Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

jpl.nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 107 posts

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#21

Post by Retric »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #18
NARKOZ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will take decades to resolve. Random blasts of methane will be very hard to characterise in any methodical way.

If we put humans on Mars do you think we could find the source quickly/quicker than using robots? Is it a case of the robots finding signs of life and humans confirming them and getting the specifics? I'm asking because I'm not all that informed on this but from what I can tell robots have very specific missions so may not be able to find life even if they detect the signs.

Assuming equivalent spending Robots are a much better option. But, a manned mission is likely to get ~10-100+x what unmanned missions get so it's hard to say.

Also, those rovers did a really wide range of things for their cost. From driving around 40km and taking pictures to analyzing chemistry and even testing for "wobbles" in the planet's rotation that would indicate a liquid core. Sure, they cost ~500 million a pop, but compare that to 100's of billion for a manned mission that might never reach Mars and things don't look so hot.

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#22

Post by cdelsolar »

civilian wrote: post #9
harel wrote: post #4

It could also be a case of severe alien flatulence. Sorry, I could not resist...

I think you were looking for this: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2phv82/nasa_rover_f...

What is the current height of your horse?

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#23

Post by snowwrestler »

greggarious wrote: post #6

Here's a fun exercise in speculation: How long does HN think it will be between confirming life (e.g. bacteria), confirming life (e.g. mammals / bugs), and confirming intelligent life? (Never is an an acceptable answer for all 3, but please state why you hold your position)

I think we will confirm life within 50 years by reading the spectra of distant planets and finding free oxygen in the atmosphere. As far as we know, that can only happen if living creatures are replenishing it.

I think it's unlikely that we will find life anywhere else in our solar system. It's possible that we'll evidence of past life on Mars, but not current. Basically, it's just way too cold or way too hot everywhere but Earth.

edit to add: I hope we do not discover intelligent life until we travel to distant star systems ourselves. If it discovers us here, the outcome will almost certainly be terrible for us, based on the long Earth history of species encountering species.

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#24

Post by anigbrowl »

NARKOZ wrote: post #14
greggarious wrote: post #6

Here's a fun exercise in speculation: How long does HN think it will be between confirming life (e.g. bacteria), confirming life (e.g. mammals / bugs), and confirming intelligent life? (Never is an an acceptable answer for all 3, but please state why you hold your position)

This will take decades to resolve. Random blasts of methane will be very hard to characterise in any methodical way.

They'll assay them to see the ratio of different carbon isotopes. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-rover-finds-m...

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#25

Post by omgitstom »

Thieum22 wrote: post #16
swombat wrote: post #3

For those eager to read ahead, they are very, very careful in this article not to imply in any way that this is definitely from any sort of living sources. > Organic molecules, which contain carbon and usually hydrogen, are chemical building blocks of life, although they can exist without the presence of life. Curiosity's findings from analyzing samples of atmosphere and rock powder do not reveal whether Mars has eve…

It may be comforting that considering the Great Filter theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter ) finding life on mars might actually be bad news.

It matters what stage of life is found on Mars. Regardless, one data point even if it is our own solar system won't be enough for us to determine what/where the Great Filter or Great Filters could be.

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#26

Post by givan »

swombat wrote: post #3

For those eager to read ahead, they are very, very careful in this article not to imply in any way that this is definitely from any sort of living sources. > Organic molecules, which contain carbon and usually hydrogen, are chemical building blocks of life, although they can exist without the presence of life. Curiosity's findings from analyzing samples of atmosphere and rock powder do not reveal whether Mars has eve…

Mars and his satellites have many surprises, maybe we will find something extraordinary there during our lifetime.

We should go boldly where man has not gone before. Fly by the comets, visit asteroids, visit the moon of Mars. There’s a monolith there. A very unusual structure on this potato shaped object that goes around Mars once in seven hours. When people find out about that they’re going to say ‘Who put that there? Who put that there?’ The universe put it there. If you choose, God put it there..

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_%28moon%29#Proposed_miss...

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#28

Post by givan »

Thieum22 wrote: post #16
swombat wrote: post #3

For those eager to read ahead, they are very, very careful in this article not to imply in any way that this is definitely from any sort of living sources. > Organic molecules, which contain carbon and usually hydrogen, are chemical building blocks of life, although they can exist without the presence of life. Curiosity's findings from analyzing samples of atmosphere and rock powder do not reveal whether Mars has eve…

It may be comforting that considering the Great Filter theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter ) finding life on mars might actually be bad news.

Great filter theory is pure speculation because this is the only thing you can have in absence of any data on the subject.

Beyond our solar system the best data we have are shadows blocking star light that indicate an exoplanet sometimes they are false alarms being just star (sun) spots, radio waves are something we use at this point in our very young civilization, there is no indication that this is a standard or efficient way of communication to associate missing radio data to absence of other civilizations.

In conclusion we have no data about life in the universe to jump to such conclusions or any conclusion, the only thing we can do is continue exploring and speculate on the question if there are advanced civilization capable of contact why aren't they contacting us?

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#29

Post by lumpypua »

rybosome wrote: post #11
greggarious wrote: post #6

Here's a fun exercise in speculation: How long does HN think it will be between confirming life (e.g. bacteria), confirming life (e.g. mammals / bugs), and confirming intelligent life? (Never is an an acceptable answer for all 3, but please state why you hold your position)

I think we're nearly at confirmation of basic alien life. IIRC there are talks of missions to Europa as early as the 2020's, and I would honestly be surprised if no microbial life was found there. Liquid water, chemical processes that could support chemosynthesis, a likely abundance of organic compounds and protection from radiation and cosmic rays are all critical factors. That may even extend to larger fish-like li…

Can't speak to likelihood of discovering life on Europa but it would be fucking awesome.

To be clear, microbial life in no way entails higher life. It's only by the insanely chance event of the eurkaryotic cell emerging that sophisticated multicellular life became possible on earth. Even if life is common in the universe, sophisticated multicellular life is extremely rare.

The selective pressures on bacterial life favors small size and rapid reproduction, jettisoning any unnecessary genetic material.

Mitochondrial ancestors relieved those pressures in a couple ways. Once the eukaryotic cell developed, multicellularity has evolved several times. All the cool things (multicellularity, eyes, flight) have evolved independently a bunch of times, and the eukaryote has happened only fucking once. Here's a deeper explanation of why it's so rare: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/2012...

Even if life is common in the universe, multicellular life is extremely rare because the evolution of eukaryote-esque organisms is extraordinarily rare and chance.

Edit: That is to say, there's a strong case that step 4 is the Great Filter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter#The_Great_Filter

Re: NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

#30

Post by madaxe_again »

Thieum22 wrote: post #16
swombat wrote: post #3

For those eager to read ahead, they are very, very careful in this article not to imply in any way that this is definitely from any sort of living sources. > Organic molecules, which contain carbon and usually hydrogen, are chemical building blocks of life, although they can exist without the presence of life. Curiosity's findings from analyzing samples of atmosphere and rock powder do not reveal whether Mars has eve…

It may be comforting that considering the Great Filter theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter ) finding life on mars might actually be bad news.

The great filter theory is subject to our own filter bubble. As I see it, there are other possibilities -

Intelligent life doesn't want to be found - at least by us.

Intelligent life tends towards simulation, rather than expansion.

Further to the above, we are the only intelligent life in the simulation in which we reside.

Intelligent life is far more of an aberration than we realise.

Intelligent life is actually very dumb on a macro scale, and falls prey to Malthusian collapse, either by falling into a significant energy gap or by destroying their biosphere.

Intelligent life tends to succumb to dysgenic fertility, and ceases to be intelligent.

Therefore the discovery of life on other worlds means little for the Fermi paradox, as our model may grossly oversimplify or overlook one or more variables which lead to us, now.

Personally I think we're in a sim and we're about to lose the game, as we're staring down an energy deficit Malthusian collapse, uh, right now.

Post reply on HN