Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Saru

Is evidence of Mars life below the surface ?

19 posts in this topic

Simple organic molecules could be present just a few inches below the soil on the surface of Mars.

Researchers say that evidence of ancient life on Mars could take the form of simple organic molecules lying just beneath the Red Planet's surface, and that it could be detectable by NASA's newest rover, which is scheduled to touch down on the planet next month.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that Curiosity will answer these questions, but we really need to send a manned mission there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that Curiosity will answer these questions, but we really need to send a manned mission there.

In many ways unmanned missions are better in the search for life.

A robot, such as Curiosity, can be thoroughly decontaminated before launch. Any signs of life it finds are highly likely to be Martian in origin. You can not do the same with a human crew. There is a much higher likelihood of contaminating samples and even the planet itself.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope Curiosity lands safely, it does seem like rather an ambitious way of landing :) anything after that would be great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if curiosity finds life isn't NASA forbidden from admitting such things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if curiosity finds life isn't NASA forbidden from admitting such things?

Why would you think that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read they have guidelines dictating that contact with or evidence of extraterrestrial life is to be kept confidential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea it would cause conflict with the religious people and cause people to panic and think tat aliens were gonna attack them any second

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They already know that their was some form of life on mars, this is just another way in which to calm the masses, why else would they be wanting to go there and put people there to live. They wouldnt do it if it was not viable.

Edited by CRIPTIC CHAMELEON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is definately evidence of Mars (bars) beneath the surface of Junior Chubb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read they have guidelines dictating that contact with or evidence of extraterrestrial life is to be kept confidential.

Where did you read that, and do you think that once evidence of ET was found, it could/would be kept secret?

If it was microbial, as seems likely on Mars, why would the evil PTB have to keep it covered up?

Is every country in on this - if not, wouldn't there be a slight problem in the future when someone else reveals it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is definately evidence of Mars (bars) beneath the surface of Junior Chubb.

Seven day's without Mars Bars will make one weak...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you read that, and do you think that once evidence of ET was found, it could/would be kept secret?

If it was microbial, as seems likely on Mars, why would the evil PTB have to keep it covered up?

Is every country in on this - if not, wouldn't there be a slight problem in the future when someone else reveals it?

More importantly, if NASA is forbidden from announcing the discovery of non-terrestrial life, why was it one of their scientists that announced the possibility of fossils in the ALH 84001 'Martian' meteorite in 1996?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of life are we,humans, looking for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of life are we,humans, looking for?

Anything.

In the case of Mars simple microbial life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many ways unmanned missions are better in the search for life.

A robot, such as Curiosity, can be thoroughly decontaminated before launch. Any signs of life it finds are highly likely to be Martian in origin. You can not do the same with a human crew. There is a much higher likelihood of contaminating samples and even the planet itself.

While human beings would contaminate more, do you know how much more we could search if we were there? It would take 10 unmanned missions to do what a person could in 1 trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would take 10 unmanned missions to do what a person could in 1 trip.

Probably, but we could mount 100 unmanned missions and it would still cost less than one manned mission with virtually no risk to human life involved.

I'm not against manned missions to Mars, I just don't think we are ready for them just yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably, but we could mount 100 unmanned missions and it would still cost less than one manned mission with virtually no risk to human life involved.

I'm not against manned missions to Mars, I just don't think we are ready for them just yet.

I would gladly risk myself to visit another world, as would many others. It's just getting us there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would gladly risk myself to visit another world, as would many others. It's just getting us there.

Me too, within reason.

All risk must be compared to the potential gain. I would question whether we have reached the point of acceptable risk yet. Spending billions on a manned mission only to have the crew suffer radiation sickness before even arriving would likely set manned spaceflight back a long way. There must be a high chance of success. We are still learning how to protect astronauts from the damaging effects of solar flares in deep space. With Apollo mission lengths were short enough that it was deemed an acceptable risk. A trip to Mars will take months instead of days. Instead of solar flares posing a negligible threat, that threat becomes virtually inevitable.

You argue that humans could achieve more on the surface of Mars than robots. That is currently true to a degree. I reiterate my point that many robot missions could be mounted for the price of one crewed mission. Spirit and Opportunity have shown us that robots can remain active on the surface for years, needing no food or water. Humans could not.

Robots are becoming more capable year after year. The MERs were hugely more capable than Sojourner. Curiosity hugely more capable than the MERs. ExoMars will be more capable still. The gap between what can be achieved by robotic missions and crewed is closing rapidly. Moreover, robots are expendable. You can send them to places that you could never risk sending a manned mission.

It is also not necessary to send scientists to Mars to make discoveries. With Apollo the vast majority of the science was done once the samples were returned to Earth. The reason so many mote discoveries have been made with American samples than with the Soviets is not just because Apollo was manned but because Apollo returned far more samples. The Astronauts key roll here was in identifying interesting samples. Robots could not do that 43 year's ago. They can now. Sample return missions, retrieving samples collected by a rover, are already being examined by ESA.

In short I believe that the exploration of the Martian surface could be done cheaper, with less risk and possibly better with unmanned missions.

But I also said I wasn't against manned missions.

Manned missions achieve something that unmanned can not, they inspire humanity, they give us heroes. There are people all around the planet that would not be scientists, engineers, explorers if man had not walked on the moon. A return to the moon and then on to Mars would do the same. THAT is why we need crewed missions. But there has to be the political will. Future exploration must be done fore the right reasons (science and exploration, not for a propaganda victory over the commies). It must have long term backing, not just be cancelled and allowed to become an historical cul-de-sac like Apollo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.