New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#26 2019-06-11 21:35:30

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,587

Re: Life on Mars?

The question I had was how slow was the change to mars values?

Offline

#27 2019-06-12 05:41:17

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 4,633

Re: Life on Mars?

Thanks Void - very interesting. Is this new research? Amazing that NASA haven't done this before if so, leaving it to a German space research.

Confirms my suspicions that the potential for life on Mars is much greater than orthodox science would have it.

Regarding protection of any Mars organisms, we have already sent robot craft that will have carried some Earth organisms and meteorite impacts will have resulted in exchange of organisms in any cases over billions of years. I don't see anything to stop initial Mars Missions, as long as the usual precautions are taken to minimise contamination (either way!).



Void wrote:

It is late and I am tired, but I could not resist posting this item, as I would be afraid I might not find it again.

https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/ … atmosphere
Quote:

Lichens, cyanobacteria and molds growing in humidity of simulated Martian atmosphere
From Astrobiology Encyclopedia

Martian conditions in miniature - In the Mars simulation chamber, DLR researchers recreated the atmospheric composition and pressure, the planet's surface, the temperature cycles and the solar radiation incident on the surface. The activity of polar and alpine lichen was investigated under these conditions.
A series of experiments by DLR (German aerospace company) in Mars simulation chambers and on the ISS show that some Earth life (Lichens and strains of chroococcidiopsis, a green algae) can survive Mars surface conditions and photosynthesize and metabolize, slowly, in absence of any water at all. They could make use of the humidity of the Mars atmosphere.[1][2][3][4][5]. The experiments haven't been conducted for long enough to test propagation.
Though the absolute humidity is low, the relative humidity at night in winter reaches over 70% even in regions close to the equator, as measured directly in Gale Crater by Curiosity, because of the large day / night swings in atmospheric pressure and temperature. It may well reach much closer to 100% in regions where frosts are seen (including the Viking 2 lander site) and where ground hugging mists form, including equatorial regions in Valles Marineres and the Hellas basin[6].
This is relevant to the search for native life on Mars. It is also relevant to planetary protection, the need to protect Mars from Earth life if we wish to study native life in the habitats in its original state.

I have posted in the past about the German experiments, but this article is even more convincing.  Where previously, I though they had attenuated the U.V. in their simulations, it appears that the attenuation was in the cracks in the rocks, which it appears could be a plausible simulation for Mars.

I am rather satisfied with the whole read of this.

Exceptions are that I am more like Dr. Zubrin about planetary protection.
Also, I feel that CO and Oxygen in proportion to that experienced on Mars should be included in future tests, as it could very well feed microbes, and perhaps even fungi.

While they have demonstrated to a degree, the potential for life to make it on mays with photosynthesis, they leave out chemosynthesis by excluding the CO and Oxygen.

…..

As for planetary protection my opinions are somewhat split.

We live in a universe which must contain millions? billions? of Mars like worlds.  If there were life on Mars, it might be from panspermia, in which case it is potentially our relatives.  If Mars had it's own genesis, then those millions/billions of ~Mars worlds have strong potential that they might have had a unique genesis of life.

I agree with Dr. Zubrins take on it.  It is very likely that we could distinguish between the Martian "Blood" lines and our own types of such organisms.  Thus, the loss of information to learn is not a guaranteed result of our contaminating Mars.

If the fear is that aliens are hanging out watching us and will do like to us if we to this, then I think those are small odds, and they can have at it if that is how things are going to be.

As for morality, humans have all decided that it is OK to eat other organisms to live, and to also kill them for their needs as well.

The odds are this indigenous life will have a leg up on our organisms anyway, in the Martian environment.

Dr. Zubrin also explains that it is very unlikely that any pathogens will emerge from Mars that are a threat to us.  We get our new diseases from organisms that are more strongly related to us.

And since we are apparently the only creatures like us per our conceit of our value and intelligence, I think we should take that as an important factor to calculate what needs protection.

I feel that the human race will degenerate without an escape route for types that don't live by predating on other humans, but more live by manipulating objects, not people.

And if there is Martian life, extinction of it is not the only possible result, nor do I think it likely.  Actually there is the potential that it will migrate with use to yet further worlds in the future.  This could be seen as a potential benefit to it.

But the article(s) is/are a fantastic read I think.

As for life in the Atacama desert, I read recently that an unusual rain fall actually kill a lot of the dry adapted life.  Recent reading also suggests that Mars had raging rivers periodically up to a billion years ago, even with a thin atmosphere.  So, that suggests that any Mars life would then have been adapted locally for that eventuality, at least in some cases.

I myself am against terraforming Mars so that it has raging rivers.  Not strongly against but I would have to be informed of a good reason to do so.  I also am against wholesale melting vast expanses of permafrost.  I prefer a Cold Oxygenated Mars, but of course if Mars life exists, and is proven to not be adaptable to that then I would reconsider, and search for yet another terraform option, or no terraform.

But we won't know, until we test.


Done.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#28 2019-06-12 11:03:43

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Life on Mars?

I am glad you showed up, Spacenut and Louis.

I have time constraints today, but I will do some hasty replies, and then try to get back for more later.

But first I want to attach this. I think it also has importance, as Mars has significant CO and Oxygen.  Significant meaning that if microbes can live off of gasses in Antarctic, then the potential for Mars could be rather large.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25014
Quote:

Cultivation-independent surveys have shown that the desert soils of Antarctica harbour surprisingly rich microbial communities1,2,3. Given that phototroph abundance varies across these Antarctic soils2,4, an enduring question is what supports life in those communities with low photosynthetic capacity3,5. Here we provide evidence that atmospheric trace gases are the primary energy sources of two Antarctic surface soil communities. We reconstructed 23 draft genomes from metagenomic reads, including genomes from the candidate bacterial phyla WPS-2 and AD3. The dominant community members encoded and expressed high-affinity hydrogenases, carbon monoxide dehydrogenases, and a RuBisCO lineage known to support chemosynthetic carbon fixation6,7. Soil microcosms aerobically scavenged atmospheric H2 and CO at rates sufficient to sustain their theoretical maintenance energy and mediated substantial levels of chemosynthetic but not photosynthetic CO2 fixation. We propose that atmospheric H2, CO2 and CO provide dependable sources of energy and carbon to support these communities, which suggests that atmospheric energy sources can provide an alternative basis for ecosystem function to solar or geological energy sources8,9. Although more extensive sampling is required to verify whether this process is widespread in terrestrial Antarctica and other oligotrophic habitats, our results provide new understanding of the minimal nutritional requirements for life and open the possibility that atmospheric gases support life on other planets.

I wanted to get that locked into the discussion as I think it is equally important.

……

Spacenut, of course I only know what I read, and might imagine.  I think now that perhaps Mars has had 3 lives.  The first ~1/2 Billion years maybe as a somewhat Earth similar place.  The second would maybe have lasted past that, up until perhaps 1 Billion years ago.  Now it is in it's third life (Maybe), where I speculate that most of the atmospheric control exists underground.  Secondary controls would be the polar ice caps of water ice and CO2 ice. 

The first life would have ice age cycles I am guessing, with influence from the migrating axis.  I am guessing the deeps were still warm, so then hot springs, and such other things.  It might also have been periodically altered by impactors of significance, and could have been periodically been largely sterilized in some of the events.

In the second life it would have oscillated between a 3rd life nature such as today, and wake-up episodes.  The polar axis could have loaded up the situation during a 3rd life type situation, the ices would have piled up somewhere colder, and then as the axis tilted, their could have been a period where these ices converted to gases to migrate.  Also influencing this could be more random events such as significant volcanism, and impactors.  Even now just counting the CO2 in the ice caps, it is said if you could vaporize that, then there would be a more Earth like snowfall, and temporary streams.  But if you get to that point, it is possible that the ground would liberate further gasses.  I think the idea is now that you don't need all that much pressure, to get to raging boiling rivers, which could be very erosive.

Raging rivers like that however would eventually lock up some of those gasses, and the declining volcanism, would probably make wet events rather rare and weak by now I speculate.  But it is possible an impactor of significance could wake the planet up to a second life again still.

It appears that the third life might be able to support a biosphere.  It is curious that we do not see plain evidence of one.  There is sunlight, Humidity at times, and chemicals for life to live on.  It is curious.

……

Louis,

I think that the early German work dates from about 2014, so relatively recent.

As I have said, I think they should do again and include CO, and a pinch of Oxygen.

I agree that at the very least we should be the most hesitant to protect from bringing polar organisms to Mars.  The others would have a much harder time catching on.  But some microbes are sort of universal for Earth, be multi-adaptive.

I will wait to see what the human community decides.  But they better be quick about it, because what I see as the space potential is far beyond what SpaceX intends.  Using Up and Down Starship strategies, and very likely including deliveries of materials to Martian orbit with Ballistic Capture tell me that much more can be done, with much better results than by using a universal Starship and a Hohmann transfer only.


Gotta Go.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-06-12 11:34:19)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#29 2019-06-12 13:51:30

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Life on Mars?

This adds to the game quite a bit.
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-cyanobact … light.html
Quote:

…..To learn how the cyanobacteria are able to survive without sunlight, the team examined them under a microscope. They found that in most respects, the cyanobacteria were the same as their cousins living on the surface in the surrounding area. When testing the air in the pockets, they discovered that the tiny creatures were consuming hydrogen gas as evidenced by lower hydrogen levels where the cyanobacteria were found. They also found evidence that the subsurface cyanobacteria had one small adaptation to their photosynthetic system that allowed them to use a "safety valve" to produce energy. In other cyanobacteria, the valve is used to release excess energy to prevent overheating when sunlight is abundant. …..

This along with the other references in previous posts, suggests an interesting variation on "Plant life on other planets, or that could be engineered for Space and Mars".  It also refutes the claims that, CO would build up on planets in the outer half of a classically defined "Habitable Zone".

……

Frankenstein Lichen and plants?

While this reference indicates that photo Cyanobacteria were living off of Hydrogen underground, I am thinking it likely that they might also be happy with CO.  At least microbes in Antarctic soils are.

A Lichen is a Fungi, and Cyanobacteria, or a Fungi and Algae in symbiosis.

So now, I suggest that if they do not currently have it, to modify one or both of the organisms to sideline in CO consumption, since Mars currently has it to offer.

In order to survive and grow, Lichen has burdens to overcome, such as dealing with radiation damage, and procuring other resources.  In the experiment that the Germans did, I don't think they made CO available to the Lichen.  It is not demonstrated that they could metabolize it, but it might be possible to genetically modify one or both of the components to metabolize CO by borrowing genes from microbes that can.  This should not be very much of a danger to Earth, as our atmosphere does not contain nearly as much CO as that of Mars.

In doing so, we would hope to boost the energy budget of the Lichen, so that it could grow faster in the Martian environment, make more protective pigments, and repair more radiation damage.  In doing that it might be able to tolerate more U.V.

As it is now, they can grow in cracks in rocks for some various possible reasons.  Attenuation of the light is likely one.  With a slow metabolism, they can only use a portion of the available light that helps them grow.  So, putting them into full light, will not benefit them but hurt them, as then they have more good light than they can use, but get the full blast of harmful U.V. light which damages them.  They probably cannot keep up with the damage with the metabolism they have.

Another possibility is filtering.  As the light goes into the crack, it may be that some harmful light is absorbed by the rock, and yet enough good light get to the Lichen.

But another factor could be that in the cracks they get a moisture favor.  In the night, perhaps moisture collects on grains in the rock and sand, but as things warm up moisture liberated, to some degree gets blown through the crack, and that crack at that time might still hold the greater cold of the deep nighttime.  Perhaps very tiny droplets of moisture can condense at times on the Lichen.  Of course the article about them suggests that they can even pull the moisture in as a dissolved component in the atmosphere.  But don't be too surprised about the potential of droplets.  Bacteria in clouds can induce precipitation here on Earth.  And water vapor if not disturbed can be liquid at super cooled temperatures, it just might be that the Lichen can play with both of those.  Super cooled water droplets induced by the Lichen, would most likely not boil at those pressures.  If it could be wicked into the Lichen without suddenly turning to ice I don't know.  But the Lichen may have some kind of anti-freeze chemical to cope with that.

……

It may be that some vascular plants absorb CO and H2 here on Earth as a sideline.  However, here is yet another Frankenstein plan.  Make them so that they do, for space colonies.  It may be that productivity could be greatly enhanced with that.

Potential dangers are:
-Letting something loose on Earth.  This is likely not a problem, because they will not get much H2 or CO, so might even be non-competitive to existing life.
-Poison?  Well, In a situation where you are in space and tending a garden, a PPE suit might be appropriate for the CO situation.
-Lower flammable limits exceeded.  Don't let that happen.
-Lower explosive limits exceeded.  Don't let that happen.

A terraforming plan for Mars most properly should include life forms that will consume CO, as it is a poison to humans.  I am guessing that CO will emerge from the ground for some time even after that of the Poles is vaporized.  Therefore the potential for photolysis to generate CO will exist.  The treatment could be to have it consumed by life forms.

The Polar areas might offer summers which would support annual and maybe perennial plants some day.   At least 60 days without a killing frost out of a Martian year???

But with a 330 or less MB atmospheric pressure, low latitudes and elevated areas suggest that Lichen is the "Plant" (Even though it is not a plant), of choice.  We could hope to upgrade it to a crop eventually.  Reindeer Lichen/Moss, is a target.  Marginally a food, but not fit at this time to make it on Mars.  But with GM tricks perhaps a blending of Antarctic traits, consumption of CO, and Reindeer Lichen traits might get us there.  However while you were at it you might as well upgrade it to a real food value.  And you would want to render it faster growing.

Supposing you could generate Lichen, and maybe even vascular plants that would have a dual metabolism such as I have suggested Photo & Chemical, you might host them in minimal greenhouses where you could partially modify conditions to the favor of the crops.

Less U.V. enough visible light, maybe reasonably better moisture conditions.  You would also want to make sure that nights inside got cold enough for the Lichen to absorb moisture.  The Lichen would also have to be reasonably productive.  You might be able to circulate filtered Martian air into the greenhouses.  (Filtered of dust).  That way they could get their CO.

For Vascular plants at this time, I guess you may need higher pressures, (Dr. Zubrin mentions plants that can grow at ambient in his book but maybe I misunderstood that), but likely you would need to be able to extract CO from the atmosphere at a reasonable cost, and input it to a pressurized greenhouse.  Or you could, perhaps manufacture CO from CO2 for them.  Then the Humans get to use the O2.

Done

Last edited by Void (2019-06-12 14:44:34)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#30 2019-06-12 15:19:08

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Life on Mars?

Well, here I go further.

I am wondering about strange gas mixes and non-animal Earth life.  Maybe including Tardigrades in some cases?  Maybe anything else that does not have Hemoglobin?

How about a Hydrogen dominated mix?  How about a CO dominated mix?

This could actually approximate some possible alien worlds, maybe?

And then perhaps indeed Nitrogen and Argon dominated mixes with H2, CO, O2, and CO2.  Various.

Just to see what happens to the Lichens, Molds, Yeast, Fungi, ect.

Costly I expect.  Probably need to be well controlled and small jars, per explosion potentials, poison, ect.

Done.


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#31 2019-06-12 16:45:37

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,587

Re: Life on Mars?

Sort of part of this article...
Study Dramatically Narrows Search for Advanced Life in the Universe

extrasolar-planets-habitable-zone-map-hg.jpg

The new study concludes that carbon dioxide toxicity alone restricts simple animal life to no more than half of the traditional habitable zone. For humans and other higher order animals, which are more sensitive, the safe zone shrinks to less than one third of that area.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3 … 357/ab1d52

Offline

#32 2019-06-12 19:05:27

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Life on Mars?

In my opinion, much of what they say does not work very much at all.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Study … e_999.html
Quote:

In a new study, a UC Riverside-led team discovered that a buildup of toxic gases in the atmospheres of most planets makes them unfit for complex life as we know it.
Traditionally, much of the search for extraterrestrial life has focused on what scientists call the "habitable zone," defined as the range of distances from a star warm enough that liquid water could exist on a planet's surface. That description works for basic, single-celled microbes - but not for complex creatures like animals, which include everything from simple sponges to humans.
The team's work, published in The Astrophysical Journal, shows that accounting for predicted levels of certain toxic gases narrows the safe zone for complex life by at least half - and in some instances eliminates it altogether.

Subquote:

In a new study, a UC Riverside-led team discovered that a buildup of toxic gases in the atmospheres of most planets makes them unfit for complex life as we know it.

Vascular plants are complex life.  Fungi are complex life.  It is a bit less certain for certain animals, but I checked, and some Antarctic Fish do not have Hemoglobin proteins at all.  And I suspect that some smaller more primitive animals may lack the need for it as well.  But that is not a knockout punch.  They should have worded it better.

I could pick it apart even more from their words.  I note that they have locked themselves into a classical notion of "Habitable Zone".  That is by a stars radiation alone.  They have not accounted for the potential of total greenhouse gasses, including Nitrogen and Oxygen, and even to a rather limited degree maybe Argon.

Since their definition of complex life includes animals with Hemoglobin, and Aliens with intelligent capabilities, I presume that the atmosphere they speak of is expected to have at least Oxygen.  And we can expect most likely some Nitrogen and Argon as well.

But lets look at the Earth just as it is now, and the animals and Humans with Hemoglobin on it.

The Earth is in the ~Middle of our solar systems classical habitable zone.  We should be at risk of Carbon Monoxide poisoning now and poisoning by other toxic gasses.  We are obviously not.  I don't know how they can say that and yet put the Earth in the very safe zone on their graph.


But now lets play with the Earth.  Lets move it out to the orbit of Mars.  We won't alter the atmospheric composition, we will have the same CO2.  The fact is that out at the orbit of Mars, the amount of U.V. radiation will be cut to ~1/2 of what it is now.  How could that generate more Carbon Monoxide?  And I have read, that the Earth, if moved out to that orbit would still have some open Ocean water, but of course it would be much more glaciated.

I am pretty sure that they are thinking that in order to keep the planet warm, you would have to pump lots more CO2 into the atmosphere, and that the radiation would generate proportionally more CO and other toxins.  But you don't' have to in order to have a living planet that might continue to support animal and human life.

Just to show how resilient the Earth would be in moving outwards, I will show how you could go very much further out, and still likely have a living planet.

For sure the Earth at Mars orbit would experience serious glaciation.  Ice would pile up on the continents and press them down.  Perhaps the Arctic Ocean would be covered with miles of ice as well.  Antarctica would probably have an extent of ice that connected with the South American continent, and likely even South Africa.  But then what happens to the sea level?

Well, the continental shelfs and perhaps even more are exposed land.  What happens to the air pressure over the continental shelfs?  It is higher than our sea level air pressure and denser than our present sea level density.  It has and increased greenhouse effect primarily from having more Nitrogen, Oxygen, maybe Argon, and yes a bit more CO2 over it.  But also the atmosphere filters the U.V. out better in those locations.

So, some surface will become extremely colder, the ice covered locations, and yes that reflective albedo will be a problem for reflecting heat.  But if you have less Ocean and it is colder, you will likely have less clouds over the oceans for various reasons, and perhaps more over the snowy places. 

Now lets move the Earth further out, until the Ocean beds at ~10,000 feet deep become dry land or glaciers.  I don't know how far out that is.  It's out there though.  We will presume you still have the same quantity of Nitrogen and Oxygen for the atmosphere, and the same amount of CO2, but you have even less U.V.  The continents except perhaps at the equator are ice covered, but the former ocean beds down to ~10,000 feet have an extra 10,000 feet of atmosphere above them.  A much higher air pressure, and a much stronger greenhouse effect.  They might even be able to support temperate forests, grasslands, and deserts, and yes in places tundra, and at higher locations but still under the present oceans alpine vegetation.  And I would not be surprised if in locations they would support tropics.  But that is not necessary for the argument.  There would still be open water seas in the deeper parts of the Oceans.  I predict that the vegetation would still be able to consume the CO2 emitted by volcano's.  The CO is still going to be a favorite food for certain microbes at least.

So, you have a planet that can digest it's CO2 and CO, at a rate that keeps up with emissions from Volcanos.

You could go further away from the sun, but I suppose that at some point you would not have enough plants and microbes to consume the CO2 and CO produced.  The Mariana trench is 29,000 feet deep.  Of course if it were the last open sea on the planet, then I am guessing that it is not enough to keep up with Volcanos.  But you are so much further from the sun, that the U.V. is much less.  However I will concede that at some point the CO2 overwhelms the situation.

But if it does, does that lead to dead animals and humans?  Terraformer has indicated previously that humans can be acclimated to a higher level of CO2.  Some animals tolerate it.  I think the Beaver in its mound, tolerates high levels of CO2.  I am thinking that animals would adapt if given time, and so also even perhaps humans, especially if they were high tech intelligent.


So now you do begin to build up CO2.  The result....Things warm up.  More ice melts, more of the sea floor is habitable.  Now about Carbon Monoxide.  We already know that their is less U.V. to produce it, and good chances it will linger preferentially in the sea bed where their is a more protective layer of atmosphere.

But at some point, actually CO2 turns to Ice just like on Mars.  At a high enough air pressure you would have running rivers of it in the colder places.  But not on the sea floor.  So, we are getting a wobbly model, when we go too far out, and maybe we cannot achieve a very high level of CO2 as a gas.  So that and the reduced amount of U.V. and the loss of access to it, as it will tend to run downhill to then evaporate.  Alright at that point there is a danger of suffocation for animals and humans in certain locations.  But we are looking for intelligent life.  They might know how to stay out of those areas or to have proper equipment for it.  Animals if left to evolve would develop greater tolerance of it.  They most likely would evolve instincts to stay away from it.


But that is a bit of cheating on my part I guess as I said that the Earth would be as we know it except for the glaciation and the lowering of the sea/land levels.

What about CO generated?  We already know that there is life eager to consume it.  So, as long as you had reasonably large sections of living biosphere on the former sea bed, you would have organisms working to reduce it's presence.  If it were not so now, should we not be poisoned already by it's accumulation?

We do have a problem with the presumed emergence of humans in the tropics at some point.  If that is supposed to be true, then when you went far enough out to not have tropics, that pathway is gone.  However their are monkeys in Japan that experience snow.  So, actually that argument does not hold.  Could something emerge on a low Arctic tundra?  Well maybe, maybe not.

But ignoring the potential dangers of CO2 condensing into liquid, it can't be ruled out.  Even with liquid CO2, it can't be ruled out.  However they might not have wood for fires, so that would be a problem.

But as I have shown, I think it likely that you could put Earth out beyond the classical habitable zone, and still have trees.

…….

Now I break from the model and invoke the game of variable Nitrogen in the atmosphere.  We will just for fun presume a constant amount of Oxygen.  That is a different loop, and I want to set Oxygen aside for now.

This game will involve abiotic and biotic components.  We can also talk about CO2 as well.

The first player is volcanos.  There is apparently a reservoir of CO2 and Nitrogen and other things inside the Earth, volcanos distribute it to the atmosphere.

Volcanic Gas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_gas
Quote:

The principal components of volcanic gases are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur either as sulfur dioxide (SO2) (high-temperature volcanic gases) or hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (low-temperature volcanic gases), nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Other compounds detected in volcanic gases are oxygen (meteoric), hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen bromide, nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur hexafluoride, carbonyl sulfide, and organic compounds. Exotic trace compounds include mercury, halocarbons (including CFCs), and halogen oxide radicals.
The abundance of gases varies considerably from volcano to volcano, with volcanic activity and with tectonic setting. Water vapour is consistently the most abundant volcanic gas, normally comprising more than 60% of total emissions. Carbon dioxide typically accounts for 10 to 40% of emissions.[1]
Volcanoes located at convergent plate boundaries emit more water vapor and chlorine than volcanoes at hot spots or divergent plate boundaries. This is caused by the addition of seawater into magmas formed at subduction zones. Convergent plate boundary volcanoes also have higher H2O/H2, H2O/CO2, CO2/He and N2/He ratios than hot spot or divergent plate boundary volcanoes.[1]

We survive it now.  Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, Argon, Helium, Neon, Nitrous Oxide.  These are the more interesting players.  Abiotic and Biotic processes tend to fight to get them out of the atmosphere.  But we have lots of Nitrogen, and very little Carbon Dioxide, and Carbon Monoxide.

Looking more at the Abiotic side, running water seems to do a lot of the grunt work in putting the CO2 back into the ground.  Sediments, might react with it, including it into stone.  Cold water is really good at dissolving it.

We can go to biotic, as any world with intelligent biological life is presumed to have the equivalent of plant life, is presumed to want to use Carbon.  Silicon life?  Lets not do that.

Lets do look at Cyanobacteria and Algae.  We don't even so much have to worry about forests, but they make a contribution as well.  They grow, they take Carbon out of the atmosphere, some of them run down rivers into the oceans.  More of them live in the oceans.  They die or are eaten and die.  The remains tend to be recycled, but some becomes sediments on the bottom of the ocean, and some are interred there for a very long time.  They also likely take a bit of Nitrogen down as well.  But much more Carbon.  So Carbon is eliminated from the atmosphere at a very much greater rate than Nitrogen I think.  The elimination of Nitrogen is more into river sediments, delta's I think, where they are incorporated into rocks I believe.

Now what if your wandering Earth gets colder and dryer.  Then less rivers to inter Nitrogen.  If the rate is insufficient to keep up with the output from the volcanos, then I will expect the amount of Nitrogen in the atmosphere to rise, and then so a greater greenhouse effect.  Then more rivers.  So, the colder an Earth would get, then the more Nitrogen buildup in the atmosphere.

How much could build up?  Well Venus could be a reference.  It does not seem to have a means to inter Nitrogen, (Or Carbon Dioxide), that we know of.  Lets see if we can guess how much Nitrogen Venus has in it's atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Quote:

the pressure is 93 bar (9.3 MPa)

But the gravitation is less.  So, it takes more to produce that pressure.  But most is CO2, so that is heavier than Earth air.  I can use fuzzy math on this we don't need precision, just the inkling that it is a lot.
Quote:

Composition[1][2]
Carbon dioxide
96.5 %
Nitrogen
3.5 %
Sulfur dioxide
150 ppm
Argon
70 ppm
Water vapor
20 ppm
Carbon monoxide
17 ppm
Helium
12 ppm
Neon
7 ppm
Hydrogen chloride
0.1–0.6 ppm
Hydrogen fluoride
0.001–0.005 ppm

So, 3.5 % Nitrogen, so a lot.  I don't feel like doing the precise math for it.  I am sure it is very complicated.

Has all of the Nitrogen in the body of Venus below the atmosphere been expelled to the surface yet?  Don't know.  Good chances there is still more in the rocks and lava.

Lets just suppose that perhaps the Earth was born with the same proportion of Nitrogen, (But it is not assured).

Now when we if we move the Earth back to the orbit of Mars, we have chances of a 2 bar atmosphere of Nitrogen and Oxygen with a few bits of other things.  Under those conditions the average temperature of the Earth at that location should be approximately want it is here, and now.  One difference would be that the tropics might be cooler and the poles warmer because that amount of gas would redistribute heat more than for our Earth.

If I am right about the Nitrogen cycle, then we could expect that if we moved the Earth to the orbit of Mars suddenly, yes, it would get colder with more glaciation, and dryer, less rivers, less open water ocean.  Less interment of Nitrogen into rocks.  But the volcanism should stay the same (More or less for this model).  And the partial pressure of Nitrogen should go up until you have enough running water and organisms to handle further output from the volcanos. At that point the Ocean levels should be about where they are now.  The continental shelves under water again.

But I am not really sure, but I will bet we could get to 3 or 4 bars of atmosphere, if we just moved the Earth out further.  So, humor me and suppose 4 bars is the limit.  The volcanos by then have diminishing output.  So, we will have moved the Earth out to ~25% of the current radiance from the sun that we receive at 1 astronomical unit.  We would still have approximately the same ocean levels.

So, referring to my previous posts, this would be a E(4) world.  That is Earth with 4 bars of atmosphere.  Is that the limit?  Well for now I guess so, I won't get further exuberant about Nitrogen for Earth.  But for alien planets, we do not know how much Nitrogen they start with.  I think it can be variable.  Some might have a lesser reservoir of Nitrogen in rocks and atmosphere, some much more.  So in other solar systems, yes perhaps you could get to an E(8), or maybe even an E(10).

But lets return to our E(4) world which we moved to a solar flux of ~25% of the Earth current.  We still have normal sea levels.  We could push it out to a 12.5% solar flux, and still have open ocean water.

So, I am very interested in M+, E, and SE worlds much further out than the classical habitable zone.

And all of this might be possible without summoning more CO2 or Methane.

And the fact is that if you had a limit on Nitrogen of E(4), and you pushed the Earth out further so that the biosphere began to die down, and the rivers ran less, then you would have a buildup of more CO2.

Then OK, there could be a toxicity limit, the production of CO and other toxic gasses????  But you are in an environment where the U.V. is much less.  And the CO2 will warm things back up for the plants and microbes, and they will, at least some of them want to eat Carbon Monoxide.

And some animals do not have Hemoglobin.

So that article in the prior post is way off in my opinion.

Whew!

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-06-12 20:49:36)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#33 2019-06-12 21:39:22

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Life on Mars?

This is not that central to my argument but so what.  A vertebrate without Hemoglobin, as an adult.  Not sure about earlier stages.

https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Channichthyidae/
Quote:

Respiratory and circulatory system
Hemoglobin
Icefish blood is colorless because it lacks hemoglobin, the oxygen-binding protein in blood. [32] [36] Channichthyidae are the only known vertebrates to lack hemoglobin as adults.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channicht … ory_system
Quote:

Hemoglobin[edit]


Champsocephalus gunnari on a Soviet Union postage stamp from 1978
Icefish blood is colorless because it lacks hemoglobin, the oxygen-binding protein in blood.[2][8] Channichthyidae are the only known vertebrates to lack hemoglobin as adults. Although they do not manufacture hemoglobin, remnants of hemoglobin genes can be found in their genome. The hemoglobin protein is made of two subunits (alpha and beta). In 15 of the 16 icefish species, the beta subunit gene has been completely deleted and the alpha subunit gene has been partially deleted.[9] One icefish species, Neopagetopsis ionah, has a more complete, but still nonfunctional, hemoglobin gene.[10]
Red blood cells (RBCs) are usually absent, and if present, are rare and defunct.[11] Oxygen is dissolved in the plasma and transported throughout the body without the hemoglobin protein. The fish can live without hemoglobin via low metabolic rates and the high solubility of oxygen in water at the low temperatures of their environment (the solubility of a gas tends to increase as temperature decreases).[2] However, the oxygen-carrying capacity of icefish blood is less than 10% that of their relatives with hemoglobin.[12]

I highlighted some part that expresses the limits for this animal.  But it more or less shows that an animal with a slow metabolism and access to a liberal Oxygen supply can exist without functioning hemoglobin.  This then suggests an animal line that might have a greater tolerance to CO.  Granted, some other part of it's metabolism might suffer from CO.  But with no Hemoglobin to carry the Oxygen, I can see that since an intelligent alien that would evolve down this path, can get Oxygen, and perhaps also CO, but not so intensely into its circulatory system.

The poisoning that happens with CO and hemoglobin primarily entails the hemoglobin latching onto the Carbon Monoxide so strongly that the body has major trouble cleaning up the hemoglobin, and so the hemoglobin can no longer carry Oxygen to the organs.

So, can slow motion aliens be intelligent?  Well, if they live in a higher Oxygen atmosphere, perhaps.  As long as the predators of them are also proportionally slow.  After all an atmosphere poisoned by CO, will kill fast animals with hemoglobin, it is claimed.

A high Oxygen atmosphere would be prone to forest fires, if there were forests, but the evolutionary pressure would be to develop vegetation which is less prone to burn.  Also, some trees are benefited by fire.

The reason I posted this is to show that there are chances to deal with CO abundance, and that animals show a potential at least per to hemoglobin poison argument, to escape the poisoning.  In fact if Oxygen can be conveyed to the organs, then I see a potential that CO would be a food for such an organism.  On an alien planet, with a different evolution path.  Some microbes certainly enjoy metabolizing it.
And that article sort of allows microbes on planets in an outer classical habitable zone planet.

But in the previous post I present arguments why the claimed mandatory buildup of CO2 and CO can be false for many planets potentially, as long as they use Nitrogen as their primary greenhouse gas, and have limited CO2 in the atmosphere.

Just some food for thought.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-06-12 22:01:39)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#34 2019-06-13 17:31:43

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,587

Re: Life on Mars?

I think part of the reports bias is based on oxygen breathers versus a toxic atmospher unsuitable for them.

While a co2 breather has not problems with it.

For all we know we may in time find other atmosphers where life can develope and survive.

It starts with the extreme life tolerate life forms rather than those that can not adapt.

It comes back to the genetics of the life that makes it able to be tolerent of its environment...

That said could there be other genetics other than RNA, DNA life encodings....

The other bias to the planetoid is its size to level of atmospher as well as temperature. As you noted even on this planet the chance for life using a different blood means its getting and energy process that is different for its genetic make up.

Offline

#35 2019-06-14 08:55:51

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Life on Mars?

Spacenut said:

I think part of the reports bias is based on oxygen breathers versus a toxic atmospher unsuitable for them.
While a co2 breather has not problems with it.
For all we know we may in time find other atmosphers where life can develope and survive.
It starts with the extreme life tolerate life forms rather than those that can not adapt.
It comes back to the genetics of the life that makes it able to be tolerent of its environment...
That said could there be other genetics other than RNA, DNA life encodings....
The other bias to the planetoid is its size to level of atmospher as well as temperature. As you noted even on this planet the chance for life using a different blood means its getting and energy process that is different for its genetic make up.

You prompted further thinking on my part on this subject.
For this post, I will not speculate outside of the Classical Habitable zone, so as to reduce confusion.  I will use our solar system and the Earth as the model.  I will look at moving the Earth though the Habitable zone.  I will presume that all things of the atmosphere remain constant, including CO2.  But I will allow for water displacement by evaporation and condensation, both as a liquid and as the solid, ice.  I will presume the existence of the Moon, and our familiar rate of rotation, and axis tilts and their wanderings.

First of all, I think moving it to the orbit of Venus is the most dangerous.  Although cloud cover might save the day, I see a greater risk to the planet in the inner half of the Classical Habitable zone.

But the greater issue per the current discussion is the outer half of the Habitable zone.
My reading in the past, has it that the Earth moved out to the orbit of Mars, will still have some open water ocean, because the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere is sufficient to allow it at that orbit.  I will summon water displacement, because we have plenty of evidence of it during our last ice age, and I presume also during earlier ice ages. 

While the result of moving the Earth out to the orbit of Mars would be what we might call a permanent ice age, it would result in the serious lowering in the level of the oceans, exposing continental shelves and higher level sea floors to become "Land".  Obviously eventually erosion would modify the contours of that "Land, but lets set that aside for now, I don't think it matters very much in this argument.

I can also invoke dust.  If exposed land becomes cold and dry, then like Mars to a degree, dust would become a greater factor, and I would expect that some stable ice to be coated with it, just as in Mars, so this is another way, that perhaps albedo would become assistive to the collection of heat from the sun.  But again just something mentioned in passing.

The lowlands, which would be considerably lower than our current low lands, would have more atmosphere pooled above them than we do at sea level.  The Dead Sea has a minor effect like that now.  Doggerland is an example of something that existed during our last ice age that is evidence that this can happen here on Earth in it's current orbit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

On an Earth moved out to the orbit of Mars, this process is likely to be greatly amplified.

So, I am satisfied that such a moved Earth, where you did not alter to composition of the atmosphere, except perhaps having an altered water cycle due to water displacement, would have the same amount of CO2.  But the rate of photolysis of CO2 would be ~1/2 of what we have now, due to a lesser solar flux at that orbit.  So, less CO should be generated, as we did not need to have more CO2 in the atmosphere in order to have a living biosphere

......

Now lets violate my restriction of atmospheric composition.  Lets suppose that there was a lesser budget of Nitrogen than the Earth has.  The planet would get colder and dryer, with less rivers and Oceans to consume CO2.  Then we might see a buildup of CO2 as a natural balancing act.  And lets then suppose, that the CO2 experiences greater photolysis, resulting in more CO, and so also more O2 actually.

We can for this model assume that any animals will breath O2, and of course any intelligent life like humans would breath O2 out of the atmosphere.  But, we still have an Ozone layer I presume, and CO2 is heavy.  We also have a colder atmosphere over the ice masses, so the potential for dry ice is greater, as a filter that would store CO2 and take it out of the atmosphere.

But lets say CO builds up in spite of that.  There is a Cyanobacteria which I have mentioned that if buried in the ground will digest H2 to replace it's above ground photo-metabolism.  There are microbes that also are noted to eat CO.  An experiment I would like to see would be if there are microbes that can both use photo-metabolism, and chemo-metabolism, specifically CO + O2.  Before the buildup of lots of Oxygen in our atmosphere, and presuming a significant presence of CO2 in that archaic atmosphere, I would not be surprised at all if it was a strategy that on land organisms used.  Especially if the Ozone layer were weak, as it might be if the atmosphere had say only 1% Oxygen.  In that case they would need costly mechanisms to block U.V. (Pigments), and costly mechanisms to repair damage.  It only seems reasonable that they would take advantage of the food that CO would provide, to help them have an energy budget sufficient to cope with their needs.  So, I anticipate that excess CO would be soaked up by such organisms when possible.

And if there were trees in this alternate Earth biology, I would expect that they would prefer CO to CO2, because it would be just that much easier for them to absorb Carbon for their life cycle.

......

But now lets assume that CO built up anyway, and animal life had to cope with it.  As you have said, alien biology could be quite different.
But in this example, we would have an alternate Earth biology.  If trees do not now accept CO, it is because it has not been significantly present in their environment.  On an Earth that had significant CO, it would be an evolutionary or an intelligent design logic, that the trees would use it up.

......

But still, if we assume that somehow anyway, the CO built up, what about animal life including intelligent life?

We already have a cold water fish from Antarctica, which seems like it might be more tolerant of CO, because it has greater chances of ignoring it.  But of course if it was there, it would only make sense that they would by the process of being there evolve, or be designed to use it.

What if they did have Hemoglobin though?  Of course our Hemoglobin, would say that they would suffocate, as the Hemoglobin gets clogged, and cannot then respire Oxygen at a cost effective rate.

But what if they had a dual respiration?

Some Arctic animals, have a heat exchanger blood system, so blood systems can be other than what we usually expect.

I have in the past speculated that in the future humans could have a new organ built, to store Oxygen.  This would allow them to do more extensive diving in water, or perhaps do "Dive" excursions on planets with atmospheres with insufficient Oxygen.  Perhaps a partially terraformed solar system planet.  During such an event, with such an organ, they would not use their lungs.  Oxygenation would be maintained by that new organ.

I won't go into the mechanics or biology of it, as that would be a diversion.

But suppose the alien life had a two stage respiration?  The first stage would take raw atmosphere, and process it, metabolizing the CO with O2, and eliminating it from the mix.  I am guessing it could have some type of alternative to hemoglobin, but maybe the blood for stage 1 would be blood plasma only, like the fish previously mentioned.  The CO would be consumed in that first blood system, and the remainder gas mixture could pass onto the secondary system which could include Hemoglobin like our own.  That blood system should be able to extract O2 in quantity suitable to allow for active animals.  CO2 would be expelled back to atmosphere by both stages on the exhale.

So, in my opinion it is not so hard to have a CO tolerant animal with Hemoglobin.  In fact it may be possible that the CO would be an advantage, as the animal would use it as it's primary food, and would otherwise have an Earth animal normal eating process, in order to get more energy and also nutrients.


Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-06-14 16:08:51)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#36 2019-06-14 17:38:29

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,587

Re: Life on Mars?

You got me thinking a bit when life has no Hemoglobin to carry the Oxygen and they live in caves with not light and co2 rich atmospher that most life that is complex in multicellular came from single cell and thats pointing back to the tree of lifes evolution.

The tree includes 92 named bacterial phyla, 26 archaeal phyla and all five of the Eukaryotic supergroups.  "Our planet has always been in the 'Age of Bacteria,' ever since the first fossils—bacteria, of course—were entombed in rocks more than 3 billion years ago. … On any possible, reasonable or fair criterion, bacteria are—and always have been—the dominant forms of life on Earth."

nmicrobiol201648-f1.jpg

Every life form belongs to one of three domains: archaea (single-celled microorganisms), eukaryotes (that’s us! and plants and other animals and lots of things), and bacteria. These domains are the three biggest branches on the tree of life; from there, each splits into its own sub-branches and twigs. Previous versions of the tree have focused mainly on eukaryotes, because, well, the creators were eukaryotes, and we like to think we’re pretty important.

Isolation of Bacteria Whose Growth Is Dependent on High Levels of CO2 and Implications of Their Potential Diversity

Of course harnessing bacteria to do the work we need I think will be the key to the much saught after goldilocks zone planet use.

Bacteria Engineered to Make Sugar From Carbon Dioxide and Feed World

Offline

#37 2019-06-14 17:41:08

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Life on Mars?

Spacenut, I am not being rude, I posted this just after your post, and you must have been composing just before me.  I am short on time and will respond to your post later.  But I have something below that perhaps you can straiten me out on.



My new post:

Going off to Mars again, I am thinking about the tentative evidence of a Lake under the south polar ice cap.

I am wondering about....Carbonic Acid.
http://www.creationwiki.org/Carbonic_acid

Some have indicated that salts should be responsible.  Some beyond that have said that no, that is not enough, there must be geothermal heat making a contribution.

I was thinking very pressurized CO2 mixed with water to make Carbonic Acid.

But the data sheet does not make sense.  It gives a boiling point of -78 degC, and a melting point of 210 degC.  I am not so up on this stuff.  I know that there is dry ice in the south polar ice cap, and I was expecting it to lower the melting point of the mix.

I was expecting that the level of pressure above the mix would allow quite a lot more CO2 to be dissolved than in our soft drinks.  Does anybody have the ability to give me a better understanding of this?

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-06-14 17:43:49)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#38 2019-06-14 20:18:25

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,587

Re: Life on Mars?

You are asking about sea water temperature and obsortion of co2. Of course what I found first was as temperature rises for releasal

https://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/car … ice-versa/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/27/ … -seawater/

But I would agree based on antartica's lake that is under its ice sheet, one under the poles of mars would also make sense to have if it compressed, allowed the ice as its capped under the mass of the cap would make for it to be liquid as it warmed under the increased pressure.

Hidden Beneath a Half Mile of Ice, Antarctic Lake Teems with Life

The long and short is if no baterium for life to evolve with then no life exist now....

Offline

#39 2019-06-15 10:47:43

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Life on Mars?

I had a mind filled morning.

I looked through your materials.  I agree, the CO2 reservoir potential of the oceans is a great stabilizer.  It reportedly has a much greater holding potential for CO2 than the atmosphere, if they are playing tug-of-war for it.

I also agree that I have also read that the pressure of a layer of our familiar ice will depress the melting point of a pool of water below.
I don't think we have to worry about the presence of any other kind of ice in this situation.

My thinking about CO2/Dry Ice/Liquid CO2/dissolved in a solution, is because it makes sense that any lake under the south pole of Mars is likely to have a significant supply of Carbon for life.  I was most particularly thinking of a solution of a mixture of water, CO2 and salts at a very cold temperature.  This would possibly preserve life in a dormant or fossilized state, but it seems it would require a very extreme organism, if active life were to exist.  I will make note that while we already assume some kind of a liquid water based solution and that it will likely have Carbon available from CO2 dissolved, it might also have Oxidants available from Perchlorates.  Not unlike the hopes for Europa.  The Oxidants for Europa are speculated to come from surface reactions with Jupiter's radiation belts.  For much of the perchlorates, it seems the source could also be radiation on the surface, but also dust storms.  So, we start with a potentially very cold and somewhat or greatly corrosive solution below the ice.  A challenge for life.  In Antarctica as you have mentioned, sub-surface lake life is real.  It is likely chemically driven.  But for this lake Mars-Antarctica, we should prefer that a further source of heat would exist, a further source of energy.  Else such cold and corrosive water seems like quite a challenge for life.

Let me mention some potential sources of heat.  If they existed, then it may permit the solution to be of a milder nature and for a liquid to exist.

A unique geothermal hot spot has been suggested by others.  It is true in any case, that the undergrounds of Mars will give off some heat.  However we do not see ubiquitous presence of lakes.  There could be a network of underground streams connected to a deep aquifer system however.  It may be that there could be a cold spring system involved.  This could be driven primarily by ground heat.

Next I will ask again about ground currents.  A aquifer system of salty and also CO2 impregnated water would serve as a conductor between different charged areas of the planet.  Life appears to be electric at its heart in all cases.  And we do have organisms on Earth that can manipulate chemistry, by directly tapping electric flows.  We also have life that can cause electric flows by extracting energy from chemistry.

So, what about a battery involved in that lake?  From the interaction of those corrosive liquids with an "Ore" body?  Well it could be.  But it would seem to me that that battery's metallic component would have discharged long ago.  But an event opening a sealed ore body to the liquids might start up the reaction.  Such a possible event would be the impact of a asteroid/meteor.

A precision hit that hit such an ore body is not out of the question.  The ice sheet would modify the impact event, if the impactor was Iron-Nickel.  It would perhaps reduce the vaporization of the object, and instead some of the impact energy would be dissipate by both vaporization and liquification of some of the ice layer.  And you would have an instant lake that would persist for 1000's of years perhaps.

The impactor as well could very possibly shatter the rocks it impacted, opening up a passage to deeply buried aquifers, and also presenting new rock surface to serve as a source of metals for the fluids to react to. 

But obviously the impactor itself is of interest.  It is itself a new ore body.  So, the potential for a "Battery" where the corrosive fluids encounter materials to corrode, should give energy that will persist for a very long time.  This will impel abiotic chemistry, which could support life.

So, like Europa, we might have and energy span that goes from Perchlorate Oxygen and Chlorine through a solution of water, salts, and Carbonic Acid to rather well purified metal that has not yet been oxidized. 

When I examine the lake in my mind, I think we can have more than one environment.  We can have the body of water itself, the ice immediately above it, the wet lake bottom soil below it.  A presumed aquifer connecting through it, and the surfaces of metallic fragments which well be either buried in some cases, or even potentially directly exposed to the lake bottom.

I am also thinking Hay Pile lit on fire-solar salt pond.  (Solar replaced by other heat sources).

Moist-baled-staked-hay-catch-fire:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php … atch-fire/

I guess I will start from the top down.  Arctic ice which tends to have highly connected inclusions of brine is host to life tolerant of brine.  This brine in this case, may be diluted, and less salty than the lake waters below as it is in contact with ices.  Just on the boundary of being a liquid.  Perhaps in some cases less challenging than the liquids below.  Thermal fluctuations from various unsteady energy sources, could drive a process in this porous ice, where periodically freeze and thaw cycles occur.  This could push dissolved materials out of it, such as excess salts, and Carbonic Acid.  This could present a haven for some life in that spongy material.

I do not know what temperature it would be at, but it could be seriously below that of our freeze thaw of the Arctic ice pack.  Still it might be in the range of temperature for hardy Earth life to thrive, or at least hibernate.

Next down, we have the liquid itself.  It could have convection of water turn over by thermal processes, but I have mentioned, that their could be energy fluctuations from the battery, or even from the surface environment, over long periods of time.  This might tend to squeeze brine out of the boundary ice on the upper perimeter of the ice.  So, we should have a method to stratify the liquid salt water column.  This might cause the bottom waters to be more salty.  And if there is a heat source, then with convection suppressed by the increasing specific gravity of the solution as you go down, a very good heat trap.  So, there may be a sequence of layers of water, saltier and warmer as you go down.

So, if we depend on dissolved substances and the pressure of ice above, to maintain the liquid, we may have a level of dissolved materials that is hostile to life's metabolism.  We may also have unfavorably cold temperatures.  But if we can get alternate sources of heat, then the conditions can be more favorable and still maintain a liquid more suitable to life.

Potential Sources (Again):
1) Geothermal.
2) Electrical
3) Geochemical (Hay Stack)
4) Anything else?  (Need a place holder for new discovery, if any.

If any of these or a combination of them are present in the supposed system, there should be several layers of water that are variably more or less suitable to life, and very likely, actually, the potentials for various kinds of life.

The Mud bottom below offers another environment.  Good chances at the highest temperatures, if you do have a stratified, layered pool of water above.  It of course offers more mineral resources.  Possibly Hydrogen and Nitrous Oxide abiotically produced by reactions of the soil with brine.  Such production exists in some very salty, very ice covered lakes in our Antarctica.

Then, the presumed "Ore Body".  This more will be buried under mud, but also could be imposed in permafrost, and also exposed to lake water in part.  The surfaces will be the most buffered PH of the mix I think.  The least acid.  So, a different environment again.

And then the connection to the presumed aquifer below.  A path for life to get into the Lake?  Also, spores from above somehow could have existed prior to the "Battery" and/or geothermal source becoming active.  Perhaps covered long ago.

I think I have shown a potential.  Reality could be further examined now in hopes of further discovery.  If electric currents are happening, could you detect an unusual magnetic field from the surface of the ice?  There could be other types of detection that need to be thought of.

Can we simulate on a small scale an ecosystem as described above as a potential, here on Earth?

What about other icy bodies?  Europa, Enceladus, maybe other things.  Other icy moons on a lesser scale of event.  Can we perhaps add this process to Pluto and other similar worlds?

For Europa, and Enceladus, there could be life hot spots, caused by a metal object of impact.  Something like a dead whale carcass on the bottom of the ocean being a hot spot for life in an otherwise relatively quiet ocean bottom?

Enceladus has an asymmetric nature of Ocean, it seems.  While tidal is a source of heat, if an impactor had happened could it also be a contributor to the observed nature of Enceladus?

That's plenty for now.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-06-15 11:55:05)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#40 2019-06-15 18:24:50

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Life on Mars?

Hmmm....I guess the batteries thing must have bubbled up from a memory.  A good one.  I recall this some time back, but this link is reasonably recent.  It is a very good read.

https://www.inverse.com/article/50370-b … on-on-mars
Quote:

Naturally Occurring Batteries' on Mars May Hold Clues About Life's Origin
Changing the paradigm of biological life.

In the competition to be the biggest scientific cliché, right behind “The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell,” comes the phrase “Carbon is the building block of life.” But beyond the boundaries of Earth, life may be pieced together following a different set of rules.

The race is on to figure out what, exactly, those rules might be, and a new a study published today in Science Advances by the Carnegie Institution for Science, is starting to find answers. In the paper, researchers determined that Martian carbon was essentially made by a naturally-occurring battery. It’s a significant step forward in figuring out exactly how organic Martian compounds came about, since biology isn’t responsible. Led by senior staff scientist Andrew Steele, the group analyzed three Martian meteorites, Tissint, Nakhla, and NWA 1950, and showed that the organic compounds found inside match those of compounds previously found on Mars rover missions.
“It’s a scientific result using state-of-the-art instrumentation made on two planets, really,” Steele tells Inverse in an email.
What Meteorites Reveal
So why study meteorites? Of course, examining a rock here on Earth is a lot easier than making the 54.6 million kilometer (or 33.9 million mile) trek to the red planet (although that’s not stopping Elon Musk from taking on the challenge).

This is a mosaic image of Mars created from over 100 images taken by Viking Orbiters in the 1970s.
“Meteorites allow us to use state of the art instrumentation that could never fly to Mars such as Synchrotrons, transmission electron microscopes and secondary ion mass spectrometers,” says Steele. “This allows us to look at these samples at the nano-scale that was necessary to detect and understand the process as well as ensure what we were looking at was Martian.”

Steele’s group identified that these organic compounds were made by non-biological methods, classified as abiotic organic chemistry, in previous research from 2012. But by applying advanced techniques in microscopy and spectroscopy, the group delved into the formation process, eventually discovering that a naturally-occurring galvanic cell may be responsible for the creation of organic compounds. The minerals in Martian rocks, when met with a salty brine, formed energy in a process that’s not unlike Earth-bound efforts to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Carbon layers are found between the "tines" of the material. The texture is created when the volcanic minerals of the Martian rock interact with a salty brine and become the anode and cathode of a naturally occurring battery in a corrosion reaction, potentially creating enough energy to synthesize organic material.
“Basically, energy is released during the corrosion process that enables chemical reactions to happen,” Steele explains. “The hypothesis at the moment is there is enough energy to split water and the released hydrogen ions can react with CO2 dissolved in the brine to make organics.”
The process could translate to other locations with the right mix of igneous rock and brine, opening the door to understanding other solar bodies like Jupiter’s moon, Europa, or Saturn’s moon, Enceladus.
What Does Non-Biological Carbon Tell Us About Biological Life?
It sounds counterintuitive. Naturally occurring batteries? Non-biological organic material? Discoveries like these show us exactly how much we don’t know about what life on other planets could look like.

So, that lake could be a currently occurring version with electrical current currently flowing smile

It raises the possibility that life could be supported, but so far says to me, at least that the lights were on, and may currently be on, but it looks like nobody is home.

The non-consumption of CO and O2 in the atmosphere says similar to me.  I am rather thinking that a fungi should be able to make it there, in places where the humidity rises high enough.  If it did not have the capacity to process CO and O2 itself, and it was a fungi of a Lichen kind, then I anticipate that it could have made a partnership with a cyanobacteria which could assimilate CO and O2.  But I guess that supposes a planet kind enough to have allowed that to develop, or panspermia from Earth that sent such a symbiotic organism to Mars.  Since so far we don't see it, and the CO and O2 are not properly consumed, that is a strike against such life being probable on Mars.

So, after all maybe lights are on, but nobody is home.

With that processed, I am more comfortable with the SpaceX plans.  But I can see a squeak of a chance that they could put down somewhere where it is unlikely that a life supporting process is available.  I am thinking Equator.  Dry Equator.  I should think that an automated Starship, could provide transport to machinery which could in a relatively easy way, determine if there is a probability of life.

And I am not saying I won't support them if they do not take this step.  I am just saying that I would if they did.

One thing that seems apparent about the Viking probes, in hindsight is they did two things wrong.  First of all dumping the samples into a over hydrated broth with water was a no-no.  In the deserts of Chile, the result of an unusual rain, was the death of microbes that are very adapted to the dry.  And the other thing has been read by me, that said, heating the results would destroy the organics, as perchlorates when heated with organics will Oxidize them.

So, try again, I think.

……

But however whoever goes to Mars does it, I am very warm now about the cold poles of Mars.  Of course bases in more temperate areas first.

But, it would seem to me that the poles would be likely to provide the raw materials to terraform Mars if we partially melted them into big relatively fresh water lakes.  There may be many energy sources to do this and also it is likely that if you got it going, the corrosion process would help quite a bit.

We have the possibility of deflecting asteroids to polar impacts.  Quite a task.  I am guessing not until fusion energy is available.  You could then use fusion energy to melt the polar ice caps, but the asteroids could provide rocks to corrode.

The bedrock of the areas under the polar ice caps could be shattered to start up the corrosion battery process.  You could control to a degree the gasses put into the polar ice cap water.  CO2, Nitrogen, Argon, Oxygen, CO, and others.  Just simply pump Martian atmosphere into it.  And while doing that pumping, of course you would heat the gas which would heat the water.  A side objective is to vaporize the dry ice in proximity, while releasing Methane, and lets hope adding some Nitrous Oxide.  Hydrogen and Nitrous Oxide will likely occur at the lake bottom from contact with corrosive fluids.  Salts?  Well there should be some, and if the mix is not stirred by wind and waves, you have chances of making the bottom water layer very briny, and warm.  Corrosion heaven.

And Isaac Arthur has spoken of putting lighting units in water like that, say for Europa.  So I accept that as a reasonable objective.  Lets put them into big giant lamp fixture diving bells.  Those filled with water, and so the light shines into the water.  The upper layers will be cold but much fresher.  You could put a bottom on them, allow the water in the bottom to become warm, and cool it by circulating that warm water's heat into the lake.  The bottom and sides should function as a simple heat exchanger.  And inside a nice place to do aquatic gardening.  More heat into the lake.

I did mention fusion energy, but I will take a look at solar energy as well.  Solar cells do better if not overheated anyway.  Maybe they will have to be special though, because it will be very cold.

They have to be placed on a good surface through because the Phoenix Landers solar panels got destroyed by the winter.  Perhaps likely the accumulation of about 6 feet, (The Russians have previously suggested), of CO2 ice.  That problem previously haunted me.  But I think I have the fix.

I am thinking conifer tree shape.  Adapted to the North on our planet, South in South America as well, I think.

So, then steep conifer shaped cone enclosures.  Solar cells fixed on the outside, wiring passing into the inside.  Using the cone itself as a ground plane for the electrical circuit.  And the cone serving as a shelter for sensitive robots at times, a door being available for that.  A thermally insulating base, so there will be no worry about melting the ice.  I think the cones won't get that warm anyway.  And at that location no need for heliostats, because the light reflecting off of the surrounding ice will tend to bounce onto them as well as the direct sunlight.  However if someone wants to get fussy about it then put down a reflective foil on the ground around them.  Space them out appropriately to the solar flux situation.

Although it may be trickier than it would seem, and testing and engineering would be needed, the hope would be that with a steep cone, the accumulation of condensates would not damage the cones or the solar panels affixed to them in the winter time.  As I am now more confident that Aluminum for wiring can be attained with reasonable trouble on Mars, the electric power from the cones would be passed down to the diving bells I previously mentioned.

Do I then say lets not inhabit the rest of Mars?  No, actually lets do it all, provided we are satisfied that nobody is home.

In this system there would be no electrical power storage required, (But still an option), rather the waste heat would go into the lakes, though the "Diving Bell - Light Fixtures.  And that waste heat could then generate power to the degree you wanted to dissipate the lakes heat to the universe.  The cones above the ice would be radiators as well as their other previously mentioned functions.

One variation of the solar panels on the cones, would be that they would be sun following.  During the Martian summer, they would rotate around the cones, following the sun.  That will make them a little more vulnerable to winter damage, but perhaps there is a way to lock them down in a braced way for the winter.

I think that is rather good.

Done.

Oh yes no reason other than "Make-Up" water that you could not do this to temperate area ice sheets.  And at first the "Make-Up" water could come from the local area.  Later from the poles in a planet-wide system.  And with conduits-tunnels-canals, it should be possible to establish such as this even on the equator.  Solar panel method needing revisions at that location.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-06-16 11:37:59)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#41 2019-06-15 19:43:37

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,587

Re: Life on Mars?

Well earth has had natural nuclear reactors so why not battery power due to brine water for mars as the crust contains iron oxide...

Europa does get its source of warmth from Jupiter even ice covered with liquid under its surface.

Offline

#42 2019-06-21 16:35:25

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Life on Mars?

I found this today.  I have only read a little of it.  I will not directly quote any of it, as it really looks like this person(s)? worked hard for it, and as I have said I have not read that much of it.

http://robertinventor.online/booklets/p … itats.html

My first reaction to what I have read, is that it looks very good as far as I have scanned it.

I looked at the lichen topic mostly.

I have moved on a bit on that myself.  It is apparent that lichen likely can get the moisture they need at certain times at some locations of Mars, possibly directly from high relative humidity.  It does not have to be 100%, can be ~>70% (I seem to recall from other reading).

The questions I have on that are several.  For instance in it's interior does it have substances that like salts (But not salts) can absorb moisture into a water solvent fluid or mesh?  Or, is it possible that also on its surface microscopic super cooled droplets can form.  Does the lichen have the ability on it's surface through texture and/or chemicals to keep it liquid and then absorb the liquid?  Or do the droplets freeze, and then as things warm up, might a bit of fluid water occur at the base of the droplets before they evaporate?  Does the lichen absorb the liquid before it is evaporated?

Possibly several of the above, and maybe something else more unexpected?

Maybe an electrostatic charge? 

How that might work, is frost forms on the lichen, and the lichen has a electrical charge attractive to the electrical charge of the frost?  Then when it warms up, a film of pressurization allows a liquid phase and then it gets absorbed?  I think maybe not, as the lichen can maintain metabolism well below freezing, so some kind of internal antifreeze must occur.  But I would not strictly rule out electrostatics.  All life it appears in a way feeds on electricity, and some produces it as well.

I feel that the dust of Mars might be a challenge to lichen however.  Here on Earth lichen is sensitive to air pollution I have read.


I will also make note of possible ground ice at the equator, and a subsurface hydrosphere(s)/Aquifer(s).

One guess I would have is that in some cases if existing they may be related.  (If they both exist).  Even if ice might evaporate from the ground ice and so leave spongy structure, it is possible that moisture coming from deeper down might tend to replace the moisture in the spongy subsurface ice.

Alternatively it could be possible that artesian up-flows could replenish surface ice at the equator in spots.

It appears that there is some spotty Hydration of some kind around the equator in some places, maybe hydrated minerals is another possibility though.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-06-21 16:54:04)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#43 2019-06-21 20:57:09

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Life on Mars?

I feel compelled to talk about a Don Juan pond if it were on Mars, say at relatively lower latitudes.

While the one in Antarctica apparently seldom or never gathers ice, I feel that in the past, or even now, something similar if fed by salty springs for instance, even though the waters might be too salty and cold for life, or at least for life to reproduce, chances are that an ice cover would offer an option for life.

I think it would be hard to see such a pond, as it would likely be covered in dirty ice.

A dirty ice covering might reduce evaporation as well, maybe.

Lake Superior's water level can rise I believe, in years where it is frozen over, because evaporation is inhibited.  Of course it thaws in the spring/summer.

But a surface body of very salty water, with a dirty ice covering, might see summer ice temperatures say below 0 DegC, but perhaps rising to say -15 DegC on occasion.  That should be enough for the potential of brine channels that are warm enough for some Earth life to function.  And during the refreeze of winter, some salt should be squeezed out of it.  While very cold very salty brines might be necessary for a spring to exist on Mars, and that water would not be so suitable for even the most hardy Earth life, a periodically solar warmed dirty ice layer, perhaps could offer brine channels that are less salty, and can rise to acceptable temperatures for the most hardy types of Earth life.

Such small bodies of water may not be that easy to detect, say in the area where radar already says there is a general hydration.  I suppose I am reaching, but is it possible that dirty ice very salty ponds could be hiding amongst otherwise frozen dirt covered areas?

I guess it would require some warming from a spring.  Maybe out of reach, but maybe it can work in certain sub-climatic conditions of a different axis tilt.

Maybe instead of an obvious spring, just hydrated salts in the dirt, with upwelling artesian flows.  Maybe the very near surface can warm up to -15 DegC.

But at this time really, I am thinking that Mars is dead.  I really would wonder why though.  With the potential of panspermia from Earth.


Just not a friendly enough environment over the long term perhaps.  Maybe life took hold occasionally and struggled, but eventually lost the struggle.  But then it should exist deep down.

That's all been pretty much figured out already though.

Brine channels in solar warmed icy dirt.  That is a chance I think.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-06-21 21:10:31)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB