#1
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
This is a good film, showing us the dire consequences of bringing mars
samples back to earth. A good movie actually, much better than "Alien". NASA has recently acknowledged that there is a lot of organic compounds in the soil of Mars. Then, silence, it was some months ago. We have proof that methane is being produced on Mars. Till now, our exploration is safe, since the rovers do not come back here. I tried unsuccessfully here to start a discussion about why the rovers do not stop doing geological science and start doing biological science. I do not think that marsian life can be like the unlikely being displayed in the movie. But it could be very nasty. As far as I can understand this, marsian life is similar to earth life, since the fossils being proposed after obervations of marsian soil look similar to earth fossils. At some points in the past, earth and marsian life produced very similar fossils. But that was eons ago. Marsian life has gone underground. What has developed underneath the surface? We do not know. Mars life has adapted to much more difficult conditions because of the cold in the surface. It lives underground and in spring, when everything restarts, breathes methane. It could be bacterial life only, but even that, it would be an unknown kind of bacteria for earth life. Exomars is a bad idea. Sending people is a bad idea too, since they would come back. I am not pleading for stopping any mars exploration but let's play it safe? Let's keep it one way until we know more. Everything that goes to Mars never comes back here. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
jacob navia wrote:
This is a good film, showing us the dire consequences of bringing mars samples back to earth. A good movie actually, much better than "Alien". Fiction. NASA has recently acknowledged that there is a lot of organic compounds in the soil of Mars. Cite? The closest thing to that I've seen is the detection of non-life related nitrogenous geology. Then, silence, it was some months ago. We have proof that methane is being produced on Mars. Till now, our exploration is safe, since the rovers do not come back here. I tried unsuccessfully here to start a discussion about why the rovers do not stop doing geological science and start doing biological science. The rovers could certainly stop doing geological science, but would require a whole new set of instruments to do biological science and so far there is no biology detected on Mars to do science on. I do not think that marsian life can be like the unlikely being displayed in the movie. But it could be very nasty. As far as I can understand this, marsian life is similar to earth life, since the fossils being proposed after obervations of marsian soil look similar to earth fossils. At some points in the past, earth and marsian life produced very similar fossils. But that was eons ago. Marsian life has gone underground. What has developed underneath the surface? Please provide a cite for these 'fossils' on Mars. We do not know. But it is most likely nothing at all. Mars life has adapted to much more difficult conditions because of the cold in the surface. It lives underground and in spring, when everything restarts, breathes methane. It could be bacterial life only, but even that, it would be an unknown kind of bacteria for earth life. Please provide a citation for this 'Mars life'. Exomars is a bad idea. Sending people is a bad idea too, since they would come back. I am not pleading for stopping any mars exploration but let's play it safe? Let's keep it one way until we know more. Everything that goes to Mars never comes back here. If you were running things, we'd still be waiting to get samples back from the Moon. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-04-27 20:36, jacob navia wrote: This is a good film, showing us the dire consequences of bringing mars samples back to earth. A good movie actually, much better than "Alien". When fur traders first showed up in Arctic communities of Canada, some of the villages were almost all wiped out. White men brought with them colds to which the Inuit had no immunity. Star Trek always lands on planets with 1G, 1ATM and California weather, and they happily shake hands with anyone, not worried they may carry some innocuous (to them) virus that could be deadly to humans. (and vice versa). Mars Crew members could be bringing back something which is inert in the Mars atmpsphere, inert in the pressurized mars Habitat, inert in the transit ship back to Earth. So crews are cleared to get back to normal life, and that virus/life form is then exposed to environment it has never experienced before (ocean water when former crew member goes for swim) , mutates into something deadly like SARS etc. But I'd say the odds of it happening are very low. As in within spitting distance of zero. Mars environment makes it unlikely there is life forms as we know them. But what if there are crystaline life forms (aka Andromeda Strain) or silicone based ones or something we haven't imagined and thus can't detect ? We're more likely to be destroyed by Berserkers... -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
Le 28/04/2017 à 05:43, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
jacob navia wrote: This is a good film, showing us the dire consequences of bringing mars samples back to earth. A good movie actually, much better than "Alien". Fiction. As all films I suppose. Fiction is the way artists make us understand reality. Please provide a cite for these 'fossils' on Mars. A crucial discovery was done by Mrs Nora Noffke, that identified similar microbial mats in the surface of Mars as she knows from fossils here on earth. Incredible but true, NASA hasn't even cared to answer that paper (published in a peer reviewed journal), so this is one more lost occasion for NASA to discover life on Mars. http://www.astrobio.net/mars/potenti...-rover-photos/ But it is most likely nothing at all. What is the source of the methane then? As you may know, methane is NOT stable under marsian conditions. Then, something must be regenerating methane in spring... Mars life has adapted to much more difficult conditions because of the cold in the surface. It lives underground and in spring, when everything restarts, breathes methane. It could be bacterial life only, but even that, it would be an unknown kind of bacteria for earth life. Please provide a citation for this 'Mars life'. Besides the fossils above, the methane production, we have the discovery of magnetite in marsian meteorites, the photographs of McKay of the marsian life forms in a meteorite from Antartica, the spectral analysis of the rock in face of the Viking lander (similar to lichens, the rock would go "green" in spring), the results of the viking experiments (that show a circadian rhythm), but obviously: There is no worst blind man as the man that doesn't want to see. Exomars is a bad idea. Sending people is a bad idea too, since they would come back. I am not pleading for stopping any mars exploration but let's play it safe? Let's keep it one way until we know more. Everything that goes to Mars never comes back here. If you were running things, we'd still be waiting to get samples back from the Moon. There isn't any signs of life in the moon. There are a LOT of signs of life in mars. As I told you: if you do not want to see it, you will not see it. Even if it is in front of your face. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
Le 28/04/2017 Ã* 08:55, JF Mezei a écrit :
Mars environment makes it unlikely there is life forms as we know them. Surface environment is very different, yes. But underground there is abundant water, rests of volcanic activity providing possible nutrients, pressure is higher, temperatures are higher than the surface, and the environment could provide for numerous life forms. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
Le 28/04/2017 à 05:43, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
NASA has recently acknowledged that there is a lot of organic compounds in the soil of Mars. Cite? The closest thing to that I've seen is the detection of non-life related nitrogenous geology. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...organic-matter The organic molecules found by the team were in a drilled sample of the Sheepbed mudstone in Gale crater, the landing site for the Curiosity rover. Scientists think the crater was once the site of a lake billions of years ago, and rocks like mudstone formed from sediment in the lake. Moreover, this mudstone was found to contain 20 percent smectite clays. On Earth, such clays are known to provide high surface area and optimal interlayer sites for the concentration and preservation of organic compounds when rapidly deposited under reducing chemical conditions. While the team can't conclude that there was life at Gale crater, the discovery shows that the ancient environment offered a supply of reduced organic molecules for use as building blocks for life and an energy source for life. Curiosity's earlier analysis of this same mudstone revealed that the environment offered water and chemical elements essential for life and a different chemical energy source. -------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4413 NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars NASA's Mars Curiosity rover has measured a tenfold spike in methane, an organic chemical, in the atmosphere around it and detected other organic molecules in a rock-powder sample collected by the robotic laboratory's drill. "This temporary increase in methane -- sharply up and then back down -- tells us there must be some relatively localized source," said Sushil Atreya of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, a member of the Curiosity rover science team. "There are many possible sources, biological or non-biological, such as interaction of water and rock." Researchers used Curiosity's onboard Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) laboratory a dozen times in a 20-month period to sniff methane in the atmosphere. During two of those months, in late 2013 and early 2014, four measurements averaged seven parts per billion. Before and after that, readings averaged only one-tenth that level. -------------------------------------------------------------------- As I told you: there is no worst blind person as the man that doesn't want to see. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
jacob navia wrote:
Le 28/04/2017 à 05:43, Fred J. McCall a écrit : jacob navia wrote: This is a good film, showing us the dire consequences of bringing mars samples back to earth. A good movie actually, much better than "Alien". Fiction. As all films I suppose. Fiction is the way artists make us understand reality. Well, no. Fiction is the way artists ignore reality to entertain us or send an emotional message. Please provide a cite for these 'fossils' on Mars. A crucial discovery was done by Mrs Nora Noffke, that identified similar microbial mats in the surface of Mars as she knows from fossils here on earth. Incredible but true, NASA hasn't even cared to answer that paper (published in a peer reviewed journal), so this is one more lost occasion for NASA to discover life on Mars. http://www.astrobio.net/mars/potenti...-rover-photos/ Note that your own cite says this is not definitive, does not call it 'fossils', and notes that it would take a sample return mission and tests on a mission to be named later with instruments that aren't in the pipeline. So yeah, we should redirect everything based on something one person has speculative evidence for. But it is most likely nothing at all. What is the source of the methane then? As you may know, methane is NOT stable under marsian conditions. Then, something must be regenerating methane in spring... So far it looks like a one-time event. Even if it is not, there are all sorts of non-biological paths that explain it. Mars life has adapted to much more difficult conditions because of the cold in the surface. It lives underground and in spring, when everything restarts, breathes methane. It could be bacterial life only, but even that, it would be an unknown kind of bacteria for earth life. Please provide a citation for this 'Mars life'. Besides the fossils above, No fossils. And the geological structures that ONE PERSON is SPECULATING may indicate microbes indicate them SEVERAL BILLION YEARS AGO, NOT NOW. the methane production, We don't know that there is any 'methane production'. It's more likely it's a methane sink release. we have the discovery of magnetite in marsian meteorites, ONE meteorite and that has nothing to do with life. the photographs of McKay of the marsian life forms in a meteorite from Antartica, McKay doesn't characterize it as "marsian life forms". Even if what they found indicates life, it's three and a half billion years ago. the spectral analysis of the rock in face of the Viking lander (similar to lichens, the rock would go "green" in spring), the results of the viking experiments (that show a circadian rhythm), but obviously: This is so speculative that it's not even worth commenting on. There is no worst blind man as the man that doesn't want to see. Of course there is. The man who is so eager to see that he obsesses over things that aren't there is ever so much worse. Exomars is a bad idea. Sending people is a bad idea too, since they would come back. I am not pleading for stopping any mars exploration but let's play it safe? Let's keep it one way until we know more. Everything that goes to Mars never comes back here. If you were running things, we'd still be waiting to get samples back from the Moon. There isn't any signs of life in the moon. There are a LOT of signs of life in mars. Bull****. As I told you: if you do not want to see it, you will not see it. Even if it is in front of your face. As I told you, if you want to see it, you will see it, even if it is not there. -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
jacob navia wrote:
Le 28/04/2017 à 05:43, Fred J. McCall a écrit : NASA has recently acknowledged that there is a lot of organic compounds in the soil of Mars. Cite? The closest thing to that I've seen is the detection of non-life related nitrogenous geology. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...organic-matter One core sample in one place is NOT "a lot of organic compounds in the soil of Mars". snip While the team can't conclude that there was life at Gale crater, So no life, then. snip As I told you: there is no worst blind person as the man that doesn't want to see. And as I told you: there is indeed a worst blind person, that being one who is so eager to see that he sees and obsesses over things that are not there. -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-04-28 03:24, Fred J. McCall wrote: As in within spitting distance of zero. On what basis could you (or anyone) quantify the odds that something detected and thought to be innocusous or undetected on Mars brought back to Earth could suddently cause havok? One the basis of even a rudimentary understanding of biology. Just how do you think a microbe with no common heredity with us is going to "cause havok"? Magic, perhaps? Think about the conditions on Mars for the last several billion years and the direction that that will drive any life and then ask yourself if that stuff could survive under Earth conditions or could somehow infect Earth life. The answer is that it almost certainly could not. We know what rovers were designed to find, and of those capabilities what was and wasn't found. But we can't know about stuff the rovers were not designed to detect. And we don't really have to care. Meteorites from Mars have made it here. We aren't all dead, so it's a virtual certainty that any Martian microbes that might exist die under Earth conditions. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
L.I.F.E.
On Apr/29/2017 at 3:37 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
JF Mezei wrote: We know what rovers were designed to find, and of those capabilities what was and wasn't found. But we can't know about stuff the rovers were not designed to detect. And we don't really have to care. Meteorites from Mars have made it here. We aren't all dead, so it's a virtual certainty that any Martian microbes that might exist die under Earth conditions. No it isn't. If there are some microbes travelling from Mars to Earth they don't necessarily die under Earth conditions. What we can say is that, if they do travel, they don't wreak havoc on Earth, for some definition of 'wreak havoc'. It is possible that current conditions on Earth are the outcome from havoc wreaked by Martian microbes. Alain Fournier |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|