Past and Present life on Mars

louis · 2013-01-06 18:47:08

GW Johnson wrote:

Very interesting. Very odd-looking. From what I have seen and read, it appears to those investigating it that it is stuck into the rocks, which rules out the "plastic trash from the rover" hypothesis. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I've seen lots of clear crystal minerals, but never something curved.
GW

Well, as you are someone plugged into the space industry, I find that v. interesting GW. Yes - will be interesting to see what emerges in due course.

Is there an analogue for crystalline plants on Earth? I am thinking that clearly such a plant would not rely on Earth-based photosynthesis which leads to the green and other colouring of plants.

If this was an organism (wild speculation I know, but fun) might the protusion be more about sending out genetic material (seeds or similar) on the wind.

GW Johnson · 2013-01-07 10:17:47

Hi Louis:

Beats the hell out of me what it is.

But it surely will be an interesting tale as somebody figures this out. That's where the fun really is: watching 'em squirm over something unexpected.

GW

louis · 2013-01-07 19:19:04

It would be up there with the greatest stories of all time if it turned out to be living organic material. Somehow I doubt it though. Microbes seem a safer bet. But i would love to be proved wrong.

Incidentally GW I watched an interesting documentary on Neil Armstrong last night - it was most affecting to hear how they dealt with that almost-disaster of out of control spin on the Gemini mission.

Made me wonder - did you ever meet Armstrong?

GW Johnson wrote:

Hi Louis:
Beats the hell out of me what it is.
But it surely will be an interesting tale as somebody figures this out. That's where the fun really is: watching 'em squirm over something unexpected.
GW

GW Johnson · 2013-01-08 08:42:45

Hi Louis:

No, I never got to hobnob with any of the astronauts. I never worked at NASA, the companies I worked for were defense contractors. I'd like to have met them. Armstrong was a very retiring, very private man. Few ever got close to him. I did get to meet Rusty Schweikart and Dumitru Prunariu at an asteroid defense meeting 4 years ago. I've corresponded some with Tom "Skywalker" Jones, but that's about all.

I've looked at that photo of the "flower" several times now. To me, it's beginning to look like some sort of broken pieces of clear crystalline substance that have been eroded to really odd shapes by the wind and dust. There's at least one other protruding outcrop of this stuff, just not as prominent. What material might be clear among all that red and brown and black stuff, I dunno. I think they ought to laser it for the spectrometer and find out what it's made of. If we've learned anything, it's that appearances are very deceiving on Mars, which really is an alien place.

GW

louis · 2013-01-08 16:36:29

GW Johnson wrote:

Hi Louis:
No, I never got to hobnob with any of the astronauts. I never worked at NASA, the companies I worked for were defense contractors. I'd like to have met them. Armstrong was a very retiring, very private man. Few ever got close to him. I did get to meet Rusty Schweikart and Dumitru Prunariu at an asteroid defense meeting 4 years ago. I've corresponded some with Tom "Skywalker" Jones, but that's about all.
I've looked at that photo of the "flower" several times now. To me, it's beginning to look like some sort of broken pieces of clear crystalline substance that have been eroded to really odd shapes by the wind and dust. There's at least one other protruding outcrop of this stuff, just not as prominent. What material might be clear among all that red and brown and black stuff, I dunno. I think they ought to laser it for the spectrometer and find out what it's made of. If we've learned anything, it's that appearances are very deceiving on Mars, which really is an alien place.
GW

It would be extremely odd if they didn't go and take a closer look.

There do appear to be some odd shapes on the Martian surface making me wonder whether it is the absence of water erosion that accounts for that. Or maybe it's the extreme cold.

Apologies for misunderstanding your career.

SpaceNut · 2015-02-26 20:57:59

Life Might Thrive a Dozen Miles Beneath Earth's Surface

Life teems all over our planet's exterior and even down into the lightless oceanic depths. But just how far underground might life be able to hack it?
New research offers evidence of bacteria living as deep as 12 miles underground - quite possibly the deepest life has ever glimpsed. Learning biology's terrestrial limits, though important in its own right, is critical to understanding life's rise on other planets with far less forgiving climates and surface conditions than the Earth's.
"Most studies report microbial life in the crust to no deeper than a few kilometers - just a mile or so," said Philippa Stoddard, an undergraduate in Yale University's geology and geophysics department. "Assuming our data are correct, this greatly expands our understanding of the extent of the Earth's biosphere."

Void · 2015-03-03 11:24:08

I am actually not much in the mood for posting just now, but I had to do this one.

I ran across an article in the "New Scientist" that talks about bacteria that eat and breath electrons. You can query for it if you like.
I think I will play it safe and not link directly to it. No harm was intended, but perhaps that is the better way to handle it.

I had also previously found articles that indicate that under UV light many materials will develop an electrical potential.

UV being unfriendly to normal Earth life, I have thought that even so, under soil particles heated, and where salt may help to depress the melting point of water, and to attract moisture. Say duracrust.

And I also recall that supposedly UV stimulated materials may "Spark" with electrical discharge. That as well as feeding or providing for breathing for such micro-organisms might momentarily warm them as well.

I hesitate to deviate, or to post on the same topic under life support, but I do wonder if humans having a significant electric generating machinery, might load level that (Use excess capacity) to generate a biosource from their periodic excess of electricity.

On a side note I recall speculating on electrically driven life many many years ago, and then reading a scientific article that stated absolutely that electricity was so hostile to life that life could never use it So, that's an example of why things don't happen some times. Happily it eventually happened in this case.

I might also suggest that for moons traveling through a parent planets magnetic field with radiation and solar flux acting as well, ground currents are not out of the question. And if they traveled into the ground, then to perhaps melt some water, a habitat for life on those moons, maybe. Europa, Ganymede?

Last edited by Void (2015-03-03 13:49:51)

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-03-05 20:10:12

http://www.space.com/28742-ancient-mars … -lost.html
Here is an interesting article about an ancient ocean on Mars.

Void · 2015-03-05 21:37:38

Here is a similar article:
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-mars-earth … ocean.html

You drew me in on this.

I suppose that at some best time Mars could have had an ocean as is indicated.

I believe it also had a planet wide glacier, perhaps before that similar to Ceres, but to a lesser magnitude.
I agree that it seems to be indicated that much water has been lost.

They still don't know how Mars could be warm enough for rivers. I suppose it might have been if an unusual greenhouse effect was in existence.

However, under Antarctica and Greenland are rivers. For Mars, imagine volcanic ash blanketing this planet wide glacier, explosive processes.

In the dry valleys, all it takes is a couple of weeks of warmer temperatures, and sunlight, and ice covered lakes can be filled. And of course under our ice caps, ground heat and pressure can make liquid water.

I feel that since Mars has more lighter elements than Earth, it should have earlier also had more water than Earth. Again Ceres suggests this.
It is thought by some that asteroids and comets started as mudballs, with a icy crust. Radioactive materials could keep even them partially liquid for millions of years.

If mudballs hit the Earth and gave it water, then why is it unreasonable to think that more of them would have impacted Mars? Mars is closer to the original reservoir.

Life supposedly showing up just after the great bombardment on Earth, suggests something to me.

I think it is likely that the mudballs were generally infected with life, and that it tried to infect every planet in the solar system. We will perhaps find out about that in time.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-03-06 08:09:30

What would Mars look like if it had the atmosphere of Venus? Lets say Mars had a crushing 92 bar carbon-dioxide atmosphere on its surface, could water exist there? Venus is hotter than Mercury after all. What do you suppose Earth looked like when Mars had an ocean?

Void · 2015-03-06 11:55:20

Geology on the planet might reveal such an era. If Mars did get more water then why not more CO2 than Earth?

Volcanism being another issue, my understanding is that Mars has less frequent, and more violent volcanism, and it's axis is thought to move about. So, variable climate is the normal for it, most likely, constantly moving from one behavior to another, especially when it was younger.

I am of the opinion that ground currents contribute to a heat source for volcanism, along with radio-active decay. Ground currents stimulated by high energy photons, wind, solar magnetic wind, etc.

So if that were true, a volcanic episode could still happen, and if it did, and it spewed out greenhouse gasses, it is not impossible that for a short time period, the atmospheric pressure could double, snows fall and melt, and temporary streams exist.

The above could also occur on a temporary basis for a proper sized impacting object.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-06 16:44:08

As far as I can tell from what I read in the scientific journals, the thinking is that Mars had a fairly big ocean "initially". Ice-covered, or not, nobody knows. But there seems to have been lakes and rivers "all over" at that time. That ended the best part of 3 billion-or-a-bit-more years ago.

For solar wind reasons, Mars lost its atmosphere and most of its water to space. This appears (!!!) to have something to do with lack of a planetary magnetic field to shield the atmosphere. Perhaps the tectonics died earlier in the smaller world that cools off quicker. Nobody really knows.

Both Mars and Earth seem to have had some sort of near-fatal impacts during their formation. This is supposedly how Earth got its moon. And the lowlands around Mars's northern polar regions looks suspiciously like a basin left by such an impact. That's where the ocean was. Maybe that's why the two planets are as similar as they are.

For whatever reason (nothing is sure) life started on Earth within a billion years of formation. Some say as soon as there was an ocean. I don't think anybody really knows yet, but that idea makes sense to me. The same thing would have happened on Mars, if any of our ideas are in the least correct.

Here, it took over 3 billion years to go from single-celled life to multi-cellular life. No one really knows why, or just how adverse conditions were, etc. Lots of theories, almost no facts.

But if that is "typical" (a huge guess at best), then life on Mars never had the time to get beyond the single-cell stage, because it dessicated and the surface "died" for lack of air almost 3 billion years ago. If what we believe is actually correct. Again, lots of theories, very few actual facts.

All that being said, if I were sending probes and expeditions to look for life, I'd be looking for microbes, and I'd be looking underground. Perhaps miles underground. There's life here that deep.

And I'd be looking for microbial fossils on the surface, especially where the lakes, rivers, and ocean once were. Fossils that might resemble those oddball structures found in the Allan Hills 84001 meteorite-from-Mars. Fossil hunting is hard to program into probes, as is drilling down miles. Those are things that men do better. You have to drill deep, and you have to bust-open rocks without powdering them. I have yet to see a probe do either.

And so THAT is the science reason to send men to Mars. The human reason is "to explore" as we have done since before the stone age. What else do you need to go?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2015-03-06 16:48:23)

Void · 2015-03-06 18:34:01

I will settle peacefully for whatever is determined to be the truth, but I think the best method to have such an ocean on Mars would be a generally glaciated southern hemisphere (High Ground), and a generally ice covered basin in the north.

Antarctica and Greenland in the south, an Arctic Ocean in the North. Maybe some dry deserts and volcano's to kick up dust to darken the surface of the ice from time to time.

This along with an atmosphere thick enough for cold melt water to persist long enough to run down into cracks and tunnels in the southern glacier would provide the water for rivers, and perhaps open water lakes at times at the equator. I am presuming the rivers would mostly run under the ice cap in the southern hemisphere, and might emerge from it at the lower latitudes, only then to dump into a large ice covered ocean reservoir in the north.

That is a minim requirement for an Ocean in the North I think. It also does not take into account the changing tilt of the axis of Mars that is said to occur. But depending on the type of atmosphere, it may be that at that time the altitude of the south was sufficient to collect snow into an ice cap regardless of the amount of tilt.

With more atmosphere (1 Bar CO2) it could be nearly as warm as the Earth (But the sun was not as hot then). But maybe comets and asteroids impacting had some CO2. Maybe the volcano's could keep it resupplied for a time while it was young.

It changed though probably many times, and I am open to the facts if they can be found.

I believe that the last thing I read is that the ocean is thought to have filled twice. The first time presumably from a surface water cycle, and the second time from ground reservoirs that were thought to have been melted by geothermal processes.

The second time they think the ocean just then froze solid and then evaporated away.

However, if the Mariner rift valley really does have fossil ice in it's bottom ~1 1/2 miles thick and other locations similar, I do not dismiss the idea that the northern basin is in part the remnant of a frozen sea, and some significant ice of that sea is still their under the dirt.

I think the abundance of heavy water is 5 times as great as for Earth.

http://www.realclearscience.com/2012/12 … 50332.html

This could indicate that Mars has lost 4/5 th's of it's original water. If their is thick layers of ice from the Amazonian Era? deep buried, then that suggests to me that Mars had a lot of water originally, perhaps more than the suggested ocean suggests. If their was an ice cap in the south several miles thick, and covering an area similar to Antarctica. (Or more).

I have no proof, just speculation.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-07 10:51:58

Actually, there's no reason at all to think that just because Earth has a 1-bar atmosphere today, then it had a 1-bar atmosphere 1-4 billion years ago. That's assumption, not fact.

One possible solution to the "dim young sun" problem is inherently-thicker planetary atmospheres providing more greenhouse effect. These would be thicker in the far past because the interiors of the planets were much hotter then, and there would consequently have to be more volcanic outgassing.

If that was true here, why not Mars? And the rest? Theory only, no facts, but it does make sense.

Assumptions, especially unspoken ones, often lead us astray. I guess that's why they spell "assume" the way it is, because of what it makes out of you and me: "Ass u me".

Sorry, bad joke.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2015-03-07 10:55:15)

Void · 2015-03-07 11:05:54

I more or less agree with you. Many of the models for what was are based for lack of information on what is.

A thicker, and maybe more different atmosphere is reasonable. Some of the asteroids in the asteroid belt still have ice and from time to time behave like comets. Perhaps billions of years ago, they also had CO2 and Ammonia. Then if they impacted Earth or Mars, they could contribute to a greater greenhouse effect. To explain certain geology on Mars, such a situation would only have to exist for 25% or less of the existence of Mars.

And volcanism is presumed to be more active. That is a double edged sword for Mars though because it is possible that super volcano's might eject atmosphere? Then again impactors can add atmosphere or splash it away for a world like Mars. There are a lot of variables. And it may be true that earlier Mars had more atmospheric components to eject from volcano's than now.

But if the asteroids/comets had more CO2 and Ammonia, then it seems reasonable that they would also be likely to have had more water ice.
So, possibly Mars received quite a lot of water relative to Earth, as it is closer to the reservoir.

But it won't break my heart if facts intrude on my speculation. I don't make a living this way.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-07 11:30:08

Hi Void:

Lots of theory possibilities, with few facts to support or contradict them. Perfect for an academic investigator. Nice work if you can get it. Wish I could.

There is this starting to come out about asteroids and comets: both types seem to be extremely variable in their construction and in their volatile content. I think before we are through, we'll find there is no distinction, that there are no asteroids vs comets. There is only a broad spectrum of very heterogeneous bodies that range from dry to icy. Just my opinion, few yet agree.

And some of the weird phenomena that we see may actually derive from electric effects in addition to the physical/chemical stuff we have been considering. After all, the solar wind is a plasma. And it could easily change its charge state balance as it flows outward from the sun. There's celestial bodies to scrape off some of the electrons as it flows by. Also just my opinion, very few yet agree.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2015-03-07 11:32:02)

Void · 2015-03-07 15:24:32

Yes, GW.

I don't dispute that the effects from the sun other than visible light may not add up to a significant effect on many worlds. But there must be an effect. They should not dispute that.

I fully state that if you create a differential voltage, and have a conductor, current will flow. If current flows though the materials of an object it will heat it. While that might be dismissed as a small effect, so also small are the effects of radioactive decay. It is just that a planet has a lot of thermal insulation to prevent the heat getting out so rock is melted, and volcanism occurs.

Putting myself in the firing line, for Ceres, if it has any kind of a conductive layer, a fluctuating plasma field must generate a counter EMF, and so an opposing magnetic field. The fluctuation in itself will excite molecules attracted by it. Further, if somehow a magnetic reconnection of a plasma loop were to occur with the induced field of Ceres, I think it might discharge a lot of energy into Ceres.

As for UV, if one half of a object is lit up, and the other dark, I anticipate a differential voltage and so a current, since the object is not a perfect resistor.

But the effects may or may not be of significance to the issue of liquid fluids or life.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-08 10:22:39

Don't be misled, I'm not one of the "electric universe" enthusiasts. I don't think they're at all correct in attributing everything to electrical phenomena.

But I do think we are wrong to routinely ignore the possible electrical effects among all the other explanations for the weird things we see. Spacecraft charging was (and still is) a real design issue. So far, that's the only verified instance, but why dismiss it in other scenarios before investigating?

GW

Void · 2015-03-08 12:34:53

I have a vague notion of what the "Electric Universe" people propose. I am not a champion of it, they can do that.

I appreciate your rigid attitude, with just a bit of open mindedness stirred in.

You are a rocket guy, and if you don't get the formulation right, they easily do not do what you want, and most often do what you don't want, in an extreme way.

Without the open mindedness, however (In small measures) you would be doomed to go in circles forever and never be able to incorporate a new method.

Electric exists as you say, but caution is appropriate in attributing more to it than is demonstrated. But eyes and other senses open when you have the time usually costs little.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-09 09:50:27

Wasn't trying to be "rigid" about anything. I do tend to be very facts-in-front-of-me based, very empirical.

GW

Void · 2015-03-09 15:33:16

I am very ashamed because I apparently insulted you. It seems to be a "Lost in translation" issue. I have a very deep respect for what you offer for thinking.

When I think in such matters, I think in something other than verbal language. The translations do not always work.

But a body has bones which are rigid, but still have joints. It also has muscles. A body without muscles (Rigidity) would be a quivering mass on the floor. I seek a balance. I understand that rocketry, which I understandably should be humble before, requires the best thinking. It is risky when I venture into such areas.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-11 09:33:31

No insult taken. Forget it.

As for life on Mars, I suspect they will eventually find some. It'll be subsurface, having something to do with liquid groundwater. We have that here, in the deep rocks actually. Miles down. It's only been found in recent years.

There might be near-subsurface descendants of microbes from that early ocean in the northern basin zone, too. Just meters down. Maybe even underneath the old lakes and streambeds scattered across Mars, too. But it'll be several meters down or more, we'll need real drill rigs to find it. I'd hazard the guess it'll require liquid groundwater. That would suggest not in the hard-frozen polar zones.

If we ever terraform Mars back to warmth and wetness with thick air, I'd predict any underground Martian microbial life will re-colonize the surface.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2015-03-11 09:36:14)

SpaceNut · 2016-09-24 19:59:40

Went searching for topics on Bacteria to post this article to. If Mars life did take hold its now below ground. The tests in the article show that life can be quite hearty an could surviv under ground as the climate of Mars changed.

How a Garbage Fire Could Lead to New Antibiotics Ya the title is misleading.....

Shade studies how microbes evolve, in particular what happens when their homes are destroyed. When the fire started burning in Centralia, the once cool ground turned into unbearably hot dirt. Shade has recorded soil as hot as 120 degrees Fahrenheit near steam vents. “The soil remains hot for years, or multiple generations for microbes,” says Shade. As the fire depleted the coal seam underneath, the fire front moved, and some areas of the ground cooled down again.

Void · 2016-09-26 10:12:02

Typical literature indicates a frozen near surface environment where eventually radiation would splinter the "DNA" of any hibernating organisms because the organisms never get a period where they can grow and repair themselves.

I am not sure I agree about the never of the presumption.

I have read that at any one time there are "Ice" windows of significance where solar heating could allow micro habitats suitable to life.

Also, dust devils are after all thought to be electric. I have previously speculated that they might discharge into the ground an cause a temporary melt of "Mud". On Earth lightning can melt sand. Why not permafrost in the subsurface of Mars?

Also, although it seems repugnant to life for there to be such a low atmospheric pressure, combined with low humidity, and saltiness, and massive temperature fluctuations, I believe that the combination provides an avenue for life in the near surface.

For instance a salt deposit under a thin rock, might attract moisture from the atmosphere, or from the grounds humidity. The cycling of day/solar and night/radiate might cause a freeze thaw under the rock. This in turn might separate the briny fluid into temporary parts, some very salty, and some less salty, and perhaps fresh enough for life to drink from it. The day might bring the temperature of the fresher fluid up to -10 or so, which is in the area where metabolism can be significant in Earth life forms.

Then there are salt pans, where in certain parts of the seasons, it is speculated that the temperature and humidity could support certain Earth life forms.

And then it seems that Mars exited an "Ice Age" it has been said 400, 000 years ago. In that era, the ice was held at the equator, and not the poles, I presume by the tilt of the planet. They do not say what happened to the CO2 which is currently held in the southern ice cap. My point is that I think that Mars on it's own, can and has had temporary elevations in surface pressure and temperatures, and also humidity, in the "Recent" past, which could have improved conditions for extreme life. It is said that the CO2 in the southern ice cap if evaporated could elevate the pressure to 11 mb, and this would allow actual snowfall, and that snow would be able to melt, and form temporary streams.

And finally it seems that they are now saying that Mars had cold lakes far beyond the wet period of it's early life. Those came from snow melts. This suggests a prolonged time where the Earth and Mars could have swapped life types.

So, in my opinion the hopes of a biosphere which could emerge back to surface are enhanced, as many below surface life forms might retain abilities to deal with surface life, if conditions waver just slightly to a better condition. I think there have been exceptions to the notion that the surface cannot support life, and I think they have been relatively frequent in geological/biological time.

Last edited by Void (2016-09-26 10:29:00)

Oldfart1939 · 2016-12-08 12:47:42

The real research on finding life--or evidence of life past--will most assuredly be accomplished by those lucky enough to make a journey to the Red Planet. I believe that the best evidence pro or con will come by doing some detailed chemistry of diverse samples of Martian materials from deep underground locations. Chemistry will provide the answers.

Anyone truly interested in astro-biochemistry needs to read some of the scientific articles from this gentleman's research:

http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/jbada

Professor Bada has continued the work of Stanley Miller, and Harold Urey.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2016-12-08 12:48:10)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2013-01-06 18:47:08

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#27 2013-01-07 10:17:47

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#28 2013-01-07 19:19:04

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#29 2013-01-08 08:42:45

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#30 2013-01-08 16:36:29

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#31 2015-02-26 20:57:59

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#32 2015-03-03 11:24:08

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#33 2015-03-05 20:10:12

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#34 2015-03-05 21:37:38

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#35 2015-03-06 08:09:30

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#36 2015-03-06 11:55:20

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#37 2015-03-06 16:44:08

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#38 2015-03-06 18:34:01

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#39 2015-03-07 10:51:58

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#40 2015-03-07 11:05:54

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#41 2015-03-07 11:30:08

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#42 2015-03-07 15:24:32

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#43 2015-03-08 10:22:39

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#44 2015-03-08 12:34:53

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#45 2015-03-09 09:50:27

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#46 2015-03-09 15:33:16

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#47 2015-03-11 09:33:31

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#48 2016-09-24 19:59:40

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#49 2016-09-26 10:12:02

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

#50 2016-12-08 12:47:42

Re: Past and Present life on Mars

Board footer