NASA to annouce life on Mars

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
No nitrogen whatsoever .. but not being a biologist, I couldn't really say what the effect of this would be .. any ideas ?? something tells me, it may not be too healthy.

There would be an effect for plants if lack of nitrogen in the atmosphere also meant lack of nitrates in the soils.

[DRoseDARs]

This didn't copy/paste as well as I hoped it would, but all the info is there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Mars Facts | Compositions (Soil and atmosphere)

Martian Soil Composition From Pathfinder (1997)

Element or Compound
A-2, Soil
A-4, Soil
A-5, Soil
A-3, Rock
"Barnacle Bill"
A-7, Rock
"Yogi"

weight %
weight %
weight %
weight %
weight %

C (Carbon) (note 1)
-
-
-
-
-

O (Oxygen) (notes 1,2)
42.5
43.9
43.2
45.0
44.6

Na (Sodium)
3.2
3.8
2.6
3.1
1.9

Mg (Magnesium)
5.3
5.5
5.2
1.9
3.8

Al (Aluminum)
4.2
5.5
5.4
6.6
6.0

Si (Silicon)
21.6
20.2
20.5
25.7
23.8

P (Phosphorus)
-
1.5
1.0
0.9
0.9

S (Sulfur)
1.7
2.5
2.2
0.9
1.7

Cl (Chlorine)
-
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6

K (Potassium) (note 3)
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.2
0.9

Ca (Calcium)
4.5
3.4
3.8
3.3
4.2

Ti (Titanium)
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.5

Cr (Chromium)
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0

Mn (Manganese) (note 3)
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.4

Fe (Iron)
15.2
11.2
13.6
9.9
10.7

Ni (Nickel)
-
-
0.1
-
-

Na2O (Sodium Oxide)
4.3
5.1
3.6
4.2
2.5

MgO (Magnesium Oxide)
8.7
9.0
8.6
3.1
6.3

Al2O3 (Aluminum Oxide)
8.0
10.4
10.1
12.4
11.4

SiO2 (Silicon Dioxide)
46.1
43.3
43.8
55.0
50.9

SO3 (Sulfur Trioxide)
4.3
6.2
5.4
2.2
4.2

K2O (Potassium Oxide) (note 3)
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.4
1.1

CaO (Calcium Oxide)
6.3
4.8
5.3
4.6
5.8

TiO2 (Titanium(IV) Oxide)
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.8

MnO (Manganise(II) Oxide)(note 3)
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.5

FeO (Iron(II) Oxide)
19.5
14.5
17.5
12.7
13.8


Notes:
(1) Direct results on C and O will be available from the analysis of alpha spectra at a later date.
(2) O is calculated from oxide stoichiometry, assuming S in the form of SO3 and Fe in the form of FeO.
(3) Values for K and Mn are upper limits; more accurate numbers will be available after further analysis.

Analysis based on X-ray data.
Values for potassium and manganese are upper limits; more accurate numbers will be available after further analysis.
Minor elements such as phosphorus, chlorine and chromium are omitted from this table.

Martian Atmospheric Composition

Element or Compound
Make-up

CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)
95.23%

N2 (Nitrogen)
2.7%

Ar (Argon)
1.6%

O2 (Oxygen)
0.13%

CO (Carbon Monoxide)
0.08%

H2O (Water)
210 ppm* (0.021%)

NO (Nitrogen Oxide)
100 ppm* (0.01%)

Ne (Neon)
2.5 ppm* (0.00025%)

HDO (Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen)
.85 ppm* (0.000085%)

Kr (Krypton)
.3 ppm* (0.00003%)

Xe (Xenon)
.08 ppm* (0.000008%)

* = Parts-per-million

Sources:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marspath/apxs_table1.html

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marspath_results.html

[Dr Strangelove]

I might point out that Mars is a little over 50% further from the sun than the earth, so the density of visible sunlight, UV light, and cosmic radiation will be about half that of the earth disregarding the absorption of the atmosphere.

When you contemplate the extraction of resources from the moon you have to take into consideration that the moon never had an active molten core. On earth the molten core is thought to have played a significant role in the accumulation of mineral ores into deposits concentrated emnought to make mining worthwhile. On the moon then it is unlikely that minerals will be found in concentrations worth mining. Since Mars may have at one time had an active core perhaps some mineral deposits may exist, but you know, traveling 60 to 240+++ miles to get them hardly seems worhtwhile.

If someone were to colonize the moon on the other hand they could build mass projectors giving them the capability of bringing every nation on earth to its knees.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
(...snip...) If someone were to colonize the moon on the other hand they could build mass projectors giving them the capability of bringing every nation on earth to its knees.

I'm for that!!!

[Japher]

Dr Strangelove

First, a molten core has nothing to do with the minning capabilities of a dead planet (i.e. the moon). The moon is nothing more than a chunk of rock, most likely taken from the surface of some other planet with a molten core. Thus, it's chemisty is most likely consistant through out.... Leading to a more worthwhile reason why harvesting on the moon is not worth a damn.

However, this could be wrong.... Considering that we really have no idea what the core of the moon is made of, or if there are large deposits of some element within.

Second, your statement of Mars being so far away, but the throwing out the idea that it's atmosphere could attribute to creating favorable conditions is, IMO, the whole point! No one ever said that a planet need to be in the exact same point as earth.... Yet, it still makes you wonder, that if Mars contained water it most certainly contained the ability to contain life. Regardless of how far away from the sun it was.

Third, from DroseDars post: Silicon galore there? Silicon based life? I find it odd that while our earths surface is mostly Al, there's is Si... What are the consiquences? Life there, where it to exist, is/was not carbon based if the evolution theory holds... IMO, if we find evidence of carbon based life, evolution would not hold.

Think of this Al is 3+, Si 4+.... C is 4+ allowing for a competitive advantage of consolidating... What is 5+? N, P, As... = entities that would be deadly to humans! However, Si is highly reactive. Nothing exists purely as Si really. Thus, the question could still be up in the air.... Especially if we were able to determine what kind of atmoshpere did exist to sustain life.

[Ned]

Dr. Strangelove, wouldn't the denisty of sunlight vary according to a cubic relationship. If Mars is 1.5 times Earth's orbit further away, the solar density sould be 1/1.5 cubed, or around 1.34 that of Earth.

However, the much highed CO2 content should be able to retain more solar heat.

[Ramo]

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.

He brought up a perfectly valid point that warrants a response. And a lot of Americans agree with him.

And its good to know that life works differently in the Nedaverse.

[Japher]

Ned: I don't think that 1.5 times the distance would have a really huge effect on solar density. I could be wrong.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by 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.

I'd say you're welcome- it looks like Australia's Red Centre, only colder and less hospitable.

Still, it would only be a matter of time before you had those hallmarks of American culture sprouting everywhere- shopping malls, crack dens, gas stations and smog.


Loves ya, Neddy.

[Ramo]

Dr. Strangelove, wouldn't the denisty of sunlight vary according to a cubic relationship. If Mars is 1.5 times Earth's orbit further away, the solar density sould be 1/1.5 cubed, or around 1.34 that of Earth.

Squared, Ned. The radiation is distributed around a surface extending from the sun, which has a distance-squared dependence.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I'd say you're welcome- it looks like Australia's Red Centre, only colder and less hospitable.

Still, it would only be a matter of time before you had those hallmarks of American culture sprouting everywhere- shopping malls, crack dens, gas stations and smog.

You mean Starbucks, surely... the rest are optional.

[DanS]

What is the point of even exploring Mars when we haven't fully explored the deep sea?

NASA is already devoted to understanding the Earth. Earth sciences gets ~ $1.5 billion per annum and the Sun-Earth connection gets ~ $800 million. Relatively little goes to speculative exploration like Mars -- $570 million. Other things like astronomy (~$900 million) are also well funded.

In the end, NASA is more about nifty aeronautics research and maintaining a military/civil space flight capability than anything else. $7.8 billion per annum.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2167main_04budget_sum_030227.pdf

I agree that Mars is not really a worthwhile destination in the long run. Even a terraformed Mars wouldn't hold a candle to Earth. However, there is a good argument to be made for research diversification and some speculative research. You just never know what you'll find.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Japher
Dr Strangelove

First, a molten core has nothing to do with the minning capabilities of a dead planet (i.e. the moon). The moon is nothing more than a chunk of rock, most likely taken from the surface of some other planet with a molten core. Thus, it's chemisty is most likely consistant through out.... Leading to a more worthwhile reason why harvesting on the moon is not worth a damn.

That's essentially what I said. Since the moon doesn't have a molten core, it has not had streams of molten material projecting up to it's surface acting to concentrate minerals into deposits. It's fairly certain that the moon never had a molten core. I seem to recall somewhere that there was some evidence that Mars at one time may have had molten core. Whether it was around long enough to make a concentrate mineral deposits is not known.

However, this could be wrong.... Considering that we really have no idea what the core of the moon is made of, or if there are large deposits of some element within.

Second, your statement of Mars being so far away, but the throwing out the idea that it's atmosphere could attribute to creating favorable conditions is, IMO, the whole point! No one ever said that a planet need to be in the exact same point as earth.... Yet, it still makes you wonder, that if Mars contained water it most certainly contained the ability to contain life. Regardless of how far away from the sun it was.

That's not what I said. I said that it was too far away to profitably transport materials back to earth.

Third, from DroseDars post: Silicon galore there? Silicon based life? I find it odd that while our earths surface is mostly Al, there's is Si... What are the consiquences? Life there, where it to exist, is/was not carbon based if the evolution theory holds... IMO, if we find evidence of carbon based life, evolution would not hold.

The idea of Silicon based life is unrealistic. Life requires polymeric macromolecules. You can't make them with Silicon.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Japher
The moon is nothing more than a chunk of rock, most likely taken from the surface of some other planet with a molten core. Thus, it's chemisty is most likely consistant through out.... Leading to a more worthwhile reason why harvesting on the moon is not worth a damn.

Last 'accepted' theory I heard is that a planet of a similar size to Mars (called Orpheus) crashed into the Earth around 5 billion years ago, the Moon being created from the ejecta that remained in orbit after the collision.

That's essentially what I said. Since the moon doesn't have a molten core, it has not had streams of molten material projecting up to it's surface acting to concentrate minerals into deposits. It's fairly certain that the moon never had a molten core.

I was under the impression that the 'marias' or seas of the Moon were created by the laval flows into the large impact craters. That suggests a molten core to me, at least for a few hundred million years.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
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.

Most original anti-conservative troll ever