--is that it?


Also to deflect the Solar Wind so that it does not strip away any atmosphere that you might create.
 
2012-09-28 12:48:31 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Under Martian conditions, the only possible liquids in quantities large enough to matter are (salt) water and ammonia. The presence of aqueous minerals and absence of ammonium minerals leaves only one option.


I don't want to drink my own piss :(
 
2012-09-28 12:56:33 AM  

KarmicDisaster: Also to deflect the Solar Wind so that it does not strip away any atmosphere that you might create.


Read a nice piece about that. Part of the problem is that sun light breaks down water molecules, some of it recombines as hydrogen. Some of that hydrogen escapes into space. This happens on earth to this day, hydrogen is boiling off into space and lost forever. Mars having lighter gravity, would have lost an ocean of water in the first billion years, and likely never had nearly as much as the earth.

\The ancients thought the planets were perfect.
\\The the earth was foul and corrupt.
\\\If they'd seen what we've seen.
\\\\They'd know the earth is the most precious jewel in gods crown.
\\Slashies.
 
2012-09-28 01:00:13 AM  

fusillade762: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.


As I understand it, it's to do with the lower gravity on Mars. Atmosphere of some kind is necessary to keep the temperature above the freezing point of water (or ammonia, whatever). Mars once had such an atmosphere, but it was lost quickly due to the lower gravity. No atmosphere = freezing temps = no liquid water. However, no atmosphere also = nothing to keep the frozen water from sublimating to gas. That's just a memory from a long-ago Discovery channel discussion of Martian water so I'm sure it's very wrong, but probably along the right track.

For whatever reason, there just can't be liquid water on the surface without some kind of atmosphere.
 
2012-09-28 01:03:06 AM  

justtray: There is almost certainly life on Mars.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.


Just off the cuff, if there is methane frozen in the crust, and as the seasons change it warms, more methane would be released, with no biological process. Or soething like that. methane trapped in something. That's just off the cuff and I don't know if what you say is even true, but that alone is certainly not proof of life.
 
2012-09-28 01:04:19 AM  

CruJones: justtray: There is almost certainly life on Mars.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.

Just off the cuff, if there is methane frozen in the crust, and as the seasons change it warms, more methane would be released, with no biological process. Or soething like that. methane trapped in something. That's just off the cuff and I don't know if what you say is even true, but that alone is certainly not proof of life.


Don't be stupid. There are no known geological processes that can do what you describe. That's EXACTLY the point.
 
2012-09-28 01:05:19 AM  

CruJones: justtray: There is almost certainly life on Mars.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.

Just off the cuff, if there is methane frozen in the crust, and as the seasons change it warms, more methane would be released, with no biological process. Or soething like that. methane trapped in something. That's just off the cuff and I don't know if what you say is even true, but that alone is certainly not proof of life.


But yeah thanks for coming in here and sharing your ignorance on the subject with everyone. It's always good to get opinionated and preachy on things you have literally no clue about.
 
2012-09-28 01:09:36 AM  
Only because I'm not coming back, and for some reason, this clear sign of life keeps getting swept under the rug.

Observations over the last decade suggest that methane clouds form briefly over Mars during the summer months. The discovery has left many scientists scratching their heads, since it doesn't fit into models of the martian atmosphere. The image above shows a map of methane concentrations in Autumn (first martian year observed) overlayed on true color map of Mars. It's a debate of long-standing that the Mars' Curiosity rover might soon answer.

"The reports are extraordinary," said Kevin Zahnle of NASA Ames Research Center. "They require methane to have a life time of days or weeks in the martian atmosphere, which disagrees with the known behavior of methane by at least a factor of 1000."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/09/mars-methane-debate-a-si g n-of-life-or-a-mirage.html
 
2012-09-28 01:14:45 AM  

way south: No ones going to be happy until they can personally scoop the crap strait off the surface of mars and dump it in a glass dish.


Then they just have a mission to bring stuff back. It can be done. No man required.
 
2012-09-28 01:18:01 AM  

markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..


There are both good and bad implications with regards to life in the universe, and to us.

Finding a complex, multicellular fossil on Mars would be a wonderful, exciting thing, since it would tell us that complex life arose, perhaps independently, on at least two different planets in our solar system. That's the good.

Finding that fossil on a planet that's completely dead today would indicate that yes, Virginia, it's perfectly and completely possible for all life on a planet, complex or otherwise, to be wiped out. That's the bad.

That would be one possible solution to the Fermi Paradox--it may be that even if life is relatively common in the universe, most of it is microbial and much of the rest gets smothered in its crib before it gets to the point where it's able to start talking leaving only a handful of planets that manage to pass through the filter. We may be alone in the galaxy, and even if we're not, intelligent life could be so thinly spread that it never manages to meet another sentient species before it dies out or loses interest in communicating and goes burrowing up its own navel. .
 
2012-09-28 01:19:14 AM  

James F. Campbell: markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..

I believe we will find one as well. Too bad the people who humanity most desperately needs to change will never incorporate this new information into their worldview.


CS Lewis was writing about this in the 1930s and 50s.

Link

Go project your American sensibilities elsewhere.
 
2012-09-28 01:20:34 AM  
/obscure?
 
2012-09-28 01:21:13 AM  

RatMaster999: /obscure?


Damn it...ate my picture. I really need to preview.
 
2012-09-28 01:28:29 AM  
An, BTW, i called this from the first picture sent back.
 
2012-09-28 01:29:35 AM  
Dammit:

Link 

Not a scientist, but i did boff a physicist in a Holiday Inn Express, once.
 
2012-09-28 01:31:46 AM  

RatMaster999: RatMaster999: /obscure?

Damn it...ate my picture. I really need to preview.


Or review. It's your choice man.
 
2012-09-28 01:33:04 AM  

fusillade762: Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.


You can do that with lasers.
 
2012-09-28 01:33:43 AM  

KarmicDisaster: TastyEloi: fusillade762: TastyEloi: I'm sort of hoping there is no life on Mars, at least not currently. Then we won't have any ethical issues should we ever want to terraform the planet.

'Cause I can definitely see some 23rd century version of PETA protesting Martian terraforming because it will kill off the native bacteria.

Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.

Because Mars would need a magnetic field to deflect dangerous charged particles--is that it?

Also to deflect the Solar Wind so that it does not strip away any atmosphere that you might create.


I wonder how the math works out. But it seems reasonable that if you can put an atmosphere on the damn thing in anything close to a human time frame (100s or 1000s of years?) , then you can probably maintain it despite solar wind slowly blowing it off.
 
2012-09-28 01:46:51 AM  

fusillade762: TastyEloi: I'm sort of hoping there is no life on Mars, at least not currently. Then we won't have any ethical issues should we ever want to terraform the planet.

'Cause I can definitely see some 23rd century version of PETA protesting Martian terraforming because it will kill off the native bacteria.

Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.


Need to push a larger moon into orbit. well wouldn't have to be large... just one with more mass. Assuming there is in fact a semi-solid iron core, the tidal forces from a large orbiting mass would perhaps be enough to get the core spinning again.
 
2012-09-28 01:53:08 AM  
Serious question... can we or how close are they to bio-engineering bacteria that can survive in different environments? Just make one that can feed off the gas of the atmosphere and let evolution take place.
 
2012-09-28 01:53:28 AM  

AgentTokyo: fusillade762: TastyEloi: I'm sort of hoping there is no life on Mars, at least not currently. Then we won't have any ethical issues should we ever want to terraform the planet.

'Cause I can definitely see some 23rd century version of PETA protesting Martian terraforming because it will kill off the native bacteria.

Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.

Need to push a larger moon into orbit. well wouldn't have to be large... just one with more mass. Assuming there is in fact a semi-solid iron core, the tidal forces from a large orbiting mass would perhaps be enough to get the core spinning again.


pfft. there's a machine there doug quaid needs to start. everyone knows that.
 
2012-09-28 01:56:31 AM  

AgentTokyo: fusillade762: TastyEloi: I'm sort of hoping there is no life on Mars, at least not currently. Then we won't have any ethical issues should we ever want to terraform the planet.

'Cause I can definitely see some 23rd century version of PETA protesting Martian terraforming because it will kill off the native bacteria.

Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.

Need to push a larger moon into orbit. well wouldn't have to be large... just one with more mass. Assuming there is in fact a semi-solid iron core, the tidal forces from a large orbiting mass would perhaps be enough to get the core spinning again.


At that point, why not just build underground? You can use raw sunlight for solar power snd feed flourescent lights to grow crops in caves where you can control the pressure and radiation and atmospheric composition and temperature and hopefully your bladder because we might be sharing bunks at first.
 
2012-09-28 01:57:45 AM  

ronin7: KarmicDisaster: TastyEloi: fusillade762: TastyEloi: I'm sort of hoping there is no life on Mars, at least not currently. Then we won't have any ethical issues should we ever want to terraform the planet.

'Cause I can definitely see some 23rd century version of PETA protesting Martian terraforming because it will kill off the native bacteria.

Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.

Because Mars would need a magnetic field to deflect dangerous charged particles--is that it?

Also to deflect the Solar Wind so that it does not strip away any atmosphere that you might create.

I wonder how the math works out. But it seems reasonable that if you can put an atmosphere on the damn thing in anything close to a human time frame (100s or 1000s of years?) , then you can probably maintain it despite solar wind slowly blowing it off.


If you're at a place where you have the technology to transform a planet from a frozen desert back to a garden in the first place, you're also probably at a point where you can commit yourself to constantly tinkering with the biosphere to keep it habitable. In the absence of plate tectonics, you could dredge the seabeds every so often to get your nutrients back onto the land after rain and wind erode them into the ocean, keep dragging comets out of the Kuiper belt or the Oort to replenish the volatiles that the solar wind strips away. The rate of atmosphere escape should be low enough to keep up with without too much fuss. Or maybe you could generate an artificial magnetic field around the planet to protect it from the solar wind. If you're able to think seriously about doing it in the first place, keeping it up should be child's play.
 
2012-09-28 02:01:35 AM  

towatchoverme: CS Lewis was writing about this in the 1930s and 50s.

Link

Go project your American sensibilities elsewhere.


home.comcast.net
 
2012-09-28 02:27:28 AM  

AgentTokyo: fusillade762: TastyEloi: I'm sort of hoping there is no life on Mars, at least not currently. Then we won't have any ethical issues should we ever want to terraform the planet.

'Cause I can definitely see some 23rd century version of PETA protesting Martian terraforming because it will kill off the native bacteria.

Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.

Need to push a larger moon into orbit. well wouldn't have to be large... just one with more mass. Assuming there is in fact a semi-solid iron core, the tidal forces from a large orbiting mass would perhaps be enough to get the core spinning again.


Moons are also good for intercepting incoming meteors.


doglover: At that point, why not just build underground? You can use raw sunlight for solar power snd feed flourescent lights to grow crops in caves where you can control the pressure and radiation and atmospheric composition and temperature and hopefully your bladder because we might be sharing bunks at first.


You'd have to build underground at first because until you have an atmosphere a solar flare could kill everyone on the surface.
 
HSA
2012-09-28 02:29:09 AM  
Feeling like I'm being led into a conclusion.
With enough time, other things than water can create the photographs that we're presented.
 
2012-09-28 02:36:18 AM  

justtray: There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.


Citation please. I've seen papers regarding methane releases, but no specifics about certain sinkholes as zones of methane production. If you can point me to that data, I'd appreciate it.
 
2012-09-28 02:38:04 AM  

justtray: Don't be stupid. There are no known geological processes that can do what you describe. That's EXACTLY the point.


Yes there are. See Oze and Sharma, 2005 (PDF).
 
2012-09-28 02:39:20 AM  

NewportBarGuy: redly1: because water is the only liquid in the universe

[i45.tinypic.com image 500x568]

YOU

[i47.tinypic.com image 432x359]

EVERYONE ELSE


The funny thing is. If we do ever go Mars...

Drinking your own piss is pretty standard practice.
 
2012-09-28 02:49:11 AM  

hoihoi8: Serious question... can we or how close are they to bio-engineering bacteria that can survive in different environments? Just make one that can feed off the gas of the atmosphere and let evolution take place.


They already exist here on Earth, no engineering required.
 
2012-09-28 03:09:37 AM  

HSA: Feeling like I'm being led into a conclusion.
With enough time, other things than water can create the photographs that we're presented.


Sure ... but what, if not liquid water? Not shutting you down, this is unsettled science. Which means it's exciting.

Wind weathering produces things that look like this:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-28 03:22:12 AM  

Richard Saunders: Just because it's a fluid, does not mean it's water...

/or did I not get the memo?


redly1: because water is the only liquid in the universe


Other liquids may not be compatible with the chemicals they've already found, such as the hematite that the previous rovers found. Also, Mars has polar caps with a lot of water ice, so we already know that the planet has lots of water on it. We just want to know whether it used to be covered with it. There's no good reason to assume, if we found evidence of flowing rivers, that they were made of a different liquid than the one we already have evidence for and direct observations of.


grinnel: When water formed on earth, was it as vapor in the atmosphere or terrestrial liquid?


Earth was molten when it was first formed, so the water would have had to be in vapor form. It is also thought that a lot of water arrived in the form of comets. Comet impacts would have spread the water around as vapor until clouds finally formed and precipitated when the temperature became low enough.
 
2012-09-28 03:24:25 AM  

HSA: Feeling like I'm being led into a conclusion.
With enough time, other things than water can create the photographs that we're presented.


Sure, but they're doing (and have already done) chemical analysis too. It isn't just the pebbles shape.
And we already know water exists on Mars in large amounts, it's just frozen at the poles right now.
 
2012-09-28 03:26:22 AM  

StopLurkListen: HSA: Feeling like I'm being led into a conclusion.
With enough time, other things than water can create the photographs that we're presented.

Sure ... but what, if not liquid water? Not shutting you down, this is unsettled science. Which means it's exciting.

Wind weathering produces things that look like this:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]


Yes. Take a CLOSER look. Those layers? They're sedimentary rocks that only form in water.

Your example photo proves that liquid water existed at some point there.
 
2012-09-28 03:30:39 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Richard Saunders: Just because it's a fluid, does not mean it's water...

/or did I not get the memo?

Other solvents tend not to wear rock in the same fashion. Mars rock is composed from a lot of silicon and lesser basalts than Earth, but water erosion is distinct from streams of, say, liquid methane. Water is polar; it hydrates silica minerals, and has an astonishing vapor pressure to atomic weight ratio.

Meanwhile the chances of Mars getting cold enough to liquefy methane in volume and rain it from the sky in sufficient quantities to erode rock is between slim and none.


See, this is why I ask. There are some smart FARKers out there.

Thank you.
 
2012-09-28 03:31:02 AM  

justtray: adeist69: justtray: There is almost certainly life on Mars.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.


So what you're saying is that there are cows in the sinkholes, is that right then?

More likely a plethora of microbial bacteria.


cati.typepad.com A gWhat?

Evidence of previous or even current life on Mars will be slowly released until it is undeniable. Mark my words.
 
2012-09-28 04:14:13 AM  
Wouldn't it be something if Curiosity found a child's shovel & pail buried in the sand on the banks of that dried stream?
 
2012-09-28 04:19:17 AM  

ZAZ: Toss this press release on top of the stack of other "water! life!" press releases. When the bottom page turns to diamond, read the top page and believe it.


This. The reality is that we have no idea how likely life is anywhere beyond Earth. No idea whatsoever. Finding evidence of water or even water itself doesn't mean anything beyond keeping Mars in the "not completely impossible to have or have had life" category as opposed to, say, the freaking sun which is 100% ruled out. Finding evidence of water is like saying "the murderer is not Hispanic". Woop-de-doo, you just eliminated 2% of 6 billion possible suspects.

Keep up the good work space-nerds.
 
2012-09-28 04:39:25 AM  

justtray: There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.


I take no issue with your first 2 sentences, and support looking for life on Mars, but the bolded statement is false. There are multiple geological processes that produce methane. And there is sufficient geothermal activity on Mars to drive some of them.

I agree that we should send something to check it out, though just to be sure. Even finding decaying coal under the surface would be a fantastic discovery.
 
2012-09-28 04:48:03 AM  

lewismarktwo: Evidence of previous or even current life on Mars will be slowly released until it is undeniable. Mark my words.


I'm going to bet that if they do find something living on mars it'll turn out to be Archaea that hitched on meteorites blasted into orbit from cometary collisions with earth eons ago.
 
2012-09-28 05:20:44 AM  

justtray: doglover: Because getting a decent microscope lab on a robot that can actually dig a proper hole to mars is one piece is A LOT harder and more expensive than sending the kinds of missions we do send, and the value to science of finding microbes on Mars is minimal. Meanwhile, learning the geology of mars to double check what we think we know is important for reliability of future observations.

You are a moron. Not much more to say. I bolded the especially stupid parts. Welcome to the ignore list.


Welcome to my "asshole" list.
 
2012-09-28 05:49:13 AM  
Golly! welcome to last decade! Richard Hoagland is smiling
 
2012-09-28 06:06:13 AM  

mudpants: how fast does water usually move?


3
 
2012-09-28 06:14:51 AM  

Ambivalence: So what happened to it?


Mars core stopped spinning. Magnetic field collapsed. Solar winds stripped 99.5% of the atmo away, and all the water.
 
2012-09-28 06:20:30 AM  
I could save, shrink, and upload it...

But really just google image search "Water On Mars"... It will probably be the first image that comes up... Always worth annoying people with when this subject comes up.
 
2012-09-28 06:31:14 AM  

markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..


Hey, I played that scenario back in X-Com
 
2012-09-28 06:47:17 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Finding that fossil on a planet that's completely dead today would indicate that yes, Virginia, it's perfectly and completely possible for all life on a planet, complex or otherwise, to be wiped out. That's the bad.


Why is that bad? I don't think any scientist assumes that this not possible. We've come very close more than once on this planet.
 
2012-09-28 07:21:58 AM  

justtray: You are a moron. Not much more to say. I bolded the especially stupid parts. Welcome to the ignore list.


Um, isn't that a little harsh?
 
2012-09-28 07:40:14 AM  

Lsherm: way south: No ones going to be happy until they can personally scoop the crap strait off the surface of mars and dump it in a glass dish.

Then they just have a mission to bring stuff back. It can be done. No man required.


There are two problems I see with that.
First: sample returns are difficult because they pose the biggest challenges of a manned mission, landing and unsupported liftoff, but without the budget. Its alot of engineering to send a capable rocket to another world, even more to load it with material.
Going with men is even more difficult and expensive obviously. But that brings up the real debacle.

Second: If you're looking for life, not just any dirt will do.
What do we do if the suspected growing area is deep underground or in some unique location? This amps up the difficulty of the engineering.
Right now we aren't even sure where to look.

Apollo had a dozen guys hunting choice samples from around the moon, bringing back hundreds of pounds of material. The job they did was an absolute bonanza for science... but they all missed the ice. Mainly because they didn't know where or what to look for at the time.

Even with people, finding proof of life on mars could take years and many missions.
Now We're going to scale this down to a few ounces and hope the martian bugs are in it?

That's asking alot from a robot.

/Not that it can't be done, but I'd argue that science will be sooner sated by landing scientists to do the work.
/Its been over thirty years of robots and we're still stuck on the water question.
 
2012-09-28 07:40:19 AM  
Matter doesn't just disappear. If there used to be significant water on Mars, where did it go? Did it all react with something? Was it all ejected into space at escape velocity? There's really no other choice except those two, or the third possibility, that there never was any water.
 
2012-09-28 07:52:57 AM  

ReverendJasen: Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Finding that fossil on a planet that's completely dead today would indicate that yes, Virginia, it's perfectly and completely possible for all life on a planet, complex or otherwise, to be wiped out. That's the bad.

Why is that bad? I don't think any scientist assumes that this not possible. We've come very close more than once on this planet.


We have. The Permian extinction was a close one.

As to the "why," this article talks about it, and the Great Filter, at some length. Your mileage may vary, as it is rather pessimistic. Possibly unnecessarily so, especially considering we still don't have any clear idea how common life in the universe even IS yet, and that we're still trying to understand the practical hurdles of detecting and communicating with intelligent life. But I still think it needs to be considered, even if it's only to show that the idea is incorrect. 

In case it wasn't clear, I really don't like the idea, since I'd prefer a galaxy teeming with life--present OR past--to one where we're completely alone and essentially doomed.

Also, it's taken me something like a half-hour to type two short paragraphs, and the Disco Ball of Death is rising in the east outside my window. I think it's time I hit the sack.
 
2012-09-28 08:03:40 AM  

Tommy Moo: Matter doesn't just disappear. If there used to be significant water on Mars, where did it go? Did it all react with something? Was it all ejected into space at escape velocity? There's really no other choice except those two, or the third possibility, that there never was any water.


Actually, you're right. Somewhere between half and 90% of it got blasted into space along with the atmosphere by the solar wind after the global magnetic field failed, assuming it ever had one. What was left was either deep underground, or frozen in the ice caps and permafrost, or chemically bound up with the rocks. It took hundreds of millions of years for it to happen, maybe longer.

Okay, now I'm gone. Later, guys.
 
2012-09-28 08:06:39 AM  

Tommy Moo: Matter doesn't just disappear. If there used to be significant water on Mars, where did it go? Did it all react with something? Was it all ejected into space at escape velocity? There's really no other choice except those two, or the third possibility, that there never was any water.


Its frozen in the ground like the permafrost regions on Earth. Those regions are also experiance desert-like dryness because the cold air can hold very little water vapor.
 
2012-09-28 08:27:15 AM  

justtray: CruJones: justtray: There is almost certainly life on Mars.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.

Just off the cuff, if there is methane frozen in the crust, and as the seasons change it warms, more methane would be released, with no biological process. Or soething like that. methane trapped in something. That's just off the cuff and I don't know if what you say is even true, but that alone is certainly not proof of life.

But yeah thanks for coming in here and sharing your ignorance on the subject with everyone. It's always good to get opinionated and preachy on things you have literally no clue about.


Dude, what the hell is your problem? Take a farking prozac.
 
2012-09-28 08:28:58 AM  

fusillade762: markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..

I wonder if the folks at NASA are kicking themselves right about now?


Utterly no.

Examine orbital imagery of Gale Crater and you see why. There is clear evidence that water was carving the place all over the place. No serious follower of this mission could possibly been unaware of the clear alluvial fan just a little bit Northwest of where Curiosity landed fed by dried out "river" which got officially dubbed Peace Vallis just this Wednesday.

There just is no liquid other than water that could have been a liquid on Mars in past times, not be flowing now, and could conceivably have been naturally present in the quantities needed. Finally, it is the previous two rovers had found rocks which on Earth are only known to form in the presence of liquid water.

This is the first time clear evidence of flowing water was found from the ground, but it was just the nail on the coffin in the views of anyone -- assuming they exist -- who still had doubts.

In short, Curiosity found the expected. It is still big news, but finding evidence of this is not surprising.

Thus NASA is not kicking itself. The instruments that are actually on the rover, are very much needed if we are to understand the planet: primarily tools of chemical analysis. So maybe you don't expect to detect life with a GC-MS, but if any sort of investigation on the topic is to go forward in any serious way that is the sort of thing that is needed.

While a "trilobite" would be cool. It would be extraordinarily unlikely. It really would be to equip the rover with tools that will almost certainly not be needed in the tiny hope of finding a macrofossil would be stupid especially when there is a huge need for the tools that the rover has on it. If we are to try to determine if Mars could have had life -- a tough job as it is since we don't know how it originated -- we will need to know something about the chemistry of Mars. That is why the rover was designed with a damn good portable chemical analysis lab. Laser/ChemCam to determine elemental composition of remote targets. APXS to do it close-up. SAM with its GC-MS is the bulk of the scientific payload and it determines chemical composition. CheMin determines mineral composition. DAN probes beneath the ground mostly looking for underground ice.
 
2012-09-28 08:35:59 AM  

justtray: There is almost certainly life on Mars.

There are giant sinkholes in the surface of the planet that are clearly visible. Around these zones, as the seasons change, the amount of Methane in the atmosphere increases signficantly. The only process we know that releases methane into the atmosphere like this is biological.

So the question really is, "Why aren't we searching for life on Mars?" We know where to look, and we aren't even trying.


Methane is easily produced by abiotic means.

That the atmosphere changes as the seasons change is also unsurprising.

This is why the scientific community is extremely skeptical about methane-implies-life claims.

Indeed if life existed in significant quantities on Mars I would expect that the atmosphere to be clearly out of chemical equilibrium. It is not.
 
2012-09-28 09:08:44 AM  

grinnel: When water formed on earth, was it as vapor in the atmosphere or terrestrial liquid?


It didn't so much form on Earth as arrive, as water inside rocks. When enough rocks gathered together, squeezed each other and warmed up, some of the water escaped to the surface. There's still a lot of water inside this planet, and it affects the chemistry of the molten rock.

/that's hot
 
2012-09-28 09:11:53 AM  

fusillade762: Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.


Start adding asteroids. If all you want is water and an atmosphere which will last many lifetimes, add comets or ice chunks.

/long view
 
2012-09-28 09:24:47 AM  

fusillade762: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.


I've been out of astro for a while, but I believe the prevailing theory is the runaway green house effect.
 
2012-09-28 09:26:44 AM  

StopLurkListen: HSA: Feeling like I'm being led into a conclusion.
With enough time, other things than water can create the photographs that we're presented.

Sure ... but what, if not liquid water? Not shutting you down, this is unsettled science. Which means it's exciting.

Wind weathering produces things that look like this:

3.bp.blogspot.com


But a lot of water produces the Seaview:
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-28 09:45:36 AM  

cfletch13: fusillade762: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.

I've been out of astro for a while, but I believe the prevailing theory is the runaway green house effect.


Runaway greenhouse is Venus.

WelldeadLink: fusillade762: Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.

Start adding asteroids. If all you want is water and an atmosphere which will last many lifetimes, add comets or ice chunks.

/long view


So how much of the asteroid belt would that take? Is it even possible? Maybe you could pelt the planet with enough rocks to raise the mass up to an earth level, but would that restart the core? If the core has been frozen solid for 3 billion years then perhaps the only thing that would kick start it would be to start again. Slam Pluto into it, to finally end the discussion about Pluto being a planet, it would blow Mars apart in a fiery fire pit of fired doomfire, and re-coalesce, hopefully with lots of water from Pluto, and the core would heat up again.

Or would the core melt under the increased pressure adding mass would do? Either way I say we slam Pluto into Mars.
 
2012-09-28 09:48:15 AM  

fusillade762: FloydA: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

Oh, sorry, my bad.

We're cool though, right?

I can't believe you drank the whole planet...



Well, I saw this sign
i105.photobucket.com

and said "pshaw, amateurs."
 
2012-09-28 09:50:54 AM  
As others have noted, NASA pretty much expected to find evidence of running water, and this is pretty much just wonderful confirmation of this--kind of like finding feathered dromaeosaurs (expected as dromies are the closest relatives of archaeopterygine dinosaurs, so finding feathered dromies in the Liaoning beds and finding confirmation of quill nobs on Velociraptor proper is just icing on the cake and happy confirmation that you're on the right track).

Whether we'll find evidence of life on Mars (again, assuming there aren't relict Martian archaea-analogues living in the deep caves--as at least one Farker has noted, seasonal methane blooms HAVE been speculated to be from Martian biota) depends on how complex it managed to get before conditions on the surface became nonviable--we'll have an easier time with complex life, of course, but if Martian archaea-analogues managed to make microbial mats we might find stromatolite-like fossils. If they managed to make it to some sort of Martian analogue to Ediacaran life this would be even more interesting to see how similar--and how different--it was to our own "dawn of multicellular life", but that's a considerably larger assumption than merely having prokaryotic-life-analogues evolving on Mars (life on Earth is now speculated to have started really only a few million years after the crust cooled down enough to support liquid water and some folks speculate life may even predate the Gaia/Theia collision that birthed the moon (though I personally find the latter a bit speculative)...there is some potential evidence of biological activity in Hadean rocks c.3.8 billion years ago-3.4 bya and the earliest definite microfossils date from near the Archaean/Proterozoic boundary at around 2 billion years ago, and Mars may well have been habitable as recently as our own Ediacaran period).

Of course, if we're looking for Mars fossils, the best places to look would be riverbeds and the shores of now-dead Martian oceans, because that's where our fossils tend to show up best and that's where conditions tend to be optimum for fossilisation in the first place. :3 (Ironically, Curiosity may be in the best spot to find a Martian stromatolite-analogue or trilobite-analogue, assuming life evolved there and got that far before Mars essentially suffocated.)

Of course, if relict (living) Martian archaea-analogues DO exist in the caves--well, that's the discovery of the farking millenium, right there (and is going to require some interesting approaches in phylogenetics and cladistics--we really don't have a clade for "DNA-based life not of Earth origin", and it'd be interesting to see if Martian life shares chirality and DNA base pairs with Earth life as it would answer some questions on how life in general evolves). This is doubly so because Mars looks to have not had an Oxygen Catastrophe, unlike Earth (long ago in the Proterozoic, Earth's atmosphere was a lot like the atmosphere on Mars or Titan, CO2 and methane heavy...and then the anaerobes started crapping out oxygen via photosynthesis and managed to poison themselves and force the evolution of aerobic life).

(Of course, I also kind of hope we do send probes to Titan and Europa and find little archaea-analogues there too, but that's me. It doesn't have to be namegiving life to be interesting life to some of us! :D)
 
2012-09-28 09:51:31 AM  

lewismarktwo: Evidence of previous or even current life on Mars will be slowly released until it is undeniable


screw you, speculation about there being water on mars is already proof enough for me

there is no God

QED

aw who am i kidding? i don't need any stinking proof, naturedidit
 
2012-09-28 09:59:20 AM  

Ambivalence: So what happened to it?


Chuck Norris: He stepped in the stream but his feet didn't get wet, the water got Chuck Norris.
 
2012-09-28 10:09:25 AM  
All of the farkers who said that Mars lost its atmosphere (or better yet water), and there are about a dozen of you, because it lost or never had a magnetic field should take note: Venus has no magnetic field.

And there is plenty of water on Mars. However because the atmospheric pressure is so low liquid water boils away at the surface.
 
2012-09-28 10:12:07 AM  
Everyone agrees, Justtray should just up his medication.
 
2012-09-28 10:14:54 AM  

Slaxl: cfletch13: fusillade762: Ambivalence: So what happened to it?

I think the theory is that Mars lost its magnetic field and solar radiation fried the place. Any scienticians feel free to correct me if I'm off base.

I've been out of astro for a while, but I believe the prevailing theory is the runaway green house effect.

Runaway greenhouse is Venus.

WelldeadLink: fusillade762: Unless you can think of a way to get Mars' core molten and spinning I don't think terraforming is likely to be very successful.

Start adding asteroids. If all you want is water and an atmosphere which will last many lifetimes, add comets or ice chunks.

/long view

So how much of the asteroid belt would that take? Is it even possible? Maybe you could pelt the planet with enough rocks to raise the mass up to an earth level, but would that restart the core? If the core has been frozen solid for 3 billion years then perhaps the only thing that would kick start it would be to start again. Slam Pluto into it, to finally end the discussion about Pluto being a planet, it would blow Mars apart in a fiery fire pit of fired doomfire, and re-coalesce, hopefully with lots of water from Pluto, and the core would heat up again.

Or would the core melt under the increased pressure adding mass would do? Either way I say we slam Pluto into Mars.


finally, someone who thinks like me!
i've been saying for years -- crash pluto into mars!!!
 
2012-09-28 10:20:08 AM  

markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..


well that would certainly explain how they suddenly appeared on Earth

www.troll.me

hey mamoru how ya doin'? lolz
 
2012-09-28 10:22:54 AM  
Good. Now they can start looking for Valentine Michael Smith.
 
2012-09-28 10:24:20 AM  
but have it found a village of peoples who were dark and golden eyed?
 
2012-09-28 10:26:47 AM  
Titanomachy
 
2012-09-28 10:27:38 AM  
Hasn't Curiosity killed the cat yet?!?
 
2012-09-28 10:32:31 AM  
i.n.com.com

:o

www.thespacereview.com

this may have been the aliens that created life on earth

they might have had an advanced civilization, with cows and bacteria farms, and swam in oceans of pure drinking water

they may have been lightning storms on the surface which created life on their planet, no wait maybe aliens from venus traveled to mars on vacation and accidentally dropped some bacteria from their shoes and remote controlled probes they sent there previously

and evolution already proved that bacteria created all life here on earth, so it's only logical to assume that venus created life on mars which then created life on earth, ergo people that deny evolution are stupid because sky wizards
 
2012-09-28 10:34:28 AM  

Ambivalence: So what happened to it?


we ated it??
 
2012-09-28 10:41:19 AM  

I drunk what: [i.n.com.com image 550x401]

:o

[www.thespacereview.com image 400x308]

this may have been the aliens that created life on earth

they might have had an advanced civilization, with cows and bacteria farms, and swam in oceans of pure drinking water

they may have been lightning storms on the surface which created life on their planet, no wait maybe aliens from venus traveled to mars on vacation and accidentally dropped some bacteria from their shoes and remote controlled probes they sent there previously

and evolution already proved that bacteria created all life here on earth, so it's only logical to assume that venus created life on mars which then created life on earth, ergo people that deny evolution are stupid because sky wizards


An asteroid impact could have ejected humanoid DNA within the vicinity of our solar system, maybe beyond. Whether or not life can be created from mere DNA has yet to be proven -- but, seeing the advances lately, I would not be surprised if we determine the possibility within the next century.
 
2012-09-28 10:41:31 AM  

I drunk what: markie_farkie: I bet we stumble across some kind of primitive trilobite-like fossil before too long.

Think of the implications..

well that would certainly explain how they suddenly appeared on Earth

[www.troll.me image 523x701]

hey mamoru how ya doin'? lolz


Life on Mars neither proves or disproves the existance of God. It only proves that life is not unique to Earth.

Maybe God said fark it and sent Martian Jesus to a planet obiting Alpha-Cenauri.
 
2012-09-28 10:43:55 AM  

nmemkha: obiting Alpha-Cenauri.


It died?
 
2012-09-28 10:45:45 AM  
www.smbc-comics.com
 
2012-09-28 11:11:40 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Mars Jesus!


www.pjfarmer.com
 
2012-09-28 11:19:10 AM  

cman: COULD HAVE, but unlikely.


Both the theories of water on Mars and bacterial life on Mars are evidence-supported theories the majority of the astronomical community holds. So...actually, it's pretty damn likely.
 
2012-09-28 11:33:04 AM  

Mr. Carpenter: Xaxor: It's NASA, not Nasa, though I am probably guilty of it too.

It can be either. It depends entirely upon the style guidelines of whatever organization is publishing the material or the personal preference of the copy editor. Maybe you should make sure you actually know what you're talking about before you get all preachy.

Pronunciation-dependent style
At the copyediting end of the publishing industry, where the aforementioned distinction between acronyms (pronounced as a word) and initialisms (pronounced as a series of letters) is usually maintained, some publishers choose to use cap/lowercase (c/lc) styling for acronyms, reserving all-caps styling for initialisms. Thus Nato and Aids (c/lc), but USA and FBI (caps). For example, this is the style used in The Guardian,[41] and BBC News typically edits to this style (though its official style guide, dating from 2003, still recommends all-caps [42]). The logic of this style is that the pronunciation is reflected graphically by the capitalization scheme.
Some style manuals also base the letters' case on their number. The New York Times, for example, keeps NATO in all capitals (while several guides in the British press may render it Nato), but uses lower case in Unicef (from "United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund") because it is more than four letters, and to style it in caps might look ungainly (flirting with the appearance of "shouting capitals").


I'm chargin' mah L.A.S.E.R.
 
2012-09-28 12:37:36 PM  

tuxq: I drunk what: [i.n.com.com image 550x401]

:o

[www.thespacereview.com image 400x308]

this may have been the aliens that created life on earth

they might have had an advanced civilization, with cows and bacteria farms, and swam in oceans of pure drinking water

they may have been lightning storms on the surface which created life on their planet, no wait maybe aliens from venus traveled to mars on vacation and accidentally dropped some bacteria from their shoes and remote controlled probes they sent there previously

and evolution already proved that bacteria created all life here on earth, so it's only logical to assume that venus created life on mars which then created life on earth, ergo people that deny evolution are stupid because sky wizards

An asteroid impact could have ejected humanoid DNA within the vicinity of our solar system, maybe beyond. Whether or not life can be created from mere DNA has yet to be proven -- but, seeing the advances lately, I would not be surprised if we determine the possibility within the next century.


a wormhole could have transported an asteroid bursting with organisms from a universe full of life, within our universe maybe beyond. whether or not wormholes exist has yet to be proven - but seeing the advances lately, i wouldn't be surprised if we prove the possibility within the next few hours

it's possible that we created life on venus a thousand years from now then created a time machine and traveled back to the moment when we sent probes to mars from venus (which accidentally deposited life on mars) therefore creating the seeds of humanoid life that were ejected into the vicinity including the life that may exist on the sun and the life that later formed on earth
 
2012-09-28 12:45:06 PM  

PsiChick: Both the theories of water on Mars and bacterial life on Mars are evidence-supported theories the majority of the astronomical community holds. So...actually, it's pretty damn likely.


not only that but the majority of the biological community holds that all life on earth, originated from single celled organisms, which came from a puddle of ooze struck by lightning

like a tree of life

so it's pretty damn likely

not to mention that the majority of the geological community holds that the age of the earth which has scientifically proven to be 4.54 billion years, can be determined by the geologic time column, which can be found everywhere on earth

so it's pretty damn likely
 
2012-09-28 12:53:08 PM  
Sorry guys, while I stand corrected that methans production could happen through geological process, my meaning was that on Mars, that is nearly impossible. There is very little to no geological activity on Mars. The concentrations of methane are 1000 times higher than we would expect.

"Volcanoes contribute less than 0.2 percent of the total methane budget on Earth, and even they may simply be venting methane produced by organisms in the past. Abiotic sources such as industrial processes are comparatively minor. Thus, detection of methane on another Earth-like object naturally raises the prospect of life on that body."

The real kicker is the rate at which the methane is leaving the atmosphere. "Methane's lifetime on Mars is long enough for winds and diffusion to mix the gas into the atmosphere fairly uniformly. Thus, the observed variations of methane levels over the planet are puzzling. They may be a sign that the gas comes from localized sources or disappears into localized sinks. One possible sink is chemically reactive soil, which could accelerate the loss of methane. If such additional sinks operated, it would take an even larger source to maintain the observed abundance."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=methane-on-mars-tita n &page=3 (most relevant page - but please read them all)

The problem with serpentization to me is the fact that the gas isn't coming uniformly around the planet. Unless that specific process, which I'm not sure how it accounts for the magnitude of gas being released, is happening at very localized spots, it is unlikely to be the cause in my opinion.

Sorry I can't currently find a link showing the methane plumes related to the holes on Mars. Anyway, here's a semi relevant, related video.

http://news.discovery.com/videos/space-why-tell-me-why-methane-on-mar s .html
 
2012-09-28 01:02:06 PM  

I drunk what: tuxq: I drunk what: [i.n.com.com image 550x401]

:o

[www.thespacereview.com image 400x308]

this may have been the aliens that created life on earth

they might have had an advanced civilization, with cows and bacteria farms, and swam in oceans of pure drinking water

they may have been lightning storms on the surface which created life on their planet, no wait maybe aliens from venus traveled to mars on vacation and accidentally dropped some bacteria from their shoes and remote controlled probes they sent there previously

and evolution already proved that bacteria created all life here on earth, so it's only logical to assume that venus created life on mars which then created life on earth, ergo people that deny evolution are stupid because sky wizards

An asteroid impact could have ejected humanoid DNA within the vicinity of our solar system, maybe beyond. Whether or not life can be created from mere DNA has yet to be proven -- but, seeing the advances lately, I would not be surprised if we determine the possibility within the next century.

a wormhole could have transported an asteroid bursting with organisms from a universe full of life, within our universe maybe beyond. whether or not wormholes exist has yet to be proven - but seeing the advances lately, i wouldn't be surprised if we prove the possibility within the next few hours

it's possible that we created life on venus a thousand years from now then created a time machine and traveled back to the moment when we sent probes to mars from venus (which accidentally deposited life on mars) therefore creating the seeds of humanoid life that were ejected into the vicinity including the life that may exist on the sun and the life that later formed on earth


Troll much? The unemployed people on the internet are pretty easy to pick out.
 
2012-09-28 01:21:26 PM  

tuxq: Troll much?


imageshack.us

tuxq: The unemployed people on the internet are pretty easy to pick out.


t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-09-28 01:30:22 PM  
Why does every other Mars headline mention "life" as if the word life were some sort of geek dog whistle and we just come running every time we hear it?
 
2012-09-28 02:09:07 PM  
What NASA needs is a spelunking robot.
Sure, no life on the surface. But, how far down does one have to be to be protected by radiation? Imagine a whole network of caverns, underground lakes, etc. about 10 meters below the surface that could be teeming with life.
 
2012-09-28 02:17:45 PM  
www.hostingbytes.us
 
2012-09-28 07:03:35 PM  

mudpants: well no at some tempitures every thing is fluid, like water


I don't think that bread ever becomes a liquid, though it will vaporize eventually. Can you tell me how you got it to do that?
 
2012-09-28 08:30:06 PM  

rwfan: All of the farkers who said that Mars lost its atmosphere (or better yet water), and there are about a dozen of you, because it lost or never had a magnetic field should take note: Venus has no magnetic field.

And there is plenty of water on Mars. However because the atmospheric pressure is so low liquid water boils away at the surface.


Dehydrating Venus

Venus has much higher gravity, so it can hold onto an atmosphere better than Mars could. The atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, all of which are fairly heavy gases. We figure that after the greenhouse went critical the oceans boiled away, then solar UV cooked it into oxygen and hydrogen, which subsequently got blown off the planet by solar wind impact. It's still going on--we've detected the tag-end of the process.

Mars still has plenty of water--just not liquid, at least not at the surface, There are pictures of what looks like groundwater seeps in some photos, but yeah, it doesn't last long.
 
2012-09-28 08:31:53 PM  
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-09-28 09:44:24 PM  

jso2897: justtray: doglover: Because getting a decent microscope lab on a robot that can actually dig a proper hole to mars is one piece is A LOT harder and more expensive than sending the kinds of missions we do send, and the value to science of finding microbes on Mars is minimal. Meanwhile, learning the geology of mars to double check what we think we know is important for reliability of future observations.

You are a moron. Not much more to say. I bolded the especially stupid parts. Welcome to the ignore list.

Welcome to my "asshole" list.


Watching two kinds of Space Nutters yell at each other? Wow, where's the Haloperidol popcorn?
 
2012-09-28 10:17:41 PM  
The NASA scientists claiming this 30 years ago were run out of the program.
 
2012-09-28 11:58:30 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

Newest photo from Curiosity...
 
2012-09-29 12:49:58 AM  

doglover:

Actually it's more like Mars never really had one worth mentioning. Nor does it have much gravity. So the atmosphere escapes, temperature drops and thus liquids can't survive on the surface any more.


Would the presence of a large moon help with the magnetic field issue?

Or put another way: Has Mars solidified?
 
2012-09-29 01:37:43 AM  

Mister Peejay: doglover:

Actually it's more like Mars never really had one worth mentioning. Nor does it have much gravity. So the atmosphere escapes, temperature drops and thus liquids can't survive on the surface any more.

Would the presence of a large moon help with the magnetic field issue?

Or put another way: Has Mars solidified?


There isn't much of a magnetic field left and no volcanic activity, so most likely it has.

The moon is the most worrisome thing when considering what it takes for a world to harbor advanced life.
Because it suggests that not only do you need the right star, the right planet, the right mix of atmosphere and the right core, but you also need a giant mixing ball in orbit at just the right distance to keep the magnetic field going.

That's one reason why finding life on mars would be a big deal in my view.
Because it suggests you could at least spawn something without a moon.

/Twice in one solar system would drastically increase the chance that its happened around nearby stars.
 
2012-09-29 02:12:08 AM  
Great! I am sure that those little kids in Honduras who die of diarrhea because we won't spend 70 cents on them for clean water will be thrilled.

But hey, at least we know something about a place far away that has no tangible use whatsoever, which is nice.
 
2012-09-29 02:26:12 AM  

SevenizGud: Great! I am sure that those little kids in Honduras who die of diarrhea because we won't spend 70 cents on them for clean water will be thrilled.

But hey, at least we know something about a place far away that has no tangible use whatsoever, which is nice.


Something something two unnecessary wars.
 
2012-09-29 02:30:17 AM  

ReverendJasen: Why is that bad? I don't think any scientist assumes that this not possible.


Heh.. scientists aren't the ones who need a wake-up call on this topic.
 
2012-09-29 02:55:07 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: rwfan: All of the farkers who said that Mars lost its atmosphere (or better yet water), and there are about a dozen of you, because it lost or never had a magnetic field should take note: Venus has no magnetic field.

And there is plenty of water on Mars. However because the atmospheric pressure is so low liquid water boils away at the surface.

Dehydrating Venus

Venus has much higher gravity, so it can hold onto an atmosphere better than Mars could. The atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, all of which are fairly heavy gases. We figure that after the greenhouse went critical the oceans boiled away, then solar UV cooked it into oxygen and hydrogen, which subsequently got blown off the planet by solar wind impact. It's still going on--we've detected the tag-end of the process.

Mars still has plenty of water--just not liquid, at least not at the surface, There are pictures of what looks like groundwater seeps in some photos, but yeah, it doesn't last long.


I am not sure why you are repeating my points but since you did, I'll repeat them as well
A) Mars has not lost it's water.
B) Venus has no magnetic field yet still has a very robust atmosphere.
C) All the fark scientists who posted that Mars lost most of its atmosphere (or it's water) simply because it did not have a magnetic field are full of it (caveat: 0 magnetic field/solar wind may have played a part - I believe it's an open debate)

However you did add some irrelevant facts about Venus' atmosphere, good for you!
 
2012-09-29 02:55:26 AM  

SevenizGud: Great! I am sure that those little kids in Honduras who die of diarrhea because we won't spend 70 cents on them for clean water will be thrilled.

But hey, at least we know something about a place far away that has no tangible use whatsoever, which is nice.


I have no tangible use for little Honduran kids, either. At least Mars is interesting.
 
2012-09-29 03:35:56 AM  

rwfan: Smirky the Wonder Chimp: rwfan: All of the farkers who said that Mars lost its atmosphere (or better yet water), and there are about a dozen of you, because it lost or never had a magnetic field should take note: Venus has no magnetic field.

And there is plenty of water on Mars. However because the atmospheric pressure is so low liquid water boils away at the surface.

Dehydrating Venus

Venus has much higher gravity, so it can hold onto an atmosphere better than Mars could. The atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, all of which are fairly heavy gases. We figure that after the greenhouse went critical the oceans boiled away, then solar UV cooked it into oxygen and hydrogen, which subsequently got blown off the planet by solar wind impact. It's still going on--we've detected the tag-end of the process.

Mars still has plenty of water--just not liquid, at least not at the surface, There are pictures of what looks like groundwater seeps in some photos, but yeah, it doesn't last long.

I am not sure why you are repeating my points but since you did, I'll repeat them as well
A) Mars has not lost it's water.
B) Venus has no magnetic field yet still has a very robust atmosphere.
C) All the fark scientists who posted that Mars lost most of its atmosphere (or it's water) simply because it did not have a magnetic field are full of it (caveat: 0 magnetic field/solar wind may have played a part - I believe it's an open debate)

However you did add some irrelevant facts about Venus' atmosphere, good for you!


I explained to you how Venus and Mars are different from one another and why one still has a dense atmosphere even though it lacks a magnetic field and the other doesn't. That's not irrelevant.
 
2012-09-29 04:20:11 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp:
I explained to you how Venus and Mars are different from one another and why one still has a dense atmosphere even though it lacks a magnetic field and the other doesn't. That's not irrelevant.


Well thanks for providing me with well known facts that are easily found via google. However I still say that many were irrelevant to my point that Mars did not lose its atmosphere simply because it has no magnetic field. And the rest were restating my points. Btw, you did not really explain "why one still has a dense atmosphere even though it lacks a magnetic field and the other doesn't" For example, you explained how Venus lost its water. And yet Mars still has plenty of water even though it's far less massive (less gravity in your terms). Why would Mars still have plenty of water but not carbon dioxide and other gasses heavier than water? There is a lot going on that makes the two different and IMO you've barely scratched the surface in explaining the differences.
 
2012-09-29 09:17:35 AM  

SevenizGud: Great! I am sure that those little kids in Honduras who die of diarrhea because we won't spend 70 cents on them for clean water will be thrilled.

But hey, at least we know something about a place far away that has no tangible use whatsoever, which is nice.


no no no you're missing the point, at least we now have more evidence that there is no god, so this is totally worth the effort

besides if you guys can justify pissing away billions on a neverending war in the middle east, we should at least get to pull some pork into the "FOR SCIENCE!!!" funds

i mean fair is fair

thank FSM for politics
 
2012-09-29 11:37:50 AM  

SevenizGud: Great! I am sure that those little kids in Honduras who die of diarrhea because we won't spend 70 cents on them for clean water will be thrilled.


You presume that little kids are suffering only because there is no money to help them.
If the problem was so simple, fixing the world would be easy.

/I recall a little shindig in Somalia where people tried to help... then things got out of hand.
/Thank science for creating this land of plenty we live in, and thank politics for the unnecessary pain and strife.
 
2012-09-29 08:09:59 PM  

Coelacanth: Wouldn't it be something if Curiosity found a child's shovel & pail buried in the sand on the banks of that dried stream?


Ah the poet.

A nice respite from some of the science arguments here...
 
2012-09-30 10:56:59 AM  
For those interested in methane on Mars, Here is a talk by Dr. Kevin Zahnle explaining why we should be skeptical about those methane measurements. Even if skepticism about those measurement may be the last thing some want to hear about, it does include a nice explanation of how the measurement were made.
 
Displayed 221 of 221 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report