Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Brine on Mars? 333

Bagels writes "A new article on MSNBC (coming originally from Space.com) reports that the both Rovers may have struck water in the form of brine. The Opportunity rover found hints of salty water in the trench that it dug, and scientists note that the Spirit rover is currently digging a trench of its own to investigate the soil that clings to its treads, suggesting the possibility of moisture. The brine would only be small amounts of water mixed with salt, which can exist in liquid form at very low temperatures. More images are available over at NASA's rover site." Reader frovingslosh would like to add: "I'm just hoping that when you get around to posting one of the many stories that the rover has found mud on Mars that you might include a link to the slashdot article where I predicted this but got moderated as 'funny'." Done!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brine on Mars?

Comments Filter:
  • by SYFer ( 617415 ) <syfer@syf e r . n et> on Friday February 20, 2004 @09:59AM (#8338797) Homepage
    Scientists now believe that advanced colonies of Sea Monkeys [sea-monkeys.com] once inhabited Mars.
  • by turnstyle ( 588788 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @09:59AM (#8338800) Homepage
    ...there's shrimp!
  • by clifgriffin ( 676199 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:00AM (#8338810) Homepage
    I believe this is obvious proof that Mars used to have oceans. Yes, oceans. And because they had oceans, they had life. And because they had life, they had Elephants. Only they weren't called Elephants. They were called Marlaphants.

    Yeah, Marlaphants.

    Anyone taking bets?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:01AM (#8338821)
    I'd be interested to see what kind of hardware/bandwidth NASA have cos they serve up images and movies 24/7 and never seem to get slahdotted...
    • why is Slashdot never slashdotted? :rolls eyes:
    • by Anonymous Coward
      what kind of hardware/bandwidth NASA have cos they serve up images and movies 24/7 and never seem to get slahdotted...

      While they handle the traffic well now, it definitely hasn't always been the case. I was working at Space Telescope Science Institute during the first servicing mission, and when they first put out the pictures from the repair, network access there slowed to a crawl. Of course, this was back in the infancy of the web (Dec. 93). The same thing happened when the comet crashed into Jupiter.

    • by FooAtWFU ( 699187 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @03:39PM (#8342216) Homepage
      I can't help you with hardware, but I can attempt to do a little karma whoring with nmap (for fun and profit!)

      Slightly edited (for brevity) transcript follows:
      <root@fennec> nmap -P0 -O marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov
      Starting nmap 3.48 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2004-02-20 14:34 EST
      Interesting ports on 198.5.148.7:
      (The 1640 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
      PORT STATE SERVICE
      22/tcp open ssh
      80/tcp open http
      443/tcp open https
      Device type: general purpose
      Running: Linux 2.4.X|2.5.X
      OS details: Linux Kernel 2.4.0 - 2.5.20
      Uptime 307.509 days (since Sat Apr 19 03:21:22 2003)
      TCP Sequence Prediction: Class=random positive increments
      Difficulty=5171621 (Good luck!)
      TCP ISN Seq. Numbers: 3223BDE5 331C8EB8 32C3FA5D 32C9082B 3251ECD7 32DC6A8B
      IPID Sequence Generation: All zeros

      Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 11.963 seconds
  • Let's not forget (Score:4, Insightful)

    by W32.Klez.A ( 656478 ) * on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:04AM (#8338837) Homepage
    Jokes, aside, let's not forget that this could house some microbial life, at the very least. Just look at our ocean's seabed around the vents.
  • by SparafucileMan ( 544171 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:05AM (#8338844)
    And so begins the great Martian Salt Trade.
  • by Ubi_NL ( 313657 ) <joris.benschop@g ... Ecom minus punct> on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:05AM (#8338847) Journal
    ..why did it not evaporate?

    The atmospheric pressure on mars is pretty low [washington.edu], which means that any liquid water (which this apparently is) will be vacuum dried [wustl.edu] to gas and move into outer space.
    • by Tango42 ( 662363 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:11AM (#8338894)
      That's why they're not looking for water on the surface. Water mixed with rock, sand, or salt, or even just underground, would not evaporate.
    • by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:14AM (#8338922)
      ..why did it not evaporate?

      The same reason they are speculating that it can exist in liquid form at such low temperatures: the phase diagram of a solution can be radically different from the pure substance. In hand-waving terms, the attracion between the salt molecules and the water molecules increases the energy required to evaporate the liquid. This is why they are theorising that it is highly concentrated brine - because if it were not highly concentrated, it could not exist under the temperatures and pressures on Mars. I'm probably not being unrealistic in suggesting that the scientists have thought this all through before publishing the press release.

    • by Speare ( 84249 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:37AM (#8339088) Homepage Journal
      Even if the water DID evaporate, it would not, "move into outer space." There's this thing called gravity, which works on the molecules of gas-phase matter just as much as it works on liquids. The air doesn't "move into outer space," does it? The vapor would rise until it found equilibrium with other atmospheric gases. If there was a lot of water, you'd see it in the form of clouds.
      • by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @11:18AM (#8339440) Homepage
        Gases do move into outer space. Gravity slows down the process, but it doesn't stop it. When you get to the outer atmosphere, the velocity of gas atoms and molecules follow a predictable statistical distribution, dependent on their atomic mass and average temperature. Many atoms and molecules will reach escape velocity, and diffuse away from the planet. What do you think happened to the atmospheric helium on Earth?
        • Gases do move into outer space. Gravity slows down the process, but it doesn't stop it. When you get to the outer atmosphere, the velocity of gas atoms and molecules follow a predictable statistical distribution, dependent on their atomic mass and average temperature. Many atoms and molecules will reach escape velocity, and diffuse away from the planet. What do you think happened to the atmospheric helium on Earth?

          Yes, Mars most likely used to have a thicker atmosphere but has dwindled to a lack of volca

        • by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:49PM (#8340869)
          Gases do move into outer space. Gravity slows down the process, but it doesn't stop it. When you get to the outer atmosphere, the velocity of gas atoms and molecules follow a predictable statistical distribution, dependent on their atomic mass and average temperature. Many atoms and molecules will reach escape velocity, and diffuse away from the planet. What do you think happened to the atmospheric helium on Earth?

          Molecular weight of helium: 4
          Molecular weight of water: 18

          Gases escape over geologic time if the mean particle velocity is more than about a tenth escape velocity (if I recall correctly). Light particles at a given temperature (defined by average particle kinetic energy) move faster and so are lost more readily. Heavier particles are moving more slowly, and so are lost at a _much_ slower rate (the tail of the Boltzman distribution is exponential).

          The real reason Mars has relatively little water is that water is broken up in the upper atmosphere by interaction with solar UV. While water may not be light enough to escape, hydrogen definitely is (molecular weight 2, and weight of an atomic hydrogen radical formed by a UV event is 1). This mechanism works on all of the planets (especially the inner ones) to strip their atmospheres of hydrogen.

          Mars has a less active geology than Earth. We get hydrogen compounds (including water) replenished from volcanic sources. Earth also has a much higher escape velocity, which means that hydrogen is lost less quickly when formed (and has longer to recombine to form chemicals with higher molecular weight).

          Both of these help explain why Earth is wet and Mars isn't. On the short term, however, water stays bound in Mars's atmosphere just fine. Those ice caps that migrate seasonally via atmospheric gas transport aren't all CO2, you know.

          You can find a number of documents online discussing why Venus did get stripped of most of its water, despite being heavy and having a fairly active geology.
          • You can find a number of documents online discussing why Venus did get stripped of most of its water, despite being heavy and having a fairly active geology.
            Would that have to do with all the women's spas on Venus? John Grey [marsvenus.com] world seem too agree with me on that one.
    • According to some articles I've read, there are many places on Mars where liquid water can exist between 0 and 8-10 degrees celcius.
      That window gets larger if the water is salty ofcourse.

    • by mikerich ( 120257 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @11:24AM (#8339483)
      ..why did it not evaporate?

      Most of it probably has. One process could be groundwater carrying dissolved mineral salts being drawn to the surface by capillary action. The water evaporates into the very low pressure Martian atmosphere, leaving the salt as a deposit.

      Similar processes take place on Earth where they deposit salt and iron oxides in deserts.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

  • by SpinyManiac ( 542071 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:06AM (#8338851)
    Here's [newscientist.com] a New Scientist article from January which argues for the presence of brine.
  • by Channard ( 693317 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:07AM (#8338859) Journal
    Coming soon - Bonanza 2012, starring the head of Lorne Greene: Mars - the new frontier, thousands of fortune seekers stake their claim on the red planet, hoping to make their fortune panning for frankfurters.
  • Great! (Score:5, Funny)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:07AM (#8338863) Journal
    Now there will be salt mines for the riff-raff when I take over Mars.
  • Salt? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pirogoeth ( 662083 ) * <mailbox&ikrug,com> on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:07AM (#8338865) Homepage Journal
    Maybe it's leftover salt from Martian civilizations de-icing their driveways...
  • by SparafucileMan ( 544171 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:07AM (#8338867)
    Rover is picking up hints of Martian Cities made entirely of Gold off in the distance. Spanish mercenaries, get ready!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:09AM (#8338871)
    Great findings, but it seems somewhat obvious that there can't be clean fresh, salt-free water on mars if the hypthesis that most of it evaporated away is true.

    Else, all the rocks would only contain non water-soluble materials - hard to imagine.

    Speculation: The salt content of the water is probably be linked to the water content in atmosphere. The average evaporation rate for the brine into the atmosphere should match the rate of hygroscopic attraction of water from the atmosphere.
  • by dnaboy ( 569188 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:09AM (#8338875)
    My guess, one of these days one of the Mars rovers will stumble on upon Bikini Bottom, and be treated to the whimsical antics of SpongeBob, Patrick, Plankton, and Squidward. Come on, there's no space helmet wearing sassy squirrels like Sandy on earth. If there were, would I be sitting here typing?
  • by Cesaro ( 78578 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:11AM (#8338889) Journal
    This would be much much more exciting if they found spice.

    Other rover was actually taken by a sand worm.

    In other news, new rovers will roll without rhythm. :)
  • Be careful (Score:4, Interesting)

    by amightywind ( 691887 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:16AM (#8338933) Journal
    The Opportunity rover found hints of salty water in the trench that it dug, and scientists note that the Spirit rover is currently digging a trench of its own to investigate the soil that clings to its treads, suggesting the possibility of moisture.

    The very small particle size of Martian dust makes it likely that it sticks due to static charge. If the soil were moisture laden you would expect it to rapidly dry out and crust over (change appearance) on the wheels of the rover.

    • Re:Be careful (Score:5, Informative)

      by mbrod ( 19122 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:35AM (#8339066) Homepage Journal
      "The very small particle size of Martian dust makes it likely that it sticks due to static charge. If the soil were moisture laden you would expect it to rapidly dry out and crust over (change appearance) on the wheels of the rover."

      No. The amount they are talking about causing this is much much smaller than the amount it would require to saturate it to the point of an observable change in appearance after exposure.

      It may even be the result of no water in it now but the result of residual salts left behind by existance of water at some point. Theoretically this could display these properties as well.
      • Re:Be careful (Score:3, Informative)

        by amightywind ( 691887 )
        No. The amount they are talking about causing this is much much smaller than the amount it would require to saturate it to the point of an observable change in appearance after exposure.

        Then it is not likely to be enough moisture to bind the soil either. I still think it is lame speculation. You would think the thermal emission spectrometer could detect small amounts of water easily if it were there.

        It may even be the result of no water in it now but the result of residual salts left behind by existanc

        • Re:Be careful (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mbrod ( 19122 )
          Then it is not likely to be enough moisture to bind the soil either. I still think it is lame speculation. You would think the thermal emission spectrometer could detect small amounts of water easily if it were there.

          I agree with that, with the spectrometer's I thought they would be able to just scan and say exactly what the compositions are.
    • Re:Be careful (Score:5, Informative)

      by hcg50a ( 690062 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @11:16AM (#8339427) Journal
      Right.

      The brine speculation is coming from people not involved on the project, which space.com is reporting uncritically. The news conference where the project scientists are presenting their information mention nothing about brine.

      See the entry for Thursday, February 19, 2004 at http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/status.htm l [spaceflightnow.com].
  • Fe2O3 (Score:5, Funny)

    by martinX ( 672498 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:18AM (#8338948)
    I hope they rust-proofed the Rovers.
    • by grgyle ( 538200 )
      Everyone always warns you to always refuse the underbody-coating option, I'm sure NASA was trying to keep costs down when they went to the rover lot. Maybe those salesman really are correct after all...
  • by KamuSan ( 680564 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:19AM (#8338952) Journal
    So the Rovers are not in Morocco/Sahara after all...
  • Normally (Score:5, Funny)

    by maroberts ( 15852 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:20AM (#8338964) Homepage Journal
    If you dig a trench in the sand and find salty water, you should start running because the tide is gonna come in any minute!
    • Ah, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by abb3w ( 696381 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:49AM (#8339184) Journal
      Deimos and Phobos, while closer (23459 and 9378 km) to Mars than Luna is to Earth (about 384400 km), also have much smaller masses (1.8e15 and1.08e16 kg) than Luna (7.35e22 kg). [source [arizona.edu]]

      Tidal forces (being a function of gravitational differential) are an inverse-cube function on distance, and linear with mass, so that would be a tidal force about 1/99th that of which we're used to. (Disclaimer: I am not a Physicist, but I share a house with one.)

      While this is Mars, the concern isn't completely insane. If the rover's in position to get a 1% response from the Martian equivalent of the Bay of Fundy [highest-tides.com], we'll be needing yet another Mars probe, and someone at NASA should be needing a new job for putting it there.
  • by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:21AM (#8338974)
    This raises the possiblities of halophiles [www.uib.no] living on Mars. On Earth, halophiles can live in up to 35% salt solutions. Pure water would kill these creatures --causing them to aborb water until they burst.

    Its no wonder that Viking [utk.edu] found no clear evidence of life on Mars, the low-salt water in Viking's nutirent broth probably killed any halophiles.
  • Gee... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Syberghost ( 10557 ) <syberghost@@@syberghost...com> on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:24AM (#8339001)
    You mean there might actually be water on Mars, meaning that there's oxygen, that we could extract and breathe?

    If only someone [netjeff.com] had mentioned this possibility before.
  • by bob670 ( 645306 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:28AM (#8339025)
    Brine? Brine means pickles? Pickles means Mars was (or still is) inhabited by a highly evolved race of cucumbers? Earthlings eat huge quantities of pickles on burgers? Meaning McDonald's could be considered a weapon of mass destruction? So now Mars will declare war, great, this is just what the economy needs...
  • by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:35AM (#8339071) Homepage
    So now we know where all those pickled odities you find in redneck bars come from. I knew those things floating in brine must have come from another planet.
  • Salt Water Disposal (Score:2, Interesting)

    by stuffduff ( 681819 )
    When drilling for oil, there are often pockets of salt-water which need to be disposed of. This is done by drilling a new hole to another formation porus enough to accept the salt-water and pumping it down there. Wouldn't it be interesting if the rovers discover an old drill site and we find out (in Hoganesque fashion) that Mars really is the remains of a single catastrophic ecological disaster.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:38AM (#8339091)
    I think they should take a picture at night so we can see what Mars' moons look like.
  • Better way to dig (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dellis78741 ( 745139 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:39AM (#8339099)
    Rather than having the rovers scratch the surface or look at billion year old craters what they should do is send a large lump of heavy metal (say, 500 lbs) to Mars and, with it protected by a heat shield, slam it into the surface like an meteorite. Not having to account for parachute wind drift they could be pretty accurate with such a targeted blow and the result would be a small -fresh- crater. The crater could be observed by sensors in orbit and a rover landed in the vicinity shortly thereafter. Both the man-made meteorite and the rover could be sent together and initially orbited so as to allow time for a precise hit and accurate rover reentry.
    • If I had points.

      That sounds like an interesting idea.

      Never even mind "how do we get the lump of material up there", aren't there meteorites or other space-junk that we could snag on the way?

      I suppose a solid block of metal has a better chance of reaching the surface, but since mars has a really tenous atmosphere, just how likely is a meteor to reach the surface, I wonder...

    • by forged ( 206127 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:03PM (#8339883) Homepage Journal
      I think the words you're looking for are Beagle 2.

      We saw (or rather not) what happened when the lander crashed on Mars. Seriously, what did they expect ;)

    • by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:07PM (#8339920) Journal
      The opportunity costs are too high for this to be feasible. If we're throwing 500 pounds of anything at Mars, it's going to be a little more sophisticated then a hunk of inert metal.

      This would be a feasible experiment if slinging 500 pounds of material around the Solar System were something we could do causually, so it's not like it's a bad idea, but at our present stage of development, we'd want that 500 pounds to be probes and satellites and sensors and such that are more useful for making things other then holes.
  • Resolving Power? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mattr ( 78516 ) <mattr&telebody,com> on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:52AM (#8339226) Homepage Journal
    I keep seeing references in the rover news about the microscopic imager, but is this really a microscope, or is it just magnifying as much as say a desktop macroscope for opaque objects (they let you see things around the size of a hair okay..? If there were things the size of microorganisms in the briny reaches, could we see them? It is impossible for the layman to look at the closeups we've been seeing and understand how big the field is.
    • Re:Resolving Power? (Score:4, Informative)

      by zardor ( 452852 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @11:26AM (#8339495)
      The published images from the microscopic imager are about 3cm accross.
      (or about an inch and a quarter for the metrically challanged)
    • Re:Resolving Power? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mikerich ( 120257 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @11:48AM (#8339729)
      I keep seeing references in the rover news about the microscopic imager, but is this really a microscope, or is it just magnifying as much as say a desktop macroscope for opaque objects (they let you see things around the size of a hair okay..?

      It is definitely a microscope - going down to 30 microns per pixel. A hair is around about 100 microns in diameter.

      Sorry I don't have a precise magnification.

      If there were things the size of microorganisms in the briny reaches, could we see them?

      The objects seen in the ALH84001 meteorite were only between 20 and 100 nanometres (0.02 to 0.1 micrometres) and needed a scanning electron microscope to be seen. So MER can't hope to see them. Terrestrial bacteria are 2 to 10 microns (generally) in size - so the majority of them would also be invisible. There are some much larger bacteria; the largest known Epulopiscium fishelsoni is a whopping 250 microns in diameter.

      But it should be remembered that this is not a biological microscope - it was designed for petrological work which rarely requires such extreme magnification.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    • http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/MER-AthenaM I /microscopic_imager.html [usgs.gov]

      There is also information about the rover [nasa.gov], and science instruments [nasa.gov] on NASA's site, but these are extremely topical, but also good to look at first. So there you go.

  • by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:58AM (#8339271) Journal
    Hasn't anyone else noticed this [nasa.gov]?

    The mars face has returned!

    Dan East
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 20, 2004 @10:59AM (#8339286)
    Maybe... just maybe, Mars was similar to Earth some-umpteen-billion years ago. And Earth will be like Mars in some-umpteen-billion years.

    I'm willing to take an entreprenurial risk and say we're overlooking the real moneymaker here... and that's Venus... once Earth moves out of this cushy orbit, Venus is going to move in. A couple billions years after that... Hot Venutian Chicks on my beaches.

    awwwYEAH.
  • (The other planet being Earth.) 'Torn fabric' puzzle on Mars [ananova.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 20, 2004 @11:20AM (#8339454)
    You stick a couple of 100 million dollars worth of water detecting apparatus aboard a rover, and how do you eventually find the wet stuff? Right, it sticks to the tires...

    Doh!
  • by General_Corto ( 152906 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @11:43AM (#8339692)
    Administrator O'Neill: Are ya ready engineers?

    Engineers: Aye Aye, Administrator!

    AON: I can't hear you!

    ENG: AYE AYE, ADMINISTRATOR!

    AON: Ohhhh.... who's driving around on a planet briney?

    ENG: Spirit Squarepants!

    AON: Along with his good friend Opportunity!

    ENG: Spirit Squarepants!

    AON: He's grinding at rocks with his robotic arm...

    ENG: Spirit Squarepants!

    AON: Hoping his file system does him no harm!

    ENG: Spirit Squarepants!

    All Together: SPIRIT SQUAREPANTS, SPIRIT SQUAREPANTS, SPIRIT SQUAREPANTS

    AON: Spirit.... Squarepants!
  • by praedor ( 218403 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @11:54AM (#8339798) Homepage

    That means that NASA can start putting cool mudflaps on future rovers. You know, those flaps with the naked ladies on 'em? R-r-r-r-r baby!

  • by PrintError ( 708568 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:03PM (#8339891) Journal
    There can't possibly be any life on mars.

    The club scene is a barren landscape, and the whole place is just one big red light district.
  • water? (Score:5, Funny)

    by chunkwhite86 ( 593696 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:11PM (#8339958)
    What happens if the rover DOES find water? Would it sink or would it float? Logic dictates that if it floats, it is therfore a witch and must be burned.
  • by thrill12 ( 711899 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:12PM (#8339966) Journal
    I want whoever had hidden my shiny roundmarbles [nasa.gov] on Mars to come and tell me the truth.
    I lost these things since the first grade, sniff, how am I supposed to get them back from there?
  • by hazem ( 472289 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @12:55PM (#8340341) Journal
    They BOTH found it? Maybe the rovers are just leaking some of their antifreeze?
  • by blankoboy ( 719577 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:01PM (#8340404)
    I really wish that the majority of global space efforts would go towards designing and constructing a space elevator already. This is really what they need in order to get things rolling in outer space. The major hurdle is getting anything we construct here on earth off the surface, past the atmosphere and out past orbit....If a successful implementation of space elevator were to exist we could simply raise our payloads out past the atmoshere and snap together prebuilt space cruisers in space. Then we could really have some serious space travelling. Unt il then we will just piddle around with the Xprize and trying to get chunks of metal off the earth's surface....we're still stuck in our sandbox with our pale and shovel...how depressing. If only more effort and funing were to go toward space instead of missiles and chem weapons, etc...sigh.
  • Static? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by carldot67 ( 678632 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:04PM (#8340437)
    Dry stuff. Wiggle. Rub. Static. Clumping?
    Also, someone asked "if you took an earth extremeophile and plonked it mars, what would happen".
    It might burst and die. It might dry out and die. It might use its energy reserve and die. Its innards might freeze and die. Its DNA and proteins might get fried by the radiation and die. (Notice how many of these involve the word "die"?).
    There are one or two genera that might just have time to kick their sporolation apparatus into action and retreat their important bits (mostly tightly packed DNA) into a dry, tough husk. But thats as good as its going to get I would think.
  • by EXTomar ( 78739 ) on Friday February 20, 2004 @01:05PM (#8340446)
    Why am I doubtful that life is there now? Because life is agressively pervasive. Once a life form can eek out a foothold in an environment it will exploit it to the maximum effect. The only example we have so far is our planet but the effect of life on Earth profound and blantanly obvious! There is hardly a spot any place where some life form of one type or another has exploited the environment around it and thrived leaving evidence something was once living there. Life doesn't hide. It spread like wildfire.

    So if life on Mars exists now it should be easy to find. So if there is brine type life on Mars it should be easy to find because natural selection would kick in leaving the heartiest lifeforms left to spread as far and as wide as possible. You should be able to find large clusters of the stuff all over. So why haven't we yet? Maybe we aren't looking in the right spots. Maybe we don't have the right scientific tools out there yet. The point is that if life has a foothold anywhere on Mars is should be obvious when we stumble across it.
    • Why am I doubtful that life is there now? Because life is agressively pervasive.

      There are a couple faults in your analysis about the possibility of life on Mars.

      The first is your statement about life being aggressively pervasive. This is only true in one sample that that we know about, Earth. We have no idea whether there are other types of life that are either not aggressively pervasive or pervasive but not not easily detected.

      Second, there are areas, even on Earth, where life is existent but not

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Working...