There has been an increasing amount of chatter in recent years about the parts of our solar system possibly meeting what we think are prerequisite conditions to sustain life, particularly on the...
There has been an increasing amount of chatter in recent years about the parts of our solar system possibly meeting what we think are prerequisite conditions to sustain life, particularly on the moons around the largest gas giants.
I thought this article was an interesting reminder of the early days of space exploration and the Viking landers we sent to Mars, back when we thought Jupiter and Saturn had only about a dozen moons each.
1970s were an interesting time for science. Kinda bummed that we haven’t made any real advancements since then. I’m sure that in the near future we could start laying down infrastructure to even...
1970s were an interesting time for science. Kinda bummed that we haven’t made any real advancements since then. I’m sure that in the near future we could start laying down infrastructure to even get people on Mars.
Measuring progress based on human footprints in faraway places isn't very accurate. The ISS has been making steady progress on science for decades now. It hasn't been as glamorous as a crewed...
Measuring progress based on human footprints in faraway places isn't very accurate. The ISS has been making steady progress on science for decades now. It hasn't been as glamorous as a crewed mission to the moon or Mars, but many of the unknown risks in long-distance spaceflight have been getting study and solutions on board the ISS. The NASA Johnson Space Center has a great podcast that talks about all the breakthroughs that have been made in human spaceflight in recent years.
I didn’t know this :/. Guess maybe I shouldn’t just rely on following the big headlines. That’s actually really cool to hear! Definitely will look into that podcast.
I didn’t know this :/. Guess maybe I shouldn’t just rely on following the big headlines. That’s actually really cool to hear! Definitely will look into that podcast.
https://www.nasa.gov/johnson/HWHAP There's the link to the podcast. Their most recent episode is on a year-long Mars mission analogue where a crew of four will live in a simulated Mars habitat to...
There's the link to the podcast. Their most recent episode is on a year-long Mars mission analogue where a crew of four will live in a simulated Mars habitat to study how life on Mars impacts the way humans behave.
You can get them through iTunes or SoundCloud, but on Android I prefer using Podcast Addict, since it lets me easily sort in reverse chronological order (oldest to newest).
One of the really big breakthroughs was a loss of visual acuity experienced by some astronauts after lengthy times in micro gravity. Scientists finally were able to recreate the condition in patients on Earth, and are closing in on a solution. This is pretty huge, since previously it was always a surprise who was affected and who was not.
We have sent some nice tech to Mars, but humans are going to be a real challenge. Radiation is a serious concern. My best understanding is that we do know how we could shield humans from...
My best understanding is that we do know how we could shield humans from radiation, but that it mostly means putting them underground.
At that point, what benefit are we realizing by carving out some kind of cave on Mars and hanging out in there?
Don't get me wrong, I agree that I would love to see the kind of unified excitement and success story we had in 1969 when we sent people to the moon. I am just not very optimistic that I will see such a thing in my lifetime.
Maybe Musk will figure out a way to do something flashy that involves sending people to Mars. He probably has the equipment today to do it in a minimum-viable-product California cowboy startup kind of way, but I don't know that he is capable of doing so in a way that I would feel great about.
They used to sterilise the equipment with something they called heat cycle sterilisation. They used used hydrogen peroxide for this. Source I don't know if it has any significance though.
They used to sterilise the equipment
with something they called heat cycle sterilisation.
They used used hydrogen peroxide for this.
The preferred methodology for this antenna is exposure to 100 kGy (10 Mrad) in water of gamma radiation using a Cobalt-60 source for both bulk and surface sterilization and exposure to vapor hydrogen peroxide for surface treatment for possible recontamination due to subsequent handling.
Without wanting to call you out, but I am curious. Have you read the article? It begins with a short list of "key take aways" which actually tell you that in fact this is not what it is about....
I don't know if it has any significance though.
Without wanting to call you out, but I am curious. Have you read the article? It begins with a short list of "key take aways" which actually tell you that in fact this is not what it is about. Because one of them is the following
"Life on Mars could have adapted to the arid environment by existing within salt rocks and absorbing water directly from the atmosphere. The Viking experiments, which involved adding water to soil samples, might have overwhelmed these potential microbes, leading to their demise."
So while reading up on how they attempt to sterilize these landers is interesting, it also doesn't seem to have much relevance to the article other than being briefly mentioned further down. But then only as hydrogen peroxide plays a different role and in between things it is mentioned that it is also used for sterilisation.
Of course I've read the article, that's the reason I was looking for possible contamination from earth, because it didn't offer anything of value to me but felt like some speculative wishful...
Of course I've read the article, that's the reason I was looking for possible contamination from earth, because it didn't offer anything of value to me but felt like some speculative wishful thinking without any scientific methology.
And if you look further into cleaning methods used for spacecraft, you'll notice they use chlorid based products as well, and there's entire research about us contaminating mars with life, but the article on "Big Think" dismisses it almost completely and mentions it only on a side note, dismissing the idea immediately in the next sentence, while it's way more likely it was contamination.
It may be a thought experiment at best but far away from "We found and killed life on Mars"
It's a bit disappointing to see such an article here and a dumbass like me is the first to look beyond the claims made in there. I have to admit I was in a hurry and couldn't do proper research but I felt I had to say something at least to dismiss it without making claims that I couldn't back up at the time because I only had a minute left after reading the article.
Ah, this all gives your original comment much more context. It honestly wasn't clear to me what your train of thought was initially. To be fair though, you are leaving out the operative word...
Ah, this all gives your original comment much more context. It honestly wasn't clear to me what your train of thought was initially.
It may be a thought experiment at best but far away from "We found and killed life on Mars"
To be fair though, you are leaving out the operative word "might" from the title. To me it was quite clear that this is indeed a thought experiment and mostly speculation until it can be proven. The article even closes with that.
As I have argued before, we need a new mission to Mars dedicated primarily to life detection to test this hypothesis and others.
No, you're right, you'll need an account to test it. Actually, that's something I hadn't really thought about before. I'll mention it to the devs on the Discord. It would significantly lower the...
No, you're right, you'll need an account to test it.
Actually, that's something I hadn't really thought about before. I'll mention it to the devs on the Discord. It would significantly lower the barrier of entry for new users if they could try it without making an account.
Yo thanks for introducing me to Readup! Never heard of it before but I really enjoy reading random articles from across the spectrum of topics, so this is perfect. I've been using Pocket (built...
Yo thanks for introducing me to Readup! Never heard of it before but I really enjoy reading random articles from across the spectrum of topics, so this is perfect. I've been using Pocket (built into Firefox) for a similar purpose (curated articles, focused reading mode), but there's no real community aspect of that, so this is cool.
I really like it, so I try to name-drop it every now and then. Hope you also like it. :-D They have an iOS app too, and you can get it running on Android through the old add-on collection trick!
I really like it, so I try to name-drop it every now and then. Hope you also like it. :-D
They have an iOS app too, and you can get it running on Android through the old add-on collection trick!
It requires a browser extension (Firefox, Chrome) or app (iOS) to function . When activated, it tracks reading progression on the current page, which it stores centrally so it can be synced to...
It requires a browser extension (Firefox, Chrome) or app (iOS) to function . When activated, it tracks reading progression on the current page, which it stores centrally so it can be synced to other devices. It's all open source too, for anyone curious about the technicals.
Based on the article, it's clear that the life which might have been killed was only the hypothetical life that might have existed in the samples collected by the Viking landers - not every form...
Based on the article, it's clear that the life which might have been killed was only the hypothetical life that might have existed in the samples collected by the Viking landers - not every form of life on the whole planet.
It's almost always a bad idea to comment on an article without reading it. There's so much context missing in just a title. Also, this title was badly worded and ambiguous. I've edited it now. (I...
so I couldn't read the article.
It's almost always a bad idea to comment on an article without reading it. There's so much context missing in just a title.
Also, this title was badly worded and ambiguous. I've edited it now. (I was going to edit it, even before I replied to your comment. Your question just confirmed that the title needed revising.)
There has been an increasing amount of chatter in recent years about the parts of our solar system possibly meeting what we think are prerequisite conditions to sustain life, particularly on the moons around the largest gas giants.
I thought this article was an interesting reminder of the early days of space exploration and the Viking landers we sent to Mars, back when we thought Jupiter and Saturn had only about a dozen moons each.
1970s were an interesting time for science. Kinda bummed that we haven’t made any real advancements since then. I’m sure that in the near future we could start laying down infrastructure to even get people on Mars.
Measuring progress based on human footprints in faraway places isn't very accurate. The ISS has been making steady progress on science for decades now. It hasn't been as glamorous as a crewed mission to the moon or Mars, but many of the unknown risks in long-distance spaceflight have been getting study and solutions on board the ISS. The NASA Johnson Space Center has a great podcast that talks about all the breakthroughs that have been made in human spaceflight in recent years.
I didn’t know this :/. Guess maybe I shouldn’t just rely on following the big headlines. That’s actually really cool to hear! Definitely will look into that podcast.
https://www.nasa.gov/johnson/HWHAP
There's the link to the podcast. Their most recent episode is on a year-long Mars mission analogue where a crew of four will live in a simulated Mars habitat to study how life on Mars impacts the way humans behave.
You can get them through iTunes or SoundCloud, but on Android I prefer using Podcast Addict, since it lets me easily sort in reverse chronological order (oldest to newest).
One of the really big breakthroughs was a loss of visual acuity experienced by some astronauts after lengthy times in micro gravity. Scientists finally were able to recreate the condition in patients on Earth, and are closing in on a solution. This is pretty huge, since previously it was always a surprise who was affected and who was not.
For anyone else who wants to read about the eye thing, I found the Wikipedia page: Visual impairment due to intracranial pressure
We have sent some nice tech to Mars, but humans are going to be a real challenge. Radiation is a serious concern.
My best understanding is that we do know how we could shield humans from radiation, but that it mostly means putting them underground.
At that point, what benefit are we realizing by carving out some kind of cave on Mars and hanging out in there?
Don't get me wrong, I agree that I would love to see the kind of unified excitement and success story we had in 1969 when we sent people to the moon. I am just not very optimistic that I will see such a thing in my lifetime.
Maybe Musk will figure out a way to do something flashy that involves sending people to Mars. He probably has the equipment today to do it in a minimum-viable-product California cowboy startup kind of way, but I don't know that he is capable of doing so in a way that I would feel great about.
You might enjoy this informative video on physics advancements: YouTube - acollierastro
They used to sterilise the equipment
with something they called heat cycle sterilisation.
They used used hydrogen peroxide for this.
Source
I don't know if it has any significance though.
Without wanting to call you out, but I am curious. Have you read the article? It begins with a short list of "key take aways" which actually tell you that in fact this is not what it is about. Because one of them is the following
So while reading up on how they attempt to sterilize these landers is interesting, it also doesn't seem to have much relevance to the article other than being briefly mentioned further down. But then only as hydrogen peroxide plays a different role and in between things it is mentioned that it is also used for sterilisation.
Of course I've read the article, that's the reason I was looking for possible contamination from earth, because it didn't offer anything of value to me but felt like some speculative wishful thinking without any scientific methology.
And if you look further into cleaning methods used for spacecraft, you'll notice they use chlorid based products as well, and there's entire research about us contaminating mars with life, but the article on "Big Think" dismisses it almost completely and mentions it only on a side note, dismissing the idea immediately in the next sentence, while it's way more likely it was contamination.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228703489_Science_priorities_related_to_the_organic_contamination_of_martian_landers#pf15
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210510-could-the-perseverance-rover-have-carried-life-to-mars
It may be a thought experiment at best but far away from "We found and killed life on Mars"
It's a bit disappointing to see such an article here and a dumbass like me is the first to look beyond the claims made in there. I have to admit I was in a hurry and couldn't do proper research but I felt I had to say something at least to dismiss it without making claims that I couldn't back up at the time because I only had a minute left after reading the article.
Ah, this all gives your original comment much more context. It honestly wasn't clear to me what your train of thought was initially.
To be fair though, you are leaving out the operative word "might" from the title. To me it was quite clear that this is indeed a thought experiment and mostly speculation until it can be proven. The article even closes with that.
This made article of the day on Readup yesterday, but sadly didn't generate any discussion. Not enough space nerds over there yet!
Readup seems interesting. Am I missing something or is there no way to actually test it out without creating an account?
No, you're right, you'll need an account to test it.
Actually, that's something I hadn't really thought about before. I'll mention it to the devs on the Discord. It would significantly lower the barrier of entry for new users if they could try it without making an account.
Yo thanks for introducing me to Readup! Never heard of it before but I really enjoy reading random articles from across the spectrum of topics, so this is perfect. I've been using Pocket (built into Firefox) for a similar purpose (curated articles, focused reading mode), but there's no real community aspect of that, so this is cool.
I really like it, so I try to name-drop it every now and then. Hope you also like it. :-D
They have an iOS app too, and you can get it running on Android through the old add-on collection trick!
That seems cool, just a bit curious:
How is this done? Do you have to install tracking software?
It requires a browser extension (Firefox, Chrome) or app (iOS) to function . When activated, it tracks reading progression on the current page, which it stores centrally so it can be synced to other devices. It's all open source too, for anyone curious about the technicals.
Could there be more on Mars, though?
Based on the article, it's clear that the life which might have been killed was only the hypothetical life that might have existed in the samples collected by the Viking landers - not every form of life on the whole planet.
Thank you. I'm making food at the moment so I couldn't read the article.
It's almost always a bad idea to comment on an article without reading it. There's so much context missing in just a title.
Also, this title was badly worded and ambiguous. I've edited it now. (I was going to edit it, even before I replied to your comment. Your question just confirmed that the title needed revising.)
Right, sorry about that.
There has to be. The probability of that rover happening upon the only instance of proof of life on the entire planet might as well be zero.