May 27, 2008 8:52 AM
Will the Phoenix find life on Mars? And is it worth the cost?
Martin warlords during ill-fated 1996 attack on Earth.
Mars' polar region, taken by NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander
The Phoenix Mars Lander will soon be digging into Martin soil, trying to discover whether the planet could ever have supported life.Since landing on Mars on Sunday, Phoenix has delighted scientists with the first-ever peek of the planet's unexplored northern latitudes. The terrain where Phoenix set its three legs is relatively flat with polygon-shaped patterns in the ground likely caused by the expansion and contraction of underground ice.
Phoenix is on a three-month mission to excavate the soil using its 8-foot-long robotic arm to reach the ice believed to be buried inches to a foot deep.
The lander will study whether the landing site could have supported primitive life. Among the things it will look for is whether the ice melted in Mars' history and whether the soil samples contain traces of organic compounds, one of the building blocks of life.
If some kind of life is discovered, will it have any effect on the way you think about the universe? Is the mission's $427 million price tag a wise expenditure? What should be our focus on space exploration?
May 27, 2008
9:59 AM
Peter Gabriel writes:
I'm digging in the dirt
Stay with me I need support
I'm digging in the dirt
To find the places I got hurt
To open up the places I got hurt
May 27, 2008
10:07 AM
Surprise, not Shaggy writes:
Look at that beautiful Wyoming terrain. Just build a fence and post keep out, no jobs mon and the Mexicans will find a way for new life. Mars anchor babies ready to bankrupt any galaxie social system.
May 27, 2008
10:48 AM
DR writes:
Hidden beneath the first glance of the list of questions posed for this thread is whether or not one's theological views might be altered if "life" is discovered elsewhere - so I thought I would take a shot at addressing that.
Despite very deep theological leanings, my views would not be negatively impacted by such a discovery on Mars or anywhere else. I had to accept many years ago that there simply isn't any way for me to be 100% certain about my views, and neither does that certainty exist for anyone else of any religious/theological perspective.
Because "faith" is required to hold any theological view (or none at all), I can't see where there is anything at all to fear with exploring our universe through the sciences. A Creator, if any, would expect nothing less. Some people believe that creation is entirely chance, and others believe a Creator made it, but neither position can be proven beyond doubt. This is why the freedom of individual choice is so critical - everyone must decide for themselves.
May 27, 2008
10:51 AM
Love & Darkness & my Sidearm writes:
The mathematical chance of finding Intelligent Life on Mars is only "slighty" higher than the mathematical chance of finding Intelligent Life in the group of Rush Limbaugh's regular listeners.
May 27, 2008
12:15 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
CO2 AND TEMPERATURE???
Envirophobes and Warmists: With the Mars lander now in an atmosphere that is 95% CO2 (more than 100 times the CO2 level here on earth where it is way under 1%)) and with the temperature frozen solid at 100 below zero on Mars, explain why the temp. on Mars isn't a blazing 1,00 degrees? You warmists built you failing GW case on CO2 levels--explain that, connect the dots.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...the Earth is closer to the sun. No shit. That makes the SUN--and not CO2-- the dominant influence on temperature.
Explain your crumbling CO2 case--the wheels are flying off. The fact is that there is NO connection between CO2 and temperature.
May 27, 2008
1:04 PM
W thinks Alqueda is training on Mars writes:
Is it worth the cost? no way
What are we doing there?
probably looking for WMDS or trying to spread democracy.
May 27, 2008
1:24 PM
Duck Dodgers writes:
Hahaha, Sasquatch. CO2 DOES act as a greenhouse gas on Mars, also. Relative to earth, however, Mars' atmosphere is incredibly thin, it's gravity is lower, and it's farther away from the sun, as you point out. Given the orbital distance we've maintained for millenia here on earth, scientists now know that:
1. There is an extremely high correlation between CO2 levels found in ice cores and high temperatures during that time period
2. The "greenhouse effect" that CO2 helps to cause (along with methane) can result in drastic climate change, effects of which can ironically include a period of tremendous temperature DROPS in some areas of the world, due to the drawn-out effect of, for example, ocean salinity that alters the speed and direction of the Gulf Stream.
3. Although according to the cosmological placement of our solar system with respect to other celestial bodies we should be entering a global cooling phase, in fact the opposite is true. Therefore something atmospheric has to be causing this.
If you even make the most basic stab at understanding science, Sasquatch, you might understand how ignorant your claims appear.
May 27, 2008
1:48 PM
fiesty writes:
Instead of looking at Mars, I would rather they looked [again] at its moon Phobos. In case anyone doesn't know, there have been some mysteries about it:
1. Joseph Shklovskii, noted member of the Soviet Academy of Science, and co-writer Dr Carl Sagan of 'Intelligent Life in the Universe', once calculated from the estimated density of the Martian atmosphere and the peculiar "acceleration" of Phobos, that the satellite must be hollow.
2. In 1988, the Russians launched two unmanned satellite probes (Phobos 1 and 2) towards Mars with the intention of investigating it's moon, Phobos. However, both were inexplicably "lost" a few short months later, but not until some astonishing footage had been received- clear evidence of unnatural formations and sighting of a possible space ship moments before contact was lost. The footage was covered comprehensively on both Russian and US news.
3. A few years later in 1992, NASA launched the "Mars Observer" with the intention of a two-year mapping survey of Mars. Yet within 3 days of its arrival, it too was "lost"...
Now, I'm not some UFO nut, but these are some disturbing images and facts. I'd like to have another probe sent to Phobos and find out what's going on.
May 27, 2008
1:56 PM
Anne Coulter writes:
If they can put a Man on the Moon, why can't I get a Man on ME?
May 27, 2008
2:00 PM
Anonymous writes:
.
May 27, 2008
2:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
Anne, just give Rosie a call.
May 27, 2008
2:13 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
1. There is an extremely high correlation between CO2 levels found in ice cores and high temperatures during that time period. CORRELATION OR CAUSE AND EFFECT & WHEN? AND JUST WHERE DID THAT CO2 COME FROM A FEW THOUSAND YEARS AGO?
2. The "greenhouse effect" that CO2 helps to cause (along with methane) can result in drastic climate change, effects of which can ironically include a period of tremendous temperature DROPS in some areas of the world, due to the drawn-out effect of, for example, ocean salinity that alters the speed and direction of the Gulf Stream. "CAN RESULT"--BUT MAYBE NOT...DATA? AND YES, THE IRONIC HEATING CAUSES THE IRONIC COOLING. EXCUSE ME WHILE I RELIEVE MYSELF.
3. Although according to the cosmological placement of our solar system with respect to other celestial bodies we should be entering a global cooling phase, in fact the opposite is true. Therefore something atmospheric has to be causing this. TEMPS PEAKED OUT 10 YEARS AGO, LOOKS LIKE A COLLING TREND IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED, COSMOLOGY NOT WITHSTANDING. THAT ATMOSPHERIC SOMETHING MIGHT BE THE SUN.
YOU QUACK NOTING BUT NONSENSE AND WEAK OPINION...Its time to put that Pouular Science Magazine down and do some serious reserach. Try considering that big fussion condition--that big red ball in the sky--that emmits varying/changing levels of energy. Otherwise your Dr. Irwin Corey, the "World's Leading Authority," nitwittery was most amusing.
May 27, 2008
3:51 PM
Anonymous writes:
Advice for Anne Coulter
Call Larry Craig
hes the Man expert
May 27, 2008
3:57 PM
Holier Than Thou writes:
Even for you, that's awful desperate stuff, SASQUATCH. I already know that you are incapable of assimilating new information, so this is for the cheap seats.
Atmospheric pressure on Mars is less than 1/100th that of Earth at the surface. Although it is composed mostly of CO2, it is too thin to cause a greenhouse effect like you see on Venus or Earth.
I'm sure if there were Venusians alive today they'd be wondering what about the fuss over greenhouse gas on Earth. After all, the surface pressure on Venus is about 95 Earth atmospheres, which is approximately equal to the water pressure 1-kilometer below the surface of the ocean. Because of the density combined with the runaway greenhouse effect, the surface temperature of Venus is over 800F, hot enough to melt lead.
Try keeping the solder joints of the the circuitry in your spacecraft together in that. The Russians did for a few seconds. So, we're using some of their data.
Venus is the hottest planet in our solar system. So, they'd find our annoyance with greenhouse gases amusing if there were any Venusians alive to laugh about it.
But global warming is no laughing matter if you don't want to see coastal regions flooded and farmlands parched by unprecedented drought. Earth's atmosphere is thick enough that small changes in CO2 cause large changes in climate. So, screwing with it is not recommended.
May 27, 2008
3:58 PM
Anonymous writes:
fiesty .... http://youtube.com/watch?v=L_x68J3tZjY&feature=related
I'm not sure there is much to be gained by going to a moon where odd things were seen in 1989 ... but in going to Mars, setting up a base from which to work into the future ... I think that if we would have found aliens on Phobos, we'll find them on Mars just as well
May 27, 2008
4:52 PM
Colorado Dave writes:
I hesitate to delve into the RMN Fact Free Discussion Boards.....
News reporters do an abysmal job reporting science and an even worse job reporting space science. After a 5 second Google search one can look at Phoenix pages at the NASA, JPL and University of Arizona websites that describe the science objectives of this mission.
This mission is not designed to find life.
Here let me repeat that.
It is highly unlikely for Phoenix to find life on Mars because Phoenix IS NOT designed to find life. It does NOT carry experiments designed to find life.
Phoenix is designed to determine if Mars was once habitable and if there are polar areas that are still habitable. It cannot determine whether there currently is habitation.
The following is from: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/mission/objectives.html
Objectives
Objective 1: Study the History of Water in All its Phases
Objective 2: Search for Evidence of Habitable Zone and Assess the Biological Potential of the Ice-Soil Boundary
If any RMN reporter is actually interested in reporting all of this information it can be found free of charge from NASA.gov and jpl.nasa.gov.
Here is a brief description of the two relevant instruments:
Thermal and Evolved Gas
Analyzer (TEGA)
TEGA is a combination high-temperature oven and mass spectrometer instrument that scientists will use to analyze martian ice and soil samples. Small amounts of soil and ice will be delivered into eight tiny ovens. The oven temperature will increase and the power will be monitored. The gases that are boiled out of the sample will be piped to a mass spectrometer for chemical analysis. This process will give important information about the chemical character of the soil and ice.
Microscopy, Electrochemistry,
and Conductivity Analyzer (MECA)
MECA is a combination of several scientific instruments including a wet chemistry laboratory, optical and atomic force microscopes, and a thermal and electrical conductivity probe. By mixing small amounts of soil in water, MECA determines important chemical properties like acidity, saltiness, and composition. Looking through a microscope, MECA examines the soil grains to help determine their origin and mineralogy. Needles stuck into the soil determine the water and ice content.
May 27, 2008
8:00 PM
Captain America writes:
Is the exploration of space worth the cost? Of course it is. Exploration has always been worth the cost.
Now, if you ask me whether or not this was the best time to explore Mars, I might have a whole other answer for you. Exploring other planets when we're in the middle of a war here on this one doesn't seem to make much sense to me. If the nation's bleeding cash already, I'd rather not open up another vein.
As interested as I might be in what this mission finds, I'd have rather seen that money put to alternate energy sources or other projects that affect the American public more directly.
May 27, 2008
9:12 PM
Colo Dave writes:
A lot of people complain about the cost of NASA and the justification of spending $427 million to land a robot on mars.
Let's put NASA's budget into perspective.
(The numbers below are 3 years old. NASA's 2009 request is $17.6 Billion.)
NASA's 2005 budget was $16.2 billion 2005.
The total US Budget for 2005 was $2.4 Trillion.
NASA received 0.675% of the federal budget in 2005.
The Federal Highway Administration's 2005 Budget was $33.9 Billion.
The Federal Highway Administration Received 1.412% of the 2005 Federal Budget.
NASA received 48% of the funding the Federal Highway Administration received or in real dollars we spent 17.7 Billion more on highways than on space exploration. The Alaska bridge to nowhere would represent 1.23% of NASA's budget.
Lets leave the realm of government and go to the world of business, Royal Dutch Shell's investment budget for 2006 is $19 Billion dollars.
There are 6.5 billion people on Earth. Half of them live in poverty. Not one person goes hungry because we went to the moon or sent a robot to Mars.
The benefits extend beyond Teflon and GPS (GPS kinda requires a space program)
Did you know that one of the impediments to long term space travel (like to Mars) is that being in Space attacks the human immune system. One of the physiological research aims at ISS is to understand more about the human immune system and the ways it is attacked and the ways it can be enhanced. Does that sound like something worth studying?
Learning about the universe whether by studying, stem cells, Amazonian rain patterns or Saturn's moons produces value in ways both measurable and unmeasurable.
Because of the way the planets move about the sun there is a low-cost launch window every 2 years. Phoenix was launched in August of 2007. The Reconnaissance Orbiter was launched in 2005. The Rovers in 2003. The Mars Science Laboratory in 2001 or 2011. See a pattern?
Compared to all of the things we spend money on the amount spent on space exploration is paltry.
May 28, 2008
8:35 AM
sasquatch writes:
WHAT IF PHOENIX FINDS OIL?
Will the libdems and eco-hysterical envirophobes put Martain oil "out of bounds" too?
May 28, 2008
10:08 AM
DR writes:
Sas -
Now, that's funny. If they found oil, it would mean there had been vegetation on Mars, but at about $1B per truckload to bring it back, that would be one expensive fill up. Bet it would be high grade stuff though :)
May 29, 2008
4:02 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Somebody needs to castrate our Federal government writes:
NASA should be funded by those who think that going to Mars is a good idea.