Life on Mars

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:08 am

geckzilla wrote:
BMAONE23 wrote:
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
Hah, good luck convincing powerful commercial and government ventures to give up 24 spots on the geosynchronous ring.

There are lots of open geosynchronous orbits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit wrote:
<<A geosynchronous orbit (sometimes abbreviated GSO) is an orbit around the Earth with an orbital period of one sidereal day, intentionally matching the Earth's sidereal rotation period (approximately 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.9 seconds). The synchronization of rotation and orbital period means that, for an observer on the surface of the Earth, an object in geosynchronous orbit returns to exactly the same position in the sky after a period of one sidereal day. Over the course of a day, the object's position in the sky traces out a path, typically in the form of an analemma, whose precise characteristics depend on the orbit's inclination and eccentricity.

A special case of geosynchronous orbit is the geostationary orbit, which is a circular geosynchronous orbit at zero inclination (that is, directly above the equator). A satellite in a geostationary orbit appears stationary, always at the same point in the sky, to ground observers. Communications satellites are often given geostationary orbits, or close to geostationary, so that the satellite antennas that communicate with them do not have to move, but can be pointed permanently at the fixed location in the sky where the satellite appears.>>

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 2:34 am

geckzilla wrote:
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.

Actually, that might not be such a bad idea. SOFIA has a modest 2 arcsec resolution. This is ~40X worse than Hubble (because of wavelengths ~40X greater) and SOFIA has developed techniques to keep vibrations under that level. A radiation cooled ISS SOFIA always pointing away from both the Earth & the Sun could perform much better than a 216K convectively cooled airborne SOFIA and do it 24/7.

geckzilla wrote:
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.

Two large RTG powered (and electrostatically negatively charged)
IR telescopes, perhaps, ... one for each nighttime pole:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Seasons wrote:
<<There are places [on the Moon] that remain in permanent shadow at the bottoms of many polar craters, and these dark craters are extremely cold: Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter measured the lowest summer temperatures in craters at the southern pole at 35 K and just 26 K close to the winter solstice in north polar Hermite Crater. This is the coldest temperature in the Solar System ever measured by a spacecraft, colder even than the surface of Pluto.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope wrote:
<<The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), will offer unprecedented resolution and sensitivity from long-wavelength visible to the mid-infrared, and is a successor instrument to the (room temperature) Hubble Space Telescope and the (5.5 K active / 29 K passive) Spitzer Space Telescope. JWST features a segmented 6.5-meter diameter primary mirror and will be located near the Earth–Sun L2 point. A large sunshield will keep its mirror and four science instruments below 50 K.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_soil#Moon_dust_fountains_and_electrostatic_levitation wrote:
<<The Moon may have a tenuous atmosphere of moving dust particles constantly leaping up from and falling back to the Moon's surface, giving rise to a "dust atmosphere" that looks static but is composed of dust particles in constant motion. This is caused by electrostatic levitation. On the daylit side of the Moon, solar ultraviolet and X-ray radiation is energetic enough to knock electrons out of atoms and molecules in the lunar soil. Positive charges build up until the tiniest particles of lunar dust (measuring 1 micrometre and smaller) are repelled from the surface and lofted anywhere from metres to kilometres high, with the smallest particles reaching the highest altitudes. Eventually they fall back toward the surface where the process is repeated. On the night side, the dust is negatively charged by electrons in the solar wind. Indeed, the fountain model suggests that the night side would charge up to higher voltages than the day side, possibly launching dust particles to higher velocities and altitudes. This effect could be further enhanced during the portion of the Moon's orbit where it passes through Earth's magnetotail. On the terminator there could be significant horizontal electric fields forming between the day and night areas, resulting in horizontal dust transport - a form of "moon storm". This effect was anticipated in 1956 by science fiction author Hal Clement in his short story "Dust Rag", published in Astounding Science Fiction.

Apollo 17 astronauts orbiting the Moon in 1972 repeatedly saw and sketched what they variously called "bands," "streamers" or "twilight rays" for about 10 seconds before lunar sunrise or lunar sunset. Apollo 17 also placed an experiment on the Moon's surface called LEAM, short for Lunar Ejecta and Meteorites. It was designed to look for dust kicked up by small meteoroids hitting the Moon's surface. LEAM saw a large number of particles every morning, mostly coming from the east or west—rather than above or below—and mostly slower than speeds expected for lunar ejecta.>>

saturno2 · Post by **saturno2** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:58 am

Neufer
Thank you for your note about meteorite Yamato 000593.
Very Well, the life on Mars is only a "possibility"

Alohascope · Post by **Alohascope** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:25 am

These might belong here. The title 'Life on Mars' does not demand past or present tense.

Re: MSL: Rocks Rich in Silica Present Puzzles for Mars Rover Team
Postby Alohascope » Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:15 pm

Silica is strong evidence that there was life on a very watery Mars.

"Silica is most commonly found in nature as sand or quartz. In the human body, this chemical compound is what holds us together as it its a key element in the formation of collagen. Silica its found in every organ of the body from the blood circulatory system to the transmission of nerve signals." http://whatissilica.com/

"Also called diatomite, diatomaceous earth is a natural sedimentary rock made from fossilized remains of hard-shelled algae called diatoms. It can easily be crumbled into a white powder. Particles of diatomaceous earth average in size between ten to two hundred micrometers. It is quite light, has an abrasive feel similar to pumice, and is highly porous. Diatomaceous earth contains about 90% silica, 4% alumina, and around 2% iron oxide." http://whatissilica.com/diatomaceous-earth-benefits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom

"Silica is the most abundant mineral found in the crust of the earth." http://web.calstatela.edu/dept/chem/07s ... silica.pdf

"Formation of the mineral may occur either within the cell wall of an organism (such as with phytoliths), or outside the cell wall, as typically happens with tests." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_dioxide

Definition of phytolith: "a microscopic siliceous particle that is formed by a plant and that is highly resistant to decomposition <ancient vegetation revealed by phytoliths."http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phytolith

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:19 am

Again, none of those bolster your assertion that silica is evidence for life on Mars. They're evidence that when life is present it can make use of silica.

Ron-Astro Pharmacist · Post by **Ron-Astro Pharmacist** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 3:33 pm

Both you and Alohascope are correct Geck and indirectly the silica proves it. There obviously is evidence of life on Mars and the silicon is good proof of it.

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:00 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#Silicon_biochemistry wrote:
[b][color=#0000FF][size=135]Marine diatoms—carbon-based organisms that extract silicon from sea water and incorporate it into their cell walls[/size][/color][/b]
<<The silicon atom has been much discussed as the basis for an alternative biochemical system, because silicon has many chemical properties similar to those of carbon and is in the same group of the periodic table, the carbon group. Like carbon, silicon can create molecules that are sufficiently large to carry biological information.

However, silicon has several drawbacks as an alternative to carbon. Silicon, unlike carbon, lacks the ability to form chemical bonds with diverse types of atoms as is necessary for the chemical versatility required for metabolism. Elements creating organic functional groups with carbon include hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and metals such as iron, magnesium, and zinc. Silicon, on the other hand, interacts with very few other types of atoms. Moreover, where it does interact with other atoms, silicon creates molecules that have been described as "monotonous compared with the combinatorial universe of organic macromolecules". This is because silicon atoms are much bigger, having a larger mass and atomic radius, and so have difficulty forming double bonds.

Silanes, which are chemical compounds of hydrogen and silicon that are analogous to the alkane hydrocarbons, are highly reactive with water, and long-chain silanes spontaneously decompose. Molecules incorporating polymers of alternating silicon and oxygen atoms instead of direct bonds between silicon, known collectively as silicones, are much more stable. It has been suggested that silicone-based chemicals would be more stable than equivalent hydrocarbons in a sulfuric-acid-rich environment, as is found in some extraterrestrial locations.

Of the varieties of molecules identified in the interstellar medium as of 1998, 84 are based on carbon while only 8 are based on silicon. Moreover, of those 8 compounds, four also include carbon within them. The cosmic abundance of carbon to silicon is roughly 10 to 1. This may suggest a greater variety of complex carbon compounds throughout the cosmos, providing less of a foundation upon which to build silicon-based biologies, at least under the conditions prevalent on the surface of planets. Also, even though Earth and other terrestrial planets are exceptionally silicon-rich and carbon-poor (the relative abundance of silicon to carbon in the Earth's crust is roughly 925:1), terrestrial life is carbon-based. The fact that carbon is used instead of silicon, may be evidence that silicon is poorly suited for biochemistry on Earth-like planets. For example: silicon is less versatile than carbon in forming compounds; the compounds formed by silicon are unstable and it blocks the flow of heat.

Even so, biogenic silica is used by some Earth life, such as the silicate skeletal structure of diatoms. According to the clay hypothesis of A. G. Cairns-Smith, silicate minerals in water played a crucial role in abiogenesis: they replicated their crystal structures, interacted with carbon compounds, and were the precursors of carbon-based life.

Silicon compounds may possibly be biologically useful under temperatures or pressures different from the surface of a terrestrial planet, either in conjunction with or in a role less directly analogous to carbon. Polysilanols, the silicon compounds corresponding to sugars, are soluble in liquid nitrogen, suggesting that they could play a role in very low temperature biochemistry.>>

Ann · Post by **Ann** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:15 pm

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Both you and Alohascope are correct Geck and indirectly the silica proves it. There obviously is evidence of life on Mars and the silicon is good proof of it.

Fascinating, Ron, but I don't quite get it. I certainly understand that the silica proves that there used to be (abundant) liquid water on Mars, but what about the evidence of life on Mars? I didn't get it from your links. Would you care to elaborate?

Ann

Ron-Astro Pharmacist · Post by **Ron-Astro Pharmacist** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:50 pm

Ann wrote:
Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Both you and Alohascope are correct Geck and indirectly the silica proves it. There obviously is evidence of life on Mars and the silicon is good proof of it.
Fascinating, Ron, but I don't quite get it. I certainly understand that the silica proves that there used to be (abundant) liquid water on Mars, but what about the evidence of life on Mars? I didn't get it from your links. Would you care to elaborate?

Ann

Sorry for being so cryptic Ann but that seems to be in my genes.

I was making light with the fact that Curiosity, et al are proof of life; albeit not from Mars. It is proof of live "on" Mars though.

In case we don't make it.

Alohascope · Post by **Alohascope** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:58 pm

Ann wrote:
Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Both you and Alohascope are correct Geck and indirectly the silica proves it. There obviously is evidence of life on Mars and the silicon is good proof of it.
Fascinating, Ron, but I don't quite get it. I certainly understand that the silica proves that there used to be (abundant) liquid water on Mars, but what about the evidence of life on Mars? I didn't get it from your links. Would you care to elaborate?

Ann

Ann you will get from my urls that life can create silcon .. in fact I haven't been able to find a hard source saying silicon is created WITHOUT the presence of life .. though I'm poor in chemistry.

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:52 am

Alohascope wrote:I'm poor in chemistry.

Might want to study up on this before making the kind of assertions you have been, especially in such an authoritative manner. Silicon, like carbon, is a versatile element capable of undergoing all sorts of chemical reactions without any living organisms to facilitate it. It's also formed by stars, not animals...

Alohascope · Post by **Alohascope** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:51 am

geckzilla wrote:
Alohascope wrote:I'm poor in chemistry.
Might want to study up on this before making the kind of assertions you have been, especially in such an authoritative manner. Silicon, like carbon, is a versatile element capable of undergoing all sorts of chemical reactions without any living organisms to facilitate it. It's also formed by stars, not animals...

Not formed by animals? What's your definition of an animal? The urls I've incldued says it can be made by plants and sea creatures .. diatoms, etc.

I did say I was poor in chemistry, and admitted I didn't know what other processes can make silicon, that I couldn't find any sources for that. If you seek to be helpful, you might include a url saying how else silicon can be made.

My authority is in the urls I post.

lohascope · Post by **lohascope** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:56 am

geckzilla wrote:
Alohascope wrote:I'm poor in chemistry.
Might want to study up on this before making the kind of assertions you have been, especially in such an authoritative manner. Silicon, like carbon, is a versatile element capable of undergoing all sorts of chemical reactions without any living organisms to facilitate it. It's also formed by stars, not animals...

"Diatom cells are contained within a unique silica cell wall comprising two separate valves (or shells). The biogenic silica that the cell wall is composed of is synthesised intracellularly by the polymerisation of silicic acid monomers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:33 am

Alohascope wrote:
geckzilla wrote:
Alohascope wrote:I'm poor in chemistry.
Might want to study up on this before making the kind of assertions you have been, especially in such an authoritative manner. Silicon, like carbon, is a versatile element capable of undergoing all sorts of chemical reactions without any living organisms to facilitate it. It's also formed by stars, not animals...
Not formed by animals? What's your definition of an animal? The urls I've incldued says it can be made by plants and sea creatures .. diatoms, etc.

I did say I was poor in chemistry, and admitted I didn't know what other processes can make silicon, that I couldn't find any sources for that. If you seek to be helpful, you might include a url saying how else silicon can be made.

My authority is in the urls I post.

Then try to understand them first.

Silica and silicon are not the same thing. The first is silicon dioxide (quartz) and is ubiquitous in Earth's crust. The second is a chemical element, so cannot be produced by living things. All silicon is created in stars. Some living things can utilize or produce silicates, but such biogenic minerals represent only an infinitesimal part of the total.

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 6:13 am

A lot of the conclusions you draw have very little to do with the URLs you post, Aloha. I'm not even sure how you could get what you're trying to make us believe out of the things contained in them. There's nowhere in that article or any scholarly article that states that either silicon or silica are formed primarily or even significantly by animals. I've heard it said that most of the sand on some beaches is the product of parrot fish poop. That's calcium carbonate, though.

Ann · Post by **Ann** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:06 am

Alohascope wrote:
Ann you will get from my urls that life can create silcon .. in fact I haven't been able to find a hard source saying silicon is created WITHOUT the presence of life .. though I'm poor in chemistry.

: Click to view full size image

Source: https://www.ualberta.ca/~pogosyan/teach ... ure18.html

As you can see from this picture, silicon is created inside supergiant giants stars just before they go supernova.

Ann

Beyond · Post by **Beyond** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:10 pm

geckzilla wrote:A lot of the conclusions you draw have very little to do with the URLs you post, Aloha. I'm not even sure how you could get what you're trying to make us believe out of the things contained in them. There's nowhere in that article or any scholarly article that states that either silicon or silica are formed primarily or even significantly by animals. I've heard it said that most of the sand on some beaches is the product of parrot fish poop. That's calcium carbonate, though.

Coral is made out of calcium carbonate. However, coral reefs are made out of limestone. Ain't nothing simple in the world anymore, once you dig below the surface.

saturno2 · Post by **saturno2** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 5:47 pm

I think it is difficult that the silicon can to be
the origin of same form of life.
The presence of silicon or its compounds are not
automatically sign of life on a planet ( I think )

Alohascope · Post by **Alohascope** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 12:55 am

MY BAD!! I have DISCOVERED how the theme of my post on SILICA on Mars was transformed from SILICA to SILICON:

"Re: Life on Mars
Postby Ron-Astro Pharmacist » Fri Dec 18, 2015 3:33 pm

Both you and Alohascope are correct Geck and indirectly the silica proves it. There obviously is evidence of life on Mars and the silicon is good proof of it."

After reading this, in my next post in the thread I miswrote SILICA as SILICON .. but I was not thinking SILICON .. I was thinking SILICA.

My original post was NOT made about silicon .. it was about SILICA. It was not about SILICON life forms, but SILICA being evidence for potential life on Mars in the past, as some life forms synthesize SILICA.

SILICON life forms however are theoretically possible as we all know under very special conditions .. but that is another topic entirely. http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -the-basi/

In my defense however I would not have written silicon for silica had the word silicon not been injected into the thread as what was revealed to be a joke.

Alohascope · Post by **Alohascope** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 12:59 am

Ann wrote:
Alohascope wrote:
Ann you will get from my urls that life can create silcon .. in fact I haven't been able to find a hard source saying silicon is created WITHOUT the presence of life .. though I'm poor in chemistry.

Click to view full size image
Source: https://www.ualberta.ca/~pogosyan/teach ... ure18.html
As you can see from this picture, silicon is created inside supergiant giants stars just before they go supernova.

Ann

Ann I hope you will read my post above this one: MY BAD!! As I typed in the word silicon in the last couple of posts I was thinking silica. I was not THINKING silicon though. I was led astray though (by the little silicon joke) .. as youth often are.

Beyond · Post by **Beyond** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:01 am

In your defense, Alohascope, on earth, there are lifeforms, that thrive by using silicon. You'll find them in Silicon Valley California.

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:12 am

Beyond wrote:In your defense, Alohascope, on earth, there are lifeforms, that thrive by using silicon. You'll find them in Silicon Valley California.

And in Hollywood, where they thrive on a silicon-based polymer.

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:43 am

It's pretty sweet for baking, too.