 |
| (CNN) "Sheepbed" such as this on the surface of Mars has veins of deposited sediments that suggest the former presence of water. |
Last week, NASA definitively stated that Mars could have once been the home of microbial life. This assessment was made after Curiosity drilled into a rock and identified sulfur, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and carbon. All of these elements are considered the fundamental ingredients for life as we know it. Additionally, this sample was composed of more than 20% smectite, a clay formed in the presence of water.
Today, the Curiosity rover has discovered even more substantial evidence of liquid water formerly existing on Mars. Melissa Rice of CalTech stated, "With Mastcam, we see elevated hydration signals in the narrow veins that cut many of the rocks in this area.These bright veins contain hydrated minerals that are different from the clay minerals in the surrounding rock matrix."
The Curiosity rover is currently located in Yellowknife bay, 7 months into its 2-year journey that cost $2.5 billion.The rover has been experiencing technical setbacks lately. A software error involving file formatting was enough to put the rover out of commission for this past weekend. The error re-occurred today, and may impede most of the rover's operations this week.
What's your reaction to possibility (and increasing likelihood) of both water and microbial life on Mars? Would you expect a public major reaction if NASA was indeed able to definitely prove the existence of either o these on Mars? Also, feel free to comment on the $2.5 billion price tag that this exploration has entailed.
In short: NASA finds evidence of water and states that Mars may have once been an ideal location for microbial life forms. Thoughts?
5 comments:
Not to be entirely cynical, but I feel like I've seen the headline same headline involving some sort of new evidence of water on Mars far too many times. I agree: it's exciting that there's the possibility of life on Mars. However, rather than spend $2.5 billion dollars on a Mars mission that may or may not turn up results, maybe we should be spending that money on more pressing issues. *IF* we somehow manage to find something on Mars, will it have a direct impact on the problems we have back on Earth? I'd say probably not.
Agreeing with Garrett, this has been said a few too many times for it to seem like a big break through. Furthermore, I don't understand what exactly the government or even the world would plan to do with such life if it were brought back to Earth. Should life be found, it could very possibly be a dangerous invasive species that harms life on the planet where there actually IS life. I have never truly understood the need to find life forms outside of Earth and what exactly scientists would be doing with this knowledge. As great as this news must be, I don't think it hold much weight in practical applications.
Responding to Smita’s post, I don’t know if the potential life forms would be invasive or harmful, but I see where you’re going. Instead of reiterating the outdated idea that there may have been water on Mars, or underplaying the “discovery” once more, I think we, and NASA should focus on moving past life simply existing elsewhere, and beginning to try to figure out what kind of life we’re dealing with – that seems like it would interest the American public, and possibly help justify (though not a lot) the aforementioned $2.5 billion price tag of the trip. It seems the mission was able to uncover traces of common elements known here on Earth – I would be interested to see if, by looking at such elements and the organisms associated with environments containing such elements, NASA would be able to make connections between life on Earth and life on Mars. It seems like NASA is starting to make deductions that would provide more insight and information about such organisms beyond the mere stating of their being. Sadly, however, until an actual creature, recognizable or unknown, is miraculously unearthed, I feel that everyday people will continue to overlook microbes.
I think that Garrett, Smita, and Keaton all bring up an undeniable reality - that there simply isn't much practical use from the knowledge of microbes or the possibility/existence of life on mars. And while I don't deny this, I also think that this is one of those science discoveries that is just really really cool. It may not have much practical use to us, but definitively discovering life on another planet is a science milestone, and so I support NASA and their quest to find microbes and ultimately life on another planet. On a similar note, I would also support NASA sending a man to Mars because it is another huge science milestone, but that is a whole different story!
I agree that while it is probably not to pertenant to Earth's problems it is an interesting and amazing scientific discovery. I think that the discovery of potential for microbes is amazing but the reality is that the average person doesn't understand what that means. People don't understand what the effect on us will be, if there is an effect at all. The mars mission is a lot of money that could be allocated differently, but in reality there is a lot of money that is funneled into other programs that are equally, if not more unbeneficial.
Post a Comment