Mars Curiosity? Brilliant, superb. We were all NASA engineers for those last ten minutes or so. The discoveries it makes will challenge our minds, lighten our hearts, make us proud, a rare thing lately, to be human.
The photo from an orbiting satellite of that parachute descent was stunning, almost unbelievable that we can achieve such things. So was the panorama the next day – there was Curiosity sitting on a dusty pebbly plain with distant mountains, just like any Earth landscape, and yet, Mars.
Oh, once it gets going what a brave new world. It will be doing proper geology. Looking at rock sequences, writing Mars geological history. And the history of its water. And, as a consequence, the jackpot, checking to see if any of the layers shows signs of past life, as they probably would (depending) on Earth.
Worth thinking about the logic of what discovery of life (past and/or present) on Mars would mean. If life is found then we immediately know, as many of us suspect, that life is abundant in the universe, and is likely to be found on any roughly Earth-size planets in the “Goldilocks Zone” distance from their star. Wouldn’t mean every such planet would have developed life – plenty of accidents like meteor strikes, supernova eruptions, runaway greenhouse effects – but it means the numbers of planets with life must be in the billions of billions.
Conversely, no evidence of life on Mars tells us very little. Means the odds perhaps a little less, but also simply means that although Mars is roughly in zone for life something else wasn’t right. Bit disappointing, but leaves us where we were.
Worth adding that if future probes find life on likely moons such as Enceladus, Titan, Europa, then this would multiply the likely places with life many times. It would also mean, if nothing found on Mars, that Mars was odd for not having life, and its history was the explanation.
So exciting times ahead (not least because life on Mars, and the moons, would, perhaps [no scientist ever lost a dollar by underestimating the intelligence of the religious public] finally put an end to the madness of imaginary friends on this planet.
And yet, and yet…
Why oh why does this magnificent machine have to be powered by Plutonium? Why oh why did the delivery vehicle use highly toxic Hydrazine, the remains of which were dumped on the Mars surface after Curiosity detached? Why are the number of bits of space junk on the surface of Mars multiplying?
You all know the “broken window” theory right? This says that you should immediately repair damage, clean up litter, wash graffiti off walls, tow away old cars, because if you leave one small mess people will think its ok to make more, and in an ever-growing snowball effect the neighbourhood will rapidly disintegrate.
Some truth in it of course (though as always the Right turns a minor idea into a truism engraved in stone as if provided by St Ronald or St Ayn). And it should have given those rightly happy NASA scientists a little cause for pause in the High Fives.
The word pristine actually once had meaning on Mars. Now it doesn’t. If one bit of junk why not another? If one lot of noxious and/or radioactive materials why not another? And another. Until before you know where you are the Martian bikie gangs have moved in. Would have been nice if Mars exploration could have been like the old National Park idea – leave nothing behind, take nothing away.
And not just bad for Mars itself. If finding life on Mars would have a positive effect back on Earth by pulling the prayer rugs out from under the priests, then dumping garbage on Mars has a negative effect back here. If it’s ok to litter Mars presumably it’s ok to litter, say, Antarctica. If it’s ok to land Plutonium on Mars then who can say nay to the nuclear power salesmen when they want to put some in your backyard?
Pity, really.
You expect too much of Homo sapiens (sapiens?) David. We have evolved over too few generations to change much since a couple of hundred thousand years back, and old habits die hard.
Back then, around the camp fire and evening meal we would have thrown the leg bone of a cannibalized neighbor over our shoulder into the dark – knowing that the pollution would have been cleaned up by a roving Hyena.
“…sitting on a dusty pebbly plain with distant mountains, just like any Earth landscape…”, not quite. Watch any dusty pebbly plain on Earth and you’ll see a gnat fly by, the shadow of a circling bird, or some kind of plant life moving in the breeze. Certainly not to say that there can’t be life on other planets in other parts of the universe but to draw that conclusion rather than the conclusion that life is unique to Earth doesn’t seem to me to be any more valid or “scientific.” One conclusion you certainly CAN draw from all the Martian probes thus far is that there is no life on Mars. At least it’s yet to be confirmed if there is any.
If they hadn’t used hydrazine and plutonium, they wouldn’t have gotten there and wouldn’t be able to sustain power to do much in the way of exploration. Pretty sure our “pollution” of Mars won’t be of much consequence vs the knowledge we’ll gain. IMO, well worth the risk to the possible bacterium or virus that might be killed due to a hydrazine overdose. Technology usually exacts a price tag of one kind or another. Downright difficult to achieve escape velocity with solar panels.
Yes, no one thought you would see complex life forms on surface – too dry, temps too extreme, too little atmosphere etc. But some simple unicellular forms might well survive underground, and be present as ancient fossils. We shall see.
All previous surface vehicles were/are solar powered. I know this one bigger, but think there must have alternatives to Plutonium. As there are I understand for Hydrazine. I don’t think there will be much damage on a big planet, but was commenting more on the symbolism of casual littering and polluting another planet.
I’m curious why the forces of evolution would not have caused complex life forms to have evolved and adapted to the temp and limited atmosphere (assuming “simple” cells/bateria exist or have been “injected”) on Mars in a similar manner as you believe it has on Earth?
Interesting research here su.pr/27kipK on the elements of DNA being formed in clouds on Titan.
There isn’t much complex life in extreme environments on Earth. Mars, losing atmosphere and therefore hit by radiation, low oxygen, and only water now frozen at the poles, would be a tough call to adapt to.
Thanks for the link to the VERY interesting article David. I find the research (and the pics) being done by these probes nothing less than fascinating. Being able to land a craft such as Cassini on a body a BILLION kms (at the closest!) from Earth just boggles my mind; some pretty bright engineers at NASA!
Of course you read the caution in the article, “…that doesn’t mean that the molecules are combining to form life…” So, I still wonder “Why not?” If evolution is capable of producing life and pretty much the same amount of time has been available to these chemicals in Titan’s atmosphere as on Earth, why isn’t there some kind of life?
I realize “adapting” to extreme environments presents a challenge but why couldn’t life adapt to low oxygen the same way life on Earth adapted to 18% oxygen? Isn’t that kind of the definition of “adaptation?” And yet, it does not appear to have done so.