Exact type of lifeform that could live on brutal Mars surface revealed – even surviving deadly radiation bombardment
That's the verdict from scientists who spent five hours blasting it with a year's worth of Martian radiation.
6
Mars is a brutal wasteland that is bombarded with dangerous radiation
Credit: Nasa
6
Humans would need significant protection to survive on the red planet's surface
Credit: Nasa
6
Scientists tested whether two forms of lichen – Cetraria aculeata and Diploschistes muscorum – could survive on Mars
Credit: IMA Fungus
Lichens are common on Earth, and is known for being hardy.
And scientists now think that lichens could survive the ionising radiation that life experiences on Mars.
This kind of
But
Read more on space discoveries
Lichens are a strange "symbiotic" relationship between fungus and algae (or cyanobacteria).
Scientists were able to show that this lichen relationship remained "metabolically active" even with exposed to Mars-like atmospheric conditions.
That included being in darkness, and high X-ray radiation levels.
They tested two species of lichen: Diploschistes muscorum and Cetraria aculeata.
Most read in Science
And they found that the former was cabale or surviving those brutal conditions – giving hope for the survival of an alien off-Earth lichen colony.
"Our study is the first to demonstrate that the metabolism of the fungal partner in lichen symbiosis remained active while being in an environment resembling the surface of Mars," said Kaja Skubała, of Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland, who led the research.
Astronomer reacts to James Webb Space Telescope image of distant galaxies
"We found that Diploschistes muscorum was able to carry out metabolic processes and activate defence mechanisms effectively.
"These findings expand our understanding of biological processes under simulated Martian conditions.
"And reveal how hydrated organisms respond to ionising radiation – one of the most critical challenges for survival and habitability on Mars.
"Ultimately, this research deepens our knowledge of lichen adaptation and their potential for colonising extraterrestrial environments."
6
Sadly, this doesn't mean scientists have found – or will ever find – lichen already living on Mars.
But it means that an alien colony of lichen could potentially survive Mars' harsh conditions.
HUNTING FOR E.T.
It comes in the same month as scientists revealing they're almost certain they've spotted a
Top astronomers at the University of Cambridge told The Sun they are 99.7% confident they've spotted the best-ever signal of biological activity on
6
This is what the ocean world of K2-18b might look like first-hand
Credit: Amanda Smith
And they revealed that the best scenario that explains the discovery is that the planet is "teeming with life".
The alien world is 120 lightyears away, and about 2.5x the size of Earth.
Astronomers spotted a molecule called DMS in the planet's atmosphere.
Here on Earth, DMS is produced by the tiny algae that live in the ocean.
6
These microscopic phytoplankton can't be seen with the human eye individually, but show up as coloured patches on water.
Similar – but alien – lifeforms might be responsible for the DMS detected with extreme confidence on K2-18b.
Lead scientist Professor Nikku Madhusudhan said 'there is no mechanism in the literature that can explain what we are seeing without life'.
He told The Sun: 'It's a question humanity has been asking for thousands of years. It's a shock to the system. It takes time to recover from the enormity of it.'
WHAT IS A HYCEAN WORLD? THE STORY OF K2-18b SO FAR
Here's what you need to know...
A Hycean world is a type of exoplanet – or planet outside of our solar system.
Specifically, it's a planet that has both a liquid water ocean and a hydrogen-rich atmosphere.
That's where the name comes from: Hycean is 'hydrogen' and 'ocean' combined.
It was coined as a term in 2021 by astronomers at the University of Cambridge.
Scientists think they're a top location to hunt for alien life.
They expect life on Hycean worlds to be aquatic – that means no land mammals like here on Earth.
One of the best candidates for life is K2-18b, because it appears to have both a Hycean atmosphere and biosignatures, or signs of life.
The planet is 120 lightyears away from Earth, orbiting the red dwarf start K2-18.
It's about 2.6 times bigger than Earth and has a 33-day orbit.
K2-18b gets about the same amount of sunlight from its star as Earth receives from the Sun.
It was first discovered in 2015, and water vapour was found in the atmosphere in 2019.
Then in 2023, the James Webb Space Telescope picked up carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere.
Scientists later predicted that we might find potential biosignatures linked to life in the water ocean they believe to be on the planet.
And in April 2025, scientists were finally able to say with 99.7% certainty the presence of a biosignature: a type of molecule called DMS, which is produced by marine phytoplankton here on Earth.
It might mean that similar lifeforms exist on K2-18b too.
Picture Credit: Nasa
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Irish Sun
a day ago
- The Irish Sun
Why scientists believe an ALIEN spacecraft could be hurtling towards Earth
Read on for six key theories about a mystery object tearing towards Earth proposed by Harvard experts SPACE ODDITY Why scientists believe an ALIEN spacecraft could be hurtling towards Earth A MYSTERY object tearing towards Earth at break-neck speed has raised fears that ALIENS are on their way here. Boffins warn that the odd entity, which astronomers are calling 31/Atlas, could be an ET craft set to launch probes on our planet. 4 The object astronomers are calling 31/Atlas could be an ET craft set to launch probes on our planet Credit: Getty 4 The discovery has raised fears that aliens are on their way here Credit: Getty Advertisement Estimated at more than 12 miles wide, it is whizzing through our solar system on a trajectory that will bring it within about 170million miles of us on December 19. A trio of scientists from Harvard University in America, led by astrophysicist Avi Loeb, have published a paper speculating whether it could be 'hostile' extraterrestrial technology. Nick Pope, a retired Ministry of Defence UFO investigator, said: 'It is not beyond the realms of science fiction that 31/Atlas could be an alien spaceship of some kind. 'Unusual behaviour' 'It's an unusual size, unusual acceleration, unusual course and unusual behaviour — those things combined very closely match a sort of mapping or survey mission. Advertisement READ MORE ON ALIENS STARRY EYED Nasa observatory could finally find ALIENS as it hunts for habitable worlds 'Of course, this could turn out to be just a comet or an asteroid — albeit an interstellar one, so interesting and incredibly rare. 'The good thing is this is a testable hypothesis. 'The clock is ticking down. We will know soon enough whether we're dealing with first contact . . . or just a big rock.' 4 Astrophysicist Avi Loeb speculated whether the object could be 'hostile' extraterrestrial technology Credit: Getty Advertisement 4 Retired Ministry of Defence UFO investigator Nick Pope Credit: Coleman-Rayner for The US Sun Here, Nick sets out the six key theories proposed by Harvard experts. 1. It's too large to be an asteroid. We do know asteroids in our solar system range in size but this is much bigger than average 2. Its rate of acceleration seems unusual for a natural object. The European Space Agency and Hubble space telescope calculate it is travelling at about 130,000mph. Nasa says at that speed, it is the fastest solar system visitor. Nasa's futuristic observatory could finally find aliens as it hunts for hidden habitable worlds, say experts 3. We spotted it very late. This was because it was coming in from the centre of the galaxy, where there are a lot of obstacles, light and stars. If you wanted to covertly send a probe into our solar system, this is exactly the course you would choose. Advertisement 4. Its course makes it very hard to intercept. At critical points where it might do something technological, such as perform a non-natural manoeuvre, it is blocked by the sun. 5. Passing close to Venus, Mars and Jupiter. This is like a mapping or survey mission. There is a very low probability of that happening naturally — the report suggests close to 0.005 per cent. That is statistically minute. 6. We won't see it. At its closest approach, the sun will be between the Earth and Atlas so we won't be able to see it. Again, this is exactly the course you would choose, as it can do all its sneaky braking manoeuvres and changes of course without us seeing it. It might do one of two things if this is technological. Advertisement It could change course and come to Earth itself. Or it could, if it's a mothership, deploy some probes that would come to Earth.
Irish Examiner
3 days ago
- Irish Examiner
Back in the ozone: How we plugged the hole in the sky
Once upon a time, well in the 1980s, the world looked up and discovered we'd poked a hole in the sky. Not metaphorically, not in some sci-fi dystopia, but literally, a yawning gap in Earth's ozone layer — the invisible shield that protects us from the Sun's harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. And the culprit wasn't alien invaders or a rogue comet, but something far more mundane: hairspray, fridges, and air-conditioners. The hole over Antarctica quickly became a potent symbol of human overreach. Scientists had been warning since the 1970s that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the miracle chemicals that made spray-on deodorant, whipped cream in a can, and frost-free freezers possible, could destroy ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere. But it wasn't until 1985, when British scientists Joe Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin published shocking measurements from Antarctica that it was fully apparent. The data showed a massive seasonal depletion of ozone each spring. The problem was simple chemistry, though with catastrophic implications: CFCs drifted up to the stratosphere, where intense UV light broke them apart, releasing chlorine atoms that shredded ozone molecules like confetti. Less ozone meant more UV radiation reaching Earth's surface, increasing the risk of skin cancer, cataracts, crop damage, and who knows what else. A rare plot twist In environmental stories, the plot often goes like this: scientists warn, politicians dither, lobbyists stall, and the problem worsens. But the ozone saga took a refreshingly different turn. The images of the gaping hole and the undeniable science spurred action. Just two years after the Antarctic discovery, the world signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which is a global agreement to phase out ozone-destroying substances. It remains the most successful environmental treaty in history, with every single United Nations member country signed on. Industry initially grumbled (of course), warning of costs and inconvenience, but quickly pivoted to invent safer alternatives. The chemical companies that had made fortunes from CFCs soon made fortunes from the replacements. It was, in its way, capitalism at its most adaptable. The long, slow healing Fixing the ozone hole was never going to be instant. CFCs are stubborn chemicals, hanging around in the atmosphere for 50 to 100 years. Even after production stopped, the stockpiles we'd already released were still floating upwards to do their damage. The ozone layer, battered for decades, needed time to recover. The Ozone 'hole': This satellite image was obtained by the NASA Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS). It is centred on the South Pole where the so-called ozone 'hole' was first observed by the British Antarctic Survey in the mid-1980s. This was achieved through measurements from the land base at Halley Bay using a device to measure ozone UV absorbance. Pic: NASA 2018 But something remarkable happened: it started working. By the early 2000s, scientists detected the first signs that ozone levels were stabilising. In 2018, NASA confirmed the hole was shrinking, and that it wasn't just due to natural fluctuations, but because the Montreal Protocol was working exactly as intended. By 2023, scientists reported that the Antarctic ozone hole was on track to heal completely by the mid-21st century. An accidental climate bonus The Montreal Protocol didn't just protect the ozone layer, it also delivered an unexpected climate win. CFCs are not only ozone-destroyers; they're also powerful greenhouse gases, thousands of times more potent than CO₂ at trapping heat. By phasing them out, the treaty avoided an enormous amount of future warming. So, in a strange twist, the effort to protect us from UV rays also gave us breathing room on carbon emissions. Though sadly, we've used that room to keep emitting CO₂ at record levels. Still, it's a rare and satisfying example of an environmental win. Not quite out of the woods Lest we get too smug, there have been bumps along the way. In 2018, scientists detected unexpected spikes in CFC-11 (one of the banned substances) traced to illegal production in parts of China. But (here's the encouraging part) because the Montreal Protocol has teeth, countries investigated, cracked down, and the emissions dropped back down. Imagine if we treated carbon emissions with the same global seriousness. There's also the newer problem of HFCs [hydrofluorocarbons] (the CFC replacements), which don't harm ozone but are still potent greenhouse gases. The 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol now addresses that, aiming to phase down HFCs too. It's like realising your roof's fixed but your walls are mouldy... you keep patching until the whole house is sound. A story worth remembering In a world where the news is usually a cascade of crises, the ozone recovery is the feel-good environmental story we need. It's proof that science can spot a problem before it becomes irreversible, global cooperation is real and possible, industry can innovate its way out of trouble when pushed, and nature can heal if we give it the chance. It's also a lesson in timing. We acted before the damage spiralled beyond repair, and the payoff is now visible. Contrast that with climate change, where we're still foot-dragging, and the lesson is clear: earlier action saves bigger headaches later. Looking up So, where are we now? As of 2025, the ozone layer is still healing. If all goes well, the Antarctic hole will be gone by around 2066, and the rest of the planet's ozone will return to 1980 levels decades before that. Children born today could live to see a fully repaired sky. It's worth looking up sometimes and remembering that we, collectively, fixed something. We didn't rely on miracle tech or some billionaire's pet project, we relied on science, diplomacy, and a shared sense of 'let's not fry ourselves'. And it worked. The next time someone says 'people never change' or 'countries can't work together', tell them about the ozone hole. Then remind them that if we could do it once, we can do it again, whether it's climate change, biodiversity loss, or the plastic in our oceans. After all, we once had a hole in the sky. Now we have a blueprint for how to mend the planet. And that, in anyone's book, is a good news story.
Irish Independent
4 days ago
- Irish Independent
Experts say US plans for lunar nuclear reactor are ‘cock-eyed'
'The whole proposal is cock-eyed and runs against the sound management of a space programme that is now being starved of money,' American national-security analyst, nuclear expert and author Joseph Cirincione told the Independent. Nuclear has been used in space since the 1960s. The US launched its first test reactor into orbit in 1965, and the former Soviet Union has sent up dozens. Nasa says that a new 100-kilowatt reactor could be used to power a future base at the lunar South Pole, and fuel prospective missions to Mars and beyond. Nuclear would help to fill gaps in solar energy that occur when that side of the moon is in darkness. The majority of space experts have said that placing a reactor on the moon is possible, so why is Nasa's current plan 'cock-eyed'? The problem is the proposed timeline. Interim Nasa administrator Sean Duffy – who also serves as US president Donald Trump's transportation secretary – pushed to expedite the project detailed in a memo this week. Mr Duffy said the administration wanted to have a nuclear reactor ready to launch by 2030. Earlier this year, China and Russia announced a plan to build a nuclear reactor for a lunar base by 2035. 'The first country to do so could potentially declare a 'keep-out' zone, which would significantly inhibit the US from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first,' Mr Duffy said. Nasa first announced in 2021 that it would put a reactor on the moon 'within a decade'. In 2024, the agency said that their target date for delivery of a reactor to the launchpad was the early 2030s. But Mr Cirincione – who is vice-chair of the Centre for International Policy, a non-profit that advocates for a peaceful approach to foreign policy – says essentially no progress has been made. 'It was in the last Trump administration that Nasa had put out a press release ... about how they're going to develop these small, modular nuclear reactors for use on the moon, and it was going to be ready by 2026,' he said. 'Oh, really? So where is it?' He believes it could take up to 20 years for a nuclear reactor on the moon to become a reality. Nasa would need a working launch vehicle, a small and adaptable reactor, and the ability to land on the moon. Right now, the SpaceX Starship is the only option – but it has exploded during several of its test flights. Accelerating the [Fission Surface Power] programme could come at the expense of … core elements of Nasa's public-serving mission The agency has been working with Boeing on a space launch system – the main competitor to SpaceX's Starship – but that programme would be cancelled under the Trump administration's proposed cuts, which slash 24pc from Nasa's overall budget. There are also the scientific and technological advances needed for the nuclear reactors. They must be able to withstand harsh conditions on the moon, including temperature swings from 121C during the day to -246C at night. Many scientists and nuclear energy experts have shared in Mr Cirincione's scepticism. Kathryn Huff – a former nuclear energy official at the US department of energy, and a professor at the University of Illinois – wrote in a Bluesky social media post that she's not 'bullish' on 'unrealistic timelines'. 'The 2030 target does not align well with recent budgetary trends,' Dr Huff said in a statement shared by the university. 'Accelerating the [Fission Surface Power] programme could come at the expense of other critical priorities, including earth science, climate observation and space-based weather forecasting – all core elements of Nasa's public-serving mission.' Alfredo Carpineti, an Italian astrophysicist, wrote in IFLScience this week that the proposal is unfeasible: 'Even if we allow landing the nuclear reactor on December 31, 2030, the timing is really too short for something that must not have any faults if you want to operate it safely.' Others were more optimistic about Nasa's accelerated timeline. Sebastian Corbisiero – a senior technical adviser at Idaho National Laboratory who leads the US energy department's space reactor programme – told the Independent that a nuclear reactor on the moon is 'doable' by 2030. 'Nuclear reactor technology has been around for decades, so its well known,' he said. 'Some key differences with a space reactor is that it needs to fit on a rocket – so there are mass and volume requirements – and that the system needs to operate in vacuum, so components will need to be built to survive that environment.'
