What kind of life on Mars?

[Swamp Fox]

I think the consensus is that the rovers will find some sort of life on Mars. The question is how complex that life is. I'm willing to bet that there will be some sort of multi-cellular life, maybe not as complex as mites or tiny insects, but far bigger than one-celled amoebas. Or, if there are only amoebas, they would be far bigger and more complicated life forms than any one-celled creatures on Earth.

What do you think?

[ethics]

I would have to agree somewhat but I seriously doubt anything bigger than that NOW. However, I cling on to the theory that bigger life existed millions of years back.

[Sierra Mike]

I think they will discover Elvis on Mars...and he's mixing drinks for Dean Martin. And Amerlia Earhart flew them there.

SM

[Swamp Fox]

I would agree with you, Leon - I was referring to the bigger life way back when.

But I think there may still be microbes somewhere.

[ethics]

I would agree with you, Leon - I was referring to the bigger life way back when.


In that case, I think that there was a semi-intelligent life back in the millions if not billions of years ago.

[Coot]

For these particular rovers to find direct evidence of life, it would have to be something along the lines of an ancient boat stuck in the sedimentary mud. They're not there to find life per se, but evidence that the planet could have supported life in the distant past, eg, evidence of surface water at some point.

[ethics]

It's a start, Coot. :)

[Swamp Fox]

I think it's more than just finding water - I was watching CNN, and they said they were looking at the history of the soil, as in what sort of chemical reactions had been going on - ie, the rovers are looking for things that only microbes et al could have created.

What if they had found a boat? I wonder if that would lead to a new space race - or if they found what is obviously a spaceship, which would definitely lead to a space race, as all nations tried to get to it first.

[Coot]

Yeah, I know. That's what was so disheartening about the loss of the Beagle 2. It's mission and on board equipment was to directly look for signs of microbial life.

NASA's 2 rovers may be able to go along ways towards finding out what happened to Mars' atmosphere and it may even be able to find out what caused all of the crater impact to the primarily southern hemisphere while leaving the northern plains in tact.

[IamZed]

I think the findings of remote rovers in the search for microbial life will forever be suspect. The retrieval and return of samples will not. We’re so far away from that it ain’t funny. People talk about men going to Mars. We can’t even get one rock back from the place let alone people.

[Coot]

Stanley, you're correct, it's not just about finding water, there is an array of spectrometry equipment aboard our rovers. Signs of past surface water though pretty much completes the equation with respects to answering the question of whether there ever was life on Mars. Surface water + atmosphere + any of a number of naturally occuring Organic Compounds = life. If I was a betting man, I'd bet a ton on life having existed on Mars in the past. Find the OC's, or even VOC's (Volatile Organic Compounds) and it's a cinch.

What I am far more interested in is the spectometry. We know the surface of Mars is covered in FeO2, but what we don't know is what other molecules, alloys and elements are in abundance. The presence of large amounts of iron oxide on the surface of the planet should be raising a lot of questions...like, where did the iron come from? If we can extrapolate from our own planet, the vast majority of the iron in rocky planets is tied up in the core, along with a large amount of nickel. Free iron over a large amount of the surface is not a normal condition unless you assume one of the following:

<li>The planet turned itself inside out with massive geological upheavals.
<li>The planet was hit by something or a series of somethings heavily laden with iron

If you consider that Mars is geologically dead, mean there is no remaining vulcanism, the idea that it essentially upchucked its core is plausible, but not really substantive as there are no evidences of cinder cones or even volcanic mountains. The next option is that something awfully damned big hit it. Something so big that it was able to effectively eliminate the planet's magnetic field.

If the rovers discover that there is a large amount of nickel on the surface of Mars along with the iron, I think it would make a pretty convincing case for another planet having exploded. If you look at the surface of Mars, the southern hemisphere is replete with evidence of hit after hit of space debris, yet the northern plains are almost devoid of it.

My best guess, and I realize this runs askew of most scientific models, is that there was another rocky planet that was in closer proximity to Mars than earth. Something catastrophic occured and the planet literally exploded, killing all life on Mars and nearly extinguishing life on earth.

[ShinyTop]

Isn't the asteroid belt just beyond Mars? I would think that at some point in the history of solar system the asteroid belt's bodies that were a bit closer to Mars got caught by its gravity and plummeted to its surface. Don't know why the southern half would be more hit more often.

[Swamp Fox]

Excellent thread!!!

Coot, your analysis is superb. Shiny, as I read Coot's post, I was thinking the same thing, that the asteroid belt could vindicate his theory. But, if that's so, and the planet did explode, then the question is WHY it exploded, and not Mars, Earth, and Venus.

I think there'll be a lot of surprises in store for us in the coming days. I feel great to be alive. :)

[ethics]

Let me add a question. If there is ice at the poles, wouldn't that mean life?

[Coriolis]

Let me add a question. If there is ice at the poles, wouldn't that mean life?
No, but it would mean the potential exists.

[ethics]

Sorry, I meant that. ;)

[Swamp Fox]

But its mothership will orbit Mars, looking for signs of water under the surface.

What if there's still a pool of water somewhere down there? (http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040107.gtbeag0107/BNStory/Technology/)

The orbiter is equipped with a powerful radar that can probe beneath the surface for indications of water or ice that may have once supported living organisms.

[bhmoon3rd]

Let me add a question. If there is ice at the poles, wouldn't that mean life?
Much of the ice is CO2 ice. Not conducive to life. The water ice seems to be underground.

Water ice evaporates in the very low pressures of mars. Put an ice cube on a plate in your refrigerator freezer. Watch it over a period of a couple weeks. Then think about the millions of years the ice cap has been on mars.

Ben
(newbie)

[ethics]

AH! I knew there was a caveat! The CO2 ice can not have potential for carbon based life, correct?

[Coot]

AH! I knew there was a caveat! The CO2 ice can not have potential for carbon based life, correct?
Don't see why not.

[ethics]

Don't see why not.
I've always thought that carbon based life required O2?

[Coot]

We require it, but that's only because it's what animal life evolved to use. Plants require CO2 and release O2 as a waste. Animals living at the undersea volcanic vents require Hydrogen Sulphide, I believe it is. On a planet with a primarily methane atmosphere, I'm sure carbon based life forms would evolve requiring methane.

[ethics]

Hmmm, excellent points, and thanks. :)

[Swamp Fox]

It's too early in the morning to go on a rampage against the UN, so I'll stick to Mars. In a discussion as to who can claim it, remember that possession is nine-tenths of the law.

For this, history would provide a good reference. Way back when, the Vatican divided the Americas between Portugal and Spain. The English, French, and Dutch, however, had different ideas, and, since the Vatican, the Spanish, and the Portuguese didn't have the ships to stop those other nations, If, for example, the US were to land a man on Mars, he could stick Old Glory and claim the planet. But, for the US to enforce that claim, it would have to prevent the Chinese and Russians from getting to other parts of Mars and claiming it. And, unless the US wanted to get into a shooting war, it would not stop those other nations from sending ships. And this would be different from the previous example, because the Latin Empires way back when didn't have radar, GPS or other detection systems, so they would have had to patrol the entire Atlantic to enforce their claim. The US, in my example, would probably have the means to detect any ships approaching the Red Planet.

That said, I think the US and other nations would just get into a treaty to carve up the planet between their respective spheres, just like the US and Canada had a treaty to set the border between Alaska and British Columbia at the turn of the 20th Century.

[ditch]

That said, I think the US and other nations would just get into a treaty to carve up the planet between their respective spheres, just like the US and Canada had a treaty to set the border between Alaska and British Columbia at the turn of the 20th Century.

Similar to how the world handles Antarctica.

[Steve]

I've read that geothermal activity on Earth, heat percolating slowly from the core, is as responsible for sustaining life on this planet as is our seemingly ideal position relative to the sun. Geothermal and tectonic activity also account for huge amounts of renewing natural minerals being brought to the surface of the planet at a constant rate (geographically speaking). For example, the continent of Australia is relatively barren compared to the other continents, primarily because the lack of geothermal and tectonic activity has prevent new mountain ranges from forming over the millenia. In turn, the mountains that are there have eroded, taking much of their contribution of minerals and other nutrients to the sea or to the winds, resulting in the current relative state of barrenness.

Mars would appear to be in a similar situation, multiplied many times over. This link (http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/mgcm/faq/volcano.html) indicates that volcanic activity on Mars largely ceased between 3 and 3.5 billion years ago! Without the constant "recycyling" of raw materials from within the planet, without the heat and gasses generated by such activity, Mars would appear to be inhospitable to life.

There may be life, but I suspect it is squirreled away in the few remaining regions, deep underground or otherwise protected (think Valles Marineris). I doubt we'll find anything on flat plains, although fossils may be found on natural rock outcroppings.