NASA to annouce life on Mars

[GePap]

"a little"- how exactly would we add tens of billions if not trillions of tons of materials to a planet?

[Verto]

With a little ingenuity.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Ned
The Viceroy, you post implies that we could make Mars habitable again by adding just a little more mass. How much more do we need?

I think hes talking on the order of over 10% the mass of the Earth (somebody could get exact figure easily).
Now the Earth may not seem so big when you are looking at a globe, but believe me, it is

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
"a little"- how exactly would we add tens of billions if not trillions of tons of materials to a planet?

We could prossibly "nudge" asteroids from the Kuiper Belt to move to and impact Mars with the expenditure of minor amounts of energy.

[Proteus_MST]

Yep, if the Speed of the Asteroid is low enough as it enters Mars Atmosphere and the Asteroid is big enough to not completely burn up at reentry,
yet small enough to not hurl more material into space than it provides
then it may work IMHO

[Rogan Josh]

What is the point pf trying to teraform Mars when we have extensive deserts on Earth? What is the point of even exploring Mars when we haven't fully explored the deep sea?

[Ned]

OK, Rogan. "We" American give you Europeans the right to explore the oceans. As to what "We" Americans do with our money, why not leave that to us.

BTW, I can only hope that we claim Mars for the US and charge you guys rent if you want to visit.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
As for what happened to it, well, there are as many theories as people interested in the subject. I prefer the disaster scenario, where Mars was hit by meteorite (no coincidence that it lies right next to the asteroid belt), lost enough mass to reduce the planets gravity below the trickle point.

Another theory would be that it was hit by an extremely conservative microbe in the early stages of the evolutionary process. I don't buy the panspermia theory which says that we are constantly being subjected to outer space microbes which somehow get through the atmosphere and then causes either pathogen epidemics or triggers evolution. Also the panspermia theory says life is existing all over the universe, but does not pinpoint the specific point of origin in the galaxy or in the universe.

What I am trying to say is that the reason advanced life is non-existent on Mars is a result of a very conservative microbe, anathema to any further advance of evolution.

[Ned]

TripleDoc, and what should we call this microbe? The Pat Robertson microbe?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
TripleDoc, and what should we call this microbe? The Pat Robertson microbe?

Sorry. The last sentence should read "anathema to any further advance IN evolution." Meaning that the microbe is not an objecitve spectator, but a subjective part in the evolutionary process.

It is entirely feasible that a specific kind of microbes would survive by feasting on what else basis of life existed on in the environment prior to planet fall.

It has been shown that when a batch of microbe, bacteria for instance, are starving; they mutate rapidly, by for instance shedding some of its advanced characteristics. It might very well be that starvation would lead to cannibalism, the other bacteria would be eaten, and subsequently only the very hungry would be able to propagate. The less hungry would fall by the wayside. Their specialization would ignore other survival skills, such as adaption to temperature shifts, in interplanetary travel through sunstorms or asteroids. Which is why they have as of yet never made it to earth.

Imagine if a cannibalistic microbe was carried to earth. This is of course a worst case scenario. It should be considered nonetheless. If all other bacteria are rendered dead, humans would no longer be able to digest food properly, for instance.

Mars is an extremely hostile environment by human standards, but this could mean that the microbes there are simply so much more tough.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Yep, if the Speed of the Asteroid is low enough as it enters Mars Atmosphere and the Asteroid is big enough to not completely burn up at reentry,
yet small enough to not hurl more material into space than it provides
then it may work IMHO

Most asteroids do not remove more mass than they add -- otherwise, planetary accretion would not occur. In fact, mass removal is extremely rare once you get above a certain size, and Mars is well above that size -- hell, the moon is well above that size.

As for "burning up"...the mass is still added -- or do you think it converts 100% to energy?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
What is the point pf trying to teraform Mars when we have extensive deserts on Earth? What is the point of even exploring Mars when we haven't fully explored the deep sea?

There is no point in terraforming Mars, but there are several good reasons to colonize it -- more room for expansion, a location for industry and research that isn't bound by environmental requirements, more sources of raw materials, and a bolthole for humantiy if Earth gets hit with any of several planet-wide catastrophes.

Of course, the Moon also offers all this, and its closer, so we should colonize there, first.

[Boris Godunov]

Um, another problem to keep in mind with making Mars "habitable" is its orbit. Since it doesn't have our nice stabilizing moon, it wobbles, so there won't be the consistency of seasons we would experience here. I think that the addition of an atmosphere and such might serve to make Mars more hostile an environment, not less of one.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
What says any possible micro organisms on Mars would be bacteria? They are probably a class of organisms not really applicable to our known terrestrial classifications.

Possibly, though the classifications we have now is rather complete.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Interplanetary diffusion of life goes on at fairly a constant rate, compared to the long timespan.

I challenge you to present ANY evidence for this

Plus, it doesn't make much sense. The "diffusion" occurs too randomly to be significant affected by difference.

However, interstallar diffusion is perhaps another matter. I am not quite sure how life is supposed to travel from star system to star system.

For the rate to be constant, you have to assume a relatively steady stream of life-bearing asteroids ejected from the star system in virtually every direction at close to the same speed