Skip to comments.5 Reasons Mars May Have Never Seen Life
Posted on 11/17/2012 11:13:21 AM PST by LibWhacker
On Aug. 28, 2012, during the 22nd Martian day, or sol, after landing on Mars, NASA's Curiosity rover drove about 52 feet (16 meters) eastward. The drive imprinted the wheel tracks visible in this image. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
After decades of following the water, the reality that life as we know it may never have gotten a foothold on Mars surface, at least, has arguably taken root within the planetary science community.
If life ever was or is lurking on the Red planet, its been extremely coy about revealing itself.
The recent news that the Mars Curiosity rover has thus far detected no Methane is reminiscent of the frustration that followed the still contentious 1996 announcement that the Alan Hills Mars meteorite (ALH 84001) showed evidence of microfossils.
Thus, in the spirit of proving the negative, here are five reasons why Mars may have always been barren.
1. No evidence of organic molecules on Mars
Barring methane [which is a hydrocarbon], theres never been a single organic molecule found on Mars, said David Catling, a planetary scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, who stresses that he remains scientifically agnostic about the whole Mars life issue. If life had been present, you would expect something to be left behind. If you put a bag of coal out in the rain, even in our oxygen-rich atmosphere, its still going to stick around quite a while.
2. Too much Carbon Monoxide (CO) hundreds of parts per million in the Martian atmosphere
I have to work hard to invent stories where life can be on Mars and not eat that Carbon Monoxide (CO), said...
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
#1 reason..... God didn’t create life there. Life doesn’t start from dead stuff, by its self.
Lack of an illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator
There’s life there even now.
I know it’s true because Art Bell and Giorgio Tsukahairballos told me so.
6. Mars doesn’t have eyeballs.
Life...on Mars. Darwin’s creatures never got around to spawning in the elements there. Interesting.
IMO, NASA is primarilly an organization of curious scientists/craftsmen and I wonder ifs .... and a LOT has come from space exploration, not the least has been Teflon.
Not the exploration itself, but the "neccesity-is-the-mother-of-all-invention" efforts
I think we've pretty well established that we're all alone here and that there is God and He formed us ... but I have no problem at all exploring His creation ... much the same as we've explored our deep oceans.
I don't think we'll ever exhaust ourselves from being curious.
Reason number one: Democrats are not rushing there to give them stuff so they can buy votes.
LIFE WAS ALREADY DISCOVERED BY THE VIKING CRAFTS IN THE 70S AND THEY CALLED IT EXOTIC CHEMISTRY.
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·|
|Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·|
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
This system duplication of my pings is getting to be annoying.
Astronauts could survive radiation on Mars, scientists say
By Monte Morin
November 17, 2012, 8:56 a.m.
Astronauts on a future mission to Mars could survive radiation levels on the Red Planet’s surface, according to a NASA expert.
At a recent press briefing, the scientist in charge of monitoring radiation data collected by the Curiosity Mars rover said energy levels on the planet’s surface fluctuate with time of day and the season but are roughly equivalent to what astronauts experience now in the International Space Station.
“Absolutely, astronauts can live in this environment,” said Don Hassler, of Boulder, Colo.’s, Southwest Research Institute. Hassler is the principal investigator for Curiosity’s Radiation Assessment Detector, or RAD.
“Its never really been a question of if we can go to Mars, its a matter of when we go, how do we best protect our astronauts,” Hassler said.
On Earth, life is shielded from powerful radiation emitted by the sun and other cosmic sources by a thick atmosphere and a magnetic field. Mars however lacks those qualities, and visiting astronauts would be exposed to far higher levels of radiation.
Hassler said that even though the RAD has yet to experience a solar flare or storm an event that would greatly increase radiation levels it should be possible to manage the overall dosage of radiation that astronauts will sustain during a two-year mission to Mars.
The five reasons Mars may have never seen life has broader implications. The "snake oil" about life on Mars, or our solar system or even in our galaxy, is getting harder and harder to sell.
Even simple life forms, like bacteria or algae, are not likely to exist elsewhere than Earth. What is minimized, if not ignored, by SETI enthusiasts are the significant features of Earth and our solar system important to life which suggest that the probability of life elsewhere in our galaxy is extremely small, if not basically zero.
Besides the size of the Earth and a habitable distance from the Sun, these features include its elemental composition, a sufficiently large amount of liquid water, the composition and thickness of Earth's atmosphere, the rate of rotation on its axis, the strength of the magnetic field, the amount of radioactive elements, the movement of the tectonic plates, the thickness of Earth's crust, the size, density, orbital distance and tidal action of Earth's moon, the nearly circular orbit of the Earth around the sun, the tilt of Earth's axis, the ratio of land-to-ocean surface area, the arrangement of continents relative to the slight eccentricity of the Earth's orbit and axis, the orbital plane of Earth and the other planets around the sun, the size and relative position of the large gaseous planets, like Jupiter and Saturn relative to that of the Earth and the inner planets, the orbital locations of asteroid and planetoid groups, the lack of large planets inside the Earth's orbit, the elemental composition of our sun, the age and size of our sun, the heliosphere of the sun, the position of our solar system with respect to the galactic arms, the relative position of our solar system from any supernovas, the location of our solar system relative to the galactic center, and the size and shape of our galaxy. No doubt more could be listed.
For each one of these features, (sometimes even small) changes one way or the other would result in conditions where maintaining life (or intelligent life) on Earth would be impossible or unlikely.
As a six day creationist, I'm not threatened by discovery of life on another planet. It's not inconceivable that God created a universe full of life.
As the writer admits in the article, methane has been detected, and the Viking bio experiment showed that there is microbial life in the soil, or at least there was at the site of the Viking probe.
the atmosphere is not very dense, and the Viking experiment involved subsurface sampling.
that objection is ludicrous -- even assuming Martian life to be identical with life on Earth, the Martian atmosphere is thin, and has barely any nitrogen even by percentages, and the necessary oxygen is much scarcer than that. [*]
As on Earth, there's a long-lived stable environment, just not on the surface of Mars. I do agree that liquid water exists as a transient event associated with impacts from space.
that's another one that makes little sense -- even assuming that Martian life is identical to Earth life.
Thanks aimhigh, well said.
Thanks BL, it’ll be fun to go, depending of course on how one enjoys oneself.
All of those are not reasons at all — they merely state that, we are on Earth and know there is life here. It’s no more valid than saying, extraterrestrial intelligence couldn’t develop unless they have exactly five fingers on exactly two hands.
Where does it say in the Bible there is no life on Mars?
What was the Space Shuttle's Teflon?
I find it interesting how NASA purposely excludes certain obvious scientific instruments on their probes and rovers in order to justify their next multi-gazzilion dollar contraption.
Nice scam those guys got going on...
I agree. I can’t figure that one either.
With CCD tech the way it is these days, they could have easily fit in a microscope and a vial of water, taken a few samples, and snapped 5,000 200X photos.
I know if I take samples from just about anywheres outside and look you see something swimming around.
And the whole “the weight, the crushing weight, we can’t afford another one pound instrument...” that argument is history.
Almost like they left it off intentionally...
As I recall, the times I’ve made a duplicate post is when I’ve clicked on “post” an extra time, thinking I had not clicked the right place, when in fact FR was still loading.
There will be a golf course there...someday.
Believing that there is no life on Mars, that there never was life on Mars, admitting that there is no indication for either is sufficient reason to go there and see. Brilliant!
Next NASA will explore the question, “If there is no life on Mars, where do Martians come from?”
NOW I say this.......if you wanna find intelligent life on Mars, put men on it. (Provided they aren’t democrats).
Yes, and I haven’t been doing that. It is a software problem.
Do they have to come back? Because if not, I could make up a list of candidates.
Another posible reason:
At one time the Dems did rush there to give them stuff for votes, and we know the rest of the story, no evidence of life on Mars.
These platinum-plated boondoggles keep NASA scientists at the public trough. That proves that there is no intelligent life among U.S. taxpayers.
You're absolutely right and they won't stop this wasteful spending until they run out of our money... all to try and prove there is no God. (make no mistake about it, that's the real reason they are trying desperately to find life elsewhere)
If there is no life there, there will be when we get there.
Finding life there will not disprove God. It will just make him (and his universe) even more interesting than it already is.
Who says we can’t send them a little farther away....say the sun?
Viking Orbiter 1 was successfully working until August 7, 1980, when it went out of altitude control propellant, Viking Lander 1 until November 13, 1982 when it was accidentally shut down. Viking 1 Orbiter - Viking 1 Lander (NSSDC)
1975 September 5, Titan IIIe - Centaur - TE 364-4
Viking 2 (Nasa): Orbiter and lander mission. Reached Mars orbit on August 7, 1976, lander softlanded on September 3, 1976, in Utopia Planitia 47.97 d N, 225.74 d W, 7,420 km North-East of Viking 1. Both Viking 2 orbiter and lander were equally successful as the sister craft Viking 1; Viking Orbiter 2 was active until July 25, 1978, when its altitude control propellant had been used up, Viking Lander 2 returned data up to August 7, 1980, when Viking Orbiter 1 was shut down, which had been served as communications relay.
SOOOO, AFTER LIFE WAS DISCOVERED AND THEN CALLED EXOTIC CHEMSITRY, BOTH VIKING MARS LANDERS WERE “ACCIDENTALLY SHUT DOWN”? DAYUM!
“Lack of an illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator”
LOL!!! “Where is the KA-BOOM? Where is the Earth-shattering KA-BOOM?”
>>he “snake oil” about life on Mars, or our solar system or even in our galaxy, is getting harder and harder to sell.<<
When the Mother Ship returns, I will see to it you are one of the first ones against the wall...
Why would discovering life on another planet disprove God?
Where’s your opsec dude? This is a public forum and the electrons have ears. Next you’ll start posting about unobtanium and the Chicoms will make a move in that direction. Silence is golden.
I grok that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.