Life on Mars

No, we haven't discovered life on Mars.  Yet.  But hopes are high, as the rover Curiosity and earlier rovers have confirmed the Red Planet does indeed have signs of conditions that would have supported life there at one time.  It may be a matter of time before we discover the proof we're looking for.  Until then we can only speculate.  But instead of speculating if it had life, let's try and look at what kind of life it might have had.

Public Domain image

One of the first things we need to determine is the temperature and climate necessary for life.  It is in what some consider to be the Habitable Zone.  But since Mars is half again further from the sun than Earth, it's a lot colder, and one of the trickier parts of this problem is creating a convincing climate model at any time in its history that produces conditions above freezing.  The temperatures on Mars are estimated by infrared thermal mapper data at between 81 °F and −225 °F.  And while life can exist in conditions below freezing, it does prove problematic, especially if there was no warmer time for them to evolve and adapt to less than optimal conditions.  Being able to support life and being favorable for life are two vastly different things.

We have seen signs which point to the presence of water there in the past.  We've seen clouds in Mars' atmosphere, and seen snow falling.  Finding water-formed minerals including calcium carbonite, hematite, jarosite, and goethite on its surface also points to larger quantities of water at some time in its history.  As water is a basic component of life as we know it, these are big steps toward confirming the presence of life there.

Just the hint of water is hardly an ideal situation for life.  About 70% of Earth is covered with water.  About 226,000 forms of life on Earth live in our lakes, rivers, streams, and oceans.  Life is dependent on water, and far more than just having trace amounts of it around.  So how would Mars have gotten that amount of water?

Size of Tharsis Volcanoes, by the Lunar and Planetary Institute

Some scientists theorize that the Tharsis Montes, a volcanic bulge containing the largest volcanoes in the solar system, is large enough to have caused changes to the climate of the entire planet.  Since these volcanoes are so huge - the tallest has a whopping summit elevation of 59,000 feet - they could have spewed enough water vapor and carbon dioxide to create a much thicker and warmer atmosphere in a series of eruptions.  Some estimate the amount of gasses released into the atmosphere could have given Mars a thicker atmosphere than Earth's.  And because of the size of this bulge, it's theorized it has affected the spin axis and changed geographic locations of the planet's poles.  Based on the picture above, it's not hard to understand why.

The Mars of today and the Mars of eons ago could look drastically different.  What is now frozen desert wastelands could have once been fertile plains and forests, and the cradle of life such as we have never seen on Earth.  Would life on Mars have been that dissimilar to Earth's?  We can probably assume the evolution of carbon-based life forms, but from there all bets are off.

Throughout Earth's history, the predominant phylum has changed several times.  Fossil records indicate mammals weren't always the top dog.  At one point plants, fish, amphibians, and dinosaurs were all top forms of life here.  At one point, so were arthropods.

What if a similar phylum to Earth's arthropoda became dominant?  We know from experience they can be very successful, and it's not hard to imagine a Martian landscape covered in giant bugs.  Spiders, ants, scorpions, and the like are quite successful in arid lands and severe climates, and cockroaches live goddamn anywhere they want.  It wouldn't be the first time someone envisioned bugs living on Mars.

Camel Spider © by Scott

Life on Mars could also be on a much different scale than Earth's.  While larger life is more impressive and makes for better stories, my bet would be on smaller life.  It's easier to imagine them surviving on less water and in more hazardous climates.  Larger animals require so much more to be right in their environments, from food sources to temperatures to available space, that it's hard to see them surviving on a planet more hostile and extreme than our own.  But given enough time, and assuming you believe in the theories of evolution, it's not hard to visualize a society of intelligent arthropods, at a fraction of our own size, living comfortably in the lands of ancient Mars.

One would, however, assume a completely different evolutionary chain to have happened in the event of life on Mars.  Even a small change in environment can produce drastically different results.  It's not hard to see where life on Mars would have taken a very different turn from that on Earth.

Mars and Earth are more alike than we might think.  While many find it easy to picture something quite alien and different from life here, the reality is that Mars is not that dissimilar to Earth.  The image below compares an outcrop of rocks on Earth with a similar outcrop on Mars.  Can you tell which is which?  You can visit NASA's Mars Exploration Program website to find out.  You got it wrong, didn't you?

Rock Outcrops on Mars and Earth, by NASA

Certain functions and structures are the easiest and simplest ways of doing things, and that's critical to evolution.  Many different types of animals all have the same basic components, primarily because that's the best way to do things.  Plants all function in basically the same way.  And they most likely will on Mars too, because the basic foundation for life - the chemicals and elements that make up the structure of Mars - is the same as that of Earth.

So it would be no surprise to find life there.  It may be a matter of time and effort.  Chances are, if we do discover life, it won't be little green men, but rather little green microbes.  It won't be nearly as exciting from a layman's point of view, but for science it will be a discovery of monumental proportions.  One thing is for sure: Ray Bradbury would have been excited beyond belief to know there really was once life on Mars.

Doomsday!

Doomsday scenarios are bread and butter for the speculative fiction aficionado, and one of the more common of these is the meteor strike.  Instant chaos, instant destruction, and the world is transformed into a completely different place.  In light of this morning's Russian meteor strike, I think it fitting to compile thoughts on this subject and share them here.

First, let's put this into perspective.  This Russian meteor was a bolide, or in layman's terms an air-burst, meaning most of it broke up on impact with Earth's atmosphere.  It was reportedly about 10 tons, or roughly the size of a dump truck, and according to NASA, is totally unrelated to the asteroid 2012 DA14 passing through Earth's atmosphere today. It was traveling in the opposite direction, and thus was not a part of any debris traveling in the asteroid's wake.  It was also traveling at 10-20 miles a second.

It exploded over the city of Chelyabinsk, east of the Ural Mountains, and just over a thousand miles due east of Moscow.  It's a city of about 1.1 million people, and almost a thousand of them so far have sought medical attention as a result of the meteor, mostly those injured by shattered glass and building debris from the sonic boom.

For a better understanding of the effects of a bolide explosion, watch this next video.  I recommend cranking your speakers to full volume to get the full effect.  (No, don't do that - it's friggin' loud!  Understandably, it also contains a lot of swearing in Russian.)

This pales in comparison to the meteor that struck the Tunguska area of Siberia in 1908.  That one was the largest recorded impact event in history, and struck with the force of a 5.0 earthquake as measured on the Richter scale.  The Tunguska meteor is also largely considered to be a bolide, meaning most of it didn't even hit the ground.  Even so, it flattened everything within an area 830 square miles wide, with a blast estimated at between 10-15 megatons of TNT, or about 1,000 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

So how did we not see this most recent one coming?  How did it escape attention until it impacted our atmosphere, far too late for any warnings or advisories?  Well, scientists say size has a lot to do with it.  Space is a pretty big place to look for something the size of a dump truck.  That, and if it's coming at us from the direction of the sun, rather than from dark space, it could be very difficult to see even if we were looking for it.

These events of course fuel our imagination, and propelled by the media's infatuation with hyperbole, can lend themselves to some pretty interesting speculation.  It's not hard to imagine the chaos and destruction involved with a meteor or series of meteors that actually impact the earth.

The more of these events that happen, and are inevitably filmed and recorded from every possible angle, the more we understand them.  We see firsthand accounts of their destruction, and hear how they affected common people.

Just imagine for a moment that the 2012 DA14 asteroid that passes by Earth today was actually on a trajectory to impact Earth.  The Russian meteor earlier was a dump truck-sized rock of about 10 tons; Astroid 2012 DA14 is about 190,000 tons, and 160 feet long.  That seems gigantic, but the size and speed of it would put it lower than the lowest estimates of the one that struck over Tunguska in 1908, with the kinetic energy of only about 3.5 megatons of TNT.

So we're safe.  For now.  But there's still hope, doomsdayers.  Asteroids of this size are expected to hit Earth about every 1,200 years.  Better get your affairs in order.  The year 3108 is just around the corner!

The Next Big Thing

I was tagged by Luke Walker in his The Next Big Thing blog post chain. It's taken me a little while to respond, because well, I wasn't sure I was interested in writing about stuff I was writing. I don't post a lot of what I do, because I don't feel it's right for me to do it. If it's not edited and published, it's probably not my best work, and I don't want to present it until then. This is a bit different, with more of an interview style to it, so I decided to play along. Here goes:

1) What is the working title of your next book?

The Chiaroscuro Portrait. And I so hope that title sticks. They say titles are changed 60% of the time in publishing, which is a pretty decent amount of the time. I have stories whose titles I know will be changed, and that's perfectly acceptable. This one I hope sticks, because it's a really cool title, and it fits the story so very well.

2) Where did the idea come from for the book?

Heh! It came from a doxycycline-fueled nightmare in Afghanistan a number of years ago. Doxy is an antimalarial medicine and was required for us there at the time. It's said to cause stomach unrest and weird dreams. I got none of the stomach unrest and all of the weird dreams, all the time. Lots of folks get their stories from dreams. That's not really earth-shattering. This dream was so wickedly weird that I awoke in a cold sweat, powered on the laptop and pounded a 500-word summary before I forgot what I dreamed. And then I got ready and went out to grind out a long workday just like always.  I wrote the rest of the story during that deployment.

3) What genre does your book fall under?

Young Adult horror. I originally wrote it as adult fiction, but the characters' ages, coupled with the issues they faced in the story, really suit it better for young adult. And with the move to darker YA titles nowadays, it seems like perfect timing.

4) What actors would you choose to play the part of your characters in a movie version?

You know, a lot of people describe their books as making great movies, or being perfect for the silver screen, but I don't think this one would. While it could probably be adapted to a decent movie script, I think unlike some of the other stuff I've written, this story is better told in printed form. If pushed, I'd have to say I'd like to see brand new actors take on the roles for it. I believe a story in film is a little cleaner if the audience isn't watching the performance of their favorite actors and actresses, but rather concentrating on the story itself.

5) What is the one-sentence synopsis of your book?

After his childhood crush comes back to life, Toby must learn how Julie can escape the hellish memories of death, and what it will cost.

6) Will your book be self-published or represented by an agency?

I am currently seeking representation for it.  While the lure of higher royalties in self-publishing is tempting, and while it would be edited and proofed professionally in either case, I feel it's still a better option to go the traditional route with this novel, especially at this point in my career.  I don't think I'd be doing the story justice otherwise.  I don't tend to view literary agents as "gatekeepers" as some authors do, but rather as those who offer ladders in the difficult climb to the top of publishing.  Sure, you can climb the cliff on your own, and a few have made it just fine on their own.  But most don't, and even though there are only so many ladders to go around, they provide a huge advantage.  Besides, if you're doing what it takes to impress an agent to accept your manuscript, you've already taken the first steps to enticing editors and publishers, and by proxy, future readers.

7) How long did it take you to write the first draft of the manuscript?

The first draft went rather quickly.  Three months, I think.  Of course, with adequate time to write, and a story that practically wrote itself, it wasn't that hard to do.  Since then, I've edited it a number of times, and it's gained and lost a considerable amount from the original.

8 ) What other books would you compare this story to within your genre?

I'm a little ashamed to say that's a tough call.  I'm not by nature an aficionado of young adult literature, although I am reading more in the category now that the girl prodigy is reading it profusely.  The fact that this story is young adult is rather coincidental, really.  I like horror, and in that respect, it reminds me a little of Stephen King's Carrie, but without the "documentary" feel.  Some of the themes are the same, with young protagonists in social environs that they're not really all that equipped to handle yet.  It also has some darker parts that deal with certain taboo subjects like death, religion, and the like.  It's quite a different story, of course, and ostracism isn't key to the plot, but there are similarities in how it feels.  I would be lucky to have it see a fraction of Carrie's success!

9) Who or what inspired you to write this book?

The dream I had was the only real inspiration I had or needed.  The title was a bit trickier.  The story didn't actually have a title for the longest while.  I had inspiration, an image of what I wanted, but no title.  I wanted to convey the concept of following eyes, of a portrait painting being almost alive in its detail and realism.  And then I came across the chiaroscuro method of painting, the use of strong contrasts of light and dark to give a picture a three-dimensional feel and pop it off the canvas.  That concept plays rather well into the story.

10) What else about the book might pique the reader’s interest?

I like the relationship between the two main protagonists in the story, and how things are much different in retrospect than they were at face value before.  There's more honesty after the events that form the basis of the story, something not really probable with teenagers facing normal social situations.  The self-consciousness and inexperience Toby has as a teen facing his lifelong crush is rather poignant at times, and lends well to the story.  I also set the story in a small town outside Spokane, Washington, near where I grew up.  It's a fictional town, but anyone who grew up in the Palouse country wheat fields of Eastern Washington would recognize it as any number of the small towns there.

No one else comes to mind when thinking of who to tag for follow-on posts of their own, so if you've got something burning, feel free to take this and run with it.  Let me know and I'll edit this with a link.

Zombies!

It's Halloween, folks, and that means it's Zombie Preparedness Day.  They're coming.  They'll be at your door tonight.  Will you be ready?

Zombie Walk 2009 © Katja Sarijeva and Piak

Zombies have largely been myths and legends over the years.  People have disregarded them as nothing more than fictional mayhem, a fun little scare to conjure during the late autumn months when the pumpkins ripen and the corn is ready to eat.

Zombie Walk 2009 © Katja Sarijeva and Piak

But we're now finally taking them seriously.  We're preparing for them.  In fact, today in San Diego, hundreds of Marines, Sailors, Soldiers, police, firefighters and folks from other disaster response organizations will conduct Zombie Apocalypse Training.  That's right - real life training for a zombie apocalypse.  Their goal is to train for preparedness in the case of a natural or man-made disaster.  Or, you know, a zombie outbreak.

Zombie Walk 200 9 © Katja Sarijeva and Piak

So what makes a zombie tick?  Why do they act the way they do?  They're slow, shambling, stumbling; they're after your brains.  But why?  Steven Schlozman, MD, an assistant medical professor at Harvard Medical School explains:

Well, that was comforting.  Or disturbing.  Whichever.  If it helps prepare you in any way for the impending apocalypse, I have done my job, and I'm proud of that.  Helping humanity through troubling times.  That's my job.  That and occasionally scaring the bejeezus out of folks.

But how did zombies get that way?  We've heard of zombies for centuries.  There has to be some kernel of truth behind the legends, some ghost of reality that caused people to repeat these stories and perpetuate the myths.  Let's go to Haiti to find out:

Again, a bit disturbing.  But on Halloween, that's a good thing, right?  I think so.  In fact, what's the holiday without a whole lot of gore and a little terror, anyway?  If you aren't scared at least once today, you're not living.

We plan on getting scared.  Plenty.  We have a list of great horror movies lined up for tonight, including some pretty good zombie flicks like Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead.  Yea, we like a little comedy with our horror around these parts.

How about you?

Update:  The House of Dalar was in full zombie mode last night.  Those little trick-or-treaters really earned their candy, let me tell you!

Banned Books

This week, September 30 - October 6, 2012, is Banned Books Week, so what better time to take a look at books that have been banned over the years in various countries?  I'll select a few examples, and discuss a bit about why they were banned.  Should be not only fun, but hopefully insightful.

Several classic science fiction novels have been banned in various countries, including some of the most iconic examples of the genre: Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm, both by George Orwell; Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley; and Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley.  Those are some pretty heavy hitters, and books that are now on many educational reading lists.  But why were they banned?

Brave New World was supposedly banned in Ireland for "references of sexual promiscuity," and in fact many books in many different countries were banned for similar reasons, including Frankenstein.  Obscenity seems to be a common theme for those pushing to ban certain books, and one does not have to look very far to find examples of books banned for obscenity as recently as this year.

I get the obscenity angle, the push to keep society (and children, of course) as Puritan as possible.  Many countries, the United Kingdom and America especially, have been quite prudish regarding this sort of thing.  But while it's understandable to shield those not mature enough to handle certain situations from them, it's another altogether to push an agenda of morality on a country's citizenry.  Banning something on moral grounds indicates not only mistrust in people to make rational decisions based on the content for themselves, but also behavior that stifles the ability to learn rational decision-making.  After all, if one is shielded from anything deemed inappropriate, how can they learn the process of identifying it as such for themselves?  "Because I said so" works well with toddlers.  They have limited experience with making sound decisions.  But once a person matures to the point where they are supposed to make decisions on their own, that is no longer a viable reason.

George Orwell's works have been banned for much more obvious reasons: they are outright political satire, and were banned because of their criticism of communism and corruption in government.  Stalin knew Nineteen Eighty-Four was a clear jab at him and his leadership, and enacted a ban on the book throughout the U.S.S.R that continued through 1990, when it was edited and re-released.

These are clear cases of the suppression of free speech, and key indicators of those governments' stances toward that basic human right.  Interestingly, communist-led countries were not the only ones to ban Orwell's books.  Allied forces banned Animal Farm during parts of World War II because of its critical look at the U.S.S.R., and was deemed too "controversial" to print during wartime.

Many other books have been banned for any number of reasons, with "subversive material," "hate literature," "insulting material," and "unflattering portrayal" of individuals, religions, governments, or populations cited as reasons.  Books as old as the Bible and as innocuous as dictionaries have been banned.  Generally, it appears that if a book contains anything someone somewhere would find objectionable, it's going to get banned.

And that's a shame.  A book may not be tasteful or politically correct.  It may be lewd, inappropriate, or offensive.  It may even be downright vile or provocative.  And none of that matters.  It's still just a book.  Words.  Nothing in any book should exempt the actions of a human being, capable of making conscious choice to commit those actions.

We've seen this tested recently, with the terror attacks in Benghazi, supposedly linked to outrage over an amateur movie.  We've seen calls to limit offensive or provocative speech.  Will common sense prevail, or as Fahrenheit 451 alluded to, will they one day come for our books in an effort to suppress dissent, quell unrest, or create the illusion of peace and prosperity?