Ask Science

8813 readers

6 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.

Community Rules

Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.

Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.

Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.

Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.

Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.

Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.

Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.

Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.

Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.

Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.

Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.

Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.

Rule 7: Report violations.

Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.

Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.

Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.

Rule 9: Source required for answers.

Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.

By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

sabbah@lemmy.world

AradFort@lemmy.world

ken_cleanairsystems@lemmy.sdf.org

count_of_monte_carlo@lemmy.world

Is the mere ability to support life enough to think that life might have existed on Mars or other objects? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by keyboardpithecus@lemmy.world to c/askscience@lemmy.world

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

An often repeated statement about any extraterrestrial object is: "if it has liquid water it might suport life". On this assumption a lot of space probes, robots and rovers include the sensors and the instruments the search for traces of past life. This has had high priority in many missions to Mars and it will have high priority also in future missions to the satellites of Jupiter.

Now the thought came to my mind that the ability to support life might not be enough. Life on Earth exists in the most inhospitable places, even in lakes that formed below the polar caps. But the theory is that life evolved in the primordial soup, which was a very favourable environment, only later it spread to inhospitable environments.

To repeat myself, what I am saying is that the ability to support life and the ability to support the birth of life might be two different things. How much different is the question. If the answer is that the difference is strong and life needs a cosy environment in order to arise the assumption it had liquid water therefore it might have had life is moot.

So, how strong is the difference? Is just some liquid water in unknown conditions enough to let life arise, even if it might support existing life?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 3 points 2 days ago

Thanks for this - a reasoned, easy-to-grasp explanation of missions, without a lot of technical jargon.

It's this kind of writing that's needed (from any technical field) for those not in that field to understand it. I'm in IT, and work diligently to provide this kind of explanation to decision-makers. It's not easy, when in your head you see all the "but this" at the technical level. We have to sacrifice high-resolution detail to provide a "good enough" image for people to comprehend. Sometimes that means being "technically inaccurate" - which then gets unnecessarily criticised.

I wish magazines like Scientific American (which has seriously gone down hill) wrote like this more.