NASA Admits Habitable Mars?

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown

In order for us to prove that Mars was habitable, we need to find traces of actual past life.

Why?

Just because a planet was or is habitable doesn't mean that it is/was habitated (sp).....I'll bet that there are a multitude of planets out there that could support life........but don't.

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by wildespace

 

I think we have the latest results from Curiosity to thank for that. Data from Curiosity shows signs of a habitable environment: neutral liquid water and a plethora of organics and other compounds.

In order for us to prove that Mars was habitable, we need to find traces of actual past life.
What we learned with Curiosity is that Mars had all the necessary ingredients for life to existed, but we didn't find actual traces of past life there.

edit on 16-2-2014 by zilebeliveunknown because: (no reason given)

Just taking a coffee break (I don't drink coffee) from the Martian anomalies thread, where past life on Mars is a daily reality (rocks, who's on first, yeah, just rocks), with traces showing up every fifth post or so. But aside from that imaginary interlude, the announcements about the past water of Gale Lake being just fine for anything that was there to give rise to the next generations of things that were there at least went a long way to accomplish much of Curiosity's mission statement.

reply to post by Argyll

I quoted Wiki on the definition of the term Habitat, from which adjective Habitable is derived

A habitat is an ecological or environmental area that is inhabited by a particular species of animal, plant, or other type of organism. It is the natural environment in which an organism lives, or the physical environment that surrounds a species population.
Wiki

So, when I say habitable I mean life included.

Just because a planet was or is habitable doesn't mean that it is/was habitated (sp)

IMO if planet was/is habitable it was/is life there.

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by schuyler

 

The only real question in this thread is why you insist on interpreting a clear mission statement to determine whether Mars EVER WAS habitable into the idea that it IS habitable.

I just realized my mistake there, it should've read that they're saying with certainty that Mars WAS habitable.
I'll try to edit that part.

But they are not saying that. They are saying that a mission objective is to DETERMINE if Mars EVER WAS habitable. That is NOT saying that it "WAS HABITABLE." To wit:

1. Determine the habitability of an ancient environment.

i.e.: DETERMINE IF the ancient environment WAS HABITABLE

2. For ancient environments interpreted to have been habitable, search for materials with high biosignature preservation potential.

i.e.: IF THEY DETERMINE THAT THE ANCIENT ENVIRONMENT WAS HABITABLE, THEN (and only then) search some more to see if they can find evidence.

This ENTIRE THREAD is based on YOUR MISINTERPRETATION of the mission objectives.

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown

So, when I say habitable I mean life included.

Just because you define it that way doesn't mean NASA or other scientists mean it that way. You have quoted the definition of a "habitat", but the key word here is "habitable", not habitat. To say a planet is habitable means that it is capable of supporting some type of life, but doesn't necessarily mean it does or did support life even though it's capable of it.

Furthermore, the general consensus among scientists has for a very long time been that Mars was once very much like Earth, in that it had running water systems and an atmosphere supported by a strong magnetic field which was generated by a rotating iron core like the Earth. The theory is that the dynamo action of the iron core was possibly disrupted by large asteroid collisions or that it solidified on its own due to natural cooling because it's further away from the Sun than the Earth. Once the magnetic field was gone energy from the sun slowly stripped away the atmosphere.

Personally I believe that Mars probably did have life on it at one point, but it was a very long time ago. It might even be the case that life from Mars was seeded onto the Earth before it became a barren waste land. Mars is very close to Earth so it's not very hard to imagine that organic material was able to pass between the planets via stray debris, especially if both of the planets had very similar living conditions at one point.

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown

IMO if planet was/is habitable it was/is life there.

Hmm...that sentence doesn't make a lot of sense.....but if I'm reading it right you are claiming that if a planet is capable of supporting life....then there must be life there....is that what you are saying?

reply to post by schuyler

The Mars 2020 rover mission will explore the geology of a once habitable site

Why they included the phrase "a once habitable site" if they don't know if it was habitable, only knowing it could've been habitable?
That phrase imply with certainty that Mars was habitable place.

Argyll
reply to post by zilebeliveunknown

 

IMO if planet was/is habitable it was/is life there.

Hmm...that sentence doesn't make a lot of sense.....but if I'm reading it right you are claiming that if a planet is capable of supporting life....then there must be life there....is that what you are saying?

No.
It not necessarily means that if planet could support life that there must be life, but if a planet once was or is habitable there needs to be life.
You don't expect a planet to be habitable with rocks.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Just because you define it that way doesn't mean NASA or other scientists mean it that way.

I didn't define anything, it's the simple definition of the term habitability.
In order for some area to be habitable it needs to be habitable with life and only life.

To say a planet is habitable means that it is capable of supporting some type of life, but doesn't necessarily mean it does or did support life even though it's capable of it.

Nope, the correct term in this case ^^^would be potentionally habitable, but when a planet is habitable it means there is area with life which occupies it.

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown

zilebeliveunknown
I didn't define anything, it's the simple definition of the term habitability.
In order for some area to be habitable it needs to be habitable with life and only life.

Why oh why do I even bother... you quoted the definition of "HABITAT" from a Wikipedia, not "HABITABILITY". To say an area is HABITABLE means it is capable of supporting life. THAT'S IT. It's the ability to support life. Just because something is capable of something doesn't imply that it MUST do that thing. How clear must we make it. My pond is capable of having fish in it but that doesn't mean it has fish in it. This is simple logic. You are wrong. Deal with it and stop sounding like an idiot.

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by opethPA

 

Thanks for grammar lesson mate.

Except they didn't say it is currently habitable but rather it was in the past.

You're missing the point.
Yes, they didn't say it's currenty habitable, we can agree on that.
The point: They've never before stated in any context that Mars was habitable.

Sure, but is that really an "admission", or is it something they have come to discover through the findings of the Curiosity rover.

Like 'wildspace' said in one of his posts above, the word "admit" is oddly used. Your thread title sounds as if they knew this information all along (for years?), but are now just telling the rest of us peons. I mean, discoveries happen, and scientific understandings change. I'm just not sure that every new discovery that changes scientific understanding results in science "admitting" this scientific understanding.

zilebeliveunknown

Argyll
reply to post by zilebeliveunknown

 

IMO if planet was/is habitable it was/is life there.

Hmm...that sentence doesn't make a lot of sense.....but if I'm reading it right you are claiming that if a planet is capable of supporting life....then there must be life there....is that what you are saying?

No.
It not necessarily means that if planet could support life that there must be life, but if a planet once was or is habitable there needs to be life.
You don't expect a planet to be habitable with rocks.

It sounds as if you are saying that life cannot survive it thereare only rocks around (e.g., what would it eat?). However, that is not true. If it were true, then how did the first life come to be on Earth if the only things around before that life (using you definition of habitability) is "just rocks"?

Using your definition, was Earth "not habitable" one day before the first life on earth came into existence?

And as 'chaotic order' pointed out in the post above me, habitability does not equal life. Science has discovered that Mars was most likely once habitable for life as we know it (i.e., it contained liquid water and organic compounds that may have allowed life to spawn), but science has yet to discover that Mars once had life. That's two different things.

Double post

Don't forget that a lot of nasa employees WANT to believe, too. why else would they make it a career.

I don't get why it's always a cover up if someone from nasa is excited. Searching for things would be rather tedious if they had no curiosity... ?!

schuyler

zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by schuyler

 

The only real question in this thread is why you insist on interpreting a clear mission statement to determine whether Mars EVER WAS habitable into the idea that it IS habitable.

I just realized my mistake there, it should've read that they're saying with certainty that Mars WAS habitable.
I'll try to edit that part.

But they are not saying that. They are saying that a mission objective is to DETERMINE if Mars EVER WAS habitable. That is NOT saying that it "WAS HABITABLE." To wit:

1. Determine the habitability of an ancient environment.

i.e.: DETERMINE IF the ancient environment WAS HABITABLE

2. For ancient environments interpreted to have been habitable, search for materials with high biosignature preservation potential.

i.e.: IF THEY DETERMINE THAT THE ANCIENT ENVIRONMENT WAS HABITABLE, THEN (and only then) search some more to see if they can find evidence.

This ENTIRE THREAD is based on YOUR MISINTERPRETATION of the mission objectives.

edit on 2/16/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

NOTHING AT ALL, schuyler. USE your brain...

So, Nasa planning a new multi billionaire mission to "try" to investigate IF, Mars was abitable?
The big IF mean 5 years of technological research and developments of ultra sophisticated devices and rough ONE BILLION of dollars...

WHAT IF they find... NOTHING?

NAAH! They already KNOW what lies on MARS...

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown


I don't think you understand the difference between "habitable" and "inhabited". Let's look up definitions for "habitable": www.thefreedictionary.com...
"Suitable to live in or on," "able to be lived in," "capable of being inhabited."

Habitable environment is one that can support life, not necessarily one that is inhabited. Venus, in the past, may also have been habitable, but might not have ever been inhabited. Mars, as we learned, has most certainly been habitable in the past, but until we find evidence of past life we cannot tell that it was inhabited.

reply to post by Arken


exactly.

There is plenty of evidence of Mars recently (my own call) being inhabited.

Actually...I'm pretty certain it is still.

But let's leave that for the official confirmation...

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown


By life they mean micro biologic. Viruses and bacteria. Not laser aiming intelligent life forms. That will be the real disclosure or the beginnings of it. There is no eminent danger from micro biologic lifeforms other than infection but it will be easier for earthlings to accept these little bitty lifeforms then to accept intelligent lifeforms. Then maybe divulge a planet with a little bit bigger lifeforms such as animals and insects. Then while the people of earth still praise their respective gods for the miracle of life that is everywhere the news will slip in of more intelligent lifeforms here and there and if we discover a society that is primitive to our own we will be ok with that as it still keeps us at the top of the food chain. The threat and fear come into play only if the lifeforms we encounter are more advanced than us. That brings up the instinctive behaviour of flight or fight. Next thing we're pulling out the big guns.

reply to post by gardener


Someone has watched Total Recall a few too many times.

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown




Stop . Habitable means can support life. It doesn't mean life must exist only that it could. An apartment is habitable but that doesn't necessarily mean anyone lives there. An empty apartment is habitable but is uninhabited. That is what they are saying. Mars is like that empty apartment. Capable of providing shelter but no one ever moved in. Anyway we will see. If we came from there on a spacecraft just before a cataclysm occured how did we become primitive upon our arrival. If we left this planet to go live somewhere else are we going to move into caves and start wearing animal skins and spending thousands of years in the dark. No we bring our technology with us and continue on from that point. If we are them and we had the technology to get here what happened to that knowledge and that tech? Where is the ship? Where are the computers? Heck one single piece of plastic would do it
But our past technology was tools made from rocks and bones. Then iron then bronze then steel. No high tech existed in our past. The road is pretty easy to follow.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Ummmmm no there's not.. Sorry but you are wrong.