Life on Mars

The cosmos at our fingertips.
saturno2
Commander
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:05 pm

Re: Life on Mars

Post by saturno2 » Wed Oct 07, 2015 10:16 pm

It is possible to find on Mars ( on exoplanets, too )
other forms of life.
No archaea, no bacteria, no eucaryota
Other form of life, of LIFE, indeed.

Sawngrighter

Re: Life on Mars

Post by Sawngrighter » Fri Oct 09, 2015 5:58 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
Sawngrighter wrote:With the seemingly continuously created methane seeping into Mars atmosphere it is certain there is life in Mars, if not on Mars.
It is far from certain. The measurements have anomalous characteristics, and there are multiple non-biological hypotheses.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... hanespike/

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Life on Mars

Post by Chris Peterson » Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:01 pm

Sawngrighter wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
Sawngrighter wrote:With the seemingly continuously created methane seeping into Mars atmosphere it is certain there is life in Mars, if not on Mars.
It is far from certain. The measurements have anomalous characteristics, and there are multiple non-biological hypotheses.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... hanespike/
Exactly my point. As noted in your link: "This temporary increase in methane -- sharply up and then back down -- tells us there must be some relatively localized source," said Sushil Atreya of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Curiosity rover science team. "There are many possible sources, biological or non-biological, such as interaction of water and rock."
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

saturno2
Commander
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:05 pm

Re: Life on Mars

Post by saturno2 » Sat Oct 10, 2015 9:53 am

Methane found on Mars could have
two origins: geological or biological.
If methane has C-12 is biological.
Possible life on Mars.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15348
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Life on Mars

Post by neufer » Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:07 pm

saturno2 wrote:
Methane found on Mars could have
two origins: geological or biological.
If methane has C-12 is biological.
Possible life on Mars.
Radioactive 14C is constantly being created in atmospheres by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen...but there is little nitrogen in the martian atmosphere (and hence little radioactive 14C).

In photosynthetic pathways on Earth 12C is absorbed slightly more easily than 13C such that cow methane probably does have more 12C than 13C (as compared with atmospheric CO2) but there is no guarantee that that would be true on Mars.
Art Neuendorffer

Sawngrighter

Re: Life on Mars

Post by Sawngrighter » Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:06 pm

neufer wrote:
saturno2 wrote:
Methane found on Mars could have
two origins: geological or biological.
If methane has C-12 is biological.
Possible life on Mars.
Radioactive 14C is constantly being created in atmospheres by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen...but there is little nitrogen in the martian atmosphere (and hence little radioactive 14C).

In photosynthetic pathways on Earth 12C is absorbed slightly more easily than 13C such that cow methane probably does have more 12C than 13C (as compared with atmospheric CO2) but there is no guarantee that that would be true on Mars.
If not cows, how about a lot of bull? I'm sure, Neufer, your talents can find something appropriate.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15348
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Life on Mars

Post by neufer » Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:39 pm

Sawngrighter wrote:
If not cows, how about a lot of bull? I'm sure, Neufer, your talents can find something appropriate.
Bull's-Eye on Mars Revealed :!:

At least it looks like a Bull's-"Eye"...but possibly it's a source for methane.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ron-Astro Pharmacist
Resistored Fizzacist
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:34 pm
AKA: Fred
Location: Idaho USA

Re: Life on Mars

Post by Ron-Astro Pharmacist » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:13 pm

neufer wrote:
Sawngrighter wrote:
If not cows, how about a lot of bull? I'm sure, Neufer, your talents can find something appropriate.
Bull's-Eye on Mars Revealed :!:

At least it looks like a Bull's-"Eye"...but possibly it's a source for methane.
I think that it's from the other end Art.

Possibly 'The Moortian'"?
Make Mars not Wars

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15348
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Life on Mars

Post by neufer » Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:28 pm

geckzilla wrote:
They say cleanliness is next to godliness but perhaps a more enlightened approach is to accept those microbes as part of our identity rather than considering them as filth sullying our otherwise pure bodies.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Life on Mars

Post by geckzilla » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:41 pm

At some point there was a conversation about why the ISS doesn't host a space telescope of some sort and the answer was that it is way too dirty around there. Space telescopes have to completely avoid the vicinity of the ISS. I don't think they're worried about bacteria, though.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15348
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Life on Mars

Post by neufer » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:14 pm


geckzilla wrote:
At some point there was a conversation about why the ISS doesn't host a space telescope of some sort and the answer was that it is way too dirty around there. Space telescopes have to completely avoid the vicinity of the ISS. I don't think they're worried about bacteria, though.
Short telescopic exposures of the Earth or the Sun are just fine from a manned spacecraft.

But looonng exposures of almost anything else would require the astwonauts to stay vewy, vewy still.

Cosmic ‘dandruff’ may have brought carbon to Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia wrote:
<<Thomas Gold, a professor of astronomy, suggested in 1960 the hypothesis of "Cosmic Garbage", that life on Earth might have originated accidentally from a pile of waste products dumped on Earth long ago by extraterrestrial beings.>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Life on Mars

Post by geckzilla » Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:34 pm

Long exposures can be accumulated over periods of many weeks even though the ISS moves around a lot. The idea is to have something like Hubble nearby or attached so that if something goes wrong it's serviceable. All the dirt around the ISS throws a wrench in that plan though.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15348
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Life on Mars

Post by neufer » Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:26 am

geckzilla wrote:
Long exposures can be accumulated over periods of many weeks even though the ISS moves around a lot.
Long exposures can be accumulated over periods of many weeks even though the Hubble moves around a lot because there are no stupid humans moving around in unpredictable ways.
geckzilla wrote:
The idea is to have something like Hubble nearby or attached so that if something goes wrong it's serviceable. All the dirt around the ISS throws a wrench in that plan though.
The ISS wouldn't want an astronomical telescope too close to the ISS because:
  • 1) The ISS and it's support craft would obscure part of the sky.
    2) One would always worry about collisions (with the ISS or loose wrenches).
Any separation large enough to deal with this would also deal with dirt problems.
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Life on Mars

Post by geckzilla » Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:25 am

I'm not sure where you're coming from. Humans are smart enough to not move in front of the telescope, just like they are usually smart enough not to set fire randomly to earthbound observatories even though they really like fire. Some part of the sky is always obscured by something... I don't know why or if you're even disagreeing with the dirt thing?
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: Life on Mars

Post by Beyond » Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:48 am

Even though the Beach Boys sang of good vibrations, there's no such thing when it comes to Hubble imaging. IF it's attached to anything, especially the ISS, it's going to be producing a lot of blurry pictures.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15348
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Life on Mars

Post by neufer » Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:59 am


geckzilla wrote:
I'm not sure where you're coming from.
I don't believe that dirt OUTSIDE a spacecraft would pose a telescopic problem.

Can you give a reference?
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Life on Mars

Post by geckzilla » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:35 am

I can't, no, because when I heard this question asked and answered it was at a Hubble Hangout and I can't remember which one it was. One of the STScI people, I think. I have no idea who figured this out originally, but here it is stated by someone other than me:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/articl ... ce-station
. . . the space around the ISS is full of gases, liquids and other debris jettisoned from the station that could gum up Hubble's optics.
It is popular knowledge that the ISS occupants throw their laundry out the hatch. Who knows what other stuff is floating around out there among all the ISS's moving parts and the things that can open and close on it? Well, someone does, apparently. Also apparently at Hubble's current position its mirrors are more or less pristine even after all this time.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15348
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Life on Mars

Post by neufer » Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:29 pm

geckzilla wrote:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-06/fyi-why-isnt-hubble-space-telescope-just-attached-international-space-station wrote:
. . . the space around the ISS is full of gases, liquids and other debris jettisoned from the station that could gum up Hubble's optics.
It is popular knowledge that the ISS occupants throw their laundry out the hatch. Who knows what other stuff is floating around out there among all the ISS's moving parts and the things that can open and close on it? Well, someone does, apparently. Also apparently at Hubble's current position its mirrors are more or less pristine even after all this time.
"Gases, liquids and other debris" gumming up Hubble's optics
is a little bit different than "dirt" but thanks for the reference.

Besides mentioning the inevitable problem of collisions between
Hubble and ISS (or ISS's "other debris") my point was mostly about:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-06/fyi-why-isnt-hubble-space-telescope-just-attached-international-space-station wrote:
<<Assuming that it could survive the trip, attaching [Hubble] to the station would make it almost unusable, says chief Hubble engineer John Grunsfeld. It captures such highly detailed images because it's free from any disturbances, atmospheric or otherwise. It's designed to stay very, very still. "Once its camera locks onto an object, it's unflinchable," Grunsfeld says. The vibrations of gear on the ISS would make such observations impossible.>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Life on Mars

Post by Chris Peterson » Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:42 pm

neufer wrote:Besides mentioning the inevitable problem of collisions between
Hubble and ISS (or ISS's "other debris") my point was mostly about:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-06/fyi-why-isnt-hubble-space-telescope-just-attached-international-space-station wrote:
<<Assuming that it could survive the trip, attaching [Hubble] to the station would make it almost unusable, says chief Hubble engineer John Grunsfeld. It captures such highly detailed images because it's free from any disturbances, atmospheric or otherwise. It's designed to stay very, very still. "Once its camera locks onto an object, it's unflinchable," Grunsfeld says. The vibrations of gear on the ISS would make such observations impossible.>>
Which is certainly a good point. The main thing is, there's simply no good reason to have a telescope at the ISS. That location would offer no significant advantages to offset the many obvious difficulties. Even the Hubble Telescope is poorly located, which is why we don't see its major successors being placed in low Earth orbit.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

saturno2
Commander
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:05 pm

Re: Life on Mars

Post by saturno2 » Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:50 pm

NASA scientists studied the meteorite of Martian origen
Yamato 000593.
They found traces of possible biological processes
produced on Mars millions of years ago.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 15348
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: Life on Mars

Post by neufer » Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:08 pm

saturno2 wrote:
NASA scientists studied the meteorite of Martian origin: Yamato 000593.

They found traces of possible biological processes produced on Mars millions of years ago.
  • Billions of years ago :?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_000593 wrote: <<Yamato 000593 (or Y000593) is the second largest meteorite from Mars found on Earth. The 41st Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition (JARE) found the meteorite in late December 2000 on the Yamato Glacier. Studies suggest the Martian meteorite was formed about 1.3 billion years ago from a lava flow on Mars. An impact occurred on Mars about 12 million years ago and ejected the meteorite from the Martian surface into space. The meteorite landed on Earth in Antarctica about 50,000 years ago. The mass of the meteorite is 13.7 kg (30 lb) and has been found to contain evidence of past water alteration.

At a microscopic level, spheres are found in the meteorite that are rich in carbon compared to surrounding areas that lack such spheres. The carbon-rich spheres and the observed micro-tunnels may have been formed by biotic activity, according to NASA scientists.

Japanese scientists from the National Institute of Polar Research reported in 2003 that the meteorite contains iddingsite, which forms from the weathering of basalt in the presence of liquid water. In addition, NASA researchers reported in February 2014 that they also found carbon-rich spheres encased in multiple layers of iddingsite, as well as microtubular features emanating from iddingsite veins displaying curved, undulating shapes consistent with bio-alteration textures that have been observed in terrestrial basaltic glass. However, the scientific consensus is that "morphology alone cannot be used unambiguously as a tool for primitive life detection." Interpretation of morphology is notoriously subjective, and its use alone has led to numerous errors of interpretation. According to the NASA team, the presence of carbon and lack of corresponding cations is consistent with the occurrence of organic matter embedded in iddingsite. The NASA researchers indicated that mass spectrometry may provide deeper insight into the nature of the carbon, and could distinguish between abiotic and biologic carbon incorporation and alteration.>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Life on Mars

Post by geckzilla » Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:43 pm

I had two ideas (already thought of by other people of course) about these space telescopes. One would think we could attach something like SOFIA to the ISS. There is apparently no benefit over the airplane method, though. The other is to put an infrared telescope on the coldest part of the moon, and there are a whole host of issues with that, one of them also being dirt.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
BMAONE23
Commentator Model 1.23
Posts: 4076
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Life on Mars

Post by BMAONE23 » Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:11 pm

geckzilla wrote:I had two ideas (already thought of by other people of course) about these space telescopes. One would think we could attach something like SOFIA to the ISS. There is apparently no benefit over the airplane method, though. The other is to put an infrared telescope on the coldest part of the moon, and there are a whole host of issues with that, one of them also being dirt.
'

Just gotta Dome over the crater and use a host of Parking Lot Vacuums :mrgreen:

User avatar
BMAONE23
Commentator Model 1.23
Posts: 4076
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Life on Mars

Post by BMAONE23 » Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:19 pm

Another possibility would be to place a series of 24 radio telescopes (one in each time zone) in Geosynchronous orbit and create a radio telescope with an effective diameter of 52,400 mi or 84,328 km

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Life on Mars

Post by geckzilla » Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:48 pm

Hah, good luck convincing powerful commercial and government ventures to give up 24 spots on the geosynchronous ring.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.