NASA chief scientist says 'we're close' to making announcements about life on Mars

a reply to: neoholographic

All signs point to mars having organic life billions of years ago. We've known tgis for about a century when the 'canales' were first discovered

a reply to: dfnj2015

Well we would be better off with a few crazies gone I guess .

originally posted by: JON666
a reply to: neoholographic

Microbial life? BFD what does that prove? Has Mars someway devolved to microbial life from fully formed city building entities? Most people would have no problem with this concept of microbial life.

If microbial life is found on Mars, and (importantly) if that life is found to be different enough from Earth life to have had a totally independent beginning than life on Earth, that would strongly suggest that life is extremely common in the universe.

That is to say, if life arose separately and independently on (at least) two planets in the same solar system, that would probably mean that the ability for life to arise is not a rare thing.

Right now, we have no idea how rare or common life is, since we are the only known example of it.


Having said that, I don't think the common person would have a problem or feel the need to reevaluate their life if microbes were found on Mars. 100+ years ago when Percival Lowell said that he thinks Mars had a civilization, the masses/average person believed it, but it didn't change their lives.

Scary, just like when the car replaced the buggy... the chaos and pandemonium were legendary.

Sigh... well, it's not like some of us with a curiosity didn't already guess it existed starting back with the Viking experiment.

Good that the "masses" are being treated like fellow human beings I guess, and sorry for any hurt paradigms for Biblical literalists, but it is what it is.

If the ancient atomic bomb residue is verified by enough other scientists, then all bets are off and there might be a few more folks on anti-depressants... the horror... The. Horror.

a reply to: neoholographic

“What happens next is a whole new set of scientific questions," Green continued. "Is that life like us? How are we related? Can life move from planet to planet or do we have a spark and just the right environment and that spark generates life -- like us or not like us -- based on the chemical environment that it is in?”

It does not make me very confident in NASA. I mean, that reads like they just now opened up their horizon to this question. They act like it at least.

just spill it already NASA. believe me we can handle it. in fact we need it.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
It does not make me very confident in NASA. I mean, that reads like they just now opened up their horizon to this question. They act like it at least.

Yeah, considering all the potentially interesting things that the Curiosity rover just raced by without stopping a little to take a look it's pretty funny. Oh, well, yes, they had their mission parameters, but guess what they weren't carved in stone, particularly after their primary mission was completed.

As far as I'm concerned, all space probes are either directly or indirectly tasked with finding life. That's the only thing we really care about. It's baffling why they would have to reorient their thinking in this regard. Is there another ultimate priority?

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
just spill it already NASA. believe me we can handle it. in fact we need it.

For entertainment purposes, if nothing else. One thing for sure that the space program has taught us over the years, and that is that space is fun for a bit when they show us pretty new pictures, but unless you're a super nerd, it really quickly gets boring. A little bit of life out there might liven it up, at least for a while.

originally posted by: Oleandra88
a reply to: neoholographic

“What happens next is a whole new set of scientific questions," Green continued. "Is that life like us? How are we related? Can life move from planet to planet or do we have a spark and just the right environment and that spark generates life -- like us or not like us -- based on the chemical environment that it is in?”

It does not make me very confident in NASA. I mean, that reads like they just now opened up their horizon to this question. They act like it at least.

I don't know. NASA has been at the forefront of asking these questions for decades now (e.g., would other life be like us? Can that life have moved from planet to planet? etc.)

I think what this guy is saying is that once the question of "Is there life on Mars? is answered, then we begin to get into this next set of questions regarding that specific Martin life -- i.e., "Is it like our life?" "Did it form independently?"



Like I said, NASA has been open to speculation on astrobiology for a while now. Here are two examples from the early 2000s about the possibilities of life elsewhere being very different and possibly living where we least expect it:

What is Consuming Hydrogen and Acetylene on Titan?

This lack of acetylene is important because that chemical would likely be the best energy source for a methane-based life on Titan, said Chris McKay, an astrobiologist at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., who proposed a set of conditions necessary for this kind of methane-based life on Titan in 2005. One interpretation of the acetylene data is that the hydrocarbon is being consumed as food. But McKay said the flow of hydrogen is even more critical because all of their proposed mechanisms involved the consumption of hydrogen.

"We suggested hydrogen consumption because it's the obvious gas for life to consume on Titan, similar to the way we consume oxygen on Earth," McKay said. "If these signs do turn out to be a sign of life, it would be doubly exciting because it would represent a second form of life independent from water-based life on Earth."

Here is another NASA paper written back in 2003 in which potential life indicators have been observed in the clouds of Venus -- in this case, potential chemical imbalances that might suggest life processes occurring.

Astrobiology: The Case for Venus

From that paper:

3.3 Present Life

...There is some evidence that the trace-gas constituents of the Venus atmosphere are not in chemical equilibrium with each other. On Earth, the primary source of disequilibrium in the atmospheric chemistry is the activities of biological processing; could disequilibrium on Venus also be a sign of life? In 1997, David Grinspoon made the suggestion that microbes in the clouds and middle atmosphere could be the source of the disequilibrium. In 2002, Dirk SchulzeMakuch independently proposed that observations of the Venus atmosphere by space probes showed signatures of possible biological activity.

You should check out NASA's Astrobiology website. There is plenty of research being discussed there about open speculation into all the possibilities for different types of life in the universe.

astrobiology.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Blue Shift
Space probes look at planets atmospheres and chemistry and we learn from them. Like how things behave on different conditions. It is called astro-physics and finding live is not the main goal of it. Of course it is indirect at least.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Funny I just posted something similar. Thank you for the links I will look into it

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
just spill it already NASA. believe me we can handle it. in fact we need it.

Here it is, the announcement:

"NASA Press Release - It turns out we were wrong about the Earth revolving around the sun. We now believe the Earth is the center of the Universe. We apologize to all the theists who have questioned their faith over the last 300 years. We at NASA are now in the process of rewriting our mission statement. Thank you for all your continued support."

originally posted by: Oleandra88
a reply to: Blue Shift
Space probes look at planets atmospheres and chemistry and we learn from them. Like how things behave on different conditions. It is called astro-physics and finding live is not the main goal of it. Of course it is indirect at least.

At least indirect. We try to learn about other planetary conditions to compare them to our own to see how they are similar or different to those affecting life on Earth, or to see if they might be compatible with life as we know it on Earth. Those are the baby steps, but the ultimate question they're all attempting to answer -- or at least provide data for -- is, "are we the only planet on it with life?" Otherwise, why bother? Why don't we leave the stars and planets alone?

Strange.. what does NASA think we can not handle, they work for the american people.. how are they to say what information that should be censured, every little fart that is discovered should be on full display to everyone.

Even if the truth is something like our creators live underground on Mars and we live on a prison planet for their entertainment. we should know. and we could handle it.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

What is Consuming Hydrogen and Acetylene on Titan?

Can you imagine if NASA shows a video of life forms scurrying around that have acetylene for blood and breaths hydrogen?

That would be so freaking cool it would be like extraterrestrials landing in the center of a football field in broad daylight during a football game!

originally posted by: Oleandra88
a reply to: Blue Shift
Space probes look at planets atmospheres and chemistry and we learn from them. Like how things behave on different conditions. It is called astro-physics and finding live is not the main goal of it. Of course it is indirect at least.

Here is a a really fascinating video on how to detect life completely different than our own with completely different chemistry just using spectral analysis:

Finding life we can't imagine

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Here is a a really fascinating video on how to detect life completely different than our own with completely different chemistry just using spectral analysis:

Finding life we can't imagine

Let me know when they find some.

a reply to: neoholographic

The universe is not fine tuned to create life
We seem to be the only life in existence, doesn’t seem very fine tuned at all

In fact everything seems very hostile even on this little planet, just in case you didn’t notice

Life seems fine tuned to create life, not the universe

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: neoholographic

The universe is not fine tuned to create life. We seem to be the only life in existence, doesn’t seem very fine tuned at all

But we ARE here, and that proves it. It's the Anthropic Principle.

originally posted by: schuyler
But we ARE here, and that proves it. It's the Anthropic Principle.

Well, I certainly can't prove that the universe will still be here without me in it, and after I'm dead you sure won't be able to prove it to me. Was the universe here before I was born? Dinosaur fossils? Cosmic Background Radiation? Bah. Without me here, they wouldn't exist, either.