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

91–100 of 107 posts

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

#91

Post by minikites »

givan wrote: post #90
minikites wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So where is everyone? http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html > That would mean there were 10 quadrillion, or 10 million billion intelligent civilizations in the observable universe. >Our sun is relatively young in the lifespan of the universe. There are far older stars with far older Earth-like planets, which should in theory mean civilizations far more advanced than our own. I think intelligent life is pre…

What evidence? we don't have enough data to draw conclusions on this matter, we barely sent a very limited robot on mars and some probes in the solar system, the universe is huge. We can't initiate contact because of primitive technology, we barely made it to the moon with huge costs. Why aren't advanced civilizations that can reach us contact us? we don't know, there are many theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fe…

Exactly, believing in God has about the same scientific support. I wonder how many people don't believe in God but do believe there is advanced, intelligent life that choose not to contact us and how they reconcile that set of beliefs.

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

#92

Post by [deleted] »

givan wrote: post #90
minikites wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So where is everyone? http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html > That would mean there were 10 quadrillion, or 10 million billion intelligent civilizations in the observable universe. >Our sun is relatively young in the lifespan of the universe. There are far older stars with far older Earth-like planets, which should in theory mean civilizations far more advanced than our own. I think intelligent life is pre…

What evidence? we don't have enough data to draw conclusions on this matter, we barely sent a very limited robot on mars and some probes in the solar system, the universe is huge. We can't initiate contact because of primitive technology, we barely made it to the moon with huge costs. Why aren't advanced civilizations that can reach us contact us? we don't know, there are many theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fe…

[deleted]

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

#93

Post by givan »

minikites wrote: post #91
givan wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence? we don't have enough data to draw conclusions on this matter, we barely sent a very limited robot on mars and some probes in the solar system, the universe is huge. We can't initiate contact because of primitive technology, we barely made it to the moon with huge costs. Why aren't advanced civilizations that can reach us contact us? we don't know, there are many theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fe…

Exactly, believing in God has about the same scientific support. I wonder how many people don't believe in God but do believe there is advanced, intelligent life that choose not to contact us and how they reconcile that set of beliefs.

I think it's quite the opposite, believing we are alone in the universe just because we don't have the capability to explore and detect life for me it looks the same as the belief people had a few hundred years ago that the sun orbits around the earth and we are the center of the universe.

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

#94

Post by Udo »

cLeEOGPw wrote: post #69
Thieum22 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One of the so called "Great Filters" is our Moon. It is providing Earth's metal core with constant moving force and refreshing the dynamo and keeping our atmosphere and water not blown away by solar winds. Since the size of Earths satellite is far from ordinary, this instantly reduces chance of advanced life appearing elsewhere. And if the theory of the source of Moon is right, it formed after collision with object o…

Earth's magnetic field is not powered by the moon. As far as we currently know, the dynamo effect is caused by the action of molten material against a rotating solid inner core. It's true that our magnetosphere keeps the atmosphere in, but having a magnetic field is far from uncommon or unexpected for a planet of Earth's size and composition. In fact, Mars - a planet lacking powerful moons - once had a magnetic field just like ours. The problem here is the size of the planet was not sufficient to keep enough heat inside for as long as ours has.

You might be conflating this with the theory that the Moon stabilizes the Earth's rotational axis and prevents it from wobbling too strongly, which would cause unpredictable summers and winters, kind of like the ones described in A Song of Ice and Fire.

Yes, the Earth-Moon system probably has some uncommon features, but let's not make the mistake to postulate that a world has to be precisely like Earth in order to support intelligent life. It's not at all obvious that our ecosystem represents the only possible solution for an environment that can produce intelligence. All we know is it is one solution.

> The conclusion is we better start working on colonization techniques, because chances are that the future of life in our galaxy is in our hands.

I agree!

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

#95

Post by chc »

Houshalter wrote: post #56
Thieum22 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only if it's independently evolved, if it's a fork of life on Earth then it doesn't tell us anything about the probability of life elsewhere. The great filter is very likely the evolution of multicelluar life and animals, which are unlikely to be found on mars. If we found living animals on mars I would be very concerned about the future of the human race.

Why? Mars lost its magnetic field long ago, and most of its atmospheric mass followed behind. Whether animals had evolved there before these events happened doesn't really have any bearing on the cause or effect of those events.

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

#97

Post by TallGuyShort »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #10
aaroninsf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe OP shares your sentiments, and that you mistake the usage here. 'Shame' as used here is shorthand for 'that's a shame,' which used colloquially to express disappointment colored with sympathy and understanding, does not imply that any of the nominal subjects is being criticized. Source: I'm a native English speaker.

I believe this is not the case in the US, at least in my experience. In South Africa people say "shame" to express pity for someone else (or even just when something is adorable) but when I say it hear I get weird looks :)

Thanks for the responses everyone. I've been in the US 15 years now and I'm still never 100% sure about dialect differences :)

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

#98

Post by dhimes »

fixedd wrote: post #54
exratione wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important thing to realize about the Fermi Paradox is that all generalizations about behavior fail automatically as explanatory theories. It only takes one small group within one species to generate a self-replicating probe, at which point all of the galaxy is visited in a few million years. A solution to the Fermi Paradox has to explain why that event has never happened despite the fact that some element of our…

The whole Fermi Paradox thing bugs me too, but in a different way. It assumes we have the capability of detecting the presence of other intelligent life. The largest radio telescope we have (the 305 meter diameter Arecibo) would need to have it's sensitivity increased by around two orders of magnitude JUST to pick up our TV/FM/AM signals from outside the solar system. If we move into the narrowband signals then, depe…

Not only is sensitivity an issue, but also frequency range. I feel quite confident that more technologically advanced civilizations will communicate at frequencies we are currently unable to demodulate. It's more efficient. Look how our frequencies have scaled on the order of a hundred years.

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

#99

Post by Houshalter »

Mahn wrote: post #77
Houshalter wrote: post #58

If life is discovered on mars, would we be allowed to colonize it?

Colonization is probably not the motivation for finding some microbial life there at the moment, but provided we wanted and could colonize, I'd guess we would just do it.

I do remember hearing there was debate if we should introduce invasive species, let alone terraform, or try to preserve life the way it is. There is also concern about it going the other way around mar's life becoming invasive on Earth or infectious to humans.

Obviously neither of our planet's life has evolved to be very fit in surviving in the other's environment. But evolution often has "arms races" where organisms evolve highly optimized weapons and defenses against them. It's possible one planet has evolved something the other has no defenses against which would give it an advantage.

E.g. on Earth, the cane toad produces a poison that no Australian predators can survive, and so they all die and the toad overpopulates. Same with many invasive species, like plants that produce poison that kill all the other plants nearby, and take over fields and native ecosystems. Or predators introduced on islands that are much better than the native predators and kill all the native life.

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

#100

Post by Houshalter »

chc wrote: post #95
Houshalter wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if it's independently evolved, if it's a fork of life on Earth then it doesn't tell us anything about the probability of life elsewhere. The great filter is very likely the evolution of multicelluar life and animals, which are unlikely to be found on mars. If we found living animals on mars I would be very concerned about the future of the human race.

Why? Mars lost its magnetic field long ago, and most of its atmospheric mass followed behind. Whether animals had evolved there before these events happened doesn't really have any bearing on the cause or effect of those events.

If animals independently evolved on mars, it would mean the great filter is ahead of us rather than behind us.
Post reply on HN