Talk:Mars habitability analogue environments on Earth

How exact are the analogues?

Just created a new section: How exact are the analogues? - as a result of questions off wiki - I realized the article doesn't discuss this important point. Robert Walker (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

This article duplicates information in Terrestrial Analogue Sites. The information in that article is better presented and easier to follow and understand. I suggest that any new information in this article be succinctly merged into that article (without using the contractions that litter this article). I can put forward a formal merge request if necessary but thought I would start with a suggestion. Ca2james (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that Terrestrial Analogue Sites is mainly geologically based. It has only one sentence about Exobiology which is not its main focus at all, plus earlier it mentions the Rio Tinto site. It doesn't mention anything about the biological differences between the analogues. It doesn't give lists of species found there. To give a couple of examples which belong here and wouldn't belong there:

• It doesn't mention Don Juan Pond which is of great astrobiological interest, but in terms of geology, is just a minor detail in the McMurdo dry valleys.

• It doesn't mention soda lakes, which again are of great astrobiological interest but not of especial geological interest. The microbes there are adapted in ways that microbes on present day Mars might be, but present day Mars doesn't have soda lakes, just surface conditions that may include transient brines that reproduce conditions similar to those in soda lakes.

• Other examples like that include the Permafrost soils, Ice fumaroles, etc

Also the details about species found in the various habitats and the levels of humidity in the Atacama desert and other environmental factors for biology are just not relevant for Terrestrial analogues generally but vital for astrobiological analogues.

To put all this information in there would overwhelm it completely. I think it needs to be kept separate on the basis of WP:SPINOUT. Terrestrial Analogue Sites can be much simpler than this article because of its geological focus. As a result I don't recommend it be expanded to include the material included here. I think that would overwhelm it and make it hard to follow. Why mention Don Juan Pond or Soda Lakes or indeed much of this material in that article? But for astrobiologists, these details are important so the solution isn't to delete them either. Why not just keep this as a separate article on the astrobiological Earth terrestrial analogues?

As an alternative - why not expand the paragraph in Terrestrial Analogue Sites on exobiology where it mentions the Rio Tinto site by listing other examples of exobiology analogues, with a link to this page for more details? And if there are any geological sites that I have mentioned here not on that page, of course good to add those, but omitting the exobiological details, or mention them only briefly, to fit in their format of just a sentence or two about each analogue. Robert Walker (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with this topic area but a cursory glance shows overlap between the two articles. There's no need for that overlap, so take out the ovrlapping information from this article (merging to the other as appropriate) and narrow the focus on this article. Ca2james (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well yes there is overlap e.g. the Atacama desert arid core. But the Terrestrial analogues article only has this on the topic:

"Located in Chile, this desert is a part of the National Park of Llullaillaco and is the driest desert in the world. A large range of temperatures is covered (from -25 to 45 °C). This site is very far from any town because the closest town Calama is located at 200 km from the desert."

That's true. I'm not sure that I have anything in this article to add to their page given the table format and limitation of about one sentence per analogue. While on the other hand the Atacama desert core is one of the most important astrobiological analogues of Mars on Earth. For instance it is used frequently for testing of life detection equipment to send to Mars. So it wouldn't make sense to remove it from this article. Nor would it make sense to add all that information to the broader Terrestrial Analogue Sites article. I remember this from other discussions here, though am not sure which guideline to cite, that wikipedia articles are permitted a significant amount of overlap. E.g. United Kingdom and Scotland, just the first example that sprung to mind. Robert Walker (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see now that the two have slightly different focuses even though there is some overlap, and that merging is not the way to go. Ca2james (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Great glad to hear we are on the same page :). Robert Walker (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Contractions

I'm interested to know about contractions. I've just done an edit to explain that RSLs are the Recurring Slope Lineae. This is just normal in the field, everyone refers to them as RSLs. That includes Astronomy news announcements[1] and NASA press releases [2]. It's just what those features are called in the field. RSLs. "Recurring Slope Lineae" is just too much of a mouthful. If you spot any similar contractions that need to be explained do say! Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

RSL is an abbreviation acronym and is fine. "Can't" is a contraction, and is not appropriate. Ca2james (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC) (updated Ca2james (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC))

Really? I had no idea that you were not meant to use "can't" in wikipedia articles. I must check the style guidelines on this. Robert Walker (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Have just checked. It's not a prohibition, just says "Using too many contractions (such as "don't", "won't", "can't") can make an article look informal." Anyway after I add content to wikipedia I often get wikignomes who fix things like that. A couple of wikignomes have been through this article already correcting various things. I suppose it reduces the amount of work they have to do to get this right in the first place :). [3] Robert Walker (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just replaced two instances of "can't" by "were unable to" or similar. That leaves five contractions. I am not sure what to replace them with, e.g. "don't" as "do not" is clumsy in English and right now I can't think of a natural way of putting it that removes the contraction. If anyone can think of a natural rewrite to reduce the number of contractions further, just go ahead! Robert Walker (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Working on it :) I might try to do some more general rewrites also to make the text clearer to me. Is that ok? Ca2james (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes for sure. I'll check the edits so if the meaning is changed in any way I should notice. Thanks for your rewrite of the intro! Robert Walker (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd be happy if you did check to be sure I've kept the meaning when I rewrite things. I suspect that the article could use some restructuring to improve flow but I'm not completely sure about that; I'll let you know if I figure out an order that I think would be better. You're welcome for rewriting the intro! I wanted it to be more wikilike. Ca2james (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, yes I can see that it is. Am interested in any ideas for restructuring. Thanks. Robert Walker (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Other Mars habitability analogues

Off wiki I've been told by astrobiologists about two other analogues of present day Mars habitability which need to be added to this page. One is the Lanzarote Planetary Analogue in the Canary islands[4] which amongst other things has analogues for possible Martian lava tube habitats, past and present day.

Another analogue is provided by lakes high up in the Andes which have the highest levels of UV on our planet recorded to date, and so are good analogues for Mars [5].

Though microbes adapted to high levels of UV are of course of great interest for present day Mars analogues, those high altitude lakes happen to almost exactly reproduce many of the conditions in Early Mars[6]. That leads to a question:

I felt that it was best to keep this article focused on present day Mars analogues or it would get too long, which is why I left out the many astrobiological analogues for early Mars (as it says in the introduction). But there is nowhere here in Wikipedia that covers those early Mars astrobiology analogues either. So - should they be added as a separate section here, or done as a separate article, or what? Robert Walker (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Maps?

Are there wiki-allowed maps available that can show where on earth each of these regions is located? Since there are so many areas the reader might appreciate seeing where they are. I'm not familiar with image guidelines regarding maps, unfortunately. I don't think there's a rush on this but it's something to consider. Ca2james (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes for sure. Just checked the Terrestrial Analogue Sites section with the maps. It's a simple format

{{Location map | Antarctica | relief = | label = McMurdo Dry Valleys | lat_deg = -77.466667 | lon_deg = 162.516667 }}

I can add in the ones from that page right away and for ones they don't list, it's a matter of checking the region, and also finding the latitude and longitude. Robert Walker (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Have just added the map for the McMurdo dry valleys to try out the idea. It needed some work on the page layout - I did the map as a thumb, right adjusted so the other images needed to be changed, especially the first thumb. One thought about this, it's probably best to be consistent with the maps. Perhaps they should all be thumbs? Then any other images that head sections left aligned, and preferentially with some text before the image, and probably a bit smaller. What do you think of it? Robert Walker (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Also added the one for the Atacama desert. Do feel free to add other maps e.g. Rio Tinto or whatever. Robert Walker (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Have added several more. I've done them as relief maps using | relief = DNIS Robert Walker (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The maps look great! Thank you for adding them - I think they're very helpful. When I get a chance I'll look for others for the remaining areas. Ca2james (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay good, glad you like them :). Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactness of the analogues

I was looking at the section on how exact the analogues were and I have a question. Several of the list items refer to a particular type of life that may exist on both earth and mars. Perhaps I've misunderstood, but this article is about Earth analogues for Mars, right? In other words, it's about places (surface, sub-surface, deep cave, possibly oceanic) on earth that are like enough to places on mars so that people can study the earth places to learn about the mars places? If that's true, then bringing in the possibility of life on mars seems to be a coatrack. I could see that there might possibly be earth life analogues to mars but if that's being included, I think it should be discussed in a separate section and not inserted throughout the article. Thoughts? Ca2james (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Oxidizing vs Reducing

Thanks @Ca2james: for your edit there. I see it was confused and inaccurate, what I wrote, and your edit brought it out and made the confusion clearer. The situation is that actually Earth's crust is oxidized too. Just about all the natural iron for instance is in the form of rusts in the banded iron formations which formed during the Great Oxygenation event. But surface conditions are not highly oxygenated like Mars. Instead of perchlorates, chlorates, cholorites, sulfates etc we have chlorides and sulfides. And we don't have hydrogen peroxide in our water and in the sea. And the oxygen in the atmosphere reacts with the surface conditions. So in a way the surface of Earth as exposed to the oxygen in the atmosphere is reducing because it reacts with the oxygen. Without vegetation and algae, all the oxygen would be gone within a few thousand years (though you'd notice nothing on the centuries timescale).

So I suppose one way to put it is that the Earth's crust is oxidized but the surface and the sea, as far as it interacts with the atmosphere, is overall reducing. Normally the words oxidizing and reducing are used this way more with atmospheres than planetary surfaces but it seems the best way to express it. I did an edit saying the Earth's surface is neutral. More exactly I think, the crust is oxidized and the surface however is reducing in the way it interacts with the atmosphere because it removes oxygen. Perhaps I should ask astrobiologist friends about this for advice on how to present it. Robert Walker (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Have just done another edit, think it is more accurate now :). Robert Walker (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Robertinventor your edit makes much much more sense - thanks! I am still confused about what "with" means in this sentence, "Mars surface is highly oxidizing with perchlorates, chlorates, cholorites, sulfates and hydrogen peroxide". Is it that the surface "contains" these things?

Or "comprises", or "is partly composed of", or something else? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ca2james Oh good. "Partly composed of" or "contains", yes. Mainly the surface indeed - it's just the surface layer that we know about and when Curiosity drills into rocks, it finds lower layers that are different, less oxidising, just millimeters below the surface layer. This paper also suggests that surface layers would be oxidising but lower layers reducing in a static dune [7].

Our rovers have found salt deposits that are sulfates / perchlorates etc instead of the expected chlorides of salt on Earth. Curiosity found Perchlorates in the dust. Hydrogen peroxide is commonplace in its atmosphere[8] and may occur in its soils. Something is actively removing organics from its soils as it should have a fair bit from infalling meteorites / comets and doesn't.

I'm not sure if they have directly found hydrogen peroxide on or near the surface - our rovers are not that capable yet, can only drill a tiny way - Curiosity is driving over sand dunes and they know there is a liquid brine layer just a cm or so below the surface but they can't do anything to look at it more directly as it just doesn't have any tools to dig the surface - we only know it indirectly from water vapour measurements (it's not thought to be habitable, too cold or too salty or both though varies in both properties - though there's a minority view by Nilton Renno that it might be able to support life in biofilms). I think something like "has a highly oxidizing surface" I'll try that as an edit. Robert Walker (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Have done the edit Robert Walker (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirect/rename/delete?

Although I've worked on this article to improve its tone, it needs trimming and I think there might be a bunch of WP:SYNTH in it. Possible ways of handling this are: merge and redirect to Terrestrial analogue sites (possibly splitting off anything that doesn't fit that article); make it into a list article and rename, or deletion. @NewsAndEventsGuy and Rowan Forest:, what are your thoughts? Ca2james (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge as suggested; Cover common principles of exobiology in one or two places; Go into any meaningful details of individual locations at their own dedicated articles, or maybe a dedicated section. For example, maybe we organize some of this by extremophile type, so cold habitats might be explored at Psychrophile and extreme salty ones at halophile etc, and a few that merit their own dedicated article could be even further developed there. I dislike the table approach at the other article and at least visually I think Robert's layout and presentation here is very catchy and enticing even if the content pushes some OR/SYNTH boundaries. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that usable material here should be merged into the table at Terrestrial analogue sites. Given the demonstrated POV and SYNTHESIS habits of its creator, each item would need to be verified against its inline citations. After the merge is done, this assay could be deleted. Now, if you dislike the table format, you'll have to review all references and write a prose for all listed items plus the ones we are moving from this article. CHeers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sort of an aside... in re each item would need to be verified against its inline citations I always do that whenever I work with a section of text, regardless of context. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

In re if you dislike the table format... I don't like it, but not enough to put remodeling on my wiki priority list. Just intended my comment as reader feedback. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no time limit on the work to be done. We are just planning the best course of action. How about adjusting the format of the table Terrestrial analogue sites as a preparation for the move? I would delete every map, and every picture of the Moon or Mars when they are mentioned. In order to accommodate the description text, we could format the table as in [9]. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll gracefully withdraw here.... I've had my say and trust the judgement of you other eds. When I'm ready for a real push there are a couple climate articles I intend to launch. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I think I suggested the table format because other articles do that but I'm not beholden to it: it can be a pain to edit and maintain. I agree that merging into the various articles is a good option. I'll take a look at the table at Terrestrial analogue sites and start verifying content here in preparation for merging content there and elsewhere. I might need help ensuring that we're using the best references because it's not my area of expertise but I'll do what I can. It'll take a while as I'm not a prolific editor. Ca2james (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Update

I've been puttering around with this article looking at the references first (consolidating them, removing obviously poor sources, etc) to familiarize myself with the content before I start making any major modifications. I now have a note and a question.

First, the note about the content. This article is sort of about terrestrial Mars analogs (for present-day Mars) but there's a lot of possible locations for life on Mars content as well. Really, the subject of this article is less "what are the terrestrial Mars analogue sites and their characteristics" and more "what are the terrestrial Mars analogue sites, what terrestrial life exists there, and could the corresponding sites on Mars have life". I think the content will end up being mostly split between Terrestrial analogue sites and Life on Mars.

Second, the question about sourcing. Are these articles from Science, space.com, nytimes (and other mainstream science news sites), and this Catalogue of Planetary Analogues pdf (apparently some course notes?) suitable sources for the content, or should I be trying to find journal articles and space center publications or something else? There don't seem to be a lot of summary or review articles on the subject which could mean using a few primary sources. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this page! Again, I would merge the usable data to Mars analog habitat, because the info is duplicated. My second choice is to delete everything not related to Earth analogs. His sources here seem reliable, but it is his biased interpretation and synthesis that you have to watch out for. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I still think that a merge is an option. Meanwhile, I am editing out some inaccuracies and some plain falsehoods. For example, the benign radiation dose at the surface and the nutritious peroxides. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Burning coal-mining heaps and coal fire zones in general

The environment of coal fires also bears many analogies to Mars. This is discussed by, e.g., Kruszewski & Matlakowska 2018: http://info.life-origins.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Bertinoro-final-program.pdf Eudialytos (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)