Academy of Sciences: Extreme microbes could survive on Mars

Academy of Sciences: Extreme microbes could survive on Mars

Researchers who were looking for organisms that eke out a living in some of the most inhospitable soils on Earth have found a hardy few. A new DNA analysis of rocky soils in the martian-like landscape on some volcanoes in South America has revealed a handful of bacteria, fungi, and other rudimentary organisms, called archaea, which seem to have a different way of converting energy than their cousins elsewhere in the world.

“We haven’t formally identified or characterized the species,” said Ryan Lynch....

I keep hearing about Terraformming Mars some day through the use of various devices to artificially bring Mars to life.

I guess the question arises if NASA finds that Mars is completely void of any form of life presently [which doesn't mean it never had life in some form in it's long history yet to still be discovered and is now extinct] should they attempt to transplant an organism from here on Earth and simply see how it does?


Your thoughts?

reply to post by SLAYER69


I believe we already have delivered bacteria to mars by accident.There is no way nasa could totally disinfect them rovers from every attachable microbe...Anyway,who's to say 50 feet down from the surface,life is not teaming .Ya ,I believe there are extremofiles on mars.My thoughts anyways,peace slayer

reply to post by SarnholeOntarable


I've brought up that possibility myself on a few threads but many are of the opinion that NASA has done a great job of preventing some Earth contamination of Mars.

I doubt too they could be 100% sterile IMO.

Originally posted by SarnholeOntarable
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

I believe we already have delivered bacteria to mars by accident.There is no way nasa could totally disinfect them rovers from every attachable microbe...Anyway,who's to say 50 feet down from the surface,life is not teaming

.Ya ,I believe there are extremofiles on mars.My thoughts anyways,peace slayer

Yes, but any bacteria delivered by a NASA rover will be on the surface, where it is exposed to radiation and extreme temperature swings indicative of a planet with little atmosphere. There would most likely not be a chance for even a single colony of bacteria to move to a sufficient depth before they are killed by the elements. We already knew that microbes could survive in just space, and we even learned that comets contain some of the crucial building blocks for life.

Also, I thought it was common knowledge that life existed at one time on Mars, and that it is still likely to contain extremophiles thriving within its interior. That cannot be proven, but past life on Mars, to my knowledge, is pretty much sealed. There was the Antarctica impact sample that was found to contain fossilized microbes that originated on Mars. Things like viruses can actually be increased in their lethality simply by introducing them to a zero-gravity environment. Such as salmonella, which was confirmed by tests done in orbit.

But anyway, I fully expect we will find loads of life beneath the surface of Mars, if we ever get there, which I'm sure we eventually will...If we're around long enough that is. We just haven't found an economically and physically feasible method for putting an instrument on the surface of Mars that is capable of, basically, digging a deep enough hole...lol. That's pretty much what it comes down to. And not knowing where to look, it becomes even less-feasible that it could be done by anything other than a live human...As opposed to a dead one, or a rover. Haha, bad joke. Anyway, my whole point was that I thought this was already known...Correct me if I'm wrong though, as I may just be a step ahead of everyone else, lol...Just kidding, as I'm not THAT egotistical.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus

Also, I thought it was common knowledge that life existed at one time on Mars, and that it is still likely to contain extremophiles thriving within its interior. That cannot be proven, but past life on Mars, to my knowledge, is pretty much sealed.

No. It is not "sealed" by any stretch. But Curiosity may make progress in that direction.

reply to post by SLAYER69

You seem to have missed posting the link but I think I found the article.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Mars is far less hospitable to life than even the Atacama.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JiggyPotamus

 

Also, I thought it was common knowledge that life existed at one time on Mars, and that it is still likely to contain extremophiles thriving within its interior. That cannot be proven, but past life on Mars, to my knowledge, is pretty much sealed.

No. It is not "sealed" by any stretch. But Curiosity may make progress in that direction.

There is no actual proof of anything being sealed that is public knowledge at this time but with that said, there are members of the original official NASA lander expedition that have said the initial tests verified the chemical characteristics they were looking for to prove life.

Take what you will from that and the science behind the argument for or against but I think we may see in the near future that life probably does exist on mars and possibly even flourished at one time when the climate was more temperate. Do I know this as fact? Absolutely not but given the way life exists on Earth in extreme conditions and given what we do know about Mars, I would have to lump this in the likely bin.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

You seem to have missed posting the link but I think I found the article.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Mars is far less hospitable to life than even the Atacama.

Thanks for reminding me. I posted the story then took off to the market without proofing

I can fully accept the possibility of extremophiles on Mars and would actually be surprised if we were to find absolutely none at this point.
But..
My question is, at what limit do we say "ok, we can disturb this life form, but not this life form.". Where is that cutoff? By looking objectively, it's clear that there is going to be a cutoff, but where do we place it?
My own opinion (that doesn't mount to a hill of beans) would be a cutoff at the Prokaryote/Eukaryote stage...I could easily be convinced of going even further into Kingdoms and put the cutoff at heterotrophs and if it was a dire emergency that could dictate the survival of our species, I think I would go as far as Phylum chordata before I would become uncomfortable with it.
At that point, it would take a great deal of debate, and would be highly dependent upon the circumstances surrounding it.

Back in the late 80s, someone was proposing an idea of establishing (ahem) domes on Mars; water would be transported up there along with algae. Within the domes, this algae would be mixed with the water and nature would be left to take its course. The idea then went that a breathable atmosphere would be created and an environment would become welcoming to any volunteers wanting to be Martian pioneers.

Damn these Futurists and their just-around-the-corner dreams!

If, and when, we've explored enough of Mars to either study the life-forms or accept there are none, maybe it should be open for exploitation. There's not enough moisture or resources to support the possibility that intelligent life will ever develop so it wouldn't be like we were messing with an ecosystem full of potential.

In that case, heave-ho with the ships and begin attempts to colonise the place with a clear conscience. Microbes and extremophiles lack ambition when a reality TV show could be the practical way forward.

Sponsored by McDonalds - 'Putting the M back in Mars.'

There'd be a lot of hand-wringing and uproar, but giving life a toe-hold on Mars would be a natural extension of life's survival.

reply to post by SLAYER69


No, with only 1 life form there would be no competition and that life form would spread without check. We would have to create life forms or terraform so we could introduce diversity.

the bacteria we may have introduced to the surface of mars accidentally wouldn't last as long as the extreme microbes i'm sure they will introduce with a scientific purpose. hopefully within reason.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

You seem to have missed posting the link but I think I found the article.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Mars is far less hospitable to life than even the Atacama.

Mars is probably the most likely place to find life within our solar system, along with Europa and Titan. It has all the basic things you would look for although admittedly towards the outer edge of those requirements. It does have an atmosphere although lacking as compared to Earth, it is there and it has one of the most important things that we know of that supports life........... Water. Most of it is frozen but we find bacteria in frozen ice here on Earth quite commonly and aside from that, there is evidence from the rovers that there is evaporating frozen water and that means no matter how short of a time, liquid.

Mars my be inhospitable by our standards but I'm sure you would agree that we are short sighted at times as too the measures life will go to exist. Earth harbors many life forms we never would have dreamed existed until we found that they do exist and that is on our own planet we have been on for hundreds of thousands of years. You never know, Mars may have a mystery or two up it's sleeve.