Yeah but the scientists are ahead of you on this just recently they said that they think that one of the original searches for life on Mars was probably looking for the wrong thing and may have actually killed any life that existed in the sample. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/....ap/index.html

Have a read, I think it's not worth worrying about how scientists are thinking you are right you are not a scientist and it's foolish to think that if you've had these thoughts they haven't. It kind of reminds me of lyrics from that Snow Patrol song "As drunken men find flaws in science." Now I'm not suggesting you are intoxicated or that you shouldn't theorize about these subjects just don't get too hung up on them and assume you've had some deep thought that those that know haven't.

Weird but I've never noticed this... and I'm a microbiologist that works in a lab with PhD's and MD's doing research. Most of the researchers I work with are very open minded creative people. Maybe you have the wrong impression from the media or something?

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think you mean H2O.


As long as it comes under Earth scientist's classification of life, then it is life.

What I'm trying to say is if we discover something on another planet that doesn't have any properties that fall under our definition of life, then we wouldn't classify it as life. If it did have properties which we classify as life, then we'd call it life, no matter how strange it was.

The definition of life is relatively straightforward, but also quite widely encompassing.

Bah.. that was a mistype and you know it! http://discussworldissues.com/forums...es/tongue1.gif

Well I see that scientists are looking in the harshest conditions possible on the planet, and there is life. Bacteria that live x feet down (its down far, forgot the exact figure), organisms that thrive in Antarctica, Death Valley, etc. Its really hard to say what we should "look for" especially when there is such a variety of what and how organisms life here on earth.

old thread, i know.

But i´d just like to mention that i do believe that life exists or existed on Mars.
I´m not talking about something that can operate a Ipod, but more something like simple bacteria, moss, etc.
I´d be surprised if we sent people up there and they wouldn´t find atleast a trace.

you are actually wrong about onsite system. the chemical engine can also be based on CH4/LOX, not the LH2/LOX which space shuttle uses. the idea is to havest carbon from carbon dioxide. the system will also provide Oxygen (a byproduct from getting carbon from carbon dioxide) and by mixing it with hydrogen, you get water.

you may ask why bother, you still need to bring all the hydrogen you need to mars. the reason is simple. Hydrogen is far lighter to carry than carbon or oxygen. the idea is to set the carbon dioxide processing rig with all the hydrogen it can carry 2 years before the manned mission. before the manned mission take place, we would already have the result if the rig was successful and have produced enough oxygen, fuel and water already.

we can then decide whether to proceed based on the effectiveness of the rig.

of course, if water is there, then you don't need to bring anything at all. but even without water, the onsite rig can reduce your consumable load by 2/3!

We've mapped the periodic table of elements i thought our periodic table wasnt complete?

other than super heavy elements that doesn't stabilize naturally on earth.

anyway, the table is more for name references then anything. you can tell their characteristic by looking at the structure of the atoms. hydrogen has characteristic of both sides due to it's unique orbital configuration(it's too small!), so sticking it on the left is actually wrong.

As for water being water... it just is - otherwise it would be called something else lol

H2O = H2O... any other form would be something different

Generally in our soler system, the building blocks of life would have to pertain to the same system of life as on our planet.

However, further out there in alternate systems, who knows, there may be non-carbon based life... Silicon based life is one thing that was postulated quite a long time ago.... so I don't understand where you get the idea that everyone thinks life has to be the same as us wherever/whenever.

huh?
Life being different there should it exist than earth's life? Probably a little if it does... who knows, its all about chance and whats around in the environment.

Now... onto water- lots of people seem really really really confused about some very simple things.

Here are some facts:
Water? Yes. Water on the moon, water on mars, water all over the place. On the surface of both mars and the moon, water is frozen (take a look at some pictures, you will see ice caps). On mars, nasa captured images showing water jetting out of the ground showing that there is subsurface water that still flows. Water also exists as ice, possibly more sub-surface, on a few moons around our solar system... Now, we have known this for +-30 years, there is no debate on the existence of water. Oh, and water is water.

For more interesting info, read up on the blueberries of mars, those things are really funky.

Until we can manage to sufficently shield humans from the radiation they would encouter during a trip from earth to mars, we won't be sending anyone there, if it they would be able to survive once they got there. This is the biggest problem facing manned mars mission planners currently.

One thing that doesn't really make sense in that article... they're suggesting that the amount of water a CO2 loss from Mars would have been constant over the lifespan of the planet. That's ludicrous!

As with most similar mechanisms, the rate of loss would be proportial to the amount there & as more was lost, the rate of loss would decrease.

That does not even take in to account the mechanisms which may have caused the loss of the material in the first place, namely changes in solar activity as the solar system aged.

BTW... I get that impression from:

Its measurements suggest the whole planet loses only about 20 grams per second of oxygen and CO2 to space, only about 1% of the rate inferred from Phobos-2 data.
If this rate has held steady over Mars's history, it would have removed just a few centimetres of water, and a thousandth of the original CO2. Why anyone would even contemplate it being a constant I have no idea.



Then it gets on to this though,



Either some other process removed the water and CO2 or they are still present and hidden somewhere on Mars, probably underground, Barabash says. "We are talking about huge amounts of water," he told New Scientist. "To store it somewhere requires a really big, huge reservoir." Personally, with what little data I have to go on, these are what ideas seem to make sense:


As the solar system aged, it cooled. At one stage, Mars was similar to our planet with respect to CO2 and water content.

As the system cooled, of course the co2 and water would lose energy & freeze. At this stage, it's very unlikely that it would just dissipate into space due to the gravitational pull from mars, so it would cool and the atmosphere would shrink toward the centre of the planet. When the CO2 reached its condensing temperature, it would fill the crevisses & freeze there.


However, how would it be possible to go underground and hide away?

Surely the water would have done that before the CO2 came down on top of it & as we all know, frozen water actually takes up more space than liquified water (that's why ice floats on water). So in effect these 600m deep oceans would have slighty expanded and would not be able to go beneath the surface where they couldn't previously. As we can tell from some basic optical astronomy, this is not the case.

...

The other option is that after Mars had procured its water and co2, solar winds tore it away.

If this is the case, how would the solar winds have allowed the atmosphere to settle in the first place?

The only way that could have happened would be with some sporadic behaviour from the sun, does that mean it could happen again and our atmosphere get stripped away such as Mars?

...



I think both of those are a little bit hard to believe.

I think that what appear to be dried up riverbeds are nothing more than eartquakes which occured when the planet was younger, hotter & more active.

But then of course, this is not something I've done a lot of research in to.

Actually, the radiation levels aren't anywhere near as bad as popular science reporting makes it out to be and any craft large enough to house 6 or 8 people for up to two years, will be easily capable of providing enough shielding to reduce the problem to acceptable levels.

btw stumbled across this image a few min ago,..

http://www.disclose.tv/files/photos/...3833b64e9L.jpg

looks wierd.

for some reason, i seem to remember seeing that polyuerethane sp? in the correct configuration was an admirable shielding device for radiation.... unfortunately, aluminium, is about the worst substance for radiation prevention as iirc it somehow changes the radiation as it passes through the aluminium and makes it worse.

if we have the enegria rocket... nothing a chunk of 100 ton armor can't do! [rofl] i seen some creative design on this, like putting the hab module on it's side, so only the top faces the sun, this greatly reduce the surface area you need to sheild, and the rest of the radiation is cover by sticking the water and gas you need in tanks surrounding the hab module.

the main problem is really just getting enough mass up there. we need to wait for NASA to finish it's superlifter.