MoogleViper Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 Well everything on Earth needs water in some form to survive so we have no reason to believe other species won't need water, basically. Obviously it's a possibility, but judging by what we've encountered so far, water is essential. So looking for life on other planets, the obvious place to look is around where water could be or has been in the past. That is true of life on Earth but it has been proposed that all sorts of other liquids, such as hydrogen fluoride, sulphuric acid, ammonia, hydrogen peroxide, methanol or methane have all been proposed as liquids that could do the job of water if the planet's climate was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 Well everything on Earth needs water in some form to survive so we have no reason to believe other species won't need water, basically. Obviously it's a possibility, but judging by what we've encountered so far, water is essential. So looking for life on other planets, the obvious place to look is around where water could be or has been in the past. Thats how life on this planet evolved, with our atmosphere of Nitrogen and Oxygen, the ground of whatever the hell makes up the ground, etc. But whats to say there isn't another planet out there with an atomosphere of two different gases, perhaps even gases that aren't found on Earth, with a ground made up of elements that don't exist on earth, where they use a different material to sustain life? Who's to say "life" on one planet is the same concept as that of Earth? Scientists label other planets with Earth's logics and restrictions without knowing for certain they are even relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted May 26, 2008 Author Share Posted May 26, 2008 But the fact is, as far as we know, there aren't elements on mars we don't have on earth. If you were NASA, would you rather send a probe to a place where life like what we have on earth could have possibly existed, or a place in which life on earth couldn't possibly survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calza Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 Yeah so how else are we supposed to label, if Earth is the only planet in our solar system that has living life on it then I would think obviously it would be the best place to start. I mean c'mon how else are scientists supposed to recognise the requirements for life? And its just unrealistic to think that if there is life on other planets, and Earth and that planet would not be similar in at least one way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 Thats how life on this planet evolved, with our atmosphere of Nitrogen and Oxygen, the ground of whatever the hell makes up the ground, etc. But whats to say there isn't another planet out there with an atomosphere of two different gases, perhaps even gases that aren't found on Earth, with a ground made up of elements that don't exist on earth, where they use a different material to sustain life? Who's to say "life" on one planet is the same concept as that of Earth? Scientists label other planets with Earth's logics and restrictions without knowing for certain they are even relevant. Do you really think the scientists who are doing this haven't thought of this? Read the posts above this for more reasons why. Also, Mars is the closest (or 2nd closest?) planet to us so it's the most viable to send a mission to. It takes 10 months to get to Mars, remember, it's a long time and it's not even a dead cert it's going to actually land properly. Start of small and then get more adventurous as the technology gets better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 But the fact is, as far as we know, there aren't elements on mars we don't have on earth. If you were NASA, would you rather send a probe to a place where life like what we have on earth could have possibly existed, or a place in which life on earth couldn't possibly survive. I wasn't speaking about the Mars probe, more generally about the possibilities of what is out there in the entire expanse of space. Out of our reach for now, of course. Yeah so how else are we supposed to label, if Earth is the only planet in our solar system that has living life on it then I would think obviously it would be the best place to start. I mean c'mon how else are scientists supposed to recognise the requirements for life? And its just unrealistic to think that if there is life on other planets, and Earth and that planet would not be similar in at least one way. I appreciate that, but what I meant was they can't rule out there being life there if there is no water. It's even more unrealistic to think life will be similar. Do you really think the scientists who are doing this haven't thought of this? Read the posts above this for more reasons why. Also, Mars is the closest (or 2nd closest?) planet to us so it's the most viable to send a mission to. It takes 10 months to get to Mars, remember, it's a long time and it's not even a dead cert it's going to actually land properly. Start of small and then get more adventurous as the technology gets better. Again I was speaking more generally, not specifically the Mars probe :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Gizmo you're right and it's possible that there are other ways of "living" on other planets. But Mars is close to us and the technology isn't all that great yet. Besides we need water and part of these missions is to find out if it is viable for us to colonise mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts