Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A spot on Mars called Nili Fossae has been identified as a possible location to search for evidence of fossilized remains of past Martian life from 4 billion years ago.
Somehow, I think you knew this would bring all the kooks and weirdos out to answer, so I will be the first, haha.
Along with many people, I have studied the photographs of Mars and I feel sure that there has been past civilisations living on Mars.
The trouble is that no-one can say that there are now or were then civilisations living on Mars, without saying also that NASA are lying to us and covering up details in the photographs. Their official position is still that there is nothing there, however they are getting us ready for a full disclosure.... soon.
Somehow, I think you knew this would bring all the kooks and weirdos out to answer, so I will be the first, haha.
Along with many people, I have studied the photographs of Mars and I feel sure that there has been past civilisations living on Mars.
The trouble is that no-one can say that there are now or were then civilisations living on Mars, without saying also that NASA are lying to us and covering up details in the photographs. Their official position is still that there is nothing there, however they are getting us ready for a full disclosure.... soon.
Thanks for the input but I didn't post the topic because I thought it would bring out the kooks and weirdos. But you may be right. LOL! The point is primarily because Mars is an interesting planet. There's not much question about searching for life there, but there's also a lot more involved with the study of Mars. But sure, there's no question that we're all interested in knowing about the prospect of life on Mars or anywhere else. We just don't yet know. NASA isn't the only space agency involved in exploring the Red Planet. ESA has captured images of Mars with incredible detail.
The object regarding Nili Fossae is that the clay layers might be a potential spot to look for fossils, assuming life has ever existed on Mars. It might be that life did exist on Mars billions of years ago. It's also possible some form of life might still exist on the planet. But I think such life forms would likely, at best, be microbial. To me, such a discovery would be extremely impressive. For one thing, it would certainly confirm that life can and does exist elsewhere in the solar system, not to mention elsewhere in the universe. It would also raise the likelihood that the meteorite ALH 41001 found in Antarctica may indeed contain fossilized nano-bacteria. However, it's also possible that Mars is nothing more than a lifeless desert planet.
Most of the photos you feel appear to show signs of civilizations (I assume you mean cities, buildings, etc.) were made with much less sophisticated equipment providing grainy, fuzzy views. Many of the more recent images from the ESA Mars Express have much more detailed resolution than ever before. If there were any cities or significant artificial structures on Mars, they'd be more evident now. Without investigation and confirmation, there's nothing but speculation. Frankly, I don't think various space agencies around the world are hiding anything greatly mysterious. What would be the purpose?
If you know of any clear images that actually show signs of past or present civilizations, I'd be greatly interested in seeing them. No fuzzy images or speculations please.
It looks pretty stark and barren to me. But it's geology and climate are extremely interesting. I take it you'd prefer they'd choose a location like Cydonia?
Naah, lots more interesting places than that and more obvious current signs of life existing. If you really had studied the Rover images, the Mars Orbiter images and the ESA images or Mars Express then you would know that there is something fishy going on. Even in the Lunar Orbiter pictures there are strange structures which are obviously not geological in nature.
There are just too many strange anomalies that cannot yet be explained which would be explained clearly once and for all if we had proper photographs with the same resolution that NASA get.
If NASA used the same pictures the Rovers send back, they would have steered the rovers off a cliff in the first day or two. They are really terrible quality.
In (only) one photograph I have seen the best quality available and even at 500x magnification you cannot detect the individual pixels, but the general stuff they are churning out is absolute rubbish.
Why would they do that ? No-one can answer that one satisfactorily.
There, now I am the only wierdo and kook answering this thread !! :-)
Let's see if we can redirect this a little bit. Nili Fossae has not been selected as a definite location. It's only been suggested as a possible location. It's understandable that there are many, many locations on Mars that would be interesting candidates to explore. That said, it's obviously not possible to explore all areas with a single mission on the ground. With various proposals for possible landing sites that would be submitted, eventually a single location will ultimately be decided on.
Here's a list of areas that have previously been proposed: Mars Science Laboratory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Both Opportunity and Spirit rovers were only expected to last about 3 months. Instead, they've both been busy for about 6 years. Spirit is expected to die with the upcoming Martian winter. The newer Mars Science Lab rover is planned for launch in 2011. This rover is much larger and will contain a lot more equipment. It will be able to travel faster and cover much longer distances than Opportunity or Spirit. The exact landing site for the Mars Science Lab rover has yet to be decided on. Mars Science Laboratory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No doubt there will be other missions involving rovers on the Red Planet. While there are LOTS of interesting spots that would be worthwhile, most may have to wait for future manned missions. Even some of the "strange anomalies" would be greatly interesting for some close-up, on-the-ground views.
That said, just for fun, if you could make the ultimate decision on a particular location for a rover to explore, where would you recommend? And why?
LOL......Personally I believe there was and may still be microbial life on the planet Mars. After all it once had an extensive atmosphere and probably oceans as well. Currently we are sure there is still water(frozen probably) on Mars; specifically at the polar regions and Methane has been found in it's atmosphere as well as.....this gas is unstable and would breakdown quickly if it were not replenished constantly. Also formaldehyde is present and reacts similarly to methane, both may be by-products of microbial metabolic processes.
The article posted in the OP has proposed Nili Fossae for investigation is because it's geology MIGHT be a location of past life. However, it's questionable as to whether it will be seriously considered because of the terrain which is very rocky and would present a hazard for the MSL rover. Although the rover is considerably larger than Spirit and Opportunity, it isn't designed for such rough terrain. Nili Fossae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In addition, there is also some debating with regards to the mission itself, which is supposed to search for "habitability". It's not a mission to search for life. Because of the rugged, rocky terrain, the location has been taken off the short list of potential landing sites. Interestingly, SETI seems to be the primary supporter of the location, which makes sense since their goal is to search for ET life.
Good video showing how the landing will take place. No airbags for this puppy. It's a good example of why the selection of a landing site is so important. BBC News - Mars site may hold 'buried life'
That doesn't mean there's no interest in the location, but I'm guessing it would be better for larger, long-range rovers, or even a manned vehicle, to get into the area. There are sand dunes in the area which could be safe enough for a landing, but the trick is that the landing of the MSL is going to be robotic and pretty much on it's own. I don't think anyone wants to risk having it slammed into or getting stuck in the rocky areas.
I am just so sorry that you have not had more answers to your post, but maybe it is because it is becoming more and more obvious that the question is merely academic because we will never land a human on Mars. Yes, we can play at pretending, but that is all it will ever be.
I say this because the logical next step for mankind is the Moon where we have already landed a man. However, instead of going for the Moon which is much more 'do-able' than Mars, we choose to spend our millions on a remote and far away place which will waste time. If anything were to go wrong on the Moon, help is potentially only 4 days away. We might still be able to save anyone who was in trouble, but with Mars, there is no hope of help.
We have had no official reason why the Moon was ruled out from further space exploration - particularly since the Indians let the cat out of the bag and proved there was water there. Now there is no reason to leapfrog the Moon and go for Mars. Of course, unless you know otherwise.
It is strange no-one has really raised the issue of the Moon seriously and it is equally strange that newspapers or News channels have not asked for a proper reason why we are missing it out.
It is strange no-one has really raised the issue of the Moon seriously and it is equally strange that newspapers or News channels have not asked for a proper reason why we are missing it out.
I don't think it's as much about the Moon vs Mars as it is between manned vs robotic exploration and, of course, money. We can debate the advantages or disadvantages of going to the Moon first vs directly to Mars, but as of today, it doesn't look like either goal is affordable. With cancellation of the Constellation and Ares/ Orion programs, the only chance of human exploration of either the Moon or Mars rests with commercial interests, or possibly with other nations wanting to plant a flag.
Strictly from an exploration perspective, there's a lot of bang for the buck from robotic missions. We've seen the planets up close, have landed on a few, have done on-site geology and chemistry, and have even landed on Titan and seen its methane lakes.
Not to downplay the Apollo program, since it was a great accomplishment for the spirit of mankind but, from a science perspective, I'm not sure what was accomplished that could not have been done much cheaper through robotic means.
I personally do not think life ever was on Mars. Im not sure why everyone is so fixated on Mars. Even for a brief second I do believe other forms of life may he lived or still do but I highly doubt Mars is this key to life everyone is making it out to be. Would life on Mars even use what we call DNA? How would we even know life if we saw it considering it won't even be apart of us in any way shape or form.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where to go?
