Ship of Fools: Water on Mars

Thread: Water on Mars Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029539

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

To much fanfare and advance notice of an important news release about Mars (to which everyone said "they've found liquid water on Mars"), NASA has announced that they have found liquid water on Mars (one of several similar news reports, this one on the BBC). OK, technically it's brine rather than water, and it's occasional seepages rather than permanent presence. But, still big news (if not surprising once NASA said they'd got something important to announce).

It's a bit surprising where they found traces of water, in equitorial regions where it is not expected that ice will exist near the surface, and in some places in elevated positions where there shouldn't be aquifers either. There's speculation of processes extracting water from the atmosphere.

This is news with two (at least) big impacts.

First, anywhere on earth we find liquid water or brine we find life of some form, even in extremely salty, acidic, thermally active environments. So, if there was every life on Mars during more benign times in the past it would be expected that some form of life might be able to persist in these brine systems.

Second, it's big news for Martian exploration. Although at present these areas are out of bounds for probes (because of the risk of introducing terrestrial microrganisms), at some point whether there are traces of life in these areas will need to be investigated. And, for potential human exploration this increases the chance of obtaining water on Mars increasing the levels of self-sufficiency possible to the explorers - either getting water directly from such sources, or if the water is extracted from the atmosphere replicating that process.

So, what if anything does that mean to us here on Earth? Should we be working towards human exploration of Mars?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Despite the noble dream of making mankind a multi planet species, I think it's implausible that anything more than an exploration is possible. It would be a very fragile ecology to have humans living on Mars. Far better to keep sending machines to explore and avoid wiping out any traces of life that might be there.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Although, the microbial life that our robotic explorers carry with them from earth are also potential threats to any indigenous Martian life. Which is why it's been agreed not to send robotic explorers to locations where there may be liquid water/brine at or near the surface.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

It is very exciting to find water there. It may mean that there is some form of life there, which is a real challenge and even more exciting.

Should we plan to go? I think it is a long way off considering this, because we have no real idea how much water is involved. More importantly, we would infect the planet with our bugs - something that we should avoid if at all possible.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

Agree it's exciting news. Am I the only one who's a teensy bit suspicious that NASA and Hollywood have some deal going on timings of press releases given that Matt Damon's new film The Martian has just been released?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Although, the microbial life that our robotic explorers carry with them from earth are also potential threats to any indigenous Martian life. Which is why it's been agreed not to send robotic explorers to locations where there may be liquid water/brine at or near the surface.

That's good to know. I think that the possibility of life should make human exploration less, not more, likely, because of the danger of destroying a probably very delicate ecosystem. Sadly, without a few more international treaties, I think our despotic attitudes to nature are unlikely to remain earthbound.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

I'd noticed the co-incidence, but not thought it suspicious. It will be interesting to see if they've got the science right (probably not if I was being asked to bet on it).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I have the feeling that the media are hyping the connection with potential life a bit. This is an important discovery, whether it is connected to life or not.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Agree it's exciting news. Am I the only one who's a teensy bit suspicious that NASA and Hollywood have some deal going on timings of press releases given that Matt Damon's new film The Martian has just been released?

I suppose there may be some "jumping on the bandwagon". The serious forecasters reckon "The Martian" will be huge at the box office. But I doubt any prior deal. [I read the book following a recommendation by RooK. It's a great read and I hope the movie does it justice.]

Back to the science. It's fascinating news and will certainly justify some follow-up exploration. People on Mars in the near future? I'd doubt it. The landing of some sophisticated robotic explorer seems more cost-effective, more likely.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

My apologies for diverting the thread with idle and not-very-serious speculation.

Indeed back to the science. Sorry to be really thick but how can we determine if there is any life in this briny water if we can't even send a probe for fear of infecting it with Earthly bacteria?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There's an early Arthur C Clark story "Before Eden" about the killing of life on Venus as a result of refuse left behind in a plastic bag. Another example of Arthur C Clark foreseeing something.

But I doubt whether the problems of sterilising a robotic research facility are any more- or less - onerous than doing the same with a manned research facility.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Hmmmm. I'm not aware of a chthonic abiogenic model. Life on earth is thought to have either originated on the surface or in hydrothermal vents, where there was every kind of gradient imaginable. I suppose the closest Mars has to that is in briny sediments, underground lakes in the active volcanic region of Olympus Mons. If life had started there it would have followed the water all under the surface.

HMMMMMM. We've GOT to find out. The theological implications would be Earth shattering for fundamentalism along the dominant Christo-Islamic axis.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I doubt whether the problems of sterilising a robotic research facility are any more- or less - onerous than doing the same with a manned research facility.

A manned research facility seems more likely to contaminate Mars than a robotic one because people carry so many bugs. If we go there ourselves, I don't see how contamination can be avoided.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The idea is to try and sterilize robotic landers so that they carry the minimum possible quantity of life, and it can't be done.

For human exploration the aim is to maintain life (ie the people, and to grow some food while there), it is to deliberately take life to Mars. Unless Mars is so hostile that no terrestrial life can survive there (which will be really bad news for human explorers!) once we put a boot on the ground that's it, there will be life on Mars.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

You may well be right RuthW. The risk factor is probably related directly to the external surface area of the equipment necessary to do the work. Ships, vehicles, EVA suits etc. But I guess the risk can be made very small in either case.

Given advances in robotics I would think a sophisticated unmanned lander would be a feasible option.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

One potential route to assess the potential for biological contamination would be to get a robotic lander to visit an older lander and see whether the microbial contaminents that were taken to Mars have survived. Such a mission has several additional advantages. Mainly that there would be a boat load of questions the old data threw up that a new robotic lander could address with better equipment. Also, the biggest challenge to finding life on Mars is how do you identify what will almost certainly be life (if there) which has a very slow metabolism, and probably exists in some form of spore state during more severe environmental phases, and will almost certainly be a very small fraction of the total mass of the surface material. Trying to find terrestrial life around old landers would also include all these challenges, and so form a suitable testing facility for "life hunting" instruments, with one fact making things easier - we know what terrestrial life looks like, whereas any Martian life could be built on radically different biochemistry.

On the other hand, getting a robotic probe to safely land almost right on top of an old lander would be a considerable challenge.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

For some reasons Sea Monkeys come to mind. [Biased]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I don't know enough about microbial life. I'd thought that the vacuum of space and solar radiation would sterilise the outer surface of a lander. The contents are another matter of course. For a manned lander the critical issue would be the sterility of the outer surface of the EVA suits wouldn't it?

In the Clarke scenario in 'Before Eden' the interaction was lethal. I guess there is always going to be a risk of that. But it's not inevitable. Any indigenous microbial or larger life which still exists on Mars would have to be persistent and hardy, wouldn't it?

I'm probably just showing my ignorance here! But it's an interesting challenge.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Bacteria can survive at least a low earth orbit and handle re-entry.
As far as life on Mars, hardy in some conditions does not equal hardy against everything.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Microbial life is extremely resilient. And, the sort of resilience that allows some life to survive low earth orbit flight and re-entry is also likely to be the sort of relience that might allow it to survive on Mars - though, it also ultimately needs to metabolise as well, if it remains in a spore state awaiting favourable conditions to multiply it's not going to be a problem.

A robotic lander has a lot of internal surfaces that will be exposed after landing. It will unfurl solar panels and an antenna, extend arms to collect samples, maybe deploy a rover.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

It is, indeed, exciting stuff. Two thoughts come to mind, one fairly serious and the other flippant.

Firstly, as has been mentioned above, the problem of investigating potential life in this water/brine without any risk of contaminating it is clearly going to be considerable. But presumably there's great desire/pressure to do so.

Secondly the (mostly) flippant thought - if there is life on Mars, what are the chances of a complete reversal of HG Wells' War of the Worlds, with humans landing on the red planet to colonise it, catching Martian flu and being wiped out?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think we need to consider that the emptiness of space between planets is one of the most hostile places for life. It is cold, there is significant radiation, there is no gravity and no air.

Anything we could do on earth to sterilise an object would be nothing by comparison. And yet, microbes have made it across space on moon landers, and found a way of thriving (see this as an example).

Just to be clear, anything we do find on Mars even given all of the precautions may have been seeded from Earth in one of the missions. We would have to work very hard to rule this out.

It always excites me just how resilient life seems to be. I know there are ideas that life didn't actually originate on Earth, but was seeded here from elsewhere. It may be that a seed also landed on Mars. We may be related to Martians after all.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Anything we could do on earth to sterilise an object would be nothing by comparison.

And, even if we sterilise an object during assembly, by the time it's sat on top of a rocket for a few days it'll have been contaminated all over again (at least any parts that aren't 100% sealed against microrganisms). Attempting to keep a Martian lander sterile is a multi-layered exercise - with the conditions of deep space and re-entry being the final two layers. But, it would be a fool who considered that to be a guarantee that no viable life reaches the surface of Mars via one of our probes.

quote:
And yet, microbes have made it across space on moon landers, and found a way of thriving (see this as an example).

Interestingly, your linked example seems to contradict your statement. Rather than an example of microbes thriving on a lunar lander, the article suggests that the observation of microbes within the Surveyor 3 camera is almost certainly a result of contamination during the examination of the camera on earth.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmmm. I'm not aware of a chthonic abiogenic model. Life on earth is thought to have either originated on the surface or in hydrothermal vents, where there was every kind of gradient imaginable. I suppose the closest Mars has to that is in briny sediments, underground lakes in the active volcanic region of Olympus Mons. If life had started there it would have followed the water all under the surface.

HMMMMMM. We've GOT to find out. The theological implications would be Earth shattering for fundamentalism along the dominant Christo-Islamic axis.

Do those fundamentalists believe life is ONLY on earth? Personally I'm not very hung up on any theological implication myself. If God made the universe and all the stars etc etc, I don't see why that means life only happened on earth.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

My struggle from fundamentalism would have been a lot easier if we'd known that there is ET life. However I'd have screwed up in other ways ...

Christian-Islamic fundamentalists (which is the vast majority of two thirds of the world's population) would be shaken. The trouble is, what do they have to replace their loss of faith?

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Christian-Islamic fundamentalists (which is the vast majority of two thirds of the world's population) would be shaken.

Why? C. S. Lewis addressed the question well in his SF trilogy.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Christian-Islamic fundamentalists (which is the vast majority of two thirds of the world's population) would be shaken.
Why? C. S. Lewis addressed the question well in his SF trilogy.

Um, what?
I don't think Lewis was a fundamentalist.
Fairly sure many Christians have never read him and even those that have, not all would see his writings as definitive. And even those who so view his theological works would not all agree with his fictional.
ISTM, there are a type of Christian for whom humans and our earth are special.

[ 30. September 2015, 18:04: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Christian-Islamic fundamentalists (which is the vast majority of two thirds of the world's population) would be shaken.
Why? C. S. Lewis addressed the question well in his SF trilogy.

I don't see Lewis really having much to do with this. Maybe someone will explain the idea of why some water on Mars must mean the apostles lied to us.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'd like to hear that too. Who's saying that they are? But a single Arean extremophile means that the Incarnation cannot be unique.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
But a single Arean extremophile means that the Incarnation cannot be unique.

Can you unpick that? Because there seems to a gulf light years across from point A (a single Arean extremophile) to point B (the Incarnation cannot be unique), and it would be useful to understand the points in between to see if there is actually a route across that void.

I've come across people who would claim that evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence threatens the uniqueness of human beings as intelligent creatures. But, at the same time if people already hold a belief in angels and demons then they have already admitted humans are not uniquely intelligent. The same also with demonstrations of intelligence in other terrestrial life forms - chimps, dolphins and the like. But, even if that were a valid argument there's a long way from the existence of extraterrestrial extremophilic bugs to extraterrestrial intelligence, and a very long way from the uniqueness of human intelligence to the Incarnation.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Here is a link to some "Lewis thoughts".

Lewis did not rule out "non-fallen" creatures, nor an Incarnation unique to another world, nor even other means of salvation. But he puts at least one of these questions in the "unknowable unless God chooses to make it known" category.

I think Martin60 is disagreeing with the detail of Lewis's position. According to Lewis, non-sentient, non-fallen, or soulless creatures are in no need of Incarnation and Redemption. If you accept those categories, his argument makes sense, I think.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, there are a type of Christian for whom humans and our earth are special.

Well yeah. According the Earth (and therefore its human inhabitants) a special place in cosmology was one of the driving forces behind the heliocentrism controversy about four centuries ago. There are still that type of Christian around but they've adapted what they mean by "special" so that they no longer insist on Earth having a literally and spatially central place in the cosmos. There's no reason to expect these Christians (or rather their intellectual descendants) have lost that adaptability.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, there are a type of Christian for whom humans and our earth are special.

Personally, I do think humans and our earth are special. Which is why I wish humans would stop killing each other and destroying the environment.

But that, of course, has nothing to do with life elsewhere in the Universe.

Just because it sort of touches on the same topic (and because I found it memorable) here is a link to a Certain Shipmate's classic "One Whiff of Oxygen" post.

Now, correct me if I am believing fairy tales, but I am under the impression that the reason the Church was mad at Galileo way back when was because suggesting that the Earth moved around the sun took away some of Earth's importance. After all, if God made this planet and put us on it and came and stood on it Himself in the form of Jesus, then it followed "logically" [sic] that God must have made the Earth the center of the universe around which all else revolves. Because, of course, God always thinks exactly like the most sanctimonious snob around.

Only, of course, He doesn't. There was no real logic to clinging to the Earth-centric viewpoint beyond our own egos.

And that ego is the same thing that may fill some with the fear that life might be found elsewhere. Because we won't be important any more. If there is life generated elsewhere, if there is "one whiff of oxygen" (to borrow a phrase) then there might well be intelligent life elsewhere. But if there is, then what of the Fall? Are only we Fallen and that alien life is living in God's grace...and not us?!??!! Or did that alien intelligent life have their own Fall? (Hmph! They stole that idea from us!) And if so, did God send a Savior to them? Our Savior?!?!? But if He sent a Savior to them--those (spit, cough) aliens--then He doesn't love us exclusively??? Waaaaaaah!!! [Waterworks]

It really is Only Child Syndrome: we want to be God's only child. The special one that God loves exclusively. We don't want to share Daddy.

And so, if there is life elsewhere, some will get their egos crushed that they aren't the only darling child and those few might well feel that, with that crutch kicked out from under their faith, there can be no God. Because if God does not conform exactly to our ideas of faith, then nothing of our faith could possibly be true--that ego thing again. There is a reason that Pride is a sin.

But like the Earth-centric view, there is no logic in that. God is Love. Love for all his Creation, not just a part of it. And there is no true reason to believe that here is the only life He saw fit to create. There is more to God than what is contained in the Bible. There is the glory and beauty of God in all of his creation--not just on this little speck of a mudball, but in the whole gorgeous thing.

And running water on Mars is a beautiful act of creation, whether it has microbes or not.

[cross-posted with half the Ship... mutter, mutter]

[ 30. September 2015, 21:45: Message edited by: Hedgehog ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Well Sensei, if there is a single Arean extremophile, the universe crawls, seethes with life. Therefore sentient life. And genuinely possibly has done to within 17 million years of the big bang. And God has always created.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
For God so loved the kosmos...

The whole created order, not merely one little world.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The whole, infinite, eternal created order. Therefore He sent His only begotten Son infinitely, eternally.

[ 30. September 2015, 21:57: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Well Sensei, if there is a single Arean extremophile, the universe crawls, seethes with life.

I would concede that evidence of life on Mars would mean that the probability of life in other solar systems is significantly increased. And, given an almost infinite number of solar systems in the universe that would mean that life has appeared elsewhere.

quote:
Therefore sentient life.

Yes, that also follows. It's all in Drake. The more planets there are able to support life (which even with life on Mars would still be, to the best of our knowledge, rocky worlds in the Goldilocks zone of having liquid water on the surface) the more life there should be. If the probability of life developing is greater than infinitesimally small (we know it isn't zero, or we wouldn't be here), and a second example would increase the lower limit of that probability. Then, the probability of simple life forms evolving to more complex forms, and to sentience. If we find single cell microbes (or their fossils) on Mars but nothing more complex we still don't have anything to improve the estimates of those parameters. Our current data set (one example) would allow practically any value greater than zero for those parameters.

But, even if we can show that the chances of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe are increased that a) doesn't make humanity necessarily less unique (we might, theologically, still be the only race made in the image of God) and b) nor does it make Christ necessarily less unique (his Incarnation here could still be the only example of such love).

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That almost looks reasonable Alan.

Where there is life there is faith, hope and charity. God's. Where there is life there are no limits. Where life seethes, Love seethes.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Hedgehog

It really pains me to say this because I think the link to Martin60's remarkable post was pertinent and insightful. But we have a sensible guideline about importing posts from Hell into Purgatory. And Martin60's post which was fine for Hell and originally posted there contained a comment which in Purgatory constitutes a Commandment 3 violation. That's why we've got the guideline. A word to the wise?

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

I wholeheartedly apologize. You are quite right and I didn't think it through enough. I saw it was originally a Hell post but it just didn't sink in. I will try to do better in the future.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

No problem. Thanks for the apology. I realised it was just an oversight.

[ 01. October 2015, 17:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
But a single Arean extremophile means that the Incarnation cannot be unique.

I see the Incarnation as the bringing into human history of the eternal sacrifice made by the creative Word of God for His creation. I don't see humans as special among earthly life, except in so much as we have a brain capable of contemplating our origins. And I don't see earthly life as special in the cosmos. If it were needed, I think the Creator would make Himself known in other parts of His kingdom in the same way.

But we still know nothing of how life started here on earth, nor whether it has started elsewhere. Did it spontaneously generate on earth, or did a life form in suspended animation arrive here and flourish in fertile conditions? Within a couple of decades we will certainly know if there is life on Mars or in the volcanic underwater of Titan or Europa. If so, it will show that life is likely to generate wherever possible.

If nothing is found in these places, then perhaps the generation of life on earth was either a freak or well planned by a Creator. In such a vast universe, it's highly likely that life exists elsewhere, but how abundant it may be is, as yet an unanswered question, which exploration of Mars may help to solve.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It can't be a freak. It could only be unique in the entire insanely vast cosmos if only God can create life. Mars or Titan might tell us not. If they don't then we just keep whiffing for oxygen. In a thousand years a million lifeless worlds might begin to look a bit fishy. Or not as the case may be.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I am absolutely certain there is life on other planets. Probably lots of life! Because it would be far more interesting that way. And God seems to be a God who is interested in incident and lively happenings. He does not create worlds of corrugated cardboard. (You have heard the description of Him, that he is inordinately interested in beetles.)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0