What Have NASA Found On Mars?

[hands cold, liver warm]

there isn't vegetation on mars. An average temperature on mars is -40 centrigrade and atmospheric pressure is only 7millibars (compared to 1000mb on earth)

http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/resources/mars_data-information/temperature_overview.html

[king mob]

Haha that board is hilarious in places - what is one guy's emoticon of choice for realising that it's possible that these could be the last few hours on Earth of believing we're alone in the universe?


This:

Well it could have been this

[Marcus Or Relius]

Mars, yesterday.

[hands cold, liver warm]

Star Trek has already proved that life on other planets will be exactly like humans but with funny shaped ears and foreheads. Alien life forms will speak american english and will need to be taught about love.

Its a pity Barry White is dead

[Ambient Sheep]

An average temperature on mars is -40 centrigrade and atmospheric pressure is only 7millibars (compared to 1000mb on earth)

Yes, but what makes you think that precludes vegetation?

There's bacteria on Earth that live in volcanoes, and others that live in Antartica at similar temperatures to Mars.  It's not inconceivable that some sort of strange vegetation could evolve in those conditions, that's what evolution's *for*.  Whatever's best adapted to its environment will survive.

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

Yes, but what makes you think that precludes vegetation?

*cackle*

[Speciality meat product]

Bloody consipiracy theorists again! What makes anyone think that NASA would withhold the fact that they've found vegetation on Mars?

Also, why would they go to the trouble of removing the evidence from the photos?
If there was something they didn't want us to see, then they wouldn't release the photos at all.

I can't imagine they employ a guy to remove all signs of vegetation using photoshop.

[Ambient Sheep]

Bloody consipiracy theorists again! What makes anyone think that NASA would withhold the fact that they've found vegetation on Mars?

Exactly, that's the bit I find most puzzling, and in fact the best argument against such conspiracy theories I can think of.

Also, why would they go to the trouble of removing the evidence from the photos?  If there was something they didn't want us to see, then they wouldn't release the photos at all.

Although bear in mind that under the US Freedom of Information Act, they more or less have to if someone requests it.

[Huzzie]

Are you going to watch it anyway?

[Huzzie]

You better have the linkn to NASA TV


and yes, I am speaking to YOU!


http://www.nasa.gov/ram/35037main_portal.ram

[JesusAndYourBush]

The highest mountain on Mars (Mount Olympus) is seven times higher than Mount Everest. Now that'd give Arnie something to think about.

Which makes me wonder why they always land on a totally flat surface so the photographs all look the same.  Why can't they land near a mountain so we'll get some different pictures.

[wheatgod]

there isn't vegetation on mars. An average temperature on mars is -40 centrigrade and atmospheric pressure is only 7millibars (compared to 1000mb on earth)

http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/resources/mars_data-information/temperature_overview.html

ugh
it annoys me when people say things like this, even well respected scientists
just because nothing (or very few things) from this planet would not survive in such conditions doesnt mean NOTHING would be able to survive
its just narrow thinking, presuming that everything MUST be similar to what we have here on earth

[Ambient Sheep]

its just narrow thinking, presuming that everything MUST be similar to what we have here on earth

Exactly.  One of the main points of evolutionary theory is that whatever replicator manages to first gain a foothold will evolve.  Things would have to be very barren *indeed* (i.e. basically empty) for nothing at all to evolve.

Recommended reading: "Evolving the Alien" by Jack Cohen & Ian Stewart, which points out that alien life will almost certainly look nothing like we expect, or can even recognise.

[hands cold, liver warm]

bacteria cannot be classed as vegetation.

vegetation is a term referring to plants

bacteria and plants are different things.

[Vermschneid Mehearties]

Why can't they land near a mountain so we'll get some different pictures

That's where Jesus and the trees are.

[Ambient Sheep]

bacteria cannot be classed as vegetation.
vegetation is a term referring to plants
bacteria and plants are different things.

I know that.

However that doesn't mean some sort of Martian vegetation (which perhaps one might wish to call by a different name to avoid confusion with Earthbound stuff that uses chlorophyll etc.) can't have evolved.

I suspect this is turning into an argument based purely on the precise definition of the word "vegetation".  Perhaps "growths on the surface of Mars that seem to exhibit life-like behaviour and look somewhat like Earthly plants" would be a better term, if extremely clumsy.  How about "quasi-vegetation", or "xeno-vegetation" for that matter?

[Huzzie]

its on now.

It is water.. NOw to see if it is current or not

[hands cold, liver warm]

True there are organisms on earth that can survive very cold conditions (extremophiles) but they must have evolved (at some point) from species which can tolerate a medium, average range of conditions. Such conditions have not been present on Mars for millions of years. Plus nothing on earth could tolerate the amazingly harsh mars surface and atmosphere.

It annoys me that people just assume there is life on mars, because "there must be some on mars if there is some on earth". Thats just rubbish thinking. :smiley:

[Huzzie]

liqued water once drenched this area"

[hands cold, liver warm]

I know that.

However that doesn't mean some sort of Martian vegetation (which perhaps one might wish to call by a different name to avoid confusion with Earthbound stuff that uses chlorophyll etc.) can't have evolved.

I suspect this is turning into an argument based purely on the precise definition of the word "vegetation".  Perhaps "growths on the surface of Mars that seem to exhibit life-like behaviour and look somewhat like Earthly plants" would be a better term, if extremely clumsy.  How about "quasi-vegetation", or "xeno-vegetation" for that matter?

I too find pedantic arguments boring. However vegetation is just the wrong word entirely. Photosynthesising bactera (and other simple organisms such a fungii, protozoa and archaea) are not vegetation.

I doubt there will be any photosynthetic organisms on mars. They would have to be on the surface to get light and the surface is just too harsh for organisms to live . If there is life, it will be under the surface making energy from chemical metabolism rather than photosynthesis. There will be no plant or plant like life on mars.

[Huzzie]

was habitabal area once. Though they dont know yet if life was ever there

[Huzzie]

just shu up and watch it you nobs!!!

the link is above they have been live for the last 10 mins and so have i!!

pay attention!!

[The Region Legion]

So... there used to be water.

Didn't we all know that anyway?

[Huzzie]

well yeah but not so sure that it was liquid and very unsure of its abundance, or lack of

[Ambient Sheep]

True there are organisms on earth that can survive very cold conditions (extremophiles) but they must have evolved (at some point) from species which can tolerate a medium, average range of conditions.

Why do you say that?  I'm genuinely curious as to why that condition apparently must apply.

Assuming it does (which I don't necessarily take as read):

Such conditions have not been present on Mars for millions of years.

Indeed, but couldn't they have begun to evolve into extremophiles during those long millenia while Mars itself became more extreme?

Plus nothing on earth could tolerate the amazingly harsh mars surface and atmosphere.

Well quite.  But Mars is not earth, that's the whole point.

It annoys me that people just assume there is life on mars, because "there must be some on mars if there is some on earth". Thats just rubbish thinking. :smiley:

Indeed it is rubbish thinking, but that line of thought is not why I, at least, think that there may be life there.  I've been typing solidly all afternoon and am getting tired now, but it's along the lines of "replicators will out".  It doesn't matter how Earth-like or not the conditions are, if they're conditions that allow replicators to be created and to replicate, then life of some kind will occur.  (But then of course you risk getting into semantic definitions of "life".)

I too find pedantic arguments boring.

Good!

However vegetation is just the wrong word entirely. Photosynthesising bactera (and other simple organisms such a fungii, protozoa and archaea) are not vegetation.

Fair enough, I do seem to remember that you're a biology professional in some capacity and don't intend to argue this point.  I'm no taxonomist.

I doubt there will be any photosynthetic organisms on mars.

Not least because the sunlight there is a good deal weaker than on Earth.

They would have to be on the surface to get light and the surface is just too harsh for organisms to live.

Too harsh for Earthly organisms to live, yes.  But something that evolved entirely independently, possibly using some other replicating method entirely?

If there is life, it will be under the surface making energy from chemical metabolism rather than photosynthesis.

If it's Earthly-style life then yes, that seems likely.  However...

There will be no plant or plant like life on mars.

But this is what gets my goat.  How can you be so damn SURE?  Yes, there may well be no plant or plant-like life on Mars that works in any similar way to Earth-style life *whatsoever*, but how can you be so dogmatic that some other weird and wonderful concoction of chemicals hasn't evolved elsewhere in the universe to suit the prevailing conditions?

Again it comes back to definitions of life, I fear - if it's self-organising and self-replicating, does it qualify for being alive?  Remind me of the official criteria for life again, 'cos I forget.

Or shall we just agree to disagree?  Might be best, especially as I'm now all typed out, as you can probably tell.

[TraceyQ]

So did they find Foxy's spacemouse or what?

[Ambient Sheep]

just shu up and watch it you nobs!!!...pay attention!!

I don't like your tone there dear chap.  Perhaps if you'd explained what you were linking to a bit better in the first place I might have attended.

Or not.

[Huzzie]

i

just shu up and watch it you nobs!!!...pay attention!!

I don't like your tone there dear chap.  Perhaps if you'd explained what you were linking to a bit better in the first place I might have attended.

Or not.

i dont need to explain anything to you!!!!



ohh okay, maybe i should have but i was excited

[Pinball]

Close-up pictures taken by Europe's Mars Express probe of a volcano on the Red Planet reveal water could have flowed on its flanks in the past.

Why is NASA excited? Shurely it's the ESA who should be excited? ;-)

[Huzzie]

Yeah, the ESA gave inconclusive proof based on the cameras in the sky.

Nasa denied their claim.

fucking dickhead NASA hyping it all up, making us think that they had found a monster or two!!

Close-up pictures taken by Europe's Mars Express probe of a volcano on the Red Planet reveal water could have flowed on its flanks in the past.

Why are NASA excited? Shurely it's the ESA who should be excited? ;-)