From elementary science, I understand that:
- Cells are the basic building blocks for all living organisms.
- It is through cell division that organisms grow.
- Cell membranes are permeable to allow the process of osmosis.
Definition of osmosis from The Sage English Dictionary for language education and research :
- Diffusion of molecules through a semipermeable membrane from a place of higher concentration to a place of lower concentration until the concentration on both sides is equal.
- Water plays a vital role in the basic processes required for cellular life.
- The presence of water alone is not enough, the right quantities or concentration of water is required in order for the cells to be healthy to perform their jobs, hence one of the reasons that osmosis exists.

There is no doubt that extremophiles can live in extremely hostile environments, but to say that extremophiles can live without water, is to say that water is NOT an essential for life, if that is the case then, the makers of the documentary have a lot of explaining to do regarding the growth and structure of those particular extremophiles, at the cellular level, showing processes occurring without water.

If indeed it has been observed and is verified as true, that water is not a necessity for life, that organisms can live without water, it will be a breakthrough discovery in science and the textbooks will need to be rewritten, just as one day science thought that the world is flat, but now it is well known that it is not.

Based on the currently known facts about cellular life, it would be well if the makers of the documentary had focused their research on how those extremophiles managed to maintain their water content in such extreme conditions.

An example is Halophiles:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halophile

- http://munghole.tripod.com/halophiles.html

So how do Halophiles manage to live and maintain their water levels?

- http://munghole.tripod.com/halophiles.html

The above is an ingenious example of how one of the extremophile organisms live and maintain their water content in extreme conditions (the last sentence summarizes it) , in the effort to show that water is not an option, but a necessity for life.

---

You cannot take resilient organisms that can live in the most hostile conditions from earth to a location in space, then term that to be "extraterrestrial" life. It cannot be termed as an ET for the simple reason that the organism(s) initially came from earth. It would only be an ET if the organisms did not initially come from earth.

---

The primary reason for the earlier statement that there is no life or ET's on Mars, is because of a simple reason that all conditions that are necessary for life have thus far, not been found anywhere else, but on earth, hence the reason for mentioning the lack of water on Mars. The lack of water being just one of the many unfulfilled factors that are required for life.

This is why before there can be hope for life in other planets, scientists begin the search by searching for water.

The scientific community is not in accord regarding the subject of "water on Mars". There are different schools of thought and theories, of which we will explore a few of the more popular ones.

First of, the theory of water on Mars came to be because of the observations that have been done. The common reasons for proposing water on Mars are polar ice caps...



... and the landscape that has dry meanders, dry gullies and other dry forms of landscapes that look like they have been shaped in a way that suggests that flowing liquid was present. The gullies on mars are shaped like the ones that are on earth. The ones on earth were shaped / created by the flow of water.

Below is an example of a gully on mars.



Here's why on Mars, water cannot exist in liquid form.

- The average annual temperature on mars is about -60 °C, which is way below waters freezing temp, meaning that should there be water, the water will be in the form of ice. Also keeping in mind that the water's freezing point / temperature is significantly lower on Mars than it is on Earth, this is because of the low atmospheric pressure on Mars.

- Supposing that the temp on Mars rises to waters melting point, you'd expect that the water that was in the form of ice to melt into liquid form, and hence form the meanders and gullies, but this is not the case because the atmospheric pressure on Mars is too weak to keep water in liquid form, hence the ice sublimates.

Definition of Sublimation from http://en.wikipedia.org/...imation_%28chemistry%29
Sublimation is the process of transformation directly from the solid phase to the gaseous phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase.

This is the reason why in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars

It has been stated that:



And



(Note that it should have been written "Current conditions on the planet surface do not support the existence of liquid water", for the same reasons that the rest of the statement continues to state.)

Polar ice caps

The obvious reason for ice in the polar regions has to do with the climate, in that those are the regions that are most cool due to the little direct solar exposure that the regions receive, just as we have the polar regions on earth caused by the same reasons.

The bigger question is "What is the ice made of?"

The atmosphere on Mars is composed of:

Carbon dioxide 95.32%
Nitrogen 2.7%
Argon 1.6%
Oxygen 0.13%
Carbon monoxide 0.07%
Water vapor 0.03%
Nitric oxide .0013%
Trace gases(including krypton, methane, etc)

According to:
http://www.universetoday.com/84657/what-is-mars-atmosphere-made-of/#ixzz23llDojDV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

If you notice, CO2 has the greatest share, with a whooping 95.32%

Just as H2O can exist as a solid, liquid or gas, so also can CO2 exist in any of the three forms, provided that the conditions (the temperature and the atmospheric pressure) for each of those states have been met.

Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars



Definition of Deposition from http://en.wikipedia.org/..._%28phase_transition%29



The source of the ice is obviously from the atmosphere because it is mainly in the cooler regions of the planet that deposition and sublimation occurs, relative to the amount of solar exposure. The ice will obviously contain the trace elements and compounds from the atmosphere, who's conditions needed for deposition to occur have been met, and likewise, sublimation will occur with elements and compounds who's condition for sublimation has been met.

The question that still needs to be answered is: How were those landscapes created, that seem to have been caused by the flow of water, when observation and analysis reveal that water cannot exist as liquid form on Mars?

It is because of this predicament, different theories have emerged.

Below are just a few of the common theories, ending with the most realistic.

The Megaoutflo Hypothesis

The full abstract can be found in the link below:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999DPS....31.3901B

The Megaoutflow Hypothesis basically says that that once upon a time, the atmosphere on Mars was stable to allow water to exist in liquid form. There is also an assumption that there is subterranean water, which it's outflow caused the floods, which in turn shaped the landscape.

Quoting the abstract



Questions that arose to show some problems with this theory, is that the landscape is so fresh, not old and looks like it happened recently.



(You can see more landscape photos in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars)

The way that landscape is so sharply curved does not suggest that it was formed thousands or millions of years ago, rather in the recent years, present time or not too distant. And if indeed that the landscape was formed in the distant years, when the atmosphere was stable, why aren't there craters that are also as old on the landscape that was apparently created by the flow of water? Instead, flesh looking gullies exist without old craters, and yet water is not present.

Another theory is that the wind is responsible.

This theory has partial fulfilment, in that it is possible for wind to curve out landscapes and transporting rock and debris, making it look like the the flow of water caused the formations, considering the magnitude of the dust storms that occur on Mars, but the questions that arose with this theory is that some of the landscape are deep and sharp that wind alone could not be responsible for the the formation of that landscape.

Another theory is Liquid CO2

Since Mars has so a lot of CO2, and CO2 can exist as a liquid, some scientists suppose that the floods were CO2 liquid, but the same reasons that make the existence of water not possible in liquid form are the same reasons why CO2 cannot exist in liquid form. More than this, even on Earth, where the atmospheric pressure is sufficient to keep water in liquid state, that same pressure is not sufficient to keep CO2 in liquid state, you would need to have the CO2 in a pressurized chamber, in the right temperature, in order to keep the CO2 in liquid form, well then, how can CO2 exist as liquid on Mars when, even on Earth it requires a pressurized chamber, which obviously means that CO2 requires more atmospheric pressure than H2O, and yet H2O cannot exist as liquid on Mars?

Another theory is an eruption

Just as on Earth when an eruption occurs, rock and other material is thrown into the air, and magma flows, like liquid. On Mars, the eruption would be caused by liquid CO2 pressure buildup underground. The pressure underground would make it possible for CO2 to exist at liquid. During eruption, the force of the eruption would cause material to be thrown in the air and others flow like liquid down slopes. The liquid CO2 would turn to gas the moment it is exposed to the low atmospheric pressure.

This is a good theory with good possibilities of it being so, it just needs to be proved.

Next is most realistic theory that is close to the one above (eruption), except that it is not liquid CO2, but the sublimation of frozen CO2.

This theory has been summarized in the two articles below that complement each other.

Article 1: Mars Gullies Produced by Dry Granular Debris and Not by Recent Water Flow

The High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) on board NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) observed what *appeared* to be fresh gullies formed by a rapid release of water on the Martian surface in 2006. However, new computer models simulating the creation of gullies on the surface of Mars suggest that they are in fact created by the flow of dry debris (i.e. landslides) and not by the flow of water. A blow for the microbial life hunters and a huge blow for mission planners looking for easy sources of water for manned missions…

The MRO isn’t the only orbiter to view *apparent* gullies forged by spurts of water. The Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) onboard NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) also made news in 2006 when scanning the cratered regions of Terra Sirenum and Centauri Montes. Images taken several years apart revealed some changes in the most recent pictures, highlighting what looked like outflow channels from surges of liquid water (pictured below). What made this especially exciting was that this was possible evidence for the existence of liquid water flowing on Mars within the past few years (albeit very quickly).



Before and after pictures by MOC of a gully inside a crater (credit: NASA/JPL)

New work by scientists at the University of Arizona appears to conflict with these observations. In an attempt to demonstrate the characteristics of water flowing in Martian conditions, Associate Professor Jon D. Pelletier (Geophysics) and colleagues used topological data from the HiRISE instrument (the most advanced imaging system currently orbiting Mars) and modelled the flow of water down a slope. What the simulation showed was a surprise; the researchers went into the project thinking they were going to prove that the gullies were formed by water. Instead, they had shown that the shapes and characteristics of the observed gullies most resembled that of the modelled gullies shaped by dry debris tumbling down a slope.





Looking at the comparison between the two cases (water and dry debris flow) and the HiRISE observations, it is very easy to see the striking resemblance between dry debris flow and what is actually observed. The water simulation appears to be more diffuse, lacking the characteristic “fingers” reaching down the slope.

On hearing the news in 2006 that there was a possibility of liquid water flowing on the Martian surface, biologists hoped that a new tool had been found to pinpoint where sub-surface deposits of liquid water may be stored. This will have provided future missions with a location to hunt for life in the most likely place, near fresh gullies, near a source of water. Unfortunately it seems that these gullies are in fact shaped by small landslides, not by surges of water from a sub-surface reservoir.

Research to be published in the March issue of Geology, entitled: “Recent bright gully deposits on Mars: wet or dry flow?“.

http://www.universetoday...t-by-recent-water-flow/

Article 2: Are gas-formed gullies the norm on Mars?

In June 2000, Martian imaging scientists made a striking discovery — data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft found gullies on the red planet. Gullies on Earth form when water runs down steep slopes and carves soil out of its way, so the discovery of this geologic feature on Mars was enticing evidence that liquid water existed on or near the surface of Mars.

But gullies have also been spotted in the Mars’ polar regions where the temperature is too cold for water to exist in its liquid form. Adding to the puzzle is the suggestion that the apparent gullies are actually formed by wind or underground gases causing sand and dust to roll down a steep hill and create what looks like a gully formed by Water. So what’s behind the gullies at Mars’ poles? Frozen carbon dioxide — more commonly known as dry ice — isn’t an uncommon feature on Mars. It can freeze out of the carbon dioxide rich atmosphere on Mars and, after a dust storm, be covered by a thin layer of dust or sand. Recently, researchers are looking to this subsurface dry ice as a possible explanation for Martian gullies, particularly at the frozen poles.



A gully that looks like it was made by water eroding hard rock. Credit: NASA/JPL/Malin Space Science Systems

The key here is sublimation — the phenomenon of a solid passing directly into its gaseous state. You’ve seen this happen if you’ve ever poured water on dry ice. The water warms the solid dry ice and turn it into a gas. On Mars, it’s possible that changes in temperatures with seasons could be enough to sublimate the frozen carbon dioxide. The expulsion of the gas through the soil on the surface could cause it to roll down a hill like a fluid. The same thing would happen with water coming up from under ground. Whether or not dry ice sublimation is behind polar gullies became a focus of Yolanda Cedillo-Flores and three colleagues at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas.



Link to large image: http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2011/2-aregasformed.jpg

Between 1999 and 2005, a new gully popped up. Credit: NASA/JPL/Malin Space Science Systems

A previous study testing whether sublimating dry ice could form gullies, led by Cedillo-Flores, was brilliant in its simplicity. They piled sand into Mars-like slopes then blew air underneath the sand. The sand flowed down the slope, much like a liquid would, and formed was looked very much like a gully.

Recently, the team at the Lunar and Planetary Institute have been testing the possibility of this phenomenon happening on Mars. They used the average daytime and seasonal temperatures of the Martian year to calculate the sublimation rate of dry ice on Mars. Then, they ran models of this event on Martian areas without any sediment as well as those with layers of sand and dust of varying thickness over the average seasonal deposit of dry ice. When simulated spring came, enough heat reached the dry ice that it sublimated and acted like a fluid. Turns out, Mars is just right for seasonal sublimation of frozen carbon dioxide. They finally came to the conclusion that carbon dioxide sublimation is the likeliest cause behind the gullies forming in Mars’ polar regions.

http://phys.org/news/201...-gullies-norm-mars.html


========================================================================================
Info about NASA's water hunt agenda from http://www.velocitypress.com/Water_On_Mars.html
========================================================================================

Who can fail to have noticed in their glowing accounts of the search for signs of past water on Mars, that NASA never mentions the other side of the story? Every press release begins or ends with the hope that the Rovers will find signs of abundant liquid water in Mar's dusty past. In many cases it's not even a hope, it's just a question of when they will find this evidence. And who can blame them? Look at the Martian satellite photos of arroyos, river delta flows etched in the sand, and all the analogues to heavy--even torrential--water flow in the past.

Then you learn that if caused by liquid water, these flows must have occurred millions of years ago, and it hits you: How can these ancient flows look so recent and unweathered, and why aren't more of them pocked with millions of years' worth of meteorites?



My suspicion is that they ARE recent; that there may never have been any significant liquid water on Mars and that the arroyos, and river deltas are nothing more than the flow of very fine, crystalline Martian sand.

If dry ice (frozen CO2) is held underground by the pressure of dirt above it, and the temperature rises in the summer enough to melt it, the result will be an explosive release of the gas/liquid that will flow downhill like a raging torrent of water, carrying huge blocks of rock and debris with it, and carving out flow channels exactly like a water flood. Once released and flowed-out, the CO2 will evaporate. There are suspicious outflows (deltas) where one would expect signs of pooling of the great flow, but there is no evidence of standing water at all. The sedimentation being used as an excuse for water-layering can as well have been caused by airborn layering due to the annual planet-wide dust storms.



The elephant in the room: Mars Rover photo (8/17/04) showing liquid-like sand flow that is--astoundingly--not commented on. Being on the surface, it must be as recent as any erosion, and can only have occurred in the complete absence of surface water. How? How does Martian sand flow like muddy water? NASA is mute.

What the religion of the fine folk at NASA won’t allow them to say is that while Mars probably does have water locked-up in its poles as ice, and perhaps traces amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure may never have been high enough to permit water to exist as a liquid for more than the most transitory periods of time. This would be a disaster to the NASA acolytes, and its future missions.


The NASA religion is that life is ubiquitous in the universe–evidence of which is that even our next door neighbor (i.e., Mars) had it. Therefore, let’s go out and find it. They don’t tout the Drake Equation, but it runs as a basso continuo in their thinking. That’s why you’ve never heard them even utter the opposite possibility–that Mars never made it, life-wise, and has always been a barren desert.

There should be at NASA a group of in-house heretics , especially set up to press the Mars- Never-Made-It argument, so that the scientists won’t just keep looking, piling up one excuse after another about why they haven't found water yet: that they just aren’t in the right spot, that the evidence is too deeply buried, that we need better instruments, that a manned mission would solve it. (Or, as they are now saying, we have found such evidence.) The apostates would actively try to show not why water isn’t being found, and how the evidential water flows might have been formed by the natural, dry processes extent on Mars.

Still Quoting from the same article from http://www.velocitypress.com/Water_On_Mars.html

---

Curiosity's Mission Overview from curiosity's homepage http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/overview/

Curiosity was designed to assess whether Mars ever had an environment able to support small life forms called microbes. In other words, its mission is to determine the planet's "habitability."

To find out, the rover carries the biggest, most advanced suite of instruments for scientific studies ever sent to the martian surface. The rover will analyze samples scooped from the soil and drilled from rocks. The record of the planet's climate and geology is essentially "written in the rocks and soil" -- in their formation, structure, and chemical composition. The rover's onboard laboratory will study rocks, soils, and the local geologic setting in order to detect chemical building blocks of life (e.g., forms of carbon) on Mars and will assess what the martian environment was like in the past.

Right.. and they would also want to know if there is life out there. Now for NASA to spend so much money and time on this there must have been some form of communication (with what they call Aliens). I have always asked myself why an institute like SETI exists...

Another thing...I tend to think Martians became extinct because of environmental degradation. Just like the sahara was once green mars must have had some form of life

smh

dizzy!

It's about supernaturalism i.e. creationism & intelligent design vs naturalism i.e. evolution & big bang

It couldn't be anything less than what it is, considering the nature of what needed to be communicated.

They now know that the days in Mars are longer by 40 mins....

The mission that you've brought up could serve for any purpose, for different nations have different institutions with different missions for different purposes, but in this case, we are dealing with NASA, of which information about them is widely available, and through observation and analysis, the conclusion that part of NASA's mission(s) involves the effort to prove evolution, has very good chances of it (the conclusion), not being wrong, considering the things that will be mentioned below.

- What could be one of the reasons that NASA wants to find life on mars or other places?
- NASA believes in naturalism i.e. Evolution & The Big Bang
"In order to understand how the Universe has changed from its initial simple state following the Big Bang..."
http://science.nasa.gov/...rograms/cosmic-origins/
- What is the Big Bang? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
- "The NASA religion is that life is ubiquitous in the universe (meaning can be anywhere at anytime, does not have to be only on earth) – evidence of which is that even our next door neighbor (i.e., Mars) had it. Therefore, let’s go out and find it."
http://www.velocitypress.com/Water_On_Mars.html

- Despite mars not being able to support water in liquid form (regarding this, read the long post), why does NASA insist that mars was once a water soaked place?
- It is because there is no hope of finding life without first finding water.
- Opportunity rover landed on Eagle Crater, which after analysis, scientists presumptuously considered it once to be a water soaked place.
- NASA's press release regarding Opportunity on Eagle Crater: http://marsrovers.jpl.na...ortunity/20040323a.html
- Having considered mars to once having water:
"It also meant they had achieved their goal. The primary reason for sending rovers to Mars, the reason why NASA was funding the mission, was to look for signs of past liquid water. *If evidence of water were found, the next questions scientists would seek to answer would be what the environment was like when water was present and whether past environments were favorable for life*." - http://www.velocitypress.com/Water_On_Mars.html
- Curiosity's mission
"Curiosity was designed to assess whether Mars ever had an environment able to support small life forms called microbes. In other words, its mission is to determine the planet's "habitability." http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/overview/

- More Evidence for trying to prove life of mars
- Out of the total of 14 missions to mars (including curiosity), all 14 of them involved the search for life or an environment conducive for life.
"The Mars Exploration Program is a science-driven program that seeks to understand whether Mars was, is, or can be, a habitable world. To find out, we need to understand how geologic, climatic, and other processes have worked to shape Mars and its environment over time, as well as how they interact today." - http://science.nasa.gov/...grams/mars-exploration/ This link has the previous 13 missions.
- Out of the four goals for mars exploration, the search for life is their number N.o.1 goal.
- Goal 1: Determine if Life ever arose on Mars.
- Goal 2: Characterize the Climate of Mars.
- Goal 3: Characterize the Geology of Mars.
- Goal 4: Prepare for Human Exploration of Mars.
http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/smd-programs/mars-exploration/

It's within the other goals that they discover things like what murchr mentioned "days in Mars are longer by 40 mins".

- While is it clear that it is not possible for water to exist in liquid form, and while there is an explanation for the landscapes that were shaped without water, and reasons why the landscapes were not shaped ages ago by past waters (read the long post), NASA still really needs for water to exist or have existed.
"To discover the possibilities for life on Mars--past, present or our own in the future--the Mars Program has developed an exploration strategy known as "Follow the Water." http://science.nasa.gov/...grams/mars-exploration/

"Following the water begins with an understanding of the current environment on Mars. We want to explore observed features like dry riverbeds, ice in the polar caps and rock types that only form when water is present. We want to look for hot springs, hydrothermal vents or subsurface water reserves. We want to understand if ancient Mars once held a vast ocean in the northern hemisphere as some scientists believe and how Mars may have transitioned from a more watery environment to the dry and dusty climate it has today. Searching for these answers means delving into the planet's geologic and climate history to find out how, when and why Mars underwent dramatic changes to become the forbidding, yet promising, planet we observe today." http://science.nasa.gov/...grams/mars-exploration/

---

- FYI, there is a serious controversy going on between the two positions - Supernaturalism vs Naturalism
- Scientists in top institutions have lost their jobs, had their credentials revoked and other things for the sin of mentioning of "Intelligent Design".
- Search for a documentary called "Expelled". This documentary brings to surface the war that is going on in academia regarding supernaturalism vs naturalism - a must watch. You can also look for the trailer. Both are in youtube.
- Proving their position requires them proving the existence of ET's.
- In what other context can the issues that were raised in this post make sense?
- If their mission was for mineral extraction or mining, then that would have been what they would be doing - mining or exploration for minerals, but you find that their mission purpose to mars is primarily for the search of life.

- Well, could NASA's missions to space have an agenda to prove their stand regarding origins?

looking at the image of mount sharp with sediment layers you would think the place was under water once

http://www.nasa.gov/miss...multimedia/pia16105.html

Yes you would think so.

Considering all that has been discussed, wouldn't the better approach be to figure out how the landscape was formed without water?

I stumbled upon this:

Mars To Stay Missions