Martian soil can support life

[Repline]

Los Angeles - The Phoenix lander's first taste test of soil near Mars's north pole reveals a briny environment similar to what can be found in backyards on Earth, scientists said on Thursday.

The finding raises hope that the Martian arctic plains could have conditions favourable for primitive life. Phoenix landed a month ago to study the habitability of Mars's northern latitudes.

"There's nothing about it that would preclude life. In fact, it seems very friendly," mission scientist Samuel Kounaves of Tufts University said of the soil. "There's nothing about it that's toxic."

Phoenix so far has not detected organic carbon considered an essential building block of life. Last week, the lander found evidence of ice below the soil. Scientists generally agree that liquid water, a stable energy source and organic, or carbon-containing, compounds are required for a habitable zone.

The latest experiment was designed to test for minerals that do not have carbon in them. Earlier this week, Phoenix's 2.4m-long robotic arm delivered a pinch of dirt to its onboard lab.

Like a chemist, the spacecraft mixed the soil with water brought from Earth into a beaker the size of a teacup and stirred it. Sensors inside the beaker detect the soil's pH and probe for traces of the nutrients.

Preliminary results showed the soil had a pH between eight and nine, researchers said. A pH less than seven means the solution is acidic, while a pH over seven means it is salty. Phoenix also detected the presence of magnesium, sodium, potassium and chloride in the mixture.

"It's typical of the soil here on Earth minus the organics," Kounaves said during a teleconference from Tucson, Arizona.

On Earth, asparagus, green beans and turnips could be planted in such an environment and chemical-loving bacteria would thrive there, he said.

Scientists said another experiment that heated the soil to high temperatures and sniffed the gas found traces of water vapour.

"This soil clearly has interacted with water in the past," said William Boynton of the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The heating experiment, which was designed to look for organics, did not yield conclusive evidence of carbon. Scientists planned to study another soil sample taken from further below the surface.

News24

[MrDeVil_909]

I don't think that they are going to find life, if any was there it is long gone.

This is good news for colonisation though.

[Mic]

Great now we can get more food and feed the growing population... but by the time we reach there we might have already killed half of the population over food wars.

[pArkEr]

I don't think they will find any traces of life, although the ice does suggest that there could have been microscopic life. Still keeping fingers crossed.

[BattleMoose]

If they do find life, is this going to have religious consequences on the belief of creationism?

[Chevron]

If they do find life, is this going to have religious consequences on the belief of creationism?

No. Remember the bible is just a metaphor. I'm sure it'll just get interpreted differently so that it all makes sense. To them at least.

[Chevron]

Double post.

Great now we can get more food and feed the growing population

Transport between earth and mars should be cheap. It could work.

[pArkEr]

Does the Bible say anything about E.T.s?

[Repline]

If they do find life, is this going to have religious consequences on the belief of creationism?

Possibly to certain religeous groups.

@ Chevron

Interesting that you should decide when Battlemoose talks about religeon; to automatically refer to the bible there are other religeons out there as well, you did know that right?

I do not expect it to have a religeous impact of any kind. That is only an opinion.

[Chevron]

Possibly to certain religeous groups.

@ Chevron

Interesting that you should decide when Battlemoose talks about religeon; to automatically refer to the bible there are other religeons out there as well, you did know that right?

Yes, it's just that most people on this forum can relate to the bible which is why I said what I said.

It would be interesting to see the reactions of faiths that take their holy books more literally.

[Q-Man]

Oh boy, let's try and get back on topic before this explodes into some religious thing (as the past 5 posts have already done :P)

If mars becomes colonized, I really think that this will cause far too many problems than its worth (because, clearly, colonization on Earth worked so well). Who gives any nation the permission to 'own' an entire planet? And, hypothetically speaking, if Mars somehow became inhabitable, who could go there? Who couldn't go there? Who would regulate this? And on what basis?

But I digress, that's moving very far ahead. I doubt anyone will be doing the Mars living thing in our lifetime, if ever. In my opinion, I think humanity should just stick to earth, before we go ****ing up a new world. The idea of cancer, is to get rid of it, not to let it spread. Who knows, maybe a comet will come and wipe us all out :)

[Repline]

Oh boy, let's try and get back on topic before this explodes into some religious thing (as the past 5 posts have already done :P)

Agreed.

[MrDeVil_909]

1) colonization on Earth worked so well).
2) Who gives any nation the permission to 'own' an entire planet?
3) And, hypothetically speaking, if Mars somehow became inhabitable, who could go there? Who couldn't go there? Who would regulate this? And on what basis?

1) The problem on Earth is there were people in the places that were 'colonized.' There isn't likely to be any indigenous life at all on Mars, and definitely nothing above the single-celled level.

2) Finders keepers? ;) Actually you are more likely to get some kind of treaty along the lines of the one governing Antarctica, where is doesn't belong to anyone. But anyone who can reach it can establish scientific bases. So we would expect to see the US, EU and China getting there in the next few decades.

3) Colonization will be a slow process with the establishments of scientific bases and research outposts being all that can be done for a long time yet. To worry about who can and can't live there seems a little premature.

[Q-Man]

1) The problem on Earth is there were people in the places that were 'colonized.' There isn't likely to be any indigenous life at all on Mars, and definitely nothing above the single-celled level.

2) Finders keepers? ;) Actually you are more likely to get some kind of treaty along the lines of the one governing Antarctica, where is doesn't belong to anyone. But anyone who can reach it can establish scientific bases. So we would expect to see the US, EU and China getting there in the next few decades.

3) Colonization will be a slow process with the establishments of scientific bases and research outposts being all that can be done for a long time yet. To worry about who can and can't live there seems a little premature.

:P

It's all a bit too premature. Hence the "hypothetical" part of my post. If we're going to be realistic about everything, then sure, all fine and dandy, yay science. But in the hypothetical far reaches of our mind that thinks maybe life and societies will be possible there, the problems highlighted will be present, as with everything involving people, really.

But good points nonetheless.

[BlackMage]

Wouldn't Mars be the property of every nation? like the Moon?

Otherwise, I think we all have read enough science fiction to know how the economics would be, First-wavers, second-wavers, etc.

[CrashHelmut]

I think any talk of colonisation is pretty premature.

Let's take Antarctica as an example:
It's a hell of a lot easier to get to than Mars.
More hospitable than Mars. You can actually breathe the air.
And I'm pretty sure they've found ice there.

Yet, there are only max 4000 non-permanent residents (in summer).

So I think Q-Man had it right when he said:

I doubt anyone will be doing the Mars living thing in our lifetime, if ever.