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 221
    More: Cool, Mars Science Laboratory, NASA, Mars landing, imaging science, Planetary Science, John Grotzinger, streambeds, pebbles  
•       •       •

14252 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Sep 2012 at 11:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 221 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report