
Life on Mars? Mysterious 'mushroom' is spotted on the Red Planet in photo snapped by NASA's Curiosity rover
Scientists have spent decades scouring the Martian surface for any signs of life.
Now, a photo snapped by NASA 's Curiosity rover has sparked speculation that the hunt might finally be over.
A picture taken from the Martian surface appears to show a 'mushroom' growing on the Red Planet.
The strange discovery has led some alien hunters to declare: 'Life...has been found!'
The photo was taken by the Curiosity rover on September 19, 2013, but was spotted in the archives by UFO hunter Scott Waring.
Mr Waring says: 'This object has a curved bottom part of a stem, same as those on Earth.
'I'm not sure how or why NASA could overlook such a thing...since NASA's mission is to find life on other planets and moons.'
However, scientists say there is a much simpler explanation.
NASA's Curiosity rover was launched to Mars in 2011 with the goal of discovering whether the planet had the right conditions to support microscopic life.
To help this search, the rover is equipped with multiple cameras, a drill to gather rock samples, and sets of tools to analyse the chemical compositions of samples.
However, despite a decade of searching, Curiosity has never found any evidence that Mars is or ever was home to any form of alien life.
But that hasn't stopped wild speculation following many of the rover's discoveries.
Following his discovery of this archived image, Mr Waring claims that the rocky structure is a mushroom that has 'clearly pushed up out of the Mars dirt.'
He adds: 'NASA should have poked it, bumped it, knocked it over, cut it open with their tools on Curiosity rover or at least use that million dollar laser they burn rocks and dirt with.'
And Mr Waring isn't the only one who agrees. Commenters on social media flocked to share their support for his claims.
One wrote: Looks like a mushroom to me! NASA know far more about MARS than they let on.'
While another boldly claimed: 'What people fail to realize is if life is found on just one other planet in the solar system, then that basically means there is life everywhere in the Universe mathematically.'
However, scientists are not convinced by this supposed evidence.
Dr Gareth Dorrian, a planetary physicist from the University of Birmingham, told MailOnline that this is simply a 'flat roughly disc-shaped rock sitting atop a smaller stone at the bottom.'
'My best guess would be they were not originally in that position, but like two rocks lying in the desert, one just below the surface and the other on the surface above it,' he explained.
'Over time the wind could gradually blow the sand and dust away and the top one would gradually settle onto the bottom one.'
Dr Dorrian points out that wind-driven processes like this on Earth often produce remarkable and strange formations.
Alternatively, these 'mushrooms' could be geological structures called concretions, which formed billions of years ago when there was liquid water on Mars.
As water flows through sediment, it dissolves the minerals and rearranges them in a more compact form to leave behind a solid block.
Since these are harder than the surrounding rock, they are often left standing above the surface.
Just like the hoodoo rock spires of the American southwest, these structures often take on a mushroom-like shape as the wind carves away the softer bedrock to leave a thin 'stem'.
Part of the reason that Curiosity didn't stop to take any more measurements, as Mr Waring suggests, is that these are common on the Martian surface.
Additionally, Dr Dorrian points out that, even if there were life on Mars, the chances of a living organism being found on the Martian surface are extremely low.
The atmospheric pressure at the Martian surface is roughly equivalent to that found 20 miles above the surface of Earth, meaning the atmosphere is very thin.
This allows a constant stream of ultraviolet and particle radiation in the form of cosmic rays to bombard the surface.
Dr Dorrian says: 'This unhealthy combination of radiation is well known to damage complex molecules like DNA and would quickly sterilise the surface where this image was taken.'
As if that wasn't bad enough, Dr Dorrian notes that temperature above ground would make it impossible for any organism to survive.
Temperatures swing from a comfortable 20°C (68°F) during the day to -100°C (-148°F) at night, well below the freezing point of water and far colder than anywhere on Earth.
'No known forms of life can simultaneously tolerate these extremes of temperatures, radiation levels, and low atmospheric pressure, including mushrooms,' says Dr Dorrian.
'If life does exist on Mars, it is more likely to be found below ground, such as in underground reserves of water, where it would be shielded from the harsh environment at the surface.'
That means this photograph almost certainly shows a common and naturally occurring rock formation, rather than life growing in an impossibly harsh environment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
44 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Beauty spot famed for its crystal clear water is suddenly becoming murkier... and experts don't know why
The once pristinely clear waters of Lake Tahoe - the freshwater vacation paradise straddling the California-Nevada border - are suddenly become murkier and scientists don't know why. The annual Lake Tahoe Clarity Report, released Monday by UC Davis' Tahoe Environmental Research Center, found that the lake's clarity in 2024 was 62.3 feet, nearly six feet shallower than it was in 2023. To determine clarity, researchers have been lowering a 10-inch white disk into Lake Tahoe for nearly 60 years. The depth at which the disc is no longer visible by researchers is considered the clarity level. Since observations of the lake began in the late 1960s, average clarity has declined by about 40 feet. The clearest reading ever, taken a February day in 1968, was 141 feet deep. This year's average of 62.3 feet is the third least clear on record and the worst in several years. It has only been surpassed in 2021, when wildfire smoke covered the region, and 2017, when there were many runoff-heavy storms carrying debris into the lake. 'It's not, at this point, noticeably worse. But it's not getting better, and we need to find out why,' said Stephanie Hampton, director of the Tahoe Environmental Research Center, in a statement. The goal is to get the lake back to a see-through depth of 97.4 feet, which was commonplace throughout the 1980s. In recent years, there have been massive efforts carried out by the California Tahoe Conservancy, a state agency established in 1984, and environmental organizations to preserve the integrity of the 191-square-mile lake. Researchers did say there has been progress, with management agencies preventing more than 500,000 pounds of fine sediment and other clarity-harming pollutants from finding their way into the lake every year. This is mainly done through maintaining roads and erosion-control projects. Even with that success, the lake's waters are still getting murkier, which has convinced scientists there could be something else at play. 'It may be the lake is different than it was 20 years ago, when these policies and practices were implemented,' Hampton said. 'We need to investigate these particles again to find out what kind of particles they are. Are they still mostly sediment? Or are there more algae, wildfire ash or other particles? That may be key to understanding why water clarity is not improving,' she added. One theory that has gained some traction in the scientific community is that a buildup of microscopic plankton has led to the declining clarity over time. The report doesn't provide any definitive conclusions with regard to plankton's effect on clarity. It does point out that 'water clarity tends to be at its highest when phytoplankton are at their minimum densities during the winter season.' Data from 2024 shows that Lake Tahoe was at most 50 feet clearer in the winter than in the summer, when there were far more plankton in the water. Scientists have concluded that since clarity levels have stabilized, conservation efforts have worked to a certain extent. However, they all seem to agree that more work needs to be done to uncover the underlying problem. 'Science-driven policies have underpinned Lake Tahoe's protection for decades, and seeing lake clarity stabilize is an indicator that we are making progress,' said Julie Regan, executive director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The agency leads the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program (EIP), which was formed in 1997. A coalition made up of EIP, the state governments of California and Nevada, and more than 80 public and private organizations have consistently worked together to prevent sediment from leaking into the lake. Because this hasn't improved clarity, Regan said the state of Lake Tahoe is 'concerning.' 'We will continue to work closely with the science community to understand where to direct our management efforts next,' she said.


Reuters
5 hours ago
- Reuters
NAACP threatens to sue Elon Musk's xAI over Memphis air pollution
June 17 (Reuters) - The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) on Tuesday sent a notice to billionaire Elon Musk's xAI, signaling its intention to sue the company over air pollution from the AI startup's data center in Memphis. The letter, sent by Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) on NAACP's behalf, alleges xAI has violated federal law by using methane gas turbines at its South Memphis data center without acquiring permits or "best available" pollution controls. Data centers that provide computing power for AI are highly power-intensive and require round-the-clock electricity. Given the slow pace of clean-energy deployments, the surging demand is being met by fossil fuels including natural gas and coal. Methane emissions from human activities such as oil and gas production, electricity generation and agriculture are short-lived in the atmosphere, but are often more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Emissions from xAI's data center further exacerbate the already poor air quality in Memphis, SELC said. "These turbines have pumped out pollution that threatens the health of Memphis families. This notice paves the way for a lawsuit that can hold xAI accountable for its unlawful refusal to get permits for its gas turbines," SELC Senior Attorney Patrick Anderson said. "We take our commitment to the community and environment seriously. The temporary power generation units are operating in compliance with all applicable laws," an xAI spokesman told Reuters. The AI company has installed 35 turbines, nearly all of which were running without the required permits as of April, SELC said. The SELC added that while xAI had removed some smaller turbines, the company recently installed three larger turbines. The environmental legal advocacy organization said in August that xAI had installed 20 gas turbines at the site. Representatives of Elon Musk did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for comment.


The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
How AI pales in the face of human intelligence and ingenuity
Gary Marcus is right to point out – as many of us have for years – that just scaling up compute size is not going to solve the problems of generative artificial intelligence (When billion-dollar AIs break down over puzzles a child can do, it's time to rethink the hype, 10 June). But he doesn't address the real reason why a child of seven can solve the Tower of Hanoi puzzle that broke the computers: we're embodied animals and we live in the world. All living things are born to explore, and we do so with all our senses, from birth. That gives us a model of the world and everything in it. We can infer general truths from a few instances, which no computer can do. A simple example: to teach a large language model 'cat', you have to show it tens of thousands of individual images of cats – being the way they are, they may be up a tree, in a box, or hiding in a roll of carpet. And even then, if it comes upon a cat playing with a bath plug, it may fail to recognise it as a cat. A human child can be shown two or three cats, and from interacting with them, it will recognise any cat as a cat, for life. Apart from anything else, this embodied, evolved intelligence makes us incredibly energy-efficient compared with a computer. The computers that drive an autonomous car use anything upwards of a kilowatt of energy, while a human driver runs on twentysomething watts of renewable power – and we don't need an extra bacon sandwich to remember a new route. At a time of climate emergency, the vast energy demands of this industry might perhaps lead us to recognise, and value, the extraordinary economy, versatility, plasticity, ingenuity and creativity of human intelligence – qualities that we all have simply by virtue of being HaymanAdvisory board member, Minderoo Centre for Technology & Democracy, Cambridge University It comes as no surprise to me that Apple researchers have found 'fundamental limitations' in cutting-edge artificial intelligence models (Advanced AI suffers 'complete accuracy collapse' in face of complex problems, study finds, 9 June). AI in the form of large reasoning models or large language models (LLMs) are far from being able to 'reason'. This can be simply tested by asking ChatGPT or similar: 'If 9 plus 10 is 18 what is 18 less 10?' The response today was 8. Other times, I've found that it provided no definitive answer. This highlights that AI does not reason – currently, it is a combination of brute force and logic routines to essentially reduce the brute force approach. A term that should be given more publicity is ANI – artificial narrow intelligence, which describes systems like ChatGPT that are excellent at summarising pertinent information and rewording sentences, but are far from being able to reason. But note, the more times that LLMs are asked similar questions, the more likely it will provide a more reasonable response. Again, though, this is not reasoning, it is model TaylorMona Vale, New South Wales, Australia Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.