I think they need to send people to confirm whether there is life there.
This is one of the most complete and science-based article about the Martian Rovers I ever read. Congratulations Chris G. Really enjoyed reading it.I only question the very last statement: “So if life emerged on Earth in these conditions, why not on Mars as well?”This statement is just a little bit stretched. This is the kernel of the problem, not an answer. We just don't know which is the probability for life to develop and all this emphasis on "organics molecules" (found rather everywhere in the cosmos) should not bias actual knowledge that we just don't know. We really don't know what trigger the development of life. Our knowledge on this matter is nearing zero.Last point, rather than thinking what we could do on Mars with a manned expedition, I wonder just the opposite: what we could do on Mars (and somewhere else) with more money and more frequent and evolved Mars Rovers up there rather than in dubious and scientifically marginal (for the bucks) outposts in LEO orbit.p.s. Please remember this is an opinion based on actual arguments. It's unpopular and can certainly be negated, but I still have the right to tell and discuss it based on actual arguments.
Well it's not as if Mars is going to be short of upcoming rovers. I can think of least four up until the end of the decade; ExoMars, Curiosity MK 2 and rovers from India & China.
I only question the very last statement: “So if life emerged on Earth in these conditions, why not on Mars as well?”This statement is just a little bit stretched. This is the kernel of the problem, not an answer. We just don't know which is the probability for life to develop and all this emphasis on "organics molecules" (found rather everywhere in the cosmos) should not bias actual knowledge that we just don't know. We really don't know what trigger the development of life. Our knowledge on this matter is nearing zero.
I have to disagree. The article is very astute.
Quote from: scienceguy on 12/30/2014 04:24 amI think they need to send people to confirm whether there is life there.I think that can probably confirm that without the intervention of humans directly.
This is one of the most complete and science-based article about the Martian Rovers I ever read. Congratulations Chris G. Really enjoyed reading it.I only question the very last statement: “So if life emerged on Earth in these conditions, why not on Mars as well?”This statement is just a little bit stretched. This is the kernel of the problem, not an answer. We just don't know which is the probability for life to develop and all this emphasis on "organics molecules" (found rather everywhere in the cosmos) should not bias actual knowledge that we just don't know. We really don't know what trigger the development of life. Our knowledge on this matter is nearing zero.
Last point, rather than thinking what we could do on Mars with a manned expedition, I wonder just the opposite: what we could do on Mars (and somewhere else) with more money and more frequent and evolved Mars Rovers up there rather than in dubious and scientifically marginal (for the bucks) outposts in LEO orbit.
Quote from: Star One on 12/30/2014 09:51 amWell it's not as if Mars is going to be short of upcoming rovers. I can think of least four up until the end of the decade; ExoMars, Curiosity MK 2 and rovers from India & China.It's not a problem of quantity (is 4 small or large? Is 6 astronauts on board small or large? Who knows? ) but of budget and sophistication.
If you consider that a Curiosity costed 7 billion USD spread over several years compared to 3/yr for the ISS. And then you consider the science return from both... That's what I liked about Chris's article. It clearly shows the enormous amount of scientific output coming out from two little things lasting a decade almost for free
ADDED: despite that, funding for extended missions since 2015 is not yet guaranteed AFAIK... ridiculous! And even if it will, it's unbelievable this has not been given the highest-level priority.
Quote from: Torbjorn Larsson, OM on 12/31/2014 03:10 amI have to disagree. The article is very astute.Essentially, the feeling is that in the last 3-4 decades we are accumulating a lot of "evidences" about life, as there is a continuous number of outreach articles "ehi, look at this! This means we are closer to finding alien LIFE!!!". But when you look at what they say is just something we already know since long time. Like counting more and more times the same evidence. The fact that organic molecules can be found almost everywhere, for example (on 67P, in the interstellar matter, or quite abundant "sugar" in a planet formation region), is no more a surprise and should be seen like that. Also the methan amount variation found recently look like like this: we found something new. But this too was well known since many years and we have just confirmed it with no further increase of the probability for this to be related to some organic process. Interesting, but not tending - as media put it - any closer to finding life around.
I find quite often that a lot of people miss the importance of this simple statement today: finding conditions for life, doesn't necessarily mean we will find life as the probability for life to develop is essentially unknown, even when you add the information you added. As Dirac put it once, if this probability is - for example - 10^-100/billion year/average planet, we will never find life (probably, unless there are some "transport" from one planet to another, that can be the case of Mars...). And there is no reason to say it is 10^-100 or 10^-10. As simple like that.
Do you realise how limited the science done by Curiosity actually is? For example for mineralogy we have had only four analyses published to date, in over two years. Two of sand, two of rock, of sites sampled two years ago.