Water Found on Mars: Now to Melt It

[Ai52487963]

If life is found in the water ice below the surface (albeit microbes), should we even consider terraforming or landing on Mars?

I think not. I don't remember who said it, but they made a good point that even if the lowliest single celled population of organisms is found, Mars belongs to the Martians, and not to us. Jeopardizing their ecosystem and destroying alien life should be the highest murder crime if possible.

 

[sanman]

Next you'll be telling me that my mouth belongs to the bacteria who have made it their home, and that I'm committing genocide every time I brush my teeth. Stop me, before I kill again!

 

[Sephiroth2088]

To many of you this may seem an obvious answer to a stupid question. But I am curious why Earth appears so large from mars, but Mars is just a tiny spec from earth? Does it have to do with our atmosphere, this would be my guess, and if this were a test question that would be my answer. But that's as deep as my knowledge goes, I don't know how an atmosphere makes something appear so much smaller. Or better yet, is this picture magnified? seems kinda like cheating but more likely.

 

[LowlyPion]

... I am curious why Earth appears so large from mars, but Mars is just a tiny spec from earth?

The key word to think about here is "picture" I think.

I'd say it's all a matter of optics and lens used in capturing the "picture" because that is the only perception you can have from Mars is through a picture.

Think about it in terms you may be familiar with here on earth. With a telephoto lens the moon will appear or can be made to appear much larger than what you would call normal perception. Conversely the full moon can appear as a spec with a wide angle lens. But the moon still looks like your usual perception when you look at it directly yourself. Of course you can't draw on such experience as viewing it from Mars.

Now to address your guesses, that is not to say that the moon close to the horizon isn't lensed by the atmosphere of Earth and surely there are those effects. But you shouldn't expect that the size of the object will be altered sizewise to any great degree if the light is coming straight down through Earth or Mars atmosphere.

 

[DaveC426913]

Earth is physcially about twice the diameter of Mars. All other things being equal, this would make a disc about 4x brighter, though, with the naked eye, you still wouldn't see more than a dot.

But all other factors are not equal. For one, Mars' sunward side faces Earth, whereas Earth's sunward side faces away from Mars. When nearest, Earth is seen as a crescent. This will mitigate the brightness of Earth.

 

[Garth]

If life is found in the water ice below the surface (albeit microbes), should we even consider terraforming or landing on Mars?

I think not. I don't remember who said it, but they made a good point that even if the lowliest single celled population of organisms is found, Mars belongs to the Martians, and not to us. Jeopardizing their ecosystem and destroying alien life should be the highest murder crime if possible.

It was Carl Sagan in his 'Cosmos; series.

What shall we do with Mars?

There are so many examples of misuse of the Earth that even phrasing this question chills me. If there is life on Mars, I believe we should do nothing with Mars. Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes. The existence of an independent biology on a nearby planet is a treasure beyond assessing, and the preservation of that life must, I think, supersede any other possible use of Mars.

'Cosmos -1981- page 130'

Garth

 

[Ai52487963]

It was Carl Sagan in his 'Cosmos; series.

GAH! How could I've forgotten?! I should be flayed or something

 

[OSalcido]

I've never seen so many pessimists and naysayers in one thread. People already finding more excuses for not furthering our knowledge of space...

Mars belonging to microbes? Have you ever heard of survival of the fittest? Don't get me wrong, this new age liberal babble about who owns what piece of dirt is somewhat comical when we have to stop building wind power stations to save a few pigeons, but trying to regulate and limit development of a desert planet on the offchance we might upset some microscopic entities is a fall off the deep end.

Replace martian microbe with God and you have the same crap that kept science in the dark ages and fundamentalists in charge a few centuries ago

 

[Garth]

I think Sagan's point was that an independent biology would be of such scientific importance that we would have to be very careful not to contaminate it with terrestrial DNA.

Of course to other ET life-forms we may be nothing more than microbes...

Certainly if such microbes are discovered then sterile unmanned probes would need to thoroughly investigate the phenomena before humans ever set foot on the place.

I agree that in the long run, and with appropriate technology, humans colonization of Mars is a dream worth pursuing, however we would have to guarantee that we would not mess it up as we have done our own planet.

Garth

 

[DaveC426913]

Replace martian microbe with God and you have the same crap that kept science in the dark ages and fundamentalists in charge a few centuries ago

Yeah, they're the same.

Is 'OSalcido' an anagram of 'Godwin's Law'?

 

[BoomBoom]

I've never seen so many pessimists and naysayers in one thread. People already finding more excuses for not furthering our knowledge of space...

...

Replace martian microbe with God and you have the same crap that kept science in the dark ages and fundamentalists in charge a few centuries ago

I believe the MAIN purpose of these missions to Mars is is to find out whether life has ever existed or does exist there now specifically for scientific studies. If we were to set out haphazardly and contaminate the whole place (especially if life does exist there), we will have learned nothing.

 

[D H]

I've never seen so many pessimists and naysayers in one thread. People already finding more excuses for not furthering our knowledge of space...

This should come as no surprise. Consider this opinion, emphasis mine, from the http://www.popastro.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5343&sid=25bf4e0097fe32bb0e7f6388b0b657fb":

"Do we want to destroy the Moon's pristine environment so that a few individuals - who regard the Moon as "property" in orbit, can line their pockets through lunar quarrying and tourism?"​

OK, OK, That's just one person whose tinfoil hat isn't on straight.

NASA asked the National Academy of Sciences to review NASA's plans for going back to the Moon. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5359312.stm" :

[noparse]A[/noparse] special National Research Council panel of the National Academy of Sciences said in an interim report that the Moon was "priceless to planetary scientists".

"Only by returning to the Moon to carry out new scientific exploration can we hope to close the gaps in understanding and learn the secrets that the Moon alone has kept for eons," it said.​

That's sane. But does it really say we should go back to the Moon? Here is an alternate interpretation of the NAS report, from http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10110-future-missions-could-damage-lunar-environment.html" (emphasis is not mine):

"Future missions could damage lunar 'environment'

Both robots and humans can do plenty of science on the Moon – but in the process they might mess up sensitive parts of the lunar environment, according to a new report by top US scientists. They say NASA should survey the "pristine" Moon before undertaking any major missions there.

"The Moon is priceless to planetary scientists," declares the panel of the US National Academy of Sciences, which was chartered to tell NASA what science it should do on the Moon. In an interim report released on Tuesday, they warn that both the Moon's tenuous atmosphere and its polar environment are "fragile" and are likely to be altered by robotic and human activity.​

 

[LowlyPion]

Certainly care should be taken in whatever may be done. Man's footprints on the moon are for the most part, other than take off disturbances, apparently still all there - decades later - inter planetary graffiti of each step. Surely we don't wish to become like early tourists scrawling "Gomer was here" on every rock and littering our effects willy-nilly all over the cosmos.

Imagine that we would find what would be microbes, and of independent origination too. How fascinating might that be to encounter entirely different energy transfer mechanisms and life form organization of some as yet unsuspected ordering of chemistry processes that supports a replication and engages in activities with its environment? Think of the possibilities that might allow us to use that knowledge, if only for ourselves in our current circumstances too.

What hubris to ignore such possibilities and go tramping around our neighbors - or like some of these crackpot terraformists may suggest, to start indiscriminately bombarding Mars with tankerships of CFC's to elevate greenhouse effects.

Surely we can afford to take plenty of time to be careful. After all what would be the rush anyway?

 

[OSalcido]

Yeah, they're the same.

Is 'OSalcido' an anagram of 'Godwin's Law'?

Care to explain how they are dissimilar?

Same story, different characters. A few gomers trying to tackle scientific development with their own version of morality. And yes, there are multiple versions of morality. You saying some undeveloped microorganisms should not be wiped away by a more advanced species happens to be contradictory to Nature's brand of morality.

Of course, not even science is as barbaric as nature. Science can obviously find new forms of life useful.

 

[DaveC426913]

Care to explain how they are dissimilar?

No. It is your analogy; the onus is on you to show they are similar.

Same story, different characters. A few gomers trying to tackle scientific development with their own version of morality.

I really don't understnad this sentence but it sounds like you are freely interpreting the thread as you please and assigning motives to hypothetical entities we've never even met.

You saying some undeveloped microorganisms should not be wiped away by a more advanced species happens to be contradictory to Nature's brand of morality.

We have advanced enough to the point where we can choose not to live by nature's destructive rules.


By your logic we would raze the jungles of Africa in favour of land development.

 

[LowlyPion]

You saying some undeveloped microorganisms should not be wiped away by a more advanced species happens to be contradictory to Nature's brand of morality.

Actually there is no morality in Nature. That is a human construct.

Just as wanting to think perhaps that mankind is more advanced than other forms of life.

Depending on how you choose to measure, it just may be that a microorganism living naturally on a planet like Mars is more advanced than our DNA which apparently condemns us to hope only at best to be a visitor and even then to eventually long for the day that we can once again return to Earth and go swimming and play softball and eat hot dogs on a warm sunny 4th of July.

You might want to appreciate what there is here before deciding to expend effort to muck it up on other worlds that we are ill suited to live on in the first place.

 

[BoomBoom]

By your logic we would raze the jungles of Africa in favour of land development.

I think we are, or at least we are in South America anyways... :(

 

[DaveC426913]

Just as wanting to think perhaps that mankind is more advanced than other forms of life.

We are. We can make choices above and beyond our own immediate or short-term needs and we can bring resources to bear to do something about it far beyond any individual's needs or ability.

In short, we can decide what we wish to happen to Mars' denizens.

 

[LowlyPion]

In short, we can decide what we wish to happen to Mars' denizens.

As I said it depends on how you choose to measure what advanced happens to mean.

We can certainly choose to be Shiva - Destroyer of Worlds - to the microbes of Mars. Destruction - following entropy's arrow into chaos is always the easier choice to execute.

On the other hand I'd suggest the high maintenance demands of humans, cultivated through eons of evolution on a planet of plenty such as Earth, cannot likely choose to live there on such a world and hope to bring any order on Mars greater than such microbes as may be living there now may. In that regard, their potential talent for breathing life into a planet like Mars, apparently in extremis as to our perceived needs may look considerably more advanced in the final analysis.

And I was so hoping you would be one of the first to sign the Leave Mars for the Martians petition too.

 

[DaveC426913]

As I said it depends on how you choose to measure what advanced happens to mean.

True, but I would argue that we are advanced in a significant way beyond animals (this is our intelligence), if not necessarily mature (this is our wisdom, or lack thereof).

[rhetoric]Perhaps we are the civilisational equivalent of a four-year-old. We have learned that we can act upon the world, bend it to our will, and we wield that power gleefully, but we are just beginning to learn that sometimes we don't know our own strength, and our actions have consequences that, upon reflection, we don't desire.[/rhetoric]