The "microbe", is a blue-green alga, Chroococcidiopsis.
It does not produce oxygen from Martian soil, but from water, if you give water and solar light to it.
The newsworthy part is that this cyanobacterium can survive in the presence of the toxic Martian soil and it can also survive the freezing caused by the Martian temperatures.
Therefore it could be used in some kind of greenhouses built on Mars, but a water source for supplying the greenhouse must be found.
In general, on Mars producing enough water to cover all needs will be the greatest technical challenge. All other substances are abundant enough in comparison with the required quantities, except possibly the noble gases, like argon and helium (but in the non-oxidizing Martian atmosphere there will be much less need of inert gases for techniques like welding).
How is it "grossly incorrect"? Using both taxonomic and size classification, is it not accurate to refer to a blue-green alga as a "microbe" or "microorganism." [1]
A microbe (or microorganism) is generally defined as an organism that is microscopic—too small to be seen clearly by the naked eye. Blue-green algae fit this definition as they are single-celled or form microscopic colonies.
The scientific name for blue-green algae is cyanobacteria, which are technically a type of bacteria, universally classified as microbes. [2] They are prokaryotes (lacking a nucleus and other membrane-bound organelles), and the two prokaryotic domains of life (Bacteria and Archaea) are composed entirely of microbes.
I am quite ignorant on these specifics but wouldn't it be feasable to basically have them in a greenhouse environment, heated, in the North pole area, where I believe there was some form of IceWater found..
If possible to even melt some of that, and let that cascade the effect ?
This is so inspiring. It has become almost axiomatic that Martian regolith is toxic. [1] This microbe research represents a move in thinking from planetary protection (protecting us from Mars) to In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), using Mars to support us. The microbe turns two liabilities — the high perchlorate ClO4 mineral content and the atmospheric CO2 — into the two necessities for a colony: building material and breathable air.
[1] References:
Davila, A. F., Willson, D., Coates, J. D., & McKay, C. P. (2013). Perchlorate on Mars: a chemical hazard and a resource for humans. International Journal of Astrobiology, 12(4), 321–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1473550413000189
Oze, C., Beisel, J., Dabsys, E., Dall, J., North, G., Scott, A., Lopez, A. M., Holmes, R., & Fendorf, S. (2021). Perchlorate and Agriculture on Mars. Soil Systems, 5(3), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems5030037
Perchlorate on Mars – Overview and Implications. (2019). (NASA Technical Report).
Perchlorate-Reducing Biofilms Open a New Avenue for Martian Agriculture. (n.d.). Current Trends in Biotechnology and Bioengineering Sciences, 1(1).
Potential Health Impacts, Treatments, and Countermeasures of Martian Dust on Future Human Space Exploration. (n.d.). Life.
IMHO I feel the title is appropriate. They are not claiming to have found life on Mars, they are making the very pivotal claim that there are forms of life that can turn liabilities on Mars into assets.
Agreed, the clear was very clear for me too. I wonder what the microbe eats, and if we can supply that in enough volumes to make a dent to Mars' atmosphere.
True, it is deliberately misleading. However, some possible indicators of life have been found on Mars although these are contested. Two thar I can think of are methane emissions on the planets, and the soil tests by the Viking landers in the seventies, which returned ambiguous results.
As always, the title is grossly incorrect.
The "microbe", is a blue-green alga, Chroococcidiopsis.
It does not produce oxygen from Martian soil, but from water, if you give water and solar light to it.
The newsworthy part is that this cyanobacterium can survive in the presence of the toxic Martian soil and it can also survive the freezing caused by the Martian temperatures.
Therefore it could be used in some kind of greenhouses built on Mars, but a water source for supplying the greenhouse must be found.
In general, on Mars producing enough water to cover all needs will be the greatest technical challenge. All other substances are abundant enough in comparison with the required quantities, except possibly the noble gases, like argon and helium (but in the non-oxidizing Martian atmosphere there will be much less need of inert gases for techniques like welding).
How is it "grossly incorrect"? Using both taxonomic and size classification, is it not accurate to refer to a blue-green alga as a "microbe" or "microorganism." [1]
A microbe (or microorganism) is generally defined as an organism that is microscopic—too small to be seen clearly by the naked eye. Blue-green algae fit this definition as they are single-celled or form microscopic colonies.
The scientific name for blue-green algae is cyanobacteria, which are technically a type of bacteria, universally classified as microbes. [2] They are prokaryotes (lacking a nucleus and other membrane-bound organelles), and the two prokaryotic domains of life (Bacteria and Archaea) are composed entirely of microbes.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9025173/
[2] https://doh.wa.gov/community-and-environment/contaminants/bl...
> How is it "grossly incorrect"?
Perhaps it's not glossly incorrect, but I classyfy it as "super ultra mega misleading".
I'd like a title like "*Cyanobacteria survives in water contamined with martian soil"
I am quite ignorant on these specifics but wouldn't it be feasable to basically have them in a greenhouse environment, heated, in the North pole area, where I believe there was some form of IceWater found..
If possible to even melt some of that, and let that cascade the effect ?
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Mars_E...
This is so inspiring. It has become almost axiomatic that Martian regolith is toxic. [1] This microbe research represents a move in thinking from planetary protection (protecting us from Mars) to In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), using Mars to support us. The microbe turns two liabilities — the high perchlorate ClO4 mineral content and the atmospheric CO2 — into the two necessities for a colony: building material and breathable air.
[1] References:
Davila, A. F., Willson, D., Coates, J. D., & McKay, C. P. (2013). Perchlorate on Mars: a chemical hazard and a resource for humans. International Journal of Astrobiology, 12(4), 321–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1473550413000189
Oze, C., Beisel, J., Dabsys, E., Dall, J., North, G., Scott, A., Lopez, A. M., Holmes, R., & Fendorf, S. (2021). Perchlorate and Agriculture on Mars. Soil Systems, 5(3), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems5030037
Perchlorate on Mars – Overview and Implications. (2019). (NASA Technical Report).
Perchlorate-Reducing Biofilms Open a New Avenue for Martian Agriculture. (n.d.). Current Trends in Biotechnology and Bioengineering Sciences, 1(1).
Potential Health Impacts, Treatments, and Countermeasures of Martian Dust on Future Human Space Exploration. (n.d.). Life.
That reminds of how oxygen itself was highly toxic to the early anaerobic lifeforms on Earth.
[flagged]
“Researchers tested this by using soil that mimics Martian regolith. “
Would this hold for real Martian regolith?
Source: https://www.universetoday.com/articles/one-extremophile-eats...
Lame title. Life wasn’t found on mars they just cultured a microbe on soil from mars.
The title nor the article ever said that life was found on Mars ?
IMHO I feel the title is appropriate. They are not claiming to have found life on Mars, they are making the very pivotal claim that there are forms of life that can turn liabilities on Mars into assets.
Agreed, the clear was very clear for me too. I wonder what the microbe eats, and if we can supply that in enough volumes to make a dent to Mars' atmosphere.
True, it is deliberately misleading. However, some possible indicators of life have been found on Mars although these are contested. Two thar I can think of are methane emissions on the planets, and the soil tests by the Viking landers in the seventies, which returned ambiguous results.
> True, it is deliberately misleading.
It's not misleading, this article has nothing to do with finding life on Mars.
> If humans ever build bases on Mars, they will need systems that can provide oxygen without constant resupply from Earth
Have you READ the article ? Or just misinterpreted the title and then commented ?