Science is not a matter of "belief", but of learning.
I have tried to be consistent in my analysis of Mars:
First, showing that the giant "flood' channels may plausibly be explained by CO2 outbursts, not liquid water.
Then looking at the recent gullies on Mars and showing that a cryogenic CO2 snow-thaw model is a good explanation, especially because I think that there is direct evidence for active flows at the present day on MOC images.
Then I turned my attention to geothermal hot spots. What would a "hot spring" on Mars actually look like? The analog is Mt. Erebus where volcanic fumaroles build ice towers.
As an unintended consequence of this, it became clear that microenvironments within the towers can drastically exceed outside conditions. For instance, the "Sauna Cave" on Erebus, has an internal temperature of +35 C, while outside it is ~ -40 C!. [Why, you ask, does the ice not melt? The answer is firstly that heat conduction through the ice shell keeps the ice cold, but secondly, as conditions change, it DOES melt occasionally].
So what I have done is to show that liquid water flowing in streams or sitting in puddles is unlikely on Mars, but that ice towers, IF they are developed, would be an obvious sign of an active steam vent (and given the low pressure on Mars, a hot spring will generally be a vapour stream, rather than liquid).
Even after learning about these ice towers and suggesting that they may exist on Mars, I still echo H.G. Wells:- "The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one". Nonetheless, a search for ice towers should be simple and straightforward (albeit intensive, due to their small size of <30m). Once found, a precision lander mission can travel to a nearby tower, drill into it, and sample for active biochemistry. Simple, and straightforward.
If we don't find life in such a benign environment, we can probably assume that Mars is dead and frozen, and get on with exploring it properly!
If we don't find any ice towers, it confirms that Mars is currently thermally inactive at the surface, probably dead and frozen, and we can get on with exploring it properly.
Essentially, I have proposed a search strategy for life on Mars which is straightforward, relatively simple, and quite comprehensive. if there is ANY life near the surface of Mars, then ice towers will be colonised. If not, then not! - and vice versa!
Space/Science » in reply to re: Our own Nick on CNN is confused about life on Mars
Not confused at all
The whole thread (34 posts)
- Our own Nick on CNN
- re: Our own Nick on CNN is confused about life on Mars
- Not confused at all
- What's wrong with inconsistent theories, anyway?
- re: Not confused at all
- Uhhh, Barry - Exactly how radioactive is Mars?
- Excuse me EP...
- re: Uhhh, Ed - How radioactive is Three Mile Island Nuclear reactor?
- Not relevant to Mars radioactivity - How radioactive is Mars, Barry?
- re: SNC meteorites pose no dangers to terrestrial microbes
- Not relevant to Mars radioactivity - How radioactive is Mars, Barry?
- re: Uhhh, Ed - How radioactive is Three Mile Island Nuclear reactor?
- re: Uhhh, Ed - How radioactive is Three Mile Island Nuclear reactor?
- Uhhh, Barry - Exactly how radioactive is Mars?
- re:NASAs search for life on Mars hardly seems "Desperate" to me. (n/t)
- Uh...Barry
- Not confused at all
- re: Our own Nick on CNN is confused about life on Mars
