life on Mars

**Ich** · Nov26-09, 11:00 AM

"...in either a biologic or geologic sense"

**MaxwellsDemon** · Nov27-09, 10:23 AM

Interesting link...Martian methane definitely makes life at least seem more plausable in my mind.

**Garth** · Nov27-09, 02:41 PM

There is also this old chestnut raising its head again: Evidence of life on Mars lurks beneath surface of meteorite, Nasa experts claim. (27 Nov 2009)

Garth

**DaveC426913** · Nov27-09, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Garth

There is also this old chestnut raising its head again: Evidence of life on Mars lurks beneath surface of meteorite, Nasa experts claim. (27 Nov 2009)

Garth

Hee! Precious!

Gary Nelson wrote:
The fact that they found rocks with the same chemical comp. that Mars does, doesnt mean that that is where they came from. We now know that the universe is teeming with planets and It could have come from someplace else (mabey).

Life in a rock from Mars is sooo unlikely. It's 50 million km away for Pete's sake. Much more likely that it came from OGLE-05-390Lb, a mere 200 million billion km away...

~~Sorry!~~ · Nov27-09, 07:14 PM

Wow, they knew about this meteor before I was even born, lol. Weird how they still are 'unsure' if life at some point lived on Mars... I thought that the rovers that went to the planet last time were equiped with tools to dig into the ground to take samples? Are they not equiped with proper tools to study the existence of fossils?
This would seem quite odd to me considering the meteor...

What about taking say a larger chunk of martian rock (say from inside a cave or a recent meteor impact) and having a rocket launch it back to Earth. Is this possible or even feasible?

**MaxwellsDemon** · Nov28-09, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Sorry!

What about taking say a larger chunk of martian rock (say from inside a cave or a recent meteor impact) and having a rocket launch it back to Earth. Is this possible or even feasible?

Its possible to do that, but it would be incredibly expensive. The whole idea behind these rover missions is to keep expenses down by sending lots of tiny relatively crappy robots instead of mounting one really expensive mission. NASA has problems getting the funding it needs from our government...they'd rather spend it on things like wars where they look for non existent weapons of mass destruction.

**Stark** · Dec4-09, 02:28 PM

Considering the amount of water on Earth, compared to that of Mars and considering how long it took for Earth to develop life, I'm surprised anyone even considers it.

**DaveC426913** · Dec4-09, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Stark

Considering the amount of water on Earth, compared to that of Mars and considering how long it took for Earth to develop life, I'm surprised anyone even considers it.

Mars has evidence that very large volumes of water once freely flowed on its surface until relatively recently. How much water and time do you think life needs?

**ideasrule** · Dec4-09, 05:08 PM

It took a long time for Earth to develop life? There are fossilized bacterial mats 3.8 billion years old. Earth is only 4.5 billion years old.

**Count Iblis** · Dec4-09, 09:35 PM

Life also somehow survived the Late Heavy Bombardment that ended 3.8 billion years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment

Three-dimensional computer models developed in May 2009 by a team at the University of Colorado at Boulder postulate that much of Earth's crust, and the microbes living in it, could have survived the Bombardment. Their models suggest that although the surface of the Earth would have been sterilized, hydrothermal vents below the Earth's surface could have incubated life by providing a sanctuary for heat-loving microbes.[12]

~~Sorry!~~ · Dec4-09, 11:23 PM

I think what the poster meant to say was how long it took for 'complex-life' to form. I believe he is under the impression that people believe complex life at the level of what came to Earth (That is to say animals).

It did take a very long time to develop animals approximately what, 3 billion years? Just to get to multicellular it took around 2.5 billion...

This obviously does not mean that life never existed on Mars, or doesn't currently live there.

**Chronos** · Dec5-09, 12:04 AM

Life arose on earth almost immediately after it became habitable, as count noted.

**qraal** · Dec6-09, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Chronos

Life arose on earth almost immediately after it became habitable, as count noted.

Animal life came along much, much later. Micro & Macrofossils from animals only appeared c.600 Mya, some 4 billion years after Earth formed and 3.2 billion after the LHB finished. So while bacteria/archea seem to have a deep history, metazoans are Johnny-Come-Latelys. Just why they came along so late is disputed, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's an astrophysical connection for the timing.

**DaveC426913** · Dec7-09, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by Chronos

Life arose on earth almost immediately after it became habitable, as count noted.

I'm not sure about "almost immediately". 4.5 / .7 is > 15%.

That's almost 1/6th of its age spent lifeless.

~~Sorry!~~ · Dec7-09, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

I'm not sure about "almost immediately". 4.5 / .7 is > 15%.

That's almost 1/6th of its age spent lifeless.

It's important to note that the earth had life as soon as it became habitable. Not as soon as it was formed.