Im wondering what they'll evolve into a million years from now. Lets write them a bible now so they can worship us in the futa!
No. The readings weren't just found to be sterile, they were found to be strongly toxic for the first few seconds of the reading, then leveled off. They read NEGATIVE life. The theory is that the oxidization of the dying microbes lowered the organic readings. It is the ONLY theory that has explained those results.
Why do you get tired of people saying there could be life on Mars? What if it turns out true that 30 years ago, we discovered there is indeed life on Mars? There are parts of Mars that are no less hospitable than the depths of our oceans and the darkest parts of our poles - both areas that are teeming with life. So why not Mars? How can you be SO convinced?
That why I said microbial life is possible, yet unlikely. Also, according to howstuffworks.com, life needs, nitrogen. CO2, and water. Now the question is, does Mars actually have enough of these elements to make life? There is PLENTY of CO2 (95.3% of Mars atmosphere) however only 2% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen. Is there enough Nitrogen under the surface for life or is this small amount enough? One the Terraforming subject, apparently Earth had a lot of CO2 as well before photosynthetic bacteria developed and began creating oxygen. We could use microbes to help convert the CO2 into oxygen, but this may take a while. If this were to work quickly enough the atmosphere would thicken and create a greenhouse effect that would warm the planet. How long this would take is up in the air though. We could also use mirrors to warm the surface and produce greenhouse gases ourselves. And we could also smash ammonia heavy asteroids into the planet. If possible we could combine these methods and speed up the process if possible.
No, you said it was impossible, that there was no life, and that anybody who thought otherwise was stupid.
The thing is though, you're thinking abot life as we know it. The article I saw on this topic mentioned that it would be using peroxide instead of just water. Peroxide would have a lower freezing point, and doesn't crystallize the way that water does. Both good things for an environment like that of Mars. Additionally there's always the question of how much life. Even if the Nitrogen, CO2, H2O formula must be followed, all of that's available, however it's not in a great ratio. But if there's enough to sustain small colonies, that's life. It just won't get to the point where they can debate if there's life on that green and blue orb running on the inner track.
Actually, they said it would be a mixture of mostly hydrogen peroxide with some water. If the microbes actually even need water, the hydrogen peroxide would make the microbes very efficient at attracting and absorbing water molecules. On the flip side, too much water in the environment would kill such microbes (they would basically go "pop!") But yeah, completely alien life that originated independently of Earth wouldn't have to use the same chemical processes that life on Earth uses, or even use ribonucleic acids for its genetic makeup.
I think it is pretty sad that we as a human race are still trying to debate life on mars. Mars...what a shithole.... What about the other barely hospitable planets in the universe, gotta be at least...oh a couple at least... oh I could rant, but i wont...
I dont know if the evidence is true or not, but it doesnt matter to me, given that mathematics and biology can prove life exists in certain enviroments, regrdless of the planet. Shooting for Mars is rather lame if ya ask me...try Europa...
Mars is more practical. It being closer means less money spent, less time waiting for something to arrive there, and less time wasted if a probe doesn't make it. Europa would indeed be promising, but it seems like it keeps getting removed from budgeting plans.
... 1. I think that it has been fairly well-established that scientific inquiry of any sort is always worthwhile, even if it's just for its own sake. 2. Mars may be a "shithole" now, but if we terraform it, it won't be. And I tend to agree with Dr. Hawking - we're going to need to colonize Mars at some point if we want humanity to survive and thrive. 3. Earth's moon (Luna) and Mars are the two closest places to Earth that have the potential to allow for human life. Any planets beyond the eight in the Sol system are so far away that it would require technology that we don't have yet (long-term reliable cryostasis, better forms of fuel/energy) or technology that we may never have (warp drive/hyperspace drive/etc).
Whoa! you believe we have the tech? This is conspiracy stufff as far as i am concerned. I have done my research, thank you.
... but you just said we have the technology? Honestly, I'm not sure what you're talking about anymore. What is conspiracy stuff? The original article or the tangent you went down about Mars vs. Europa?
Gracious me, but I swear that issues of space exploration are starting to get up there with news/politics/religion/environment in terms of controversy! Somebody mentions other planets, shuttles & starships and people get all worked up! I think he meant we have the technology to continue unmanned exploration of Mars. The rovers the U.S landed there worked better than anybody expected. The issue is money - some people think there are better things to spend it on than science, education, the environment, etc.
We (nasa) is wasting money on mars....we have the tech to travel to other systems, but the tech would destroy the worlds dependance on oil. Simple? NO! People dont like to talk about it (free enegegy) it exsists...I am not a scientist, but energy can be derived from dark matter..we just dont know how to do it yet....or it is being hiddden....
