'We may be able to grow asparagus on Mars'

[The Big I]

June 27, 2008 06:40am
Article from: ReutersFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
NASA scientists say that first analysis of Martian soil appeared to contain the requirements to support life.

Scientists working on the Mars Phoenix Lander mission said preliminary analysis by the lander's instruments on a sample of soil scooped up by its robotic arm had shown it to be much more alkaline than expected.

"We basically have found what appears to be the requirements, the nutrients, to support life whether past present or future," said Sam Kounaves, the lead investigator for the wet chemistry laboratory.

"It is the type of soil you would probably have in your back yard, you know, alkaline. You might be able to grow asparagus in it really well. ... It is very exciting for us.

"We were all flabbergasted at the data we got back," Dr Kounaves said.

The scientists would not go as far as saying they now believe that life, even mere microbes, definitively existed on Mars, saying the results were very preliminary and more analysis was needed.

"There is nothing about the soil that would preclude life. In fact it seems very friendly.... there is nothing about it that is toxic," Dr Kounaves said

Phoenix landed on Mars on May 25 after a 10-month journey.

Very interesting bodes well for our eventual colonisation.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23 ... 09,00.html

[Zixinus]

To be honest, I wish they stopped looking for life on Mars.

I am not against it, strictly speaking but its pretty damn evident that there is none now and all the probes, rovers and diggers only came back with more-or-less positive reinforcement that there is not. Maybe there is, but its dubious at best and a "look there is water" followed with "oh, no its just optics" (or something like that, I don't know wh) series is tiring. We have gone from expecting to dig up temples to hoping to find even the traces of bacteria! The whole thing looks more and more like a melancholic journey to see that Mars is completely and utterly dead. I can't shake the impression that NASA is in love with Mars and is in denial. We still can't get back to the fucking Moon, never mind Mars.

I have nothing against exploring Mars on the principle level, its just that I wish we would rather invest in technologies that would help us short-term. Pour money into developing better rockets and space platforms, like the Venture Star and the project with a sea-related name (can't recall, Sea Dragon perhaps?). We should look at what we can do from Earth orbit rather then trying to control something that's practically on the other side of the solar system.

This is not a well-researched opinion and I most likely will be corrected and nit-picked to death about it, but it is mine and take it as you will.

[Guardsman Bass]

You never know, though. Nobody is willing to rule out the possibility of life even on Mars, particularly with the discovery of more and more "extreme" extremophile bacteria.

[Zixinus]

You never know, though. Nobody is willing to rule out the possibility of life even on Mars, particularly with the discovery of more and more "extreme" extremophile bacteria.

Yes, but we are hunting for the traces of bacteria on a planet that is cold, barely has an atmosphere and is daily bathed in radiation.

We can also use that same line of reasoning to argue bacteria on the Moon. Why don't we look for life on the Moon? I am not being sarcastic here, I really mean it. Why not? I recall that bacteria or fungus survived the Apollo mission.

I am not ruling out the possibility of life on Mars, I am just saying that after all these attempts we could pool the same level of brainpower and resources on other projects, some of which may be more directly useful in one manner or another. Like the X-33 project or improving existing equipment. I don't know, but the people employed are one of the best and most creative in the industry, I am pretty sure that shortness of ideas is not the problem.

[Zixinus]

Yes, but we are hunting for the traces of bacteria on a planet that is cold, barely has an atmosphere and is daily bathed in radiation.

Let me expand on that: daily bathed in several times the radiation Earth receives and Mars is without protection.

[Count Dooku]

Yes, but we are hunting for the traces of bacteria on a planet that is cold, barely has an atmosphere and is daily bathed in radiation.

Let me expand on that: daily bathed in several times the radiation Earth receives and Mars is without protection.

The inverse square law dictates that Mars receives less EM radiation per square meter than Earth. . .I don't know where you got the, "several times" bit from.

Does anyone know if Mars has a magnetic field of appreciable magnitude?

[Zixinus]

The inverse square law dictates that Mars receives less EM radiation per square meter than Earth. . .I don't know where you got the, "several times" bit from.

It does, but there is the fact that Earth has an ozone layer that protects it from radiation. Mars doesn't. The surface is constantly bathed in cosmic radiation.

Does anyone know if Mars has a magnetic field of appreciable magnitude?

No, I've looked into that a while back. That needs tectonic movement, which is rather difficult when you only have one tectonic plate.

[Junghalli]

We can also use that same line of reasoning to argue bacteria on the Moon. Why don't we look for life on the Moon? I am not being sarcastic here, I really mean it. Why not? I recall that bacteria or fungus survived the Apollo mission.

There is ample evidence that Mars had a more hospitable environment in the deep past. The Moon was never anything but a dead rock.

If life did arise on Mars in the past it's not enormously unlikely that there could be pockets of survivors somewhere. Our own experience on Earth suggests that once established life will probably be rather difficult to eliminate completely - it gets everywhere, even the deep crust. Life would have a vastly harder time getting started on the Moon in the first place.

[Zixinus]

There is ample evidence that Mars had a more hospitable environment in the deep past. The Moon was never anything but a dead rock.

If life did arise on Mars in the past it's not enormously unlikely that there could be pockets of survivors somewhere. Our own experience on Earth suggests that once established life will probably be rather difficult to eliminate completely - it gets everywhere, even the deep crust. Life would have a vastly harder time getting started on the Moon in the first place.

If we assume that life starts on planets: there is the theory/hypothesis that basic RNA originated in the cosmos. Not that I would stand on that.

What I would dare stand on with some anxiety is the fact that we sent rover after rover and we only found evidence that Mars had life, not that it has life. If something survives, I would hazard to guess that its not on the radiation-bathed surface. We would have to go around and do some digging (literally) or use much more extensive search methods.

[Broomstick]

We would have to go around and do some digging (literally) or use much more extensive search methods.

Actually, this is the second probe we've sent that has a digging attachment.

There is some utility in improving technology that can operate remotely, map different mineral resources from orbit, and perform analysis without human aid. What would you have us test it on, searching for gold perhaps? Searching for life is just as worthwhile as, say, landing a probe on the surface of Titan or orchestrating multi-planet fly-bys such as the Voyagers. Every time we send something out we learn more about how to do these things, and this time we even had another probe photograph this one on descent. The things we learn - both with positive and negative results - will be utilized on future missions, both unmanned and manned.

Then again, I remember when, in order to look at an extra-terrestrial rock, we had to spend a decade blowing up rockets, lose three guys on the launch pad, spend LOTS of money, and send an actual human to pick it up, encumbered in a bulky and crude suit so cumbersome they had to use gripper devices rather than bending over to pick stuff up. Sending a semi-automated to probe to Mars to do that sort of scrape-look-crudely analyze work is both cheaper and much safer than risking people on such preliminary reconnaissance.

In a sense, WHAT we're looking for is almost irrelevant (although some folks obviously feel the search for life is important) since, really, we DO need to know what's there before we send people.

[Junghalli]

I don't think the Phoenix is actually designed to look for life, just get a better idea of what the conditions are like at the poles.

[Eris]

Yes, but we are hunting for the traces of bacteria on a planet that is cold, barely has an atmosphere and is daily bathed in radiation.

We've found bacteria in harsher conditions than that. There are archaeathat live at least 2.8 kilometres under the surface of the Earth, and not only withstand radiation, but in fact feed on the radioactive decay of uranium.

As for why to search for life on Mars, I don't think NASA's merely obsessed with finding it. There are a number of reasons I think that are more pressing, but are served by that study:

• It would give us insight into abiogenesis and provide evidence for the related theories. The only other place we might be likely to find this kind of evidence is under much ice on Europa, and having some observations related to things like space seeding would be eat, and would make the biologists happy.
• The act of sending probes to Mars gives us technical experience for future space projects. And NASA can afford Mars trips. While it'd be nice to focus improving our heavy lifting capability and similar projects, the gov't is not shelling out for it, so NASA has to work with what they're given.
• Scouting out for life conditions aso simultaneously tels us other things as well. That we could grow asparagus on Mars is a silly example of this kind of thing, but there is plenty of tangential and potentially useful things to be learned in the search. Soil and atmospheric composition, which were both also goals of most of our previous missions to Mars and the Moon even when not related to searching for life.

This is also hardly the only thing NASA is up to. We have active probes out near the gas giants and so on; there is room for a diversity of projects in our exploration of space, especially since the politicos aren't willing to cough up the money or permission to go ahead with the revolutionary projects.[/list]

[Zixinus]

Actually, this is the second probe we've sent that has a digging attachment.

When I saw "dig" I mean to actually "go trough at least a meter of dirt" and not "scoop up some dirt".

[Sidewinder]

Pour money into developing better rockets and space platforms, like the Venture Star and the project with a sea-related name (can't recall, Sea Dragon perhaps?).

NASA couldn't get VentureStar to work because the composite fuel tanks its prototype (the X-33) was supposed to have, failed in tests, and for some stupid reason, NASA didn't want to use aluminum alloy to make the tank (see here). As for the sea-related project, I think you're referring to Sea Launch, which launches rockets from a ship.

[Guardsman Bass]

Actually, wouldn't this be a good reason to send actual people to Mars on an expedition? The robots are getting better, but they are still just not as versatile in collecting samples.

[Battlehymn Republic]

I am not ruling out the possibility of life on Mars, I am just saying that after all these attempts we could pool the same level of brainpower and resources on other projects, some of which may be more directly useful in one manner or another. Like the X-33 project or improving existing equipment. I don't know, but the people employed are one of the best and most creative in the industry, I am pretty sure that shortness of ideas is not the problem.

Are the people studying the possibilities of life on Mars even the same people who would be involved in the engineering of new spacecraft? That's kind of like berating funding for supercolliders because it doesn't help find alternative energy.

[Omega18]

[*] Scouting out for life conditions aso simultaneously tels us other things as well. That we could grow asparagus on Mars is a silly example of this kind of thing, but there is plenty of tangential and potentially useful things to be learned in the search. Soil and atmospheric composition, which were both also goals of most of our previous missions to Mars and the Moon even when not related to searching for life.

I would not consider the fact the soil apparently would support growing asparagus that silly because it has real relevance regarding the possibility of eventually establishing a colony on Mars. Its not merely about asparagus either, depending on which article you read they also mentioned green beans and radishes specifically, and presumably there are plenty of other crops which would at least work.

Basically you would need to construct a greenhouse type dome (which is also essentially air tight, although it can be used to produce oxygen for the base interior) and heat things inside somewhat, but this means you apparently would only need to bring along nitrates and not all the soil as well, which would make such an effort significantly less difficult to accomplish. (Water for the plants can come from nearby ice sources.)

[Broomstick]

Actually, wouldn't this be a good reason to send actual people to Mars on an expedition? The robots are getting better, but they are still just not as versatile in collecting samples.

I think a lot of folks are in favor of using human beings (although not everyone) but there are still major issues with getting them there and back alive.

One proposal involves sending various automated machines to "prep" the landing site so when the humans arrive there are things like stored atmospheric gases, water, and so forth already there on site for them. Any local resource we can use is one less thing to carry on the flight there.

[Commander 598]

I think Zixinus' point is basically summed up as "If it's got life it's going to be microscopic so what's the point?"

As for the sea-related project, I think you're referring to Sea Launch, which launches rockets from a ship.

No, I'm pretty sure he meant the Sea Dragon rocket, the sea launched super-HLV with a 500(?) ton payload and incredibly cheap launch costs compared to the shuttle which was nixed back in the 60s for reasons that aren't all that clear. (I blame the shuttle.)

Are the people studying the possibilities of life on Mars even the same people who would be involved in the engineering of new spacecraft? That's kind of like berating funding for supercolliders because it doesn't help find alternative energy.

Well, they are getting paid out of the same budget that could be paying for engineers.

I firmly believe that NASA, and perhaps America as a whole, has a retarded obsession with Mars. If it didn't O'Neill's ideas probably wouldn't have been slipped under the rug like they were.

[Broomstick]

Well, we got that Moon obsession out of our system by 1972, so other than Mars, what should we be looking at?

[Commander 598]

Something other than a frozen, cosmically irradiated, inhospitable dust ball of a money hole large enough to generate gravity perhaps?

[Broomstick]

So I take it you also oppose the outposts in Antarctica, too?

[Commander 598]

Considering that it's only a short flight or icebreaker away from South America, has oxygen, and is not an attempt at seriously colonizing a horribly inhospitable area when there are much better alternatives, no.

It would be akin to having some small inhabited research stations on Mars with a large space habitat orbiting the planet or having SW level sublight speeds and anti-grav tech. Alternatively, trying set up any form of habitation on Mars now or really anytime in the near future would be like Christopher Columbus deciding that this frozen hell we know as Antarctica should be called America and Europe should start sending people down, and actually that's not accurate since there's actually lots of wildlife in Antarctica and some of it was very profitable back in the day which is much unlike Mars.

[Zixinus]

I think Zixinus' point is basically summed up as "If it's got life it's going to be microscopic so what's the point?"

Not quite. Its more like: "For decades we searched and searched and we haven't even found even microscopic life! Right now, we are hoping for the mere presence of traces or fossils of life. Why are we so obsessed with finding life on a wasteland?"

Well, we got that Moon obsession out of our system by 1972, so other than Mars, what should we be looking at?

How about the asteroid fields that may yield enormous amount of rich heavy metals? How about creating better launch capacities or better ways to survive space? The world is still relying on 30 year old designs for space capacity. There are also many ideas for replacing what we have, like the Sea Dragon.

I am only wishfully dreaming here though. Politics always define what NASA and the like does, doing things the way that it would best appease the vote rather then be ideal.

[Coyote]

The things we'll learn by going to Mars and setting up shop will serve us well going to other places that are not rocky airless dustballs.

Mars has gravity, a thin atmosphere, and apparantly we can grow vegetables in the dirt right there so long as we cover them with a greenhouse (I know, more compliacted than that, but it's easier than transporting topsoil or hydroponics). If you want to limit space exploration to Earthlike planets, well, we may as well give up now because even our most powerful telescopes haven't found any-- and if we do find them, they are hundreds of years away from us.

We can colonize Mars easily enough if there are stable caves there-- we just need to pressure-seal the entrance, far easier than building an entire enclosed atmosphere in a vulnerable bubble. Face it, Mars is as easy as it's going to get for us.