These strange, hybrid Earth lifeforms could survive on Mars, new study hints
Earth-based lifeforms known as lichens may be tough enough to survive on Mars, a new study suggests.
Scientists came to this conclusion after blasting the lichens with a year's worth of Martian radiation in less than a day during a lab experiment — and the terrestrial lifeforms survived the process.
Mars is not an easy place to live. The Red Planet is essentially one giant desert with a minimal atmosphere, low temperatures and no liquid water at its surface. But the biggest barrier to life on Mars is the lack of a strong magnetic field, which protects against the constant bombardment of ionizing radiation from cosmic rays and solar flares, which can damage living cells and mutate their DNA.
One group of living things that may be able to survive these extreme conditions is lichens, symbiotic associations between fungi and photosynthetic bacteria and/or algae. These hybrid lifeforms, which are not considered true organisms but are listed as species on the three of life, work together to stay alive and many are extremophiles, capable of tolerating no hydration and extreme temperatures for long periods. Some species have even survived being directly exposed to the vacuum of space.
In the new study, published March 31 in the journal IMA Fungus, researchers tested how two lichen species — Diploschistes muscorum and Cetraria aculeata — reacted to ionizing radiation under Martian conditions. To do this, the team placed the lifeforms in a specialized vacuum chamber at the Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw, which replicated the atmospheric pressure, temperatures and composition on the Red Planet. They bombarded the lichens with a year's worth of Martian radiation in just 5 hours. Both species were able to remain metabolically active throughout the tests.
Related: Which animals will be the first to live on the moon and Mars?
"These findings expand our understanding of biological processes under simulated Martian conditions and reveal how hydrated organisms respond to ionizing radiation," Kaja Skubała, a researcher at the Institute of Botany at the Jagellonian University in Krakow, Poland, said in a statement. "Ultimately, this research deepens our knowledge of lichen adaptation and their potential for colonizing extraterrestrial environments."
Of the two species, D. muscorum showed the greatest resistance to the radiation, sustaining less damage to its cells, which suggests that some lichens will be better suited to Martian conditions than others. However, it is unlikely that any species would be able to survive on Mars unattended for long periods, as there is no known liquid water at the surface, which all of Earth's lifeforms need to survive.
This is the reason why it is unlikely that there is any extraterrestrial life currently alive on Mars.
According to the researchers, the new experiments show that lichens are prime candidates for being taken on future Mars missions, although there are several resilient species other than D. muscorum that could also make the trip.
But lichens are not the only lifeforms that could potentially survive on the Red Planet.
One extremophile group that has long been considered as future Martian tourists is tardigrades. These microscopic critters are nearly indestructible and can survive extreme temperatures, crushing pressures, total dehydration and the vacuum of space, largely thanks to an ability to switch off their metabolism and enter a state of suspended animation.
Other candidates include mosses — plants with similar abilities to lichens. Some desert moss species have even been shown to be resilient to gamma rays and liquid nitrogen, hinting that they too could fare well on Mars.
RELATED STORIES
—NASA may have unknowingly found and killed alien life on Mars 50 years ago, scientist claims
—Longest molecules ever found on Mars may be remnants of building blocks of life
—NASA Mars rover finds 'first compelling detection' of potential fossilized life on the Red Planet
Single-celled microorganisms, such as bacteria, might also be able to survive on Mars if they were sheltered from radiation, living underground. Research has shown that these microbes could also survive for hundreds of millions of years beneath the surface in a hibernation-like state.
However, the first terrestrial lifeforms to touch down on Mars will likely be a species that is naturally very poorly suited to living on Mars — humans. NASA intends on launching the first crewed mission to the Red Planet sometime in the 2030s, when they will get a taste of how tough it is to survive there.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Astronomers discover giant alien planet 35 times more massive than Earth hiding in a known star system
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Scientists have detected a hidden alien planet by examining the orbits of the known worlds in the star system, known as Kepler-139. The newfound exoplanet, called Kepler-139f, is a gigantic world roughly twice the mass of Neptune and 35 times the mass of Earth, and it takes 355 days to orbit its star, astronomers reported in a study published May 2 in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. Despite its giant size, Kepler-139f had evaded detection. That's because the initial yield of NASA's Kepler space telescope, which discovered nearly 3,000 planets in its nine years of operation, relied on worlds transiting — passing between their star and Earth. The resulting dimming of the star allowed astronomers to identify planets and calculate their size. But Kepler couldn't see planets traveling above or below the wedge of space between it and the star, so any outliers remained unseen. But if the hidden world was part of a multiplanet system, astronomers could try to find it despite its inclined orbit. Kepler-139 has three rocky transiting super-Earths; a fourth gas giant was later discovered. Gaps in their orbits suggested that other worlds might be present. Precise measurements of the orbits allowed the astronomers to infer the existence of at least one more planet. "The issue is not exactly finding non-transiting planets, but rather, finding situations in which we can deduce where the non-transiting planet is located," Caleb Lammers, a graduate student in the Department of Astrophysical Science at Princeton and co-author of the study, told by email. Kepler's initial identification of a world was often followed up by observations from the ground. Using radial velocity (RV), astronomers could measure how much a planet tugged on its star, allowing them to determine the planet's mass. RV measurements could also reveal new worlds, as happened with the outermost gas giant, Kepler-139e. At the same time, each planet is pulled by not only its star but also by other planets in the system, regardless of whether that planet can be seen from Earth. These pulls can affect how swiftly a planet transits, thus creating "transit timing variations" (TTVs). These variations in the transiting planets can reveal worlds that don't cross the star. "When you observe TTVs that cannot be attributed to the known planets, you can be fairly confident that there is an unseen body in the system," Lammers said. Lammers and his colleague Joshua Winn, a participating scientist on the Kepler team and co-author of the study, went looking for gaps in known systems. Then, they used both RV and TTV measurements to hunt for a missing world, revising existing TTVs based on the 2023 discovery of Kepler-139e. "What was different in the case of Kepler-139 is that we had precise radial velocity observations which did not conclusively point towards a new planet on their own," Lammers said. Combined with the TTVs, the observations revealed a fifth planet, Kepler-139f, tucked between the outermost super-Earth and the gas giant. The new discovery also helped to answer a question about Kepler-139e. The original reports of Kepler-139c, the outermost super-Earth, provided an unusually large density for a sub-Neptune-size planet. The discrepancy occurred because those authors didn't know about Kepler139f, so they had attributed some of its pull on its star to Kepler-139c. The new data suggest a more typical density for Kepler-139c while leaving the densities for Kepler-139d and Kepler-139b essentially unchanged. These revisions provide indirect evidence for Kepler-139f, Lammers said. There may even be other hidden worlds around Kepler-139. "It remains possible that there are other unseen planets in the system," Lammers said, pointing to the prominent gap between planets b and c. "The challenge is finding them!" Both Kepler and NASA's more recent exoplanet hunting mission, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), were sensitive to planets orbiting closer to their star. These inner worlds were more likely to make many transits, allowing scientists to confirm the planet's existence. But transiting planets with wider orbits made only a handful of passes, so they were more challenging to observe and confirm. At the same time, the RV method tends to be biased toward larger planets, because the more massive a world is, the stronger it tugs on its star. Proximity helps; the pull of the planet is amplified to the square inverse of its distance. Thus, a planet twice as far away will have only one-fourth the gravitational pull. That's why many of the first discovered exoplanets were Jupiter-size worlds that circled their star in only a few days. RELATED STORIES —Massive new NASA exoplanet catalog unveils 126 extreme and exotic worlds —25 years of exoplanet hunting hasn't revealed Earth 2.0 — but is that what we're looking for? —The 10 most Earth-like exoplanets All of these factors make it harder to discover smaller planets that are farther away, particularly if they don't transit their star. But by combining transits, RVs and TTVs, astronomers can find smaller, hidden worlds orbiting farther from their star. "It is likely that many planetary systems host unseen worlds, especially in their outer regions," Lammers said. But soon, it will be harder for those worlds to hide. In 2026, the European Space Agency will launch its Planetary Transits and Oscillations of Stars (PLATO) mission, which will conduct its own survey of transiting planets, as well as revisit Kepler's field. In providing additional transit times for planets detected by Kepler more than a decade later, PLATO will improve measurements of TTVs to enable the discovery of more misaligned worlds. "In the coming years, the TTV planet detection technique will probably be accelerated dramatically by the PLATO mission," Lammars said.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Don't miss the moon pass close to Saturn and Neptune on July 15
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Heads up stargazers! The moon will rise close to Saturn and the ice giant Neptune in the eastern sky on the night of July 15, close enough to be seen together in a pair of binoculars! Saturn will rise above the eastern horizon beneath the stars of the constellation Pisces shortly before midnight for viewers in the U.S. on July 15, with the waning gibbous moon shining roughly three degrees to its upper right. For context, the width of your little finger held at arms length against the night sky accounts for roughly 1 degree. The planet Neptune can also be found lurking approximately 1 degree to the upper left of Saturn around this time, though its dim brightness, or magnitude of +7.8, will make it impossible to see with the naked eye. Remember: magnitude is the scale used by astronomers to measure the apparent brightness of night sky objects. The lower the number, the brighter a planet or star will appear in the night sky. The human eye is capable of picking out objects with a brightness of +6.5 or greater from a dark sky location. All three celestial targets will fit nicely within the field of view of a pair of 10x50 binoculars, though Neptune will appear as nothing more than a dim point of blueish light —if it's visible at all against the glare of the waning moon — so don't expect much too much from the ice giant. Gazing through a telescope with a 6-inch aperture will help reveal the rings around Saturn, while an 8-inch scope may allow you to spot variations in color on the gas giant's cloud surface. A range of exciting observing targets will also be visible on the 75%-lit moon on July 15, including the long, thin form of Mare Frigolis — a vast basalt plain visible as a dark scar running across the northern extreme of the lunar surface. The celestial trio will remain close to each other throughout the night, with Saturn and Neptune eventually fading from sight in the southern sky when the sun rises on July 16. Stargazers looking to get a closer look at the myriad worlds of our solar system should check out our guides to the best telescopes and binoculars for exploring the night sky. We also have a handy roundup of the best cameras and lenses for astrophotography for those looking to immortalize their skywatching sessions.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Experts ask where the center of the universe is
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. About a century ago, scientists were struggling to reconcile what seemed a contradiction in Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. Published in 1915, and already widely accepted worldwide by physicists and mathematicians, the theory assumed the universe was static – unchanging, unmoving and immutable. In short, Einstein believed the size and shape of the universe today was, more or less, the same size and shape it had always been. But when astronomers looked into the night sky at faraway galaxies with powerful telescopes, they saw hints the universe was anything but that. These new observations suggested the opposite – that it was, instead, expanding. Scientists soon realized Einstein's theory didn't actually say the universe had to be static; the theory could support an expanding universe as well. Indeed, by using the same mathematical tools provided by Einstein's theory, scientists created new models that showed the universe was, in fact, dynamic and evolving. I've spent decades trying to understand general relativity, including in my current job as a physics professor teaching courses on the subject. I know wrapping your head around the idea of an ever-expanding universe can feel daunting – and part of the challenge is overriding your natural intuition about how things work. For instance, it's hard to imagine something as big as the universe not having a center at all, but physics says that's the reality. First, let's define what's meant by "expansion." On Earth, "expanding" means something is getting bigger. And in regard to the universe, that's true, sort of. Expansion might also mean "everything is getting farther from us," which is also true with regard to the universe. Point a telescope at distant galaxies and they all do appear to be moving away from us. What's more, the farther away they are, the faster they appear to be moving. Those galaxies also seem to be moving away from each other. So it's more accurate to say that everything in the universe is getting farther away from everything else, all at once. This idea is subtle but critical. It's easy to think about the creation of the universe like exploding fireworks: Start with a big bang, and then all the galaxies in the universe fly out in all directions from some central point. But that analogy isn't correct. Not only does it falsely imply that the expansion of the universe started from a single spot, which it didn't, but it also suggests that the galaxies are the things that are moving, which isn't entirely accurate. It's not so much the galaxies that are moving away from each other – it's the space between galaxies, the fabric of the universe itself, that's ever-expanding as time goes on. In other words, it's not really the galaxies themselves that are moving through the universe; it's more that the universe itself is carrying them farther away as it expands. A common analogy is to imagine sticking some dots on the surface of a balloon. As you blow air into the balloon, it expands. Because the dots are stuck on the surface of the balloon, they get farther apart. Though they may appear to move, the dots actually stay exactly where you put them, and the distance between them gets bigger simply by virtue of the balloon's expansion. Now think of the dots as galaxies and the balloon as the fabric of the universe, and you begin to get the picture. Unfortunately, while this analogy is a good start, it doesn't get the details quite right either. Important to any analogy is an understanding of its limitations. Some flaws are obvious: A balloon is small enough to fit in your hand – not so the universe. Another flaw is more subtle. The balloon has two parts: its latex surface and its air-filled interior. These two parts of the balloon are described differently in the language of mathematics. The balloon's surface is two-dimensional. If you were walking around on it, you could move forward, backward, left, or right, but you couldn't move up or down without leaving the surface. Now it might sound like we're naming four directions here – forward, backward, left and right – but those are just movements along two basic paths: side to side and front to back. That's what makes the surface two-dimensional – length and width. The inside of the balloon, on the other hand, is three-dimensional, so you'd be able to move freely in any direction, including up or down – length, width and height. This is where the confusion lies. The thing we think of as the "center" of the balloon is a point somewhere in its interior, in the air-filled space beneath the surface. But in this analogy, the universe is more like the latex surface of the balloon. The balloon's air-filled interior has no counterpart in our universe, so we can't use that part of the analogy – only the surface matters. So asking, "Where's the center of the universe?" is somewhat like asking, "Where's the center of the balloon's surface?' There simply isn't one. You could travel along the surface of the balloon in any direction, for as long as you like, and you'd never once reach a place you could call its center because you'd never actually leave the surface. In the same way, you could travel in any direction in the universe and would never find its center because, much like the surface of the balloon, it simply doesn't have one. Part of the reason this can be so challenging to comprehend is because of the way the universe is described in the language of mathematics. The surface of the balloon has two dimensions, and the balloon's interior has three, but the universe exists in four dimensions. Because it's not just about how things move in space, but how they move in time. Our brains are wired to think about space and time separately. But in the universe, they're interwoven into a single fabric, called 'space-time.' That unification changes the way the universe works relative to what our intuition expects. And this explanation doesn't even begin to answer the question of how something can be expanding indefinitely – scientists are still trying to puzzle out what powers this expansion. So in asking about the center of the universe, we're confronting the limits of our intuition. The answer we find – everything, expanding everywhere, all at once – is a glimpse of just how strange and beautiful our universe is. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
