NASA might have found Life on Mars (rumor)

[Phil C. McNasty]

NASA will release on Dec. 3rd their Rover findings:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/a...-discovery-draws-alien-hype-critical-backlash

Mysterious Mars rover discovery draws alien hype, critical backlash

Space-watchers were set abuzz this week after the lead researcher of NASA’s latest mission to Mars hinted at a groundbreaking potential discovery.

Earthbound NASA scientists have been receiving data from a soil-analysis instrument inside Curiosity, the rover that landed on the red planet in August. That instrument, known as SAM (Sample Analysis at Mars), is particularly looking for chemical compounds that suggest the planet is capable of supporting life.

In a radio segment aired Tuesday, the mission’s project scientist, John Grotzinger, wouldn’t tell an NPR reporter what the analysis had turned up until further tests verified the findings. But, Grotzinger said: “This data is going be one for the history books. It’s looking really good.”

His remarks set off a predictable round of alien-related hype in the non-technical press. “Nasa may have discovered life on Mars,” one British tabloid speculated.

But it also set off some grumbling among scientists and industry-watchers. Would the discovery be truly exciting — or part of what some see as a pattern of overhyped NASA announcements?

“I think it’s obviously a deliberate attempt to drum up interest,” said John Pike, a space and policy expert and director of GlobalSecurity.org. NASA space shuttles are all retired and the agency is facing budget cuts. And if publicity-mongering was not the intent of the comments, Pike said, “somebody who works on the program would have the capacity to get excited about things that civilians would not.”

Or as Phil Plait, an astronomer who blogs for Slate, wrote: “OK, everyone, can we all take a sec and just breathe?” He added: “This has happened before. More than once.”

In 2008, Plait pointed out, NASA sent out a provocative news release. It was titled “NASA to Announce Success of Long Galactic Hunt,” and it touted the discovery of something astronomers have “been hunting for more than 50 years.”

It turned out to be a young supernova, a less-than-earth-shattering discovery for most non-scientists, and definitely not aliens.

And in 2010, Plait and many others noted, NASA scheduled a news conference to “discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life.” Astrobiology, that news release reminded everyone, “is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution and future of life in the universe.” Still not aliens.

The findings did initially provoke excitement: a team had discovered that bacteria living in a lake in California sustained their growth using arsenic, a usually toxic element and one not counted among the building blocks of all known organic life. The discovery raised the possibility that life on other planets could evolve in ways totally unlike how it does on Earth.

But other scientists raised serious doubts about the arsenic findings. Evidence now suggests the California bacteria rely on phosphorus after all.

Yet Grotzinger’s remarks differed in one major way from those examples: they were not prepared by public relations staff, but made to a single visiting reporter.

In an email, a media staffer for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where Grotzinger’s team works, seemed to suggest this was a case of an excited scientist speaking off the cuff.

“John Grotzinger was delighted about the quality and range of information coming in from SAM during the day a reporter happened to be sitting in John’s office last week,” Guy Webster wrote. “He has been similarly delighted by results at other points during the mission so far.”

And: “The whole mission is for the history books.”

Indeed, when other scientific institutions hint at exciting forthcoming discoveries, public frothing about aliens does not generally follow.

Whether the hype or the criticism are warranted will be known on Dec. 3, when a team of scientists plans to discuss recent findings from the rover at a news conference in San Francisco

 

[Asterix]

Except that it does hold an atmosphere.

Less than 1% of the density of Earth's and nearly all CO2. Mars can't hold onto an atmosphere because it has no active magnetic core. That's it. Nothing either you or I say will change that.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

No you're right, it doesnt have an atmosphere. Thats why there's an entire wiki page devoted to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

Atmosphere of Mars

Further information: Climate of Mars
Mars from Hubble Space Telescope October 28, 2005 with sandstorm visible.
Chemical species mole fraction[1]
Carbon dioxide 95.32%
Nitrogen 2.7%
Argon 1.6%
Oxygen 0.13%
Carbon monoxide 0.07%
Water vapor 0.03%
Nitric oxide 0.013%
Neon 2.5 μmol/mol
Krypton 300 nmol/mol
Formaldehyde 130 nmol/mol
Xenon 80 nmol/mol
Ozone 30 nmol/mol
Methane 10.5 nmol/mol
Mars's thin atmosphere, visible on the horizon in this low-orbit image.

The atmosphere of Mars is, like that of Venus, composed mostly of carbon dioxide though far thinner. There has been renewed interest in its composition since the detection of traces of methane[2][3] that may indicate life but may also be produced by a geochemical process, volcanic or hydrothermal activity.[4]

The atmospheric pressure on the Martian surface averages 600 pascals (0.087 psi), about 0.6% of Earth's mean sea level pressure of 101.3 kilopascals (14.69 psi) and only .0065% that of Venus's 9.2 megapascals (1,330 psi). It ranges from a low of 30 pascals (0.0044 psi) on Olympus Mons's peak to over 1,155 pascals (0.1675 psi) in the depths of Hellas Planitia. Mars's atmospheric mass of 25 teratonnes compares to Earth's 5148 teratonnes with a scale height of about 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) versus Earth's 7 kilometres (4.3 mi). The Martian atmosphere is about 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and traces of free oxygen, carbon monoxide, water and methane, among other gases, for a mean molar mass of 43.34 g/mol.[1][5] The atmosphere is quite dusty, giving the Martian sky a light brown or orange color when seen from the surface; data from the Mars Exploration Rovers indicate that suspended dust particles within the atmosphere are roughly 1.5 micrometres across.

Mars's atmosphere is believed to have changed over the course of the planet's lifetime, with evidence suggesting the possibility that Mars had large oceans a few billion years ago.[7] As stated in the Mars Ocean Hypothesis, atmospheric pressure on the present day Martian surface only exceeds that of the triple point of water (6.11 hectopascals (0.0886 psi)) in the lowest elevations; at higher elevations water can exist only in solid or vapor form. Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F), significantly lower than what is needed to sustain liquid water. However, early in its history Mars may have had conditions more conducive to retaining liquid water at the surface.

Possible causes for the depletion of a previously thicker Martian atmosphere include:

Gradual erosion of the atmosphere by solar wind,[8] possibly helped by Mars's magnetic-field irregularities;[9]
Catastrophic collision by a body large enough to blow away a significant percentage of the atmosphere;[9]
Mars's low gravity allowing the atmosphere to "blow off" into space by gas-kinetic escape


Mars's atmosphere is composed of the following layers:

Lower atmosphere: This is a warm region affected by heat from airborne dust and from the ground.
Middle atmosphere: Mars has a jetstream, which flows in this region.
Upper atmosphere, or thermosphere: This region has very high temperatures, caused by heating from the Sun. Atmospheric gases start to separate from each other at these altitudes, rather than forming the even mix found in the lower atmospheric layers.
Exosphere: Typically stated to start at 200 km (120 mi) and higher, this region is where the last wisps of atmosphere merge into the vacuum of space. There is no distinct boundary where the atmosphere ends; it just tapers away.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

All this talk about what if anything has been discovered might well be for nothing. Another report has come out that the scientist, who claimed that a discovery for the ages has been made, has a history of exaggerating things

Its not just him, NASA has a history of doing this as well.

They're really gonna lose credibility if this turns out to be nothing again

 

[GPIDEAL]

Less than 1% of the density of Earth's and nearly all CO2. Mars can't hold onto an atmosphere because it has no active magnetic core. That's it. Nothing either you or I say will change that.

Who cares if it doesn't hold onto an atmosphere or is a 'dead planet'. I never heard that it could be colonized without pressurized suits or living quarters.

 

[Asterix]

Who cares if it doesn't hold onto an atmosphere or is a 'dead planet'. I never heard that it could be colonized without pressurized suits or living quarters.

Waste of time and money.

 

[fuji]

Getting extraterrestrial colonies out there would be a long, long, long term plan. Absolutely worthy, absolutely worth planning for, but it'll be well beyond the lifetimes of even our grandchildren to make that happen.

It's not that far in the future. We have the technology to do it now, and I don't see why it would take "well beyond the lifetimes of even our grandchildren" to make it a reality.

Right now the missions to mars are fantastically complex things because of the distance involved, because a signal takes 18 to 30min there and back, depending on the time of year. That means everything has to be planned out carefully, with robots that have programmed fallback modes. If a battery runs out, or an antennae points the wrong way, or it gets stuck--it's game over. So these operations are incredibly expensive, and incredibly complex, because they are entirely automated.

Put boots on the ground, though, and if a robot gets stuck you walk over and kick it; if an antennae gets broken or mispointed, you walk over and flip it around. Local operators can man machines directly, without having to rely on intricate programming. Even if you want a remote controlled machine, they can operate it from a few kilometers away, rather than on a 30min delay. It is a LOT easier when someone is physically there.

So the question is, can you keep that person alive? And we clearly can, we can keep people alive in the space station pretty much indefinitely, provided they receive regular shipments of goods. The initial mars settlers would work on building out things to make themselves increasingly self sufficient--greenhouses, water recycling systems. Dig some wells and pump out ground water if some can be found! Within ten years or so they would be dependent on shipments from Earth mostly for tools and high tech stuff they cannot fabricate locally, and likely shipments of fuel to power their systems. Food, water, and air purification would be done locally.

Once they are there you can work on building a launch facility on the planet surface. Small rockets capable of shipping up small payloads initially, not reliable or big enough to send up a human. At that point you have established commerce--they can ship stuff up and it can be picked up in orbit and sent back to Earth. Larger and larger items as the facilities build up.

What's likely to be far future, not in the lives of our grandchildren, is a launch capability on the Martian surface capable of sending those people back to Earth. It's a one way ticket.

 

[fuji]

Its not just him, NASA has a history of doing this as well.

They're really gonna lose credibility if this turns out to be nothing again

The problem is the gap between what a scientist thinks is an exciting discovery, and what everyone else thinks. The scientists will go apeshit if they find some molecules that are usually the product of a biological process, or if they find a large quantity of water, or proof that there were once full fledged oceans, or anything else that increases the probability that there was once life.

The average person isn't going to think it's exciting unless they find something that sits up and says hello.

 

[whitewaterguy]

or anything else that increases the probability that there was once life.

...............................or anything else which might increase the probability that scientists might be able to convince some corporate or public funding source to continue shovelling cash into their pipe dreams...even if it means fudging the data a bit

 

[danmand]

Having read the original post, I am surprised of the claim that methane is sign of life. That is a loooooooooong stretch.

 

[rld]

...............................or anything else which might increase the probability that scientists might be able to convince some corporate or public funding source to continue shovelling cash into their pipe dreams...even if it means fudging the data a bit

Yeah...not like science or understanding the universe is important or anything.

 

[rld]

Waste of time and money.

Good thing you are not in significant policy position.

 

[irlandais9000]

Less than 1% of the density of Earth's and nearly all CO2. Mars can't hold onto an atmosphere because it has no active magnetic core. That's it. Nothing either you or I say will change that.

Look, as stated before, types of gases in the atmosphere, temperature, gravity, and magnetism are ALL factors in whether a planet or moon can hold onto an atmosphere. It's not as simple as you suggest.

Besides, look at Venus and Titan. They both have minimal magnetic fields. And it is beyond doubt that they both have atmospheres considerably thicker than Earth.

And by the way, I read a lot of astronomy, and have NEVER heard anyone describe Mars as having "no atmosphere" like you have in this thread. The Earth's atmosphere is dense enough that even 1 to 2 percent of ours is still a significant atmosphere. Now, if you were describing a moon that had 0.00001 percent the density of Earth, than you might have a point.

But the fact remains, Mars has an atmosphere, it does hold onto it, and that is beyond dispute. The temperature there is hundreds of degrees higher than it would be without it. Atmospheric entry is a big concern for landing probes. There is daylight there because of atmospheric scattering of light, whereas if there was no air all there would be would be the Sun surrounded by blackness. THERE IS WEATHER THERE, WITH STORMS AND PRECIPITATION. Need I say more?

 

[Frosty]

If there are no corpse, there is no life.

 

[rld]

Less than 1% of the density of Earth's and nearly all CO2. Mars can't hold onto an atmosphere because it has no active magnetic core. That's it. Nothing either you or I say will change that.

This logic is not even close to sound.

Venus has no magnetic core, but has a very dense atmosphere.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

This logic is not even close to sound.

Venus has no magnetic core, but has a very dense atmosphere

Venus does have a magnetic core, but its very, very weak

 

[seth gecko]

Let me be the first to wish a Morphistic Quiznox to our allies on Rigel & and also on Mars!
Or maybe they'll celebrate Robanukah:

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

NASA says Mars discovery isn't 'earthshaking' after all:

http://www.techradar.com/news/world...discovery-isnt-earthshaking-after-all-1115437

After telling the world that the Mars Curiosity rover made a discovery "for the history books," NASA is now downplaying the importance of what was found.

NASA spokesperson Guy Webster elaborated some on the discovery, hoping to realign people's expectations.

"It won't be earthshaking but it will be interesting," Webster told Time. "As for history books, the whole mission is for the history books."

That's not to say the rover didn't stumble upon something of immense scientific importance, just that earthlings need to cool their heals a bit about what was discovered on our extraterrestrial neighbor

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

They found water and organic compounds on Mars. Thats very significant:

http://www.slashgear.com/mars-curio...est-finds-water-sulfur-and-chlorine-03259313/

Mars Curiosity rover conducts first soil sample test, finds water, sulfur and chlorine

NASA has announced today that the Curiosity rover currently putzing around on Mars has conducted its first, extensive test that analyzed soil samples that the rover dug up previously. The results found a “complex chemistry” in the soil. Water, sulfur and chlorine-containing substances were discovered, along with a few other ingredients.

The soil sample was dug up at a site called “Rocknest” that lies in a relatively flat part of Gale Crater, but still miles away from the rover’s main destination on the slope of a mountain called Mount Sharp. NASA selected Rocknest as the first scooping site because it has fine sand particles that are well-suited for “scrubbing interior surfaces of the arm’s sample-handling chambers.”

The rover’s examination of the dirt samples found that the composition is made up of about “half common volcanic minerals and half non-crystalline materials.” Furthermore, the water that was discovered during testing doesn’t mean that the sample was wet by any means. Water molecules were simply bound to grains of sand, and it’s not unusual, but the quantity that was discovered was higher than anticipated.

Of course, nothing is final yet. NASA says that this is just the beginning of sampling soil on Mars, and the team plans to obviously conduct tons of further tests over the next two years in order to see if Mars once was inhabited with life forms, but the discovery of water molecules is definitely a good sign, and is a step forward for the Mars Curiosity team

 

[OddSox]

They found Bigfoot?