Giant Ocean on Mars

reply to post by Helmkat

Science engages in just as much speculation as you do. It then uses evidence to support (or shoot down) that speculation. So far there is no evidence that life was "clearly present" on Mars but there is an ever accumulating body of evidence which increases the likelihood. I find it very interesting.

Methane on Mars:

www.thesun.co.uk...

ALIEN bugs are responsible for strong plumes of methane gas detected on Mars, it was claimed tonight.
Nasa scientists say the gas emissions could have either a geological or biological source - as The Sun exclusively revealed today.

This article (from January 2009) includes a video.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6b5bc8d83e2.jpg[/atsimg]

A bit more about Martian Methane:

www.nasa.gov...

This image shows concentrations of methane on Mars:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4dbd35467c0f.jpg[/atsimg]

Mars today is a world of cold and lonely deserts, apparently without life of any kind, at least on the surface. Worse still, it looks like Mars has been cold and dry for billions of years, with an atmosphere so thin, any liquid water on the surface quickly boils away while the sun's ultraviolet radiation scorches the ground.

But there is evidence of a warmer and wetter past -- features resembling dry riverbeds and minerals that form in the presence of water indicate water once flowed through Martian sands. Since liquid water is required for all known forms of life, scientists wonder if life could have risen on Mars, and if it did, what became of it as the Martian climate changed.

************

Heres something about Meteorite ALH84001 which may have had evidence of ancient alien life:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...


AND HERE'S GOOGLE MARS:

www.google.com...

Yessss!!!!!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c18e8e6a059a.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 24-11-2009 by berenike]

reply to post by berenike

There are some slightly less sensationalistic reports on the finding but there's no doubt that it's intriguing.

BTW, when did Nick Pope become; "Britain's top space expert"?

reply to post by Phage


Honestly, I am just having a little root about to try and find articles that may help people who have raised questions on this thread.

I know The Sun isn't a great source of info, but I don't know what will interest other people. I hope it will be encouraging for those who are new to this, like myself.

Thank you for your input - I'm grateful to have people like you and Arbitrageur on here to explain things more fully.

Here is Nick Pope's web site for anyone wondering who he is:

www.nickpope.net...

[edit on 24-11-2009 by berenike]

Originally posted by mckyle

Originally posted by Ha`la`tha
ahh hehe must be one of those morbid days for me... 8/

You've got to stop listening to that Pink Floyd music. It'll do it to you every time mate

Yes, I often think about the image of Mars and what it might portend for us.

Now you've got me feeling dark!

[edit on 24-11-2009 by mckyle]

Hahha Sorrya mate, Oh gee dont tell me Im getting others down these days !!

lol, last thing I want.. She'll be right. We're here for a while yet I rekon!! )

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I agree, it's why we are doing what we do I hope. We're a long way off yet, but I hope at least by the end of my life we see colonies out there, even if in space stations indent on being the first space faring communities, to equip us with that knowledge.

God, imagine it, it's quite mind boggling.

We're still heading in the right direction I think... I hope.

to me, saying that there was liquid water on Mars at one stage in the planets history is as good as saying there was life there. It implys favourable surface temperatures and/or a denser atmosphere. Whether or not that life was in the form of microscopic organisms or somtething bigger remains to be seen.
I woudnt be surprised to see evidence coming to light in the next 20 years as to previous life on mars and as to why there isnt liquid water there now.

Originally posted by HanoverFat
to me, saying that there was liquid water on Mars at one stage in the planets history is as good as saying there was life there.

It certainly increases the likelihood of life, doesn't it? But I wouldn't go so far to say it's as good as saying there was life there.

One of the factors in the Drake equation (which calculates the probability of alien life based on a number of assumptions expressed as factors) is F(l), which is the fraction of planets capable of supporting life (such as Mars with water), that actually go on to develop life.

Most factors in the Drake equation are unknown but I'd say that's probably one of the biggest unknowns. I don't think we know if the formation of life is an extremely improbable event (like getting dealt three royal flushes in a row, it can happen but it's not very likely), or whether it's a probable event that will eventually happen in places where the conditions are right. Based on the evidence I've seen so far, I think we need to keep an open mind to either possibility, or anywhere between those extremes.

Any discovery of past or present life on Mars will have a big influence on our assessment of those probabilities. On the other hand, if we keep searching for evidence of Martian life and never find any (past or present), that will also have a big influence on our assessment of those probabilities in the opposite way, though a finding of life is likely to be more conclusive than a finding of no life which could be due to just not sampling in the right places, or an inability to detect microscopic ancient lifeforms which left no skeletons or detectable remains, etc.

Here is a Daily Mail article about Meteor ALH84001. I provided a link to an article about it in a previous post, but there's lots of info and pictures here:

www.dailymail.co.uk...


A thread has already been started about this article, but I wanted to post it here too, to provide as much 'Martian' info as I can.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by berenike]

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


In fact since we've found Mars rocks on Earth with possible traces of life, -snip-

And how do they know where a meteorite comes from anyhow...have a little M stamped on it?

The process of how they determine where meteors is almost laughable...funny read really, really eye opening as basically you have to dismiss every possibility at the beginning, decide where you want it to come from, and then make up reasons why (oh..theres less formed crystals, therefore its a earthlike planet in size, and therefore since venus is too atmospheric it has to be mars).

Meteorite determination is hardly a science (especially considering we havent done a ton of soil sample tests on the ground of said planets...)

Compositional tests

The Viking missions were able to gather atmospheric readings. The Martian meteorite had trapped bubbles of gas inside.

The meteorite should also be higher in volatile elements and should have an age close to the age of the Martian crust (roughly 180 million years old).

reply to post by cowboys703

That young? I didn't know there was evidence of tectonic or volcanic activity on Mars that "recently". Can you prove a source(s)?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by cowboys703

 

That young? I didn't know there was evidence of tectonic or volcanic activity on Mars that "recently". Can you prove a source(s)?

I first heard this in class so unless you want a photocopy of my notebook these 2 links will have to suffice for now.


www.nhm.ac.uk...

www.space.com...

Originally posted by berenike
Methane on Mars:

www.thesun.co.uk...

ALIEN bugs are responsible for strong plumes of methane gas detected on Mars, it was claimed tonight.
Nasa scientists say the gas emissions could have either a geological or biological source - as The Sun exclusively revealed today.

This article (from January 2009) includes a video.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6b5bc8d83e2.jpg[/atsimg]

A bit more about Martian Methane:

www.nasa.gov...

This image shows concentrations of methane on Mars:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4dbd35467c0f.jpg[/atsimg]

Mars today is a world of cold and lonely deserts, apparently without life of any kind, at least on the surface. Worse still, it looks like Mars has been cold and dry for billions of years, with an atmosphere so thin, any liquid water on the surface quickly boils away while the sun's ultraviolet radiation scorches the ground.

But there is evidence of a warmer and wetter past -- features resembling dry riverbeds and minerals that form in the presence of water indicate water once flowed through Martian sands. Since liquid water is required for all known forms of life, scientists wonder if life could have risen on Mars, and if it did, what became of it as the Martian climate changed.

************

Heres something about Meteorite ALH84001 which may have had evidence of ancient alien life:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...


AND HERE'S GOOGLE MARS:

www.google.com...

Yessss!!!!!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c18e8e6a059a.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 24-11-2009 by berenike]

I'd put my money on the geological source for methane.

Think serpentinization, a fluid rock interaction that occurs in many places on Earth. This process creates serpentine and hydrogen (H2). Take 2 hydrogens and add some carbon and you have methane. This would account for the sporadic and low levels of methane found on Mars

reply to post by cowboys703

No need for more.

There is a pretty wide range of dates for Mars meteorites with the most recent being the shergottites at 160-180Ma using rubium-strontium (and others). Lead dating for these shows much older dates (4.1 Ga). So it's apparently not a done deal.
Bouvier


In any case even if the minerals are only 160 million years old, I've learned that, like the Moon, it appears large areas of Mars were heavily impacted resulting in recent recrystalization. Tectonics and vulcanism not required. The "new" meteors could have come from those regions.

Thanks, you gave me a lead on a whole new subject (for me).

Originally posted by cowboys703
The meteorite should also be higher in volatile elements and should have an age close to the age of the Martian crust (roughly 180 million years old).

Thanks for the links you provided to support that statement, but this link (one of the two you provided) doesn't really seem to support that statement:

www.space.com...

Using the current understanding of crater density, a maximum of 15 percent of the Martian surface could be as young as 175 million years old, Mittlefehldt said. Even getting that high of a percentage is really stretching the model, he said.

So if we got meteorites from random locations on the Martian surface, maybe 15% of them should be in that 175-180 million years old age range, but for some reason the percentage of meteors we get of that age is far higher, so either the process by which we get them is non-random or something is wrong with some other parts of the science.

But 85% of them should be older than that 175-180 million year old age range according to those estimates, since 85% of the Martian surface is older than that, am I reading that right?

[edit on 27-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Here are some pictures of Mars in Winter:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

I cropped the images a little but thanks to Arbitraguer - they can now be scrolled along.

This is in the Southern Hemisphere:

"The brighter areas picked out by the camera on Mars are being seen as as carbon dioxide or water frost. This is generally concentrated on the east-facing slopes of the dunes, which are shadow and therefore cooler"



"image taken by HiRISE of the Victoria Crater in the Meridiani Planum region of Mars"



"Final preparations on HIRISE. Built under the direction of the University of Arizona it has picked up seasonal changes on the dunes of Mars"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d900d6aa8e73.jpg[/atsimg]


All photos and quotes are taken from the Daily Mail article. And I'm saying nothing about how these pictures look like chocolate puddings to me



[edit on 27-11-2009 by berenike]

This article from 2008 includes some beautiful pictures including a couple of animations of Martian dust devils:

www.boston.com...


I've reproduced one of the images in my next post.


[edit on 27-11-2009 by berenike]

Originally posted by berenike
Here are some pictures of Mars in Winter:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

I've had to crop the images to get them to fit.

Those are stunning photos, thanks!

By the way if you change the tags [atsimg] [/atsimg]

by removing the letters "ats" from each of those tags, then the pictures won't be cropped, they will show up with a scrollbar instead.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by cowboys703
The meteorite should also be higher in volatile elements and should have an age close to the age of the Martian crust (roughly 180 million years old).

Thanks for the links you provided to support that statement, but this link (one of the two you provided) doesn't really seem to support that statement:

www.space.com...

Using the current understanding of crater density, a maximum of 15 percent of the Martian surface could be as young as 175 million years old, Mittlefehldt said. Even getting that high of a percentage is really stretching the model, he said.

So if we got meteorites from random locations on the Martian surface, maybe 15% of them should be in that 175-180 million years old age range, but for some reason the percentage of meteors we get of that age is far higher, so either the process by which we get them is non-random or something is wrong with some other parts of the science.

But 85% of them should be older than that 175-180 million year old age range according to those estimates, since 85% of the Martian surface is older than that, am I reading that right?

[edit on 27-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Mars is one of 2 planets that have been recently geologically active. With the other being Venus. A meteorite coming from Venus is very unlikely due to its very thick atmosphere. This means the only place a 180 Ma meteorite is likely to come from is Mars.

The majority of meteorites in the solar system are leftovers from when the solar system was created so anything younger than the age of the solar system (roughly 4.5 Ga) is probably from a planet.

Basically the age of the meteorite would be just one of several diagnostic tests one would run on a meteorite to determine it's origin. An age of 180 Ma would label it as a likely Martian meteorite, but an age higher than that wouldnt necessarily disqualify it as Martian in origin.

I tried to make that make sense and I hope that did

Here is one of the photos (with description) from boston.com linked to in my previous post.

Many thanks to Arbitrageur



"On May 19th, 2005, NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Spirit captured this stunning view as the Sun sank below the rim of Gusev crater on Mars. This Panoramic Camera mosaic was taken around 6:07 in the evening of the rover's 489th martian day, or sol. Spirit was commanded to stay awake briefly after sending that sol's data to the Mars Odyssey orbiter just before sunset. The image is a false color composite, showing the sky similar to what a human would see, but with the colors slightly exaggerated. (NASA/JPL/Texas A&M/Cornell)"

[edit on 27-11-2009 by berenike]