# If We Find Evidence of Life on Mars Should We Risk Going There?



## BAYLOR (Dec 10, 2014)

Okay , imagine we find evidence of Life on Mars, microscopic life. Do we dare risk going there and potentially contaminating the Martian Eco System  or worse bring back a micro organism which could be potentially harmful here on Earth ?

What do you think?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 10, 2014)

We have 'gone' already and space craft sterilization is done, but can be imperfect.
It would be very interesting indeed if any alien organism is harmful. Not impossible even if the "life" has no common (e.g. cometary origin). I do think if life can originate anywhere (we have one example), then it will originate everywhere that the conditions suit.

In order of least to most compatibility, 
Virus, Bacteria, Yeasts, Fungus.
(virus needs compatible DNA, only similar Species affected, Fungus just needs nutrients)
A dormant virus on Mars would imply a once more diverse ecosystem. Anything alive today other than simple Bacteria would be staggeringly amazing. But anything alive today rather than past evidence of bacteria etc will be amazing. 


The microscopic and macroscopic organisms (amoeba, the malaria parasite, liver fluke tapeworm, ticks, leeches) etc need compatible hosts to either breed or eat. But might be damaging even if we are incompatible. They are likely on other Star system "Goldilocks" planets, not Mars.


I do believe the risks (in both directions) have been studied and procedures developed. We aren't going to open our space suits or leave behind crisp wrappers, empty bean cans.
The lunar missions showed the difficulty of decontamination of suits.
A one way trip for humans might be easier. Older people past child raising age who want an unusual retirement plan with scientific research till they die rather than sitting at home with day-time TV, books and occasional Grand children visits.
Cat owners need not apply.


----------



## Tower75 (Dec 10, 2014)

I think we're going to Mars whether or not we find evidence of life. Might not be for decades to come, but a Mars landing by humans can be argued to be a dead cert in the future.

I'm more interested/worried about the implications of finding life. We've already found "organic matter" on that comet we landed on, but I'm unsure how or why that's not bigger news.

Imagine actually finding signs of life on Mars. People would loose their minds.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 10, 2014)

Tower75 said:


> Imagine actually finding signs of life on Mars. People would loose their minds.


Unless it gives interviews, I'm afraid the general public would lose interest in a month or so.


----------



## Dave (Dec 10, 2014)

I agree with everything Ray said. I would just add a few things about the likelihood of it being "harmful":

If life is found somewhere as close as Mars then we must be distantly related cousins (and therefore DNA with the same four base pairs.)

I'd doubt that it was adapted as a disease organism since it would never have had contact with evolved Earth-life (an intelligent alien could be infected by viruses that could "species jump". Most human viral diseases were originally animal diseases first and all those that we are currently worried about pandemics. However, I think an intelligent alien on Mars is science fiction.)

It would be adapted to very harsh environmental conditions that are unlikely to be found anywhere on Earth, and I doubt it would compete with Earth-life (Anoxic, Dry, Extremes of Temperature/pressure.)

If it did find some ecological niche here then we have plenty of examples of the effects of invasive foreign species within ecosystems and it is never good news for the native species (Brown Squirrels, Giant Hogweed, Japanese Knotweed, Indian ring-necked Parakeets, Mink, Muntjack, American Bullfrog, Virginia Creeper, Signal Crayfish.)


----------



## Nick B (Dec 10, 2014)

I agree with Ray on this, including the fact people would quickly lose interest if it is a simple lifeform such as bacteria.
It would have huge implications to discover even the simplest life but unless it has tentacles, death rays or three breasts the general public would lose interest pretty quickly.


----------



## Remedy (Dec 10, 2014)

I'm with you. Considering we have found life in the ocean depths, amongst super hot and toxic volcanic vents, I do not believe a space bacteria or virus will blow our minds.

Something resembling our molluscs or plankton will create a huge stir. More funding for exploration.

Finding sentient life, however, will send the whole planet bats&%t-crazy! 

As to the dangers, we can't know until we find it.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 10, 2014)

Remedy said:


> Finding sentient life, however, will send the whole planet bats


Given the way communications is moving to fibre and our slow progress with Space, Aliens are more likely to visit us before we visit them, but only if there is practical way to do interstellar travel and that Space isn't a quarantine system.

Detection either way via Radio seems more and more unlikely.

Or that Aliens with practical Starships keep out of involvement with  any species that hasn't Starships. Especially if they have nuclear / atomic warhead rockets.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 10, 2014)

Detection of pollution in an Atmosphere of Oxygen with moisture (possible 100x or more times feasible radio detection distance) though is perhaps plausible. So our current flavour of industrialisation is a bigger beacon in the Galaxy than Radio & TV ever was. Who'd have thought it?


----------



## willwallace (Dec 10, 2014)

One theory has it that life on earth may have been seeded by a meteor hitting Mars back when it was more habitable, ejecting material that held microscopic life forms which then ended up on Earth when the second meteorite landed here.  But it was so long ago, if true, the odds of life on both planets evolving over billions of years to still be somehow compatible with each other is slim, I would think.  Anyway, why not bring back samples (if found) to an orbiting laboratory, and keep them off earth until exhaustively analyzed?


----------



## paranoid marvin (Dec 21, 2014)

The human race has been killing life on this planet since it came into being ; why would we treat inhabitants of another planet any differently?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 21, 2014)

Maybe if they are much more powerful than us?


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 21, 2014)

paranoid marvin said:


> The human race has been killing life on this planet since it came into being ; why would we treat inhabitants of another planet any differently?




Very likely,  we wouldn't .


----------



## Nick B (Dec 21, 2014)

Extinction is a fact of life. Most lifeforms on this planet survive at the expence of other life. We are a part of nature and it's vicious cycles.


----------



## J Riff (Dec 21, 2014)

No. Don't go there. Leave them alone.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 21, 2014)

Tower75 said:


> I'm more interested/worried about the implications of finding life. We've already found "organic matter" on that comet we landed on, but I'm unsure how or why that's not bigger news.


It's not big news because we have already detected organic matter in meteorite debris, cosmic dust, cometary tails (I think), pretty much everywhere out there. In fact I believe it is estimated that around 20% of carbon in the universe is probably in organic molecules of some form.

The mistake is to think that such compounds must have anything to do with life:


> An organic compound is any member of a large class of gaseous, liquid, or solid chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon. For historical reasons, a few types of carbon-containing compounds such as carbides, carbonates, simple oxides of carbon (such as CO and CO2), and cyanides are considered inorganic.



These organic compounds are nothing more special than being (generally quite long) chains of carbon based molecules that can be formed by stars or through chemical reactions taking place in space. They do not have to be produced by life; they are just used by life.

So the more newsworthy result would have been if organic compounds had *not* been found on that comet.

As for worrying about contaminating any possible life on other planets, well if that is a significant concern then we'd best stop any extraterrestial exploration right now, never mind thinking about any kind of colonisation. Because if there is any out there we will eventually contaminate it and eventually bring it back here.

However I think it is also a mistake to think that any extraterrestial microbial life is going to wreak havoc on humans and/or Earth. All life evolves to exist (thrive even) in particular environmental niches. The chances of any such life finding anything in the human body that fits its niche so perfectly that it runs away and kills the human is so vanishingly unlikely as to be hardly worth considering. And yet we are not stupid and we do our best to decontaminate everything.


----------



## Michael Colton (Dec 22, 2014)

If we do not see any evidence of a death ray, I say go for it.

Also, I should not be put in charge of these things.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 22, 2014)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Unless it gives interviews, I'm afraid the general public would lose interest in a month or so.


I'm sure Simon Cowell would find a way to keep people interested. He could call it The Extra-Terrestrial Factor.

Seriously - should we go? Absolutely.


----------



## AsmaMohd (Dec 22, 2014)

It is quite costly and there is a risk of dust storms that can cover the entire planet for a whole month.


----------



## J Riff (Dec 22, 2014)

Send oxygen and water.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 22, 2014)

J Riff said:


> Send oxygen and water.



In theory they might be able to engineer plants that could thrive in Mars environment.


----------



## AsmaMohd (Dec 24, 2014)

The astronauts will be settling on Mars indefinitely. It's not feasible to send water, oxygen and food from Earth to the astronauts: they will produce those on Mars.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 25, 2014)

AsmaMohd said:


> The astronauts will be settling on Mars indefinitely. It's not feasible to send water, oxygen and food from Earth to the astronauts: they will produce those on Mars.



It it likely they will find water on Mars


----------



## Dave (Dec 25, 2014)

Some of the geomorphological featutres are extremely unlikely to have been formed by anything other than by running water at some point in the past. Water is not an uncommon compound and is very simple. Finding water is not the same thing as finding sufficient to supply a colony of humans and their processes and farms. I don't think they will find running water on Mars now.


----------



## scientia (Dec 25, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> In theory they might be able to engineer plants that could thrive in Mars environment.


I don't know of any theory that would allow this. The atmospheric pressure is less than 1% of Earth sea level. It's almost a vacuum. The air pressure at the top of Mount Everest is 38 kPa compared to 1.16 kPa at the lowest point on Mars. And, I don't see how you could make the atmosphere thicker since the solar wind blows it away.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 25, 2014)

scientia said:


> I don't know of any theory that would allow this. The atmospheric pressure is less than 1% of Earth sea level. It's almost a vacuum. The air pressure at the top of Mount Everest is 38 kPa compared to 1.16 kPa at the lowest point on Mars. And, I don't see how you could make the atmosphere thicker since the solar wind blows it away.




Re-ingnite  Mars's Core ? That might bring back the magnetic field which would would stabilize the atmosphere.


----------



## scientia (Dec 25, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> Re-ingnite  Mars's Core ? That might bring back the magnetic field which would would stabilize the atmosphere.


You would need to move another planet to Mars. For example, if you could get Ceres to crash into Mars, you might get it going in a few million years. It simply cannot be done in the near term.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 25, 2014)

scientia said:


> You would need to move another planet to Mars. For example, if you could get Ceres to crash into Mars, you might get it going in a few million years. It simply cannot be done in the near term.



Perhaps nuclear devices might could be used to fire up The Martian planetary core?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Dec 25, 2014)

Ask Scott Munroe.


----------



## AsmaMohd (Dec 26, 2014)

Washington (AFP) - Space enthusiasts planning a move to Mars may have to wait to relocate: conditions on the Red Planet are such that humans would likely begin dying within 68 days, a new study says.

Oxygen levels would start to deplete after about two months and scientists said new technologies are required before humans can permanently settle on Mars, according to the study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 26, 2014)

scientia said:


> I don't know of any theory that would allow this. The atmospheric pressure is less than 1% of Earth sea level. It's almost a vacuum. The air pressure at the top of Mount Everest is 38 kPa compared to 1.16 kPa at the lowest point on Mars. And, I don't see how you could make the atmosphere thicker since the solar wind blows it away.


If we could add volatiles, particularly water and carbon dioxide, say, by crashing a comet or two into the surface (I don't know if we could find one with enough ammonia to start up a nitrogen cycle, and anyway, orbital convenience would be more important than absolute composition) atmospheric thickness and density could be raised sufficiently high for radiation screening, if not for breathing, and it'd be good for several hundred thousand years. Certainly, it'd be even worse than Earth for losing dissociated hydrogen and helium, but solar wind isn't a fast way of stripping molecules, and it diminishes as the sqare of distance from the sun.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 26, 2014)

chrispenycate said:


> If we could add volatiles, particularly water and carbon dioxide, say, by crashing a comet or two into the surface (I don't know if we could find one with enough ammonia to start up a nitrogen cycle, and anyway, orbital convenience would be more important than absolute composition) atmospheric thickness and density could be raised sufficiently high for radiation screening, if not for breathing, and it'd be good for several hundred thousand years. Certainly, it'd be even worse than Earth for losing dissociated hydrogen and helium, but solar wind isn't a fast way of stripping molecules, and it diminishes as the sqare of distance from the sun.




We'd have to find some way of restarting  the planets core and magnetic field. Without that, it would be impossible to maintain an atmosphere.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 26, 2014)

Recent thought seems to be that the magnetosphere is less important than had been thought:




> The relative importance of each loss process is a function of planet mass, its atmosphere composition, and its distance from its sun. A common erroneous belief is that the primary non-thermal escape mechanism is atmospheric stripping by a solar wind in the absence of a magnetosphere. Excess kinetic energy from solar winds can impart sufficient energy to the atmospheric particles to allow them to reach escape velocity, causing atmospheric escape. The solar wind, composed of ions, is deflected by magnetic fields because the charged particles within the wind flow along magnetic field lines. The presence of a magnetic field thus deflects solar winds, preventing the loss of atmosphere. On Earth, for instance, the interaction between the solar wind and earth's magnetic field deflects the solar wind about the planet, with near total deflection at a distance of 10 Earth radii.[2] This region of deflection is called a bow shock.
> 
> Depending on planet size and atmospheric composition, however, a lack of magnetic field does not determine the fate of a planet's atmosphere. Venus, for instance, has no powerful magnetic field. Its close proximity to the Sun also increases the speed and number of particles, and would presumably cause the atmosphere to be stripped almost entirely, much like that of Mars. Despite this, the atmosphere of Venus is two orders of magnitudes denser than Earth's.[3] Recent models indicate that stripping by solar wind accounts for less than 1/3 of total non-thermal loss processes.[3]
> 
> While Venus and Mars have no magnetosphere to protect the atmosphere from solar winds, photoionizing radiation (sunlight) and the interaction of the solar wind with the atmosphere of the planets causes ionization of the uppermost part of the atmosphere. This ionized region in turn induces magnetic moments that deflect solar winds much like a magnetic field. This limits solar-wind effects to the uppermost altitudes of atmosphere, roughly 1.2–1.5 planetary radii away from the planet, or an order of magnitude closer to the surface than Earth's magnetic field creates. Beyond this region, called a bow shock, the solar wind is slowed to subsonic velocities.[2] Nearer to the surface, solar-wind dynamic pressure achieves a balance with the pressure from the ionosphere, in a region called the ionopause. This interaction typically prevents solar wind stripping from being the dominant loss process of the atmosphere.



However I'm not sure, with Mars' distance from the sun, how important the lack of magnetosphere is to the level of radiation exposure.


----------



## AlexanderSen (Dec 27, 2014)

Sorry to bust the party, but IMHO there is more likely to have life on Venus than or Mars. As the first types of life on a planet needs to draw upon the natural resources of the planet without other forms of life to support it. So plants which convert and the environment and Cactus, Fungus, Bacteria, or land Algae.

There is a minium amount of moisture and water, thus it is hard to facilitate waste and excertions. Don't quote me on this, as I need an expert on qualities of silicon, but, there might be Silicon life on Venus as would proabably function better due to the higher temperature making more elements melt and in a liquid state.


----------



## mosaix (Dec 27, 2014)

One implication of the thread is that we find evidence of life on Mars, sit back, think about it and, possibly, decide not to visit. Seriously? It's never going to happen. Of course we should go.


----------



## J Riff (Dec 28, 2014)

What an amazing bunch of lies, it just goes on and on. ) Astounding. )


----------



## J Riff (Dec 28, 2014)

Everyone knows what's going on up there, that's where all the SF pulp covers came from. No way could they make that stuff up.


----------



## Dave (Dec 28, 2014)

BAYLOR said:


> In theory they might be able to engineer plants that could thrive in Mars environment.


I find that unlikely. With existing Genetically Modified Organisms they simply take genes from other organisms and replace those of the host - so disease resistance in one plant is given to another, fluorescence in jellyfish is given to mice. Despite being called 'Frankenstein' by the newspapers it isn't a huge step from the selective breeding of animals by man that has gone on for millennia. I can see it being possible in the future to introduce hibernation genes into humans for long space voyages because such genes already exist in other mammals. However, their are no plants that can currently thrive in a Mars environment and so no genes to harvest. 

In theory, it might be possible, but currently we have no idea where to even start.


----------



## AsmaMohd (Dec 31, 2014)

Ten Reasons NOT To Live On Mars!
1. Cold
2. Vacuum
3. The "it's been done" syndrome
4. Dust and dust storms
5. Contamination
6. Unproven technology for self contained habitats
7. Hard to make self sufficient - need for parts and supplies from Earth
8. Boring landscape to unassisted human eyes
9. Accidents
10. Mars is too small to be worth colonizing


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 15, 2015)

So hypothetically , we make the planet habitable enough so we can establish  cities and communities on the red planet.  One of the bog long term problems, what about people who born on mars? their bodies will be adapted for lower gravity . They couldn't go to earth or any place with a higher gravity.


----------



## Nick B (Feb 15, 2015)

But thats like saying we cant go anywhere with higher gravity.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 15, 2015)

Quellist said:


> But thats like saying we cant go anywhere with higher gravity.



Im saying living in lower gravity and  environment having families  in those places,  will have consequences for your descendants. It's something you might want to take into account before you decide to live there.


It's possible we might find earth like planets with gravity levels too great for us to live on. Unless we  come up with some kind exo suites .


----------



## Mirannan (Feb 15, 2015)

One fact that, when found out, will have profound implications is whether Martian life (if any) has the same biochemical basis as that of Earth life. All Earthly life (so far discovered) uses the same DNA base pairs, the same amino acids, the same monosaccharides and the same genetic code for translating one to the other. It is quite conceivable that Martian (or Europan, or Ganymedan, or...) life uses different chemistry; perhaps different DNA bases out of the very large pool of possibilities, or different amino acids ditto, or a different code.

If so, this would mean that ET life had evolved independently of life on Earth and the probability of finding life on extrasolar planets goes way up. If not, it might well mean that all the life in the Solar System evolved in the same place and the chance of finding life on extrasolar planets goes down. Which might in tune mean different decisions about how much effort to put into SETI.

How high, or how low, a gravity level humans can live in indefinitely is a very interesting question about which we have no data. And we won't have any until a few people have babies on the Moon or Mars, in the first case. Nowhere that is otherwise liveable, in the Sol system, has higher gravity than Earth.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 15, 2015)

Mirannan said:


> If not, it might well mean that all the life in the Solar System evolved in the same place and the chance of finding life on extrasolar planets goes down.


Or that the Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Maths is such that it's the only way it works. There is actually a high probability that is the case.
There are terrestrial differences in vitamins, amino acids needed by animals and what is poisonous. Also genetic mechanisms re, Sex  can be very different.  But the fact of the kinds of marsupials in niches elsewhere that are mammals and even look similar is fascinating (What's normally called convergent evolution).


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 15, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Or that the Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Maths is such that it's the only way it works. There is actually a high probability that is the case.
> There are terrestrial differences in vitamins, amino acids needed by animals and what is poisonous. Also genetic mechanisms re, Sex  can be very different.  But the fact of the kinds of marsupials in niches elsewhere that are mammals and even look similar is fascinating (What's normally called convergent evolution).



It seems very unlikely that we are only planet  in the whole universe to have given rise to life. 

We might even find a world with silicone based life.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 15, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> It seems very unlikely that we are only planet in the whole universe to have given rise to life.


I agree, I'll not be surprised if in just our Galaxy,  a billion planets have life and 10,000 have intelligent life to the level of some sort of civilisation. I expect too, it will be be similar but different.



BAYLOR said:


> We might even find a world with silicone based life.


I'm sure you mean Silicon.
That would be amazing as the chemistry suggests it's impossible.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Feb 15, 2015)

Well, who knows?


And yes, I think finding evidence of life should be all the more reason to try to get to Mars. There's no evidence of any current intelligent, sentient life on Mars...but who knows what microbes could show?


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Feb 15, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> I'm sure you mean Silicon.



He may have been thinking of Hollywood.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 15, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> I agree, I'll not be surprised if in just our Galaxy,  a billion planets have life and 10,000 have intelligent life to the level of some sort of civilisation. I expect too, it will be be similar but different.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you mean Silicon.
> That would be amazing as the chemistry suggests it's impossible.



The universe doesn't fall into lock step with how we say it should work  . Yes our understanding  of science might say that Silicon life is not possible.  But we might find that life can arise on worlds that don't  follow the same biological and chemical template of our world.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 15, 2015)

We have problem if Physics, Chemistry and Maths are not universal. 
What makes for enjoyable TV, Film or book may be seriously incompatible with reality, we are reading that script, not writing it. 
Biology at higher levels may be unimaginably different. But the chemical properties of Silicon vs Carbon aren't up for debate at all. You can have some synthesized artificial silicon based compounds, but it can't even get in the same league as carbon for organic chemistry, even with laboratory assistance. 
Perhaps it's possible, but it's very improbable indeed. Almost everything we know about Physics and Chemistry would have to be a lie.


----------



## Mirannan (Feb 15, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> I agree, I'll not be surprised if in just our Galaxy,  a billion planets have life and 10,000 have intelligent life to the level of some sort of civilisation. I expect too, it will be be similar but different.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you mean Silicon.
> That would be amazing as the chemistry suggests it's impossible.



He might mean that, but in fact silicone based life may well be more likely. As you say (or imply) silicon chains are very limited in length but silicone chains are unlimited.

As for the business of exotic amino acids being poisonous; well, ET lifeforms might well be poisonous to us, but that doesn't mean life based on them is impossible. Poisons are often poisonous because they are sufficiently similar to various life chemicals to interfere with their metabolism by competing for absorption or binding to enzyme active sites and the like.

And regardless of differences in toxicity, the fact remains that all life forms so far investigated on Earth use the same structural amino acids, the same nucleic acid bases and the same genetic code.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 15, 2015)

Silicones are useless as a life building block. They are inert! It's a range of simple Polymers. You might as well postulate life based on Teflon, perspex or Polyurethane.



> Silicones are polymers that include any inert, synthetic compound made up of repeating units of siloxane, which is a functional group of two silicon atoms and one oxygen atom frequently combined with carbon and/ or hydrogen. They are typically heat-resistant and rubber-like, and are used in sealants, adhesives, lubricants, medicine, cooking utensils, and thermal and electrical insulation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicone

I'm not sure that very many useful Silicones are Carbon free either.



Mirannan said:


> the fact remains that all life forms so far investigated on Earth use the same structural amino acids, the same nucleic acid bases and the same genetic code.


In a way it will be surprising if life elsewhere is markedly different at the lower levels of biochemistry.


----------



## Mirannan (Feb 15, 2015)

Silicones are inert because that's the way humans want them. I can't think of any good reason why more reactive groups couldn't be attached to the backbone instead of the boring stuff we put there. And having life being silicone-based doesn't mean that carbon couldn't also form a part of it. After all, nitrogen and oxygen form part of the chains of the two most common types of structural molecule on Earth - proteins and carbohydrates. (Phosphorus is a major part of the structure of DNA, too.) And sulfur has major use in keeping proteins in shape.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Feb 16, 2015)

I think somebody's been watching the 'silicon creature' episode of Star Trek.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 16, 2015)

Stephen Palmer said:


> I think somebody's been watching the 'silicon creature' episode of Star Trek.



There was also an episode of Fantasy Island that had a silicon based monster in it. 


But in all seriousness , we don't know what we'll find on other worlds when we get there. We may end up discovering  whole new laws of Physics , Biology and Chemistry in other places.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 16, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> whole new laws


That's extremely unlikely and would be seriously worrying.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 16, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> That's extremely unlikely and would be seriously worrying.



Finding  out that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology have  different rules in different places? That would have very frightening implications.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 16, 2015)

Piers Anthony (Punishing Magical Land),  Bob Shaw (Overland, Ragged Astronauts. pi=3), Terry Brooks (Magic Kingdom?)
Fun in books, I suspect not the case in our universe


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 16, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Piers Anthony (Punishing Magical Land),  Bob Shaw (Overland, Ragged Astronauts. pi=3), Terry Brooks (Magic Kingdom?)
> Fun in books, I suspect not the case in our universe



Outside the confines of our safe little Earth, we have a very big and very hostile universe. So many things out there could destroy life on Earth.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 16, 2015)

The Dinosaurs never saw it coming


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 16, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> The Dinosaurs never saw it coming



We likely wouldn't be here if the asteroid hadn't hit . But I do wish some of the non avian dino's like Triceratops  could have made it.  My favorite dino.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 16, 2015)

Im almost tempted to read Kim stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, just to see how he imagines mars can be terraformed.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 17, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> But I do wish some of the non avian dino's like Triceratops could have made it. My favorite dino.



Not T. Rex?

*See* http://xkcd.com/1211/
(always hover mouse)


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 17, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Outside the confines of our safe little Earth, we have a very big and very hostile universe. So many things out there could destroy life on Earth.



Hey man, you seem a bit down with your posts Baylor! <Big manly supportive hug>

Actually I'd say little Earth was one of the most dangerous places for life - look at the number of extinction events that have occurred, maybe more of a Medea rather than a Gaia. Other places outside Earth look like they have been unchanged for billions of years.

However, if it was not for these extinction events and vastly changing conditions we would not be here, so I can't really complain, we gotta have them.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Feb 17, 2015)

_I got this off the interweb, so it must be true:_

It all comes down to thermodynamics.

Specifically, for an element to link to itself in long chains, you need three things:


The ability to form more than one bond per atom. This excludes hydrogen and the halogens, for example. We will also exclude the metals, since they don't form localized covalent bonds to themselves and so cannot form chains of atoms.
A preference for single bonds over multiple bonds. That is, two single bonds should be more energetically stable than one double bond, and three single bonds than one triple bond.
The oxide must not be too much more stable than the pure element. Oxygen is the third most common atom in the universe, and an overwhelming tendency to bond to oxygen will mean that an element will never be found except as the oxide.
Finally, the bond to hydrogen must be reasonably strong, compared to the hydrogen-oxygen bond. Hydrogen is the most abundant atom in the universe and (as you indicated in your question) is commonly used to "cap off" chains of atoms. But many compounds of hydrogen are spontaneously flammable in the presence of oxygen!

*Single vs. Multiple Bonds*
If we confine ourselves to the first-row elements carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, we find the following bond strengths:


Bond type Strength Bond type Strength Bond type Strength
C-C 83 kcal/mol N-N 39 kcal/mol O-O 35 kcal/mol
C=C 146 kcal/mol N=N 100 kcal/mol O=O 119 kcal/mol
CºC 200 kcal/mol NºN 226 kcal/mol
Information in this table is taken from M.A. Fox and J.K. Whitesell, _Organic Chemistry, 2nd Ed._, Jones & Bartlett, 1997. Values are averages and will differ somewhat depending on the source of data.
Notice that it is favorable for carbon to form singly-bonded chains. For example, two C-C bonds are worth more than one C=C bond: 2 × 83 = 166 > 146.

But nitrogen and oxygen, though formally capable of forming extensive chains of atoms, cannot do so because of the weakness of N-N and O-O single bonds. Quite simply, three N-N bonds are so much weaker than one NºN bond (3 × 39 = 117 << 226) that polyazines (NR)n are explosive! The same is true for peroxides, compounds containing O-O single bonds.

Of course, once you get below the first row multiple bonding becomes much less energetically favorable. Silicon, phosphorus and sulfur can all be found in long, singly-bonded chains or network compounds. The most stable forms of elemental silicon, phosphorus and sulfur (S8) contain polymeric chains or rings of atoms bonded to each other by single bonds. This is also true for boron, arsenic, selenium and tellurium.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 17, 2015)

This is why only carbon can be the basis of true organic / Biological processes.
Silicon the next most suitable element, fails, as the oxide is VERY stable and a solid at all reasonable temperatures for organic processes. Oxidised Silicon is basically  sand / glass / obsidian / quartz.
There are other reasons why silicon is much less suitable than carbon. 

Silicon in the Galaxy or Solar system is VERY much less common than carbon. But Planets with rocky crusts are far more silicon than carbon compounds. If you have silicon, you get rocks. The carbon based life lives on top of them


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Feb 17, 2015)

Going off on a slight tangent, Someone mentioned Saturn Rukh (By Robert Forward) in another post. His isn't the only story with life on a gas giant. I'm just wondering (and I haven't had enough coffee yet to be able to research it  ) if all the elements are available in the Jovian atmosphere to build carbon-based life.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 17, 2015)

Maybe, and using Ammonia instead of Water?
It's fairly slim.


----------



## Mirannan (Feb 17, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Maybe, and using Ammonia instead of Water?
> It's fairly slim.



Well, ammonia is a polar solvent rather like water although it has some differences of course. Suitable for temperatures rather lower than those of Earth, and one more thing that makes it possibly viable as a life solvent is that nitrogen is fairly common so there are likely to be places with enough of the stuff.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 17, 2015)

The worst event being Devonian


Ray McCarthy said:


> Not T. Rex?
> 
> *See* http://xkcd.com/1211/
> (always hover mouse)




Avian Dino's yes ive read about that one. 


 I read something else that said that the Dino's were in decline long before the asteroid.  The fossils record prior to the extinction even show a decline in the number of species.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 17, 2015)

If we do find evidence of vertebrae life on Mars, that would be a very troubling discovery.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Feb 18, 2015)

We won't.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 18, 2015)

But if we did - why would it be troubling?


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 18, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> But if we did - why would it be troubling?



As a stark reminder to us that life on Earth will one day come to an end by something beyond our control , an asteroid hitting us or a passing star which would disrupt earth orbit and probably throw us into space or swallowed by a unseen black hole. 

We know that in a billion years the sun will be about 20 percent hotter which  will likely scorch the surface clean of life.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 18, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> As a stark reminder to us that life on Earth will one day come to an end by something beyond our control , an asteroid hitting us or a passing star which would disrupt earth orbit and probably throw us into space or swallowed by a unseen black hole.
> 
> We know that in a billion years the sun will be about 20 percent hotter which  will likely scorch the surface clean of life.



That's far too morbidly fatalistic on a cosmic scale for me, I'm afraid. I'd rather focus on the bright, optimistic bits during the short duration that my life will give me, but I respect your right to dwell on what might or might not happen a billion years from now .


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 18, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> That's far too morbidly fatalistic on a cosmic scale for me, I'm afraid. I'd rather focus on the bright, optimistic bits during the short duration that my life will give me, but I respect your right to dwell on what might or might not happen a billion years from now .



Im given to being slightly pessimistic about the future. My outlook does tend to be cosmic isn scale .


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Feb 18, 2015)

Stephen Palmer said:


> We won't.


Certainly not alive. A fossil would be intriguing. Especially if the helmet visor or other pieces of the suit survive


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 18, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Certainly not alive. A fossil would be intriguing. Especially if the helmet visor or other pieces of the suit survive



Mars lost it's oceans 3 billion years ago , not  enough time for any kind of vertebrae life forms to have evolved.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Feb 19, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Mars lost it's oceans 3 billion years ago , not  enough time for any kind of vertebrae life forms to have evolved.



Assuming it evolved on Mars...


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Feb 19, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> We know that in a billion years the sun will be about 20 percent hotter which  will likely scorch the surface clean of life.



That happens a bit later on. One billion years from now the big change will be the absence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which halts all photosynthesis. Animal life fades as a consequence. Bacteria etc will be just fine for a long while afterwards.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Feb 19, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Certainly not alive. A fossil would be intriguing.



See my short story in Ian Sales' anthology "Rocket Science".


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 20, 2015)

Stephen Palmer said:


> That happens a bit later on. One billion years from now the big change will be the absence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which halts all photosynthesis. Animal life fades as a consequence. Bacteria etc will be just fine for a long while afterwards.



Science is not my strong point,  but how does the earth end up losing all it's CO2 ? if animal life still exists in a billion or so years, wouldN'T there still be carbon dioxide  produced ? And if there was carbon dioxide there would still be plants therefore photosynthesis ? And doesn't volcanism also produce CO2? And doesn't sea water also contain CO2?


----------



## J Riff (Feb 20, 2015)

No Vacancy.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Feb 20, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Science is not my strong point,  but how does the earth end up losing all it's CO2 ? if animal life still exists in a billion or so years, wouldN'T there still be carbon dioxide  produced ? And if there was carbon dioxide there would still be plants therefore photosynthesis ? And doesn't volcanism also produce CO2? And doesn't sea water also contain CO2?



the oxygen/carbon cycle is a complex one. Every tree that breathes is turning CO2 into oxygen. But also, every tree alive has a bunch of carbon locked up in its tissues. Ditto animals. Every tree that rots releases that carbon to the environment. Every tree that gets buried and turned into coal or oil, does NOT release that carbon back into the environment. Those are carbon sinks.

Look up carbon sinks and carbon sources. The interactions are complex, but we've been lucky in that most of them are negatively reinforcing, i.e. processes that produce more carbon tend to create effects that slow them down, and vice versa. Self regulating. The reason scientists are so worried about AGW is that beyond a tipping point, processes can become positively reinforcing, i.e. processes produce results that accelerate the process. Think Venus.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Feb 20, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Science is not my strong point,  but how does the earth end up losing all it's CO2 ? if animal life still exists in a billion or so years, wouldN'T there still be carbon dioxide  produced ? And if there was carbon dioxide there would still be plants therefore photosynthesis ? And doesn't volcanism also produce CO2? And doesn't sea water also contain CO2?



CO2 was the "method" the Earth's self regulating environmental system (Gaia - James Lovelock) used to stay comparatively warm in its early days, when the sun wasn't quite so hot; without that blanket (composed also of a few other gases) there would likely be a very different biosphere now. Slowly however the sun has warmed up, and Gaia has as a consequence reduced the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. (If you look at the average temperature of the planet over the 4 billion years so far, it is extraordinarily stable.) A point will come, maybe 800 - 1000 million years from now, when the planet does not need any CO2 to stay at life's optimum temperature - if it did have any greenhouse gases, it would over-heat. Once CO2 is effectively gone, there can be no photosynthesis, and therefore no complex animal life. Bacteria, archaea etc will be fine for a while, though...


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 20, 2015)

Stephen Palmer said:


> CO2 was the "method" the Earth's self regulating environmental system (Gaia - James Lovelock) used to stay comparatively warm in its early days, when the sun wasn't quite so hot; without that blanket (composed also of a few other gases) there would likely be a very different biosphere now. Slowly however the sun has warmed up, and Gaia has as a consequence reduced the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. (If you look at the average temperature of the planet over the 4 billion years so far, it is extraordinarily stable.) A point will come, maybe 800 - 1000 million years from now, when the planet does not need any CO2 to stay at life's optimum temperature - if it did have any greenhouse gases, it would over-heat. Once CO2 is effectively gone, there can be no photosynthesis, and therefore no complex animal life. Bacteria, archaea etc will be fine for a while, though...



I'm not sure I agree with this SP. I think the reason we had a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere in the deep past was that there was no significant amounts of life so it just was not getting soaked up fast enough - but was being produced in large amounts by mechanical processes such weathering and added by volcanic eruptions. Remove plants and I'd expect CO2 to creep back up to 13%+ levels etc... (and therefore probably generate a very quick runaway greenhouse effect!) 

I'd argue it has been the biosphere that has been the main regulator of CO2 for the past 600 million years or so (and if you look at what's happened in that time period the CO2 concentrations seem to fluctuate quite wildly depending on biological circumstances) but I'd guess plants in some form have been absorbing most of the mechanically released CO2  in that time period. Note even the iceball Earth period ~650 my ago, where weathering of rock was effectively curtailed by a globe of ice/slush eventually lead to to the build up of enough CO2 (that 13% of atmosphere apparently) via volcanic eruptions to cause temperatures to rise to melt everything 'back to normal'. 

Plants if given enough time will try and adapt to heat via evolution, and when pushed to a point they can not tolerate any further heat, yes, will dissappear. 

However your cycle doesn't quite make sense to me then - if CO2 levels were driven down to zero to regulate the temperature (by what - plants?) then it actually will limit the growth and number of plants and thus the control of the CO2 levels will slowly disappear overtime therefore leading to CO2 levels grow and further push the temperature way past the point of no return. 

I am not a climate scientist so I am happy for my logic to be shown to be faulty!


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Feb 20, 2015)

Weathering is a carbon-reducing process, not adding.
Apart from that - right enough  you're basically saying what I'm saying.
CO2 is driven down by Earth's self-regulation process as a whole; this is made up of innumerable factors, not just CO2.
In the deep past there were vast amounts of life - bacteria/archaea. The fact that life appeared just about as soon as it was possible for it to appear is one argument in favour of the "life everywhere in the universe" hypothesis.
Plants themselves have evolved to adapt to reducing CO2 levels - the C3 to C4 evolution.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 20, 2015)

Stephen Palmer said:


> Weathering is a carbon-reducing process, not adding.
> Apart from that - right enough  you're basically saying what I'm saying.



oops, serves me right for posting a comment before drinking a coffee - that's my excuse - I stand corrected  <Gives Stephen a deep bow>


----------



## Mirannan (Feb 20, 2015)

Regarding the far-future situation with CO2 levels: Assuming that humans don't act to keep up CO2 levels (a very shaky assumption!) it would appear that the level will be driven down by currently-unknown mechanisms to a level where plants can't live on it - and then, by means already mentioned, go up sharply. But there is another issue here with the greenhouse effect this will cause. High temperatures caused by CO2 going up will cause at least two other greenhouse gases, methane and water vapour, to go up sharply. (Methane is currently bound in all manner of places such as deep-ocean methane clathrates and permafrost, along with the bottoms of arctic lakes, much of which would be released.) Which leads to a runaway.

It's quite likely that the Earth of 1 billion AD will be an even worse hothouse than Venus is now, because Venus doesn't have any significant water to amplify the greenhouse effect and of course because the Sun will be hotter then.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Feb 20, 2015)

Essentially true. Although, since tectonic plate movement seems to be life-dependent, the adding of CO2 to the atmosphere could slow down greatly. That too far in the future to predict, I suspect. Methane is a greenhouse gas - 25x worse than CO2 - but it lasts for a much, much shorter time in the atmosphere. Water vapour is likely to be a future factor.
The mechanisms aren't unknown, just manifold, so I didn't list them here. Plenty of work on this online, in books etc.
The methane clathrates issue is interesting. Quite likely they caused the long-term heating of 50-odd million years ago, it seems.


----------



## Mirannan (Feb 20, 2015)

Sure methane is short-lived. But its presence for a few years might just be enough to tip the balance.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Feb 20, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> oops, serves me right for posting a comment before drinking a coffee - that's my excuse - I stand corrected  <Gives Stephen a deep bow>



That's not an excuse, it's a reason. A good one. First the coffee, then reality.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 20, 2015)

Bizmuth said:


> That's not an excuse, it's a reason. A good one. First the coffee, then reality.


 
I woke up in Universe 863, where my original comment made sense, then the coffee punched me through to Universe 23 and a bit closer to where I should be - but I've been feeling weird all day (Again I blame not enough coffee - I had to dash out after only one cup) so I think I must have opened my front door onto Universe 116 - and as we all know Universe 116 makes Universe 102 look like Universe 56 (pink)

That's the sort of day I've been having.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 21, 2015)

Bizmuth said:


> the oxygen/carbon cycle is a complex one. Every tree that breathes is turning CO2 into oxygen. But also, every tree alive has a bunch of carbon locked up in its tissues. Ditto animals. Every tree that rots releases that carbon to the environment. Every tree that gets buried and turned into coal or oil, does NOT release that carbon back into the environment. Those are carbon sinks.
> 
> Look up carbon sinks and carbon sources. The interactions are complex, but we've been lucky in that most of them are negatively reinforcing, i.e. processes that produce more carbon tend to create effects that slow them down, and vice versa. Self regulating. The reason scientists are so worried about AGW is that beyond a tipping point, processes can become positively reinforcing, i.e. processes produce results that accelerate the process. Think Venus.



Or at the very least something on the order of the Devonian /Permian extinct event of 250 million years ago which wiped out 90 percent of the species on Earth.  Scientist have theorized that global warming may have been the culprit there .


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Feb 21, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Or at the very least something on the order of the Devonian /Permian extinct event of 250 million years ago which wiped out 90 percent of the species on Earth.  Scientist have theorized that global warming may have been the culprit there .



100% recommended read!


----------



## Anne Spackman (Mar 30, 2015)

Of course, but with our current technology, maybe a manned trip to Mars is too risky.  I would still like to see us go for it as best we can.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 31, 2015)

Anne Spackman said:


> Of course, but with our current technology, maybe a manned trip to Mars is too risky.  I would still like to see us go for it as best we can.



We have some of the basic technology but it would still be  a be a pretty hazardous undertaking.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 26, 2015)

Recently they've found evidence of flowing water. It could mean there is more water there then we think.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (May 1, 2015)

Evidence of life?


Or evidence of SENTIENT life? The wording is important here, folks.


I believe microbial life has already been proven to have existed on Mars, at least, within soil samples.


Regardless, yes, we SHOULD risk trying to go there. Some might think we can't afford the risk if we find evidence of sentient life.


I say we can't afford to NOT take the risk, whether that evidence is there or not. Earth is dying, slowly and surely, at least, its ability to sustain 7,000,000,000+ people is.


Mars or bust, folks. Mars or bust. We can't leave our solar system, the moon has no atmosphere and is too small as it is, and every other planet besides Mars is either too hot, or a gas giant as it is. Without space colonization, we're through.


----------



## Venusian Broon (May 1, 2015)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> I believe microbial life has already been proven to have existed on Mars, at least, within soil samples.



Not yet, there was some puzzling results with Viking but I believe the consensus is now that it was chemical reaction rather than biological. Still a few people argue about it as _maybe, perhaps...
_
I don't remember any of the other probes or rovers picking up any biological material at all.


I also think your being too pessimistic about the Earth . The Earth's ability to sustain the 12 billion or so humans that we think we'll peak it at, yes, that is likely to collapse if we keep on going the way we're going. And if it does, it will be a massive problem for said humans and a chunk of other species. But Life will continue on, just as it always has when extinction level disasters have hit the planet. (Of which this planet has experienced _many.)_


----------



## Stephen Palmer (May 1, 2015)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> I believe microbial life has already been proven to have existed on Mars, at least, within soil samples.



No.


----------



## Vertigo (May 8, 2015)

It is a mistake to imagine that space colonisation can ever be any kind of solution to overpopulation. Consider trying to bleed off around 10% of our population, say 1 billion in say 50 odd years now (not much chance of any kind of space colonisation sooner than that). If we shifted 100,000 people off planet every day, 365 days a year it would still take 27 years to shift 1 billion. Just think about those figures; 100,000 a day. Think of the fleet of vessels that would be needed to maintain that rate of colonisation every single day, and in those 27 years the population would probably have increased by more than the 1 billion we've shifted! It's just not realistic. I can't believe we would ever be able to shift enough people off planet for it to make even a marginal difference to our total population. Self control or natural or manmade disasters are the only realistic ways of significantly reducing population.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 8, 2015)

Colonisation is is only a species backup system.


----------



## Vertigo (May 8, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Colonisation is is only a species backup system.


agreed!


----------



## marmalade (Jun 12, 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=mars one

Not as distant a reality as we may think...

thoughts on the Mars One mission?


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 13, 2015)

Not going to happen I suspect. They are planning to raise money by making the candidate selection process/training into a reality tv show. This immediately makes me suspicious. Then on a quick google I pulled up this
http://www.iflscience.com/space/whats-going-mars-one


> “When you join the ‘Mars One Community,’ which happens automatically if you applied as a candidate, they start giving you points,” Roche explains. “You get points for getting through each round of the selection process (but just an arbitrary number of points, not anything to do with ranking), and then the only way to get more points is to buy merchandise from Mars One or to donate money to them.” And if media outlets offer payment for an interview, the organization would like to see 75 percent of the profit. As a result the most high-profile hopefuls, he says, are those who brought about the most money.



And this on the first paragraph of the wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One


> The project's schedule, technical and financial feasibility, as well as ethics have been widely criticized by scientists, engineers and those in the aerospace industry


Nothing I've seen about this comes across as a truly serious project.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jun 13, 2015)

marmalade said:


> Thoughts on the Mars One mission?


Much as I'm keen on a space program ...
This is NOT a space program or Mars mission. It's Tulips.
I'd bet it's not even Reality TV, that's just there to spin in money. Of course it might make it to Reality TV (invented to save cost of real actors, scripts, costly production etc) but hasn't that cultural rock bottom practically played out?


----------



## mosaix (Jun 13, 2015)

marmalade said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=mars one
> 
> Not as distant a reality as we may think...
> 
> thoughts on the Mars One mission?



It'll come to a screeching halt when someone gets killed - the ultimate Reality TV.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 13, 2015)

I doubt it will even get far enough for someone to actually get hurt, never mind killed!

They believe they can send 4 people to Mars on a budget of $6billion Nasa reckon they need $100billion for an 'austere' manned Mars mission. That feels like a few too many corners being cut to me.


----------



## mosaix (Jun 13, 2015)

Vertigo said:


> I doubt it will even get far enough for someone to actually get hurt, never mind killed!
> 
> They believe they can send 4 people to Mars on a budget of $6billion Nasa reckon they need $100billion for an 'austere' manned Mars mission. That feels like a few too many corners being cut to me.



It doesn't have to be a crew member, Vertigo. I don't know how far they've got with this project but cutting corners on any engineering project puts everyone at risk.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 13, 2015)

Agreed. But I don't think it's even going to get to the engineering stage; I doubt it'll get past the 'training/selection' stage. I have heard that they failed to secure their Reality TV contract and that was, I think, going to be their major source of funds.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 27, 2015)

It will be interesting to see what Nasa upcoming announcement on Mars


----------



## J Riff (Sep 27, 2015)

Wel.... uh .... ( ) I think that (***) but if (****) then they should tell the truth, except (***) life on Mars, which (DEL) but I'm sure we will find out soon enough, despite (****).


----------



## REBerg (Aug 15, 2016)

At least NASA is taking precautions to limit the risks of contaminating possible microscopic Martians with microscopic Terran hitchhikers.

Martians Might Be Real. That Makes Mars Exploration Way More Complicated


----------

