Single biggest obstacle to Earth bacteria thriving on Mars

[lifeonmercury]

If we took some of Earth's hardiest extremophile microorganisms and placed them on Mars, what one factor on Mars would be most difficult for them to cope with?
too cold, low oxygen, low atmospheric pressure, radiation, lack of liquid water, toxic soil, lack of organic material, acidity

Please no comments or whining about "infecting" Mars. :) This is hypothetical.

 

[Comeback City]

I would think that lack of organic material and liquid water would be the most important reasons, but I don't think there is one single answer, as they are all important factors.

 

[rootone]

Extremophile organisms on Earth have adapted to thrive in an extreme environment somewhere on Earth.
That does not imply that they are equipped to deal with any extreme environment anywhere..
Many of them would probably not survive if they were relocated to some other place on Earth outside of their usual environment.

 

[lifeonmercury]

Many of them would probably not survive if they were relocated to some other place on Earth outside of their usual environment.

You stated that "many" would not survive, meaning that some might. I think it would be remarkable if we could identify at least one type of bacteria that could survive and proliferate outside or underground on another planet or moon without any assistance from humans.

 

[Comeback City]

You stated that "many" would not survive, meaning that some might. I think it would be remarkable if we could identify at least one type of bacteria that could survive and proliferate outside or underground on another planet or moon without any assistance from humans.

I think the main point is that while some extremophiles may survive in the conditions you listed in the OP, and there may even be an extremophile for each one of those conditions that could survive, it is unlikely that you could find an extremophile that could survive in all those conditions simultaneously (which would likely have to be the case in most close-by planets). Otherwise I'm sure we would've made an attempt by now.

 

[phinds]

I agree w/ both of Comeback City's posts and would have said much the same things had he not beat me to it.

 

[Comeback City]

Too quick!

 

[phinds]

So YOU are turbo snail

 

[Comeback City]

So YOU are turbo snail

Of course! Can't catch me

 

[rootone]

You stated that "many" would not survive, meaning that some might. I think it would be remarkable if we could identify at least one type of bacteria that could survive and proliferate outside or underground on another planet or moon without any assistance from humans.

I said probably not many would survive outside of the environment they are used to but I don't actually know if any of them would.
My point was that those creatures adaptations are to a particular environment that would be deadly to most other life.
As such they not only can survive that otherwise hostile environment, it's quite likely that those conditions are a necessity for them.

 

[lifeonmercury]

I just wonder what all the worry is about then that our Mars landers are sufficiently sterilized before launch. Scientists must think there is at least some chance that microbes could survive there.

 

[Chronos]

Extremophiles adapted to their current environments across many generations. Their odds of surviving a transplant from their current habitat to a hostile alien one without time for adaptation are pretty grim. It is worth asking - are there any existing microbes that could survive long enough to adapt to a martian environment?

 

[lifeonmercury]

It is indeed a question worth asking. I've read about lichens being a good candidate for surviving on Mars. According to this BBC Earth article, "Scientists believe a handful of single celled creatures could have what it takes to survive on the Red Planet." It names Deinococcus radiodurans as the best candidate for surviving on Mars due to its ability to withstand extreme radiation and extreme temperatures.
Wikipedia: "Deinococcus radiodurans is an extremophilic bacterium, one of the most radiation-resistant organisms known. It can survive cold, dehydration, vacuum, and acid, and is therefore known as a polyextremophile and has been listed as the world's toughest bacterium in The Guinness Book Of World Records."

 

[Al_]

It is indeed a question worth asking. I've read about lichens being a good candidate for surviving on Mars. According to this BBC Earth article, "Scientists believe a handful of single celled creatures could have what it takes to survive on the Red Planet." It names Deinococcus radiodurans as the best candidate for surviving on Mars due to its ability to withstand extreme radiation and extreme temperatures.
Wikipedia: "Deinococcus radiodurans is an extremophilic bacterium, one of the most radiation-resistant organisms known. It can survive cold, dehydration, vacuum, and acid, and is therefore known as a polyextremophile and has been listed as the world's toughest bacterium in The Guinness Book Of World Records."

So then all it needs is to adapt from acid tolerance to alkali tolerance!

 

[Comeback City]

Wikipedia: "Deinococcus radiodurans is an extremophilic bacterium, one of the most radiation-resistant organisms known. It can survive cold, dehydration, vacuum, and acid, and is therefore known as a polyextremophile and has been listed as the world's toughest bacterium in The Guinness Book Of World Records."

But can it survive without oxygen and liquid water?

 

[lifeonmercury]

But can it survive without oxygen and liquid water?

Yes. I believe that would be covered by dehydration and vacuum.

Mars is more hospitable than a vacuum. It has water vapor in the atmosphere and liquid water is also believed to flow intermittently. Mars' atmosphere does contain some oxygen, although not all forms of bacteria require oxygen to survive.

 

[Comeback City]

Yes. I believe that would be covered by dehydration and vacuum.

Interesting. What about the other conditions in the OP?

 

[lifeonmercury]

Low atmospheric pressure is the biggest unknown. I can't find too much information about polyextremophiles surviving in Martian atmospheric pressure. I did find this article though.

It appears that all of the extreme conditions on Mars can be survived by some type of Earth microorganisms. The question is whether once single type can withstand all of those conditions.

 

[infinitebubble]

Interesting... there were meteorite rocks with bacteria found within these rocks blasted from Mars during a strike from a meteor long ago.

See: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/meteorites/The_Meteorite.shtml

So if such an event say Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event - (66 million years ago)... could Earth bound bacteria have made it up to Mars and have survived?

 

[phinds]

with bacteria found

The article says POSSIBLE "fossiles". This has not been confirmed. Where do you get "bacteria" ?

 

[infinitebubble]

The article says POSSIBLE "fossiles". This has not been confirmed. Where do you get "bacteria" ?

Agree... fossilized bacteria just the same... the debate still rages... the fact remains sometime in our not too distant past such an event could have materialized although no real data to show it, a rock blasted from Earth could have made it to any of the closest planets and the Moon?

 

[infinitebubble]

Impacts such as the one that created the 180-kilometer diameter (110-mile) Chicxulub crater in Yucatan 65 million years ago (and incidentally caused a profound extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs, among others) may have launched millions of rock fragments 10 meters (30 feet) or more in diameter into interplanetary space. Of these fragments, a small fraction, perhaps 1 in 500, would have been so lightly shocked that internal temperatures remained below 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit). Higher temperatures would presumably kill any microorganisms present in the rock, but a few thousand of the ejected rocks, those originating nearest the free surface, could have carried viable organisms into interplanetary space. Although such impacts are fortunately rare at the present time (the only comparable craters known are the 1.85-billion-year-old Sudbury crater in Ontario and the 1.97-billion-year-old Vredefon crater in South Africa), the much higher cratering rate early in solar system history during the period of late heavy bombardment that lasted up to about 3.8 billion years ago would have made ejection of microorganisms a much more common occurrence at that time.

 

[rootone]

The impactor needed to launch substantial fragments of rock out of the Earth's atmosphere and still traveling at escape velocity would have to be a very large one.
Not impossible, but definitely on the edge of what is plausible, especially considering that at least one such rock would need to headed in exactly the right direction to eventually intersect with Mars.

 

[phinds]

The impactor needed to launch substantial fragments of rock out of the Earth's atmosphere and still traveling at escape velocity would have to be a very large one.
Not impossible, but definitely on the edge of what is plausible, especially considering that at least one such rock would need to headed in exactly the right direction to eventually intersect with Mars.

I agree. It's not technically impossible but it seems VERY unlikely.

 

[infinitebubble]

I agree. It's not technically impossible but it seems VERY unlikely.

Still does not answer the question of survivability of organisms within the surface/subsurface of Mars. I'm of the belief that think life is there but have not been detected as of yet and could be thriving below the surface not yet detected by any rovers sent to date. Human exploration is the only way unless we send out some serious robotic coring/science detecting tools and at the proper location such as the south poles where ice may be common place.

 

[phinds]

Still does not answer the question of survivability of organisms within the surface/subsurface of Mars. I'm of the belief that think life is there but have not been detected as of yet and could be thriving below the surface not yet detected by any rovers sent to date. Human exploration is the only way unless we send out some serious robotic coring/science detecting tools and at the proper location such as the south poles where ice may be common place.

Well, if there is life on mars, why would it have to have come from Earth? THAT to me is more of a stretch than just the possibility of life there. Granted, this thread is about Earth life surviving on Mars but I think we've drifted from that since the OP's question had nothing to do with how they got there.

 

[jim mcnamara]

@phinds @infinitebubble
You guys are discussing the concept: panspermia I would suggest you look it up, since the hypothesis is speculative. Like this thread.

First off: Estimated 50% of terrestrial biomass lives in rock, as in the deep crust, as much as several miles down. Petroleum is the result of microbial metabolism for example. Solid rock with archaeobacteria == Not speculation:
https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/24049?show=full

Try the abstract :

...
Using a previously published model, the prokaryotic biomass in the igneous ocean crust is estimated to exceed that in all aquatic and soil environments and is similar to that in the continental subsurface and in marine sediment. ...

In other words most of Earth's biomass is under out feet. Way down there, mostly.

Looks to me like the rock eaters have already come pretty close to winning the Game of Evolution. If numbers count for anything.

Back to the rocks. The environment there is anoxic and pH ranges from low to high. So I would suspect, that if Mars dying core still makes heat, you could transplant the Earth's "rock" beasties to way down in Mars crust, and as long as the mineral content (rock beasties mostly oxidize metals/sulfur) is okay, they would not blink an eye. If they had eyes.

So, bore a hole way down in the martian crust. Innoculate the deep rock layers - dump a few metric tons of slightly pulverized Earth deep oceanic basalts down the hole. Cover it up. This would be as close to transplanting life to Mars successfully as we can get right now, that is, as we currently understand things.Oh. Forgot. Answer to the OP's question: Biggest obstacle is virtually every facet of the entire Martian above ground environment.

 

[Chronos]

The controversy over ALH84001 [the martian fossil meteorite] has never been convincingly resolved and pretty much faded away. It has long been known that natural abiogenic processes could explain the original findings. As a matter of record, the Curiosity mission was designed, in part, to confirm or refute ALH84001 as evidence of primordial life on Mars. The jury is still out. For whatever it's worth: A scientists opinion poll conducted after the initial publicity revealed about 20% of respondants felt the fossil claim was credible - a bit short of a ringing endorsement. For further discussion, see; http://astronomyonline.org/Astrobiology/ALH84001.asp, The ALH 84001 Controversy

 

[BillTre]

Interesting... there were meteorite rocks with bacteria found within these rocks blasted from Mars during a strike from a meteor long ago.

I think you are referring to this meteor.
From the wikipedia article:
"These claims were controversial from the beginning, and the wider scientific community ultimately rejected the hypothesis once all the unusual features in the meteorite had been explained without requiring life to be present."

 

[mfb]

I just wonder what all the worry is about then that our Mars landers are sufficiently sterilized before launch. Scientists must think there is at least some chance that microbes could survive there.

They do think that it is not impossible. And they want to reduce the risk as much as reasonably possible.

It is indeed a question worth asking. I've read about lichens being a good candidate for surviving on Mars. According to this BBC Earth article, "Scientists believe a handful of single celled creatures could have what it takes to survive on the Red Planet." It names Deinococcus radiodurans as the best candidate for surviving on Mars due to its ability to withstand extreme radiation and extreme temperatures.
Wikipedia: "Deinococcus radiodurans is an extremophilic bacterium, one of the most radiation-resistant organisms known. It can survive cold, dehydration, vacuum, and acid, and is therefore known as a polyextremophile and has been listed as the world's toughest bacterium in The Guinness Book Of World Records."

Survive is not the same as live and reproduce. A bacterium that can merely survive is not of concern. A bacterium that can reproduce and spread is of concern.

 

[BillTre]

I just wonder what all the worry is about then that our Mars landers are sufficiently sterilized before launch. Scientists must think there is at least some chance that microbes could survive there.

Although they go to great lengths to sterilize their Martian probes, I don't think NASA thinks they are actually sterile (nothing alive on them).
This is why they don't have their current rovers go to nearby areas where they think the ground is wet with water.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Here's a nice review article from a scientific journal on the subject:
Moissl-Eichinger et al. 2016 Venturing into new realms? Microorganisms in space. FEMS Microbiol Rev 40: 722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuw015

An important concept in space microbiology or astrobiology is ‘habitability’, which is essentially an assessment of whether an environment can support the activity of a given organism, where activity might be maintenance, growth or reproduction. Due to the fact that we have only one example of a life-bearing planet so far, these considerations are restricted to life as we know it, even, if in some theoretical studies a broader approach has been considered (Baross 2006). For an environment in any location on Earth or elsewhere to be habitable, it must have several characteristics. They are:

• availability of water, at least temporarily in a liquid state,
• appropriate temperature conditions,
• availability of an energy source,
• carbon plus major other elements required by all known life forms (HNOPS) and
• other elements required by a specific organism as trace elements.

https://academic.oup.com/femsre/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/femsre/fuw015

The article explores the limits of these conditions in known terrestrial organisms both under natural and experimental conditions as well as discusses the conditions on Mars.

 

[Pythagorean]

Nobody's brought up water bears yet?!

 

[BillTre]

Nobody's brought up water bears yet?!

from wikipedia: Tardigrades are prevalent in mosses and lichens and feed on plant cells, algae, and small invertebrates.

They might survive the trip but would not have a food source on Mars.

 

[Comeback City]

They might survive the trip but would not have a food source on Mars.

Let them eat cake!

 

[BenAS]

Let them eat cake!

The cake is a lie

 

[Comeback City]

The cake is a lie

Cake is a lie? Oh the government has got us again...

 

[infinitebubble]

http://www.iflscience.com/space/marine-plankton-found-surface-international-space-station/

Scientists examining samples taken from the exterior of the International Space Station (ISS) have made a rather unexpected discovery- traces of marine plankton and other microbes growing on the surface of the illuminators. What’s more, it seems they could have been living there for years.

The intriguing discovery was made after ISS cosmonauts took surface samples during a routine spacewalk around the satellite. The samples were later analyzed by high-precision equipment as part of a so-called “Test” experiment, ITAR-TASS revealed. Scientists were then able to confirm that these organisms are capable of living in space despite the hostile conditions experienced. Furthermore, some of the studies demonstrated that the organisms could even develop in the vacuum of space.

How could such plankton survive and if so could such organisms be inoculating planets such as Mars and our Moon without us knowing? Could the rovers on Mars be swamped with this plankton borne from Earth or is this plankton already in space awaiting to attach itself to satellites, ISS, and other manmade objects?

 

[rootone]

They are described as 'marine plankton and other microbes', which must mean that they have been identified as known organisms found on Earth.
How they got there is puzzling, but the idea of organisms evolving in space independently of Earth, but apparently the same species seems very unlkely to me

 

[Comeback City]

the idea of organisms evolving in space independently of Earth, but apparently the same species seems very unlkely to me

It's basically as close as you can get to impossible.

 

[BillTre]

traces of marine plankton and other microbes growing on the surface of the illuminators.

How could such plankton survive

If they are actually growing, they would need some additional chemical input (like CO₂ or a carbon source and water) to build new cells.
I wonder if they could get some of that in traces from exhalations from the space station (like in urine dumps) which might condense of the ISS surface.

 

[willem2]

But can it survive without oxygen and liquid water?

It may be able to survive, but it can't eat. More from the Wikipedia article:

it uses oxygen to derive energy from organic compounds in its environment

 

[infinitebubble]

There is of course corrosion in space due to atomic oxygen... Citation: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/atomic_oxygen.html

If so these microbes could be harnessing either the corrosion side effects of atomic oxygen or have evolved to use atomic oxygen (conjecture).

 

[Al_]

Although they go to great lengths to sterilize their Martian probes, I don't think NASA thinks they are actually sterile (nothing alive on them).
This is why they don't have their current rovers go to nearby areas where they think the ground is wet with water.

Really?
All the money and time and effort to get there, and they can't even go to the most interesting places?
Oh come on NASA seriously!
Can't they just figure a way to make it properly hygenic, how hard can it be for smart people like that?

 

[Drakkith]

Can't they just figure a way to make it properly hygenic, how hard can it be for smart people like that?

It is unimaginably difficult. Not only is the outside of the spacecraft and rover covered in microbes, but so is every component, every nook and cranny, every cable, every wheel bearing, everything. And even if you sterilize it completely, as soon as you take it out of the chamber or wherever it is that you sterilized it to get it ready for launch, it gets contaminated all over again!

 

[mfb]

The only reliable way to make something 100% microbe-free is to melt it completely.
The Viking landers were sterilized by heating the whole spacecraft . That gets rid of most microbes, but then every single component has to survive that temperature - which makes the construction more expensive. The current Mars rovers are complex even without adding such a high thermal resistance. It was decided to use weaker sterilization techniques, and to avoid the regions where life could potentially exist today.

 

[BillTre]

An autoclave works pretty well, but would tends to be destructive to many materials.

Another approach might be something like vaporized hydrogen peroxide, which can be compatible with electronics but is effective at killing things. However, chemical approaches might miss out on killing particular resistant organisms and is more difficult to apply to things with lots of small intricate spaces. Seems that these could just be sealed up or encased.

A possible different approach would be sampling from a distance. One might shoot (or rocket propel) a tube attached to the rover by something like a steel line. A hatch on the tube would close upon impact (as some seafloor samplers work), capturing a sample and then reeled back to the rover. Being structurally simple and materially resistant, it could be easily sterilized by heat or chemicals (possibly even on site) in an enclosed container just prior to being shot out.

Because its shooting something out it might even qualify for military funding.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

An autoclave works pretty well, but would tends to be destructive to many materials.

Various thermophilic archaea can survive autoclave temperatures (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_121). We don't worry about them in most medical applications because they generally aren't infectious (i.e. they won't out-compete our natural fauna at 37°C), but they would absolutely be a concern for interplanetary contamination.

 

[plschwartzx]

Don't think current. Think past. Bacteria have been around for a long time. Including those living in rocks. Mars as we now know once had liquid water. And liquid- water temperature areas. It seems to me that meteor strikes would have sent Earth bacteria laden rocks toward Mars. So I do expect within Martian rocks we will find earth-derived bacteria.,
And if self replication is the first step toward life, and self-replicating molecules can be produced in an aqueous environment with a proper electro-chemical environment, who knows what else we might find in Martian rocks!

 

[syhprum1]

I understand that bacteria were found on a TV camera that was returned from the Moon by one of the Apollo misions