The Red Planet was too salty to sustain life for much of its history, according to the latest evidence gathered by one of the US rovers on Mars' surface.
High concentration of minerals in water on early Mars would have made it inhospitable to even the toughest microbes, a leading Nasa expert says.
"A stunning survey of the latest evidence for intelligent life on Mars. Mac Tonnies brings a thoughtful, balanced and highly accessible approach to one of the most fascinating enigmas of our time."
--Herbie Brennan, author of Martian Genesis and The Atlantis Enigma
"Tonnies drops all predetermined opinions about Mars, and asks us to do the same."
--Greg Bishop, author of Project Beta
"I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the search for extra-terrestrial artifacts, and the political intrigues that invariably accompany it."
--David Jinks, author of The Monkey and the Tetrahredron
"Mac Tonnies goes where NASA fears to tread and he goes first class."
--Peter Gersten, former Director of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy
And don't miss...
(Includes my essay "The Ancients Are Watching.")
Join the Posthuman Blues Geographical Matrix!
9 comments:
Suppose, in a few billion years when Earth has become dry and uninhabitable, rovers from a future civilization landed in the depressions that were once the Dead Sea or the Great Salt Lake....
Aren't there some kind of extremophile microbes or bacteria that can or have been found in salt mines?
God, will this charade ever end? NASA, I'm tired. Oh so tired.
Anonymous--
I know exactly how you feel. (Maybe we need a support group.)
I hear Dr. Richard Boylan is available for exoplanatory therapy...nuhhh, on second thought, best stay away. Don't go near any hot tubs...heh.
I could give my conspiracy theory take, but in this case I'll go along with Anonymous and Mac...
...for now.
I could give my conspiracy theory take, but in this case I'll go along with Anonymous and Mac...
It certainly sometimes seems like NASA is messing with the public's mind, doesn't it? First they excitedly proclaim the possibility of life on Mars, then they retract this, then they proclaim it again. And on and on and on. If this is their idea of trying to "keep up interest" in the subject, I would strongly advise them to change their tack. All this back-and-forth is doing is giving everyone a bad case of "Mars fatigue"....
I think what's really going on is that scientists are capitalizing on different sets of evidence and are arriving at their particular -- albeit tentative -- conclusions. Then each of these scientists, or groups of scientists, are presenting their respective cases for consideration. So it comes down to a matter of the angle from which the evidence is viewed, and which evidences are seen as most significant in these differing viewpoints. Each of these perspectives are then taken into consideration, weighed and debated by the scientific community as a whole -- with the expectation that a felt consensus would gradually emerge out of this process.
It's amusing how persons with no credentials as scientists presume to criticize how things are done by folks who are actually qualified.
-Ken Y.
It should be remembered that there is still the evidence for earlier, less acidic (and less salty?) water, which left behind the clay mineral deposits. Ray Arvidson of the MER team mentioned this again in this recent December 10, 2007 update:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/20071210a.html
"We see evidence from orbit for clay minerals under the layered sulfate materials," said Ray Arvidson of Washington University in St. Louis, deputy principal investigator for the rovers' science payload. "They indicate less acidic conditions. The big picture appears to be a change from a more open hydrological system, with rainfall, to more arid conditions with groundwater rising to the surface and evaporating, leaving sulfate salts behind."
I've commented about this on the blog, also.
Paul
The Meridiani Journal
a chronicle of planetary exploration
web.mac.com/meridianijournal
Post a Comment