Life on Mars

[saturno2]

It is possible to find on Mars ( on exoplanets, too )
other forms of life.
No archaea, no bacteria, no eucaryota
Other form of life, of LIFE, indeed.

[Sawngrighter]

With the seemingly continuously created methane seeping into Mars atmosphere it is certain there is life in Mars, if not on Mars.

It is far from certain. The measurements have anomalous characteristics, and there are multiple non-biological hypotheses.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... hanespike/

[Chris Peterson]

With the seemingly continuously created methane seeping into Mars atmosphere it is certain there is life in Mars, if not on Mars.

It is far from certain. The measurements have anomalous characteristics, and there are multiple non-biological hypotheses.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... hanespike/

Exactly my point. As noted in your link: "This temporary increase in methane -- sharply up and then back down -- tells us there must be some relatively localized source," said Sushil Atreya of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Curiosity rover science team. "There are many possible sources, biological or non-biological, such as interaction of water and rock."

[saturno2]

Methane found on Mars could have
two origins: geological or biological.
If methane has C-12 is biological.
Possible life on Mars.

[neufer]

Methane found on Mars could have
two origins: geological or biological.
If methane has C-12 is biological.
Possible life on Mars.

Radioactive ¹⁴C is constantly being created in atmospheres by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen...but there is little nitrogen in the martian atmosphere (and hence little radioactive ¹⁴C).

In photosynthetic pathways on Earth ¹²C is absorbed slightly more easily than ¹³C such that cow methane probably does have more ¹²C than ¹³C (as compared with atmospheric CO₂) but there is no guarantee that that would be true on Mars.

[Sawngrighter]

Methane found on Mars could have
two origins: geological or biological.
If methane has C-12 is biological.
Possible life on Mars.

Radioactive ¹⁴C is constantly being created in atmospheres by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen...but there is little nitrogen in the martian atmosphere (and hence little radioactive ¹⁴C).

In photosynthetic pathways on Earth ¹²C is absorbed slightly more easily than ¹³C such that cow methane probably does have more ¹²C than ¹³C (as compared with atmospheric CO₂) but there is no guarantee that that would be true on Mars.

If not cows, how about a lot of bull? I'm sure, Neufer, your talents can find something appropriate.

[neufer]

If not cows, how about a lot of bull? I'm sure, Neufer, your talents can find something appropriate.

Bull's-Eye on Mars Revealed

At least it looks like a Bull's-"Eye"...but possibly it's a source for methane.

[Ron-Astro Pharmacist]

If not cows, how about a lot of bull? I'm sure, Neufer, your talents can find something appropriate.

Bull's-Eye on Mars Revealed

At least it looks like a Bull's-"Eye"...but possibly it's a source for methane.

I think that it's from the other end Art.

Possibly 'The Moortian'"?

[neufer]

They say cleanliness is next to godliness but perhaps a more enlightened approach is to accept those microbes as part of our identity rather than considering them as filth sullying our otherwise pure bodies.

• How filthy is the International Space Station?

[geckzilla]

At some point there was a conversation about why the ISS doesn't host a space telescope of some sort and the answer was that it is way too dirty around there. Space telescopes have to completely avoid the vicinity of the ISS. I don't think they're worried about bacteria, though.

[neufer]

---

At some point there was a conversation about why the ISS doesn't host a space telescope of some sort and the answer was that it is way too dirty around there. Space telescopes have to completely avoid the vicinity of the ISS. I don't think they're worried about bacteria, though.

Short telescopic exposures of the Earth or the Sun are just fine from a manned spacecraft.

But looonng exposures of almost anything else would require the astwonauts to stay vewy, vewy still.

Cosmic ‘dandruff’ may have brought carbon to Earth

<<Thomas Gold, a professor of astronomy, suggested in 1960 the hypothesis of "Cosmic Garbage", that life on Earth might have originated accidentally from a pile of waste products dumped on Earth long ago by extraterrestrial beings.>>

[geckzilla]

Long exposures can be accumulated over periods of many weeks even though the ISS moves around a lot. The idea is to have something like Hubble nearby or attached so that if something goes wrong it's serviceable. All the dirt around the ISS throws a wrench in that plan though.

[neufer]

Long exposures can be accumulated over periods of many weeks even though the ISS moves around a lot.

Long exposures can be accumulated over periods of many weeks even though the Hubble moves around a lot because there are no stupid humans moving around in unpredictable ways.

The idea is to have something like Hubble nearby or attached so that if something goes wrong it's serviceable. All the dirt around the ISS throws a wrench in that plan though.

The ISS wouldn't want an astronomical telescope too close to the ISS because:

• 1) The ISS and it's support craft would obscure part of the sky.
  2) One would always worry about collisions (with the ISS or loose wrenches).

Any separation large enough to deal with this would also deal with dirt problems.

[geckzilla]

I'm not sure where you're coming from. Humans are smart enough to not move in front of the telescope, just like they are usually smart enough not to set fire randomly to earthbound observatories even though they really like fire. Some part of the sky is always obscured by something... I don't know why or if you're even disagreeing with the dirt thing?

[Beyond]

Even though the Beach Boys sang of good vibrations, there's no such thing when it comes to Hubble imaging. IF it's attached to anything, especially the ISS, it's going to be producing a lot of blurry pictures.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

[neufer]

---

I'm not sure where you're coming from.

I don't believe that dirt OUTSIDE a spacecraft would pose a telescopic problem.

Can you give a reference?

[geckzilla]

I can't, no, because when I heard this question asked and answered it was at a Hubble Hangout and I can't remember which one it was. One of the STScI people, I think. I have no idea who figured this out originally, but here it is stated by someone other than me:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/articl ... ce-station

. . . the space around the ISS is full of gases, liquids and other debris jettisoned from the station that could gum up Hubble's optics.

It is popular knowledge that the ISS occupants throw their laundry out the hatch. Who knows what other stuff is floating around out there among all the ISS's moving parts and the things that can open and close on it? Well, someone does, apparently. Also apparently at Hubble's current position its mirrors are more or less pristine even after all this time.

[neufer]

. . . the space around the ISS is full of gases, liquids and other debris jettisoned from the station that could gum up Hubble's optics.

It is popular knowledge that the ISS occupants throw their laundry out the hatch. Who knows what other stuff is floating around out there among all the ISS's moving parts and the things that can open and close on it? Well, someone does, apparently. Also apparently at Hubble's current position its mirrors are more or less pristine even after all this time.

"Gases, liquids and other debris" gumming up Hubble's optics
is a little bit different than "dirt" but thanks for the reference.

Besides mentioning the inevitable problem of collisions between
Hubble and ISS (or ISS's "other debris") my point was mostly about:

<<Assuming that it could survive the trip, attaching [Hubble] to the station would make it almost unusable, says chief Hubble engineer John Grunsfeld. It captures such highly detailed images because it's free from any disturbances, atmospheric or otherwise. It's designed to stay very, very still. "Once its camera locks onto an object, it's unflinchable," Grunsfeld says. The vibrations of gear on the ISS would make such observations impossible.>>

[Chris Peterson]

Besides mentioning the inevitable problem of collisions between
Hubble and ISS (or ISS's "other debris") my point was mostly about:

<<Assuming that it could survive the trip, attaching [Hubble] to the station would make it almost unusable, says chief Hubble engineer John Grunsfeld. It captures such highly detailed images because it's free from any disturbances, atmospheric or otherwise. It's designed to stay very, very still. "Once its camera locks onto an object, it's unflinchable," Grunsfeld says. The vibrations of gear on the ISS would make such observations impossible.>>

Which is certainly a good point. The main thing is, there's simply no good reason to have a telescope at the ISS. That location would offer no significant advantages to offset the many obvious difficulties. Even the Hubble Telescope is poorly located, which is why we don't see its major successors being placed in low Earth orbit.

[saturno2]

NASA scientists studied the meteorite of Martian origen
Yamato 000593.
They found traces of possible biological processes
produced on Mars millions of years ago.

[neufer]

NASA scientists studied the meteorite of Martian origin: Yamato 000593.

They found traces of possible biological processes produced on Mars millions of years ago.

• Billions of years ago

[b][color=#0000FF]Yamato 000593 meteorite – 13.7 kg - cube is 1 cm (NASA; 2012).[/color][/b]

---

<<Yamato 000593 (or Y000593) is the second largest meteorite from Mars found on Earth. The 41st Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition (JARE) found the meteorite in late December 2000 on the Yamato Glacier. Studies suggest the Martian meteorite was formed about 1.3 billion years ago from a lava flow on Mars. An impact occurred on Mars about 12 million years ago and ejected the meteorite from the Martian surface into space. The meteorite landed on Earth in Antarctica about 50,000 years ago. The mass of the meteorite is 13.7 kg (30 lb) and has been found to contain evidence of past water alteration.

At a microscopic level, spheres are found in the meteorite that are rich in carbon compared to surrounding areas that lack such spheres. The carbon-rich spheres and the observed micro-tunnels may have been formed by biotic activity, according to NASA scientists.

Japanese scientists from the National Institute of Polar Research reported in 2003 that the meteorite contains iddingsite, which forms from the weathering of basalt in the presence of liquid water. In addition, NASA researchers reported in February 2014 that they also found carbon-rich spheres encased in multiple layers of iddingsite, as well as microtubular features emanating from iddingsite veins displaying curved, undulating shapes consistent with bio-alteration textures that have been observed in terrestrial basaltic glass. However, the scientific consensus is that "morphology alone cannot be used unambiguously as a tool for primitive life detection." Interpretation of morphology is notoriously subjective, and its use alone has led to numerous errors of interpretation. According to the NASA team, the presence of carbon and lack of corresponding cations is consistent with the occurrence of organic matter embedded in iddingsite. The NASA researchers indicated that mass spectrometry may provide deeper insight into the nature of the carbon, and could distinguish between abiotic and biologic carbon incorporation and alteration.>>

[geckzilla]

I had two ideas (already thought of by other people of course) about these space telescopes. One would think we could attach something like SOFIA to the ISS. There is apparently no benefit over the airplane method, though. The other is to put an infrared telescope on the coldest part of the moon, and there are a whole host of issues with that, one of them also being dirt.

[BMAONE23]

I had two ideas (already thought of by other people of course) about these space telescopes. One would think we could attach something like SOFIA to the ISS. There is apparently no benefit over the airplane method, though. The other is to put an infrared telescope on the coldest part of the moon, and there are a whole host of issues with that, one of them also being dirt.

'

Just gotta Dome over the crater and use a host of Parking Lot Vacuums

[BMAONE23]

Another possibility would be to place a series of 24 radio telescopes (one in each time zone) in Geosynchronous orbit and create a radio telescope with an effective diameter of 52,400 mi or 84,328 km

[geckzilla]

Hah, good luck convincing powerful commercial and government ventures to give up 24 spots on the geosynchronous ring.