Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    26 May '08 08:26 / 1 edit
    Nasa was on pins and needles till the images started coming back, the landing went flawlessly, a week from now, after systems checks, they will dig into the hopefully icy soil and put the dirt in an analyzer to search for organics. Here is the link with the latest pictures:
    http://fawkes4.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=0&cID=7
  2. 26 May '08 11:36
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Nasa was on pins and needles till the images started coming back, the landing went flawlessly, a week from now, after systems checks, they will dig into the hopefully icy soil and put the dirt in an analyzer to search for organics. Here is the link with the latest pictures:
    http://fawkes4.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=0&cID=7
    Well done NASA !!!

    (20 years from now, some nutheads will deny that this event happend at all...)
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    26 May '08 12:10
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Well done NASA !!!

    (20 years from now, some nutheads will deny that this event happend at all...)
    Probably right now! This is part two of what should have happened in 1999, that one went missing just as it was landing.
    The design team went back to the drawing board, literally, and found dozens of design flaws, any one of which was fatal. So with almost ten years worth of redesign, they got it right this time. I hope that means that this latest technology can be extended and refined even further for later flights leading to manned missions. The little rovers are at the mass limit to land stuff with the big air bags like they did, they just bounced on the surface for a few km after touching down and that technique worked fine for that mass but the new phoenix is just too massive for that technique. From now on, it will have to be done with landing rockets unless they can figure out some kind of shuttle type airframe, but that kind of mass is WAY beyond our current lifter technology. So time will tell. In the meantime the boys at NASA are having fun, this probe is designed for only three months life, it can't survive a martian winter, so we are all pulling for them to come up with some definitive answers as to whether there is life, past or present on mars. If they find actual living microbes, here is my prediction: Panspermia will show life to have evolved almost identically on both planets, with life first evolving either on mars or earth, and then impacters carrying microbes surviving the journey through space and surviving atmospheric entry to start or extend life on the other planet, whichever it turns out to be. So I think if there is active life found on mars it will be DNA based just like earth.
    News at 11
  4. 26 May '08 12:35
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    If they find actual living microbes, here is my prediction: Panspermia will show life to have evolved almost identically on both planets, with life first evolving either on mars or earth, and then impacters carrying microbes surviving the journey through space and surviving atmospheric entry to start or extend life on the other planet, whichever it turns ou ...[text shortened]... think if there is active life found on mars it will be DNA based just like earth.
    News at 11
    My prediction is:
    They don't find life at all.
    And if they do, it is not living.
    And if it is, it is not DNA-based.
    Well, any found life isn't DNA based.

    I simply don't believe in panspermia theory.

    But still - It would be very exiting if they found life!
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    26 May '08 12:39
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    My prediction is:
    They don't find life at all.
    And if they do, it is not living.
    And if it is, it is not DNA-based.
    Well, any found life isn't DNA based.

    I simply don't believe in panspermia theory.

    But still - It would be very exiting if they found life!
    Why don't you believe in panspermia? It has already been proven microbes can survive a trip through a meteor and survive re-entry into the second planet. It doesn't seem like such a big stretch to see that happening many times in the multi-billion year history of earth and mars, it's a two way street, earth junk has certainly hit mars and vice versa, we know for a fact mars junk has landed on earth. So out of all that muliple tonnage of space junk going between the two it is not out of the realm of the impossible for an exchange of fluids so to speak
  6. 26 May '08 13:25
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Why don't you believe in panspermia? It has already been proven microbes can survive a trip through a meteor and survive re-entry into the second planet. It doesn't seem like such a big stretch to see that happening many times in the multi-billion year history of earth and mars, it's a two way street, earth junk has certainly hit mars and vice versa, we kno ...[text shortened]... the two it is not out of the realm of the impossible for an exchange of fluids so to speak
    This Mars landing is a FAKE!!!!!
  7. 26 May '08 13:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Why don't you believe in panspermia? It has already been proven microbes can survive a trip through a meteor and survive re-entry into the second planet. It doesn't seem like such a big stretch to see that happening many times in the multi-billion year history of earth and mars, it's a two way street, earth junk has certainly hit mars and vice versa, we kno ...[text shortened]... the two it is not out of the realm of the impossible for an exchange of fluids so to speak
    "It has already been proven microbes can survive a trip through a meteor and survive re-entry into the second planet."

    You don't mean the martian rock found at Antartica? That was a very controversial proof, most of the scientists don't believe in it.

    And panspermia, I think that it is much more believable that Eartly life has evolved on Earth.
    But, if they found life, dead or alive, on the surface of Mars, and it turns out to be of DNA type, then I might reconsider. But until then... no.
  8. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    26 May '08 13:41
    Originally posted by znsho
    This Mars landing is a FAKE!!!!!
    The Rovers are ok but the Phoenix is fake. Hmm.
  9. 26 May '08 13:55
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The Rovers are ok but the Phoenix is fake. Hmm.
    On a mores erious note, if signs of microbial life are found in the near future, I just wonder how long it will be before the findings are released to the general public.
  10. 26 May '08 14:14
    Originally posted by znsho
    On a mores erious note, if signs of microbial life are found in the near future, I just wonder how long it will be before the findings are released to the general public.
    I think the finding life on Mars soil is so big news that they would release it right away!
    They did it when they found the martian rock on the Antarctic ice. They thought they found fossilized martian bacteria, but they now hold it for being not so true anymore.

    When they are sure (to some dgree) that they found life, then the headlines in media will grow.
  11. 26 May '08 14:16
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I think the finding life on Mars soil is so big news that they would release it right away!
    They did it when they found the martian rock on the Antarctic ice. They thought they found fossilized martian bacteria, but they now hold it for being not so true anymore.

    When they are sure (to some dgree) that they found life, then the headlines in media will grow.
    What would the religious implications be?
  12. 26 May '08 14:25
    Originally posted by znsho
    What would the religious implications be?
    Enormous! The Genisis is no longer correct!
  13. 26 May '08 14:28
    Originally posted by znsho
    What would the religious implications be?
    If it was nearly identical to life on earth then very little. Panspermia would be a likely explanation and all but Young Earth Creationists would be more or less comfortable with it.
    In fact I doubt that anyone except Young Earth Creationists would have a major problem with even a radically different type of life.
    Young Earth Creationists of course would have no problem either blaming it on the devil, denying the findings etc. After all the results will not be a photo of a little green man but some numbers on a science experiment not that different from the various dating techniques that creationists criticize so much.
    I believe that the lander will vaporise soil samples and analyze the spectra of the results.
  14. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    26 May '08 15:21 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Enormous! The Genisis is no longer correct!
    But we knew that already I don't think it would make much of a wave in religious circles, they have infinite ability to rationalize everything away so their core dogma is undisturbed.
    BTW, about the Spampermia, er Panspermia, whatever, the proof I am talking about is lab work done SIMULATING the conditions of space, rocks with microbes inside subjected to high vacuum, heat stress equal to re-entry and so forth. Not to any major microbe discovery, that is for the future to find. It's just that theoretically it has been shown they COULD survive such a trip, even if they were in space for a million years. The little buggers go into hibernation for extremely long periods of time only to be resucscitated on contact with good old H2O.
  15. 27 May '08 09:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    But we knew that already I don't think it would make much of a wave in religious circles, they have infinite ability to rationalize everything away so their core dogma is undisturbed.
    BTW, about the Spampermia, er Panspermia, whatever, the proof I am talking about is lab work done SIMULATING the conditions of space, rocks with microbes inside subjecte tion for extremely long periods of time only to be resucscitated on contact with good old H2O.
    Yes, but a small minority, small but loud, think that Genisis is correct, and they claim that their faith is a stronger proof than scientific observations. Well, they will have some problems to redifine their faith. Or not. Whatever...

    I know too that certain microbes can suvive vacuum, low temp, and radiation. But this doesn't prove that panspermia theory is true. It doesn't disprove it either.

    If we look at the pansperiman theory, the life on Earth can be of Martian origin, or the Martian life (if they find any) is of Earthly origin. Or, the origin of life can be werever in the Galaxy. Well, I tend to think it is most probable that the Earthly life has its origin on Earth. What do you think? Are we Martian decendants, do you think?