Talk:Life on Mars/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removed text

I removed the following unreferenced claim:

Since Mars lost most of its magnetic field about 4 billion years ago, the Martian ionosphere is unable to stop the solar wind or radiation, and it interacts directly with exposed soil, making life, as we know it, impossible to exist.

This is incorrect according to [1]; the atmosphere is directly exposed to the solar wind (which has caused most of it to blow away), not the surface of the planet. -- Beland (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning. The NASA article you put forward states that Mars' atmosphere is exposed (and damaged) by solar wind, it does not state that the planet's surface is protected from it. Here are some references noting the high radiation on Mars' surface: [2], [3]. This one is very precise: After mapping cosmic radiation levels at various depths on Mars, researchers have concluded that any life within the first several yards of the planet's surface would be killed by lethal doses of cosmic radiation. [4]. However, radiation on the surface is dealt with at section "Cosmic radiation", which is reason enough to remove that passage from the water section. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If life is discovered on Mars than I think that it migh pose another obstacle for human colonists. The martian microbes might have the ability to cause new diseases in humans. If microbial life is discovered on Mars I think that it will be essential for scientists to learn as much as they can about it by sending probes to study the newly discovered species to determine if they are a possible health risk to humans. This way scientists might be able to develop a vaccine if they are a health risk.--Knowledgemania (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Title

Clearly the title of the article is misleading as it appears to assume something that there is clearly no conclusive evidence for. I understand that Life of Mars is the subject of fiction, but that should be the scope of articles such as "Mars in Fiction" or "Mars in Popular Culture" etc.

Also it is not clear whether it is in reference to indigenous life or introduced life ? Does it come under the umbrella of Colonization of Mars.

I'm not sure of the Wikipedia policy on this, as I note that there are many other hypothetical titles (ie Extraterrestrial life, Colonization of the Moon in my opinion should more specific be Future Colonization of the Moon) but I'd imagine that the more correct title would be "Life on Mars?", "Possibility of Extraterrestrial Life on Mars" or "Theoretical Mars Biology". My personal opinion is that titles like Life on Mars are reverse weasel words, they assume something is true until it is proven otherwise.

For example, the article Moon landing conspiracy theories is less conclusive than "Moon Landing Hoax", although the article Apollo hoax in popular culture, the subject of fiction, is justifiably more conclusive in its title.

Likewise Life on Titan is also misleading. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a number of WP pages named after something or someone whose existence is disputed. The page called Tachyon is one example – it is about hypothetical particles that go faster than light. Another notable example is the page called God... And what about the page Extrasolar moon, about artificial satellites of planets beyond the Solar System? As the article itself mentions, no extrasolar moon has yet been detected... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that "Life on Mars" is more a topic of astrobiology research than a claim. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


After checking the quoted scientific article, it seems that user is correct. Please check the bottom of the referenced article:

This work was supported by National Autonomous University of Mexico Grant DGAPAIN101903 and National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico Grant 45810-F and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Astrobiology Science and Technology for Exploring Planets program.

Navarro-González is the 1st author and he works at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Furthermore, the paper was only "edited" by Leslie Orgel of The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, but the work if from Navarro at the UNAM. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Miller paper

This paper seems WP:RS and should be considered. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


The mars science lab is no longer a future mission, its a current one.Aperseghin (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done -BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)