Slashdot Mirror
The Dirt On Mars, In Words And Pictures
An anonymous reader writes "The Spirit rover's first soil analysis reveals some puzzling features about Gusev crater. The region seems to contain the greenish silicate mineral, olivine, which usually is considered water-reactive and thus volcanic in origin. For olivine to be found in the soil may point to rock formation during a drier period in martian history, even with strong evidence for sampling in an ancient lakebed. A second puzzle is why the soil seems so crusty. After the rover arm pressed soil down, the top layer of dust hardly moved, a finding that suggests something may be binding the dust like some type of salt or thin cement." For even more and better Mars pictures, read on below.
mlyle writes "I've spent a few hours hacking together some software to deal with the Mars Exploration Rover imagery at JPL. The software puts together a webpage and RDF feed of new raw imagery as it is posted to the JPL site, along with technical information decoded about how the picture was taken. It also produces stereo anaglyphs and color images that NASA has not seen fit to convert and make publically available. Be sure to also check out the ultra high resolution image of the lander as viewed from Spirit."
If it were just standard ore like Iron, copper, etc I would say not. But if we found some exciting new minerals out there or some kinds that are extremely rare and valuable on earth I bet companies would be chomping at the bit to get out there.
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
Now we only need to get that foundry over there at a million dollars/kg ...
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
A consequence of space exploration being government run is the fact that missions will be continually over funded and unambitious, as successive presidents and politicians look at NASA and the entirety of space as merely being an extremely expensive photo opportunity. It took 25 years from the invention of modern rockets to the moon landings, and in nearly 40 after that, we've done little more than send up continuous, well publicised but ultimately futile shuttle missions. Much as it pains me to say it, the future of space lies in private hands who have the ambition to(pardon the pun) reach for the stars
" I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. " --Dr. Jerry Pournelle
BTW, what happened before Creation? See, everyone, at some point, gets backed into the taking-something-on-faith corner. Some are just more explicit about it than others.
Not me, I don't know what there was before the big bang and don't mid admitting it. I guess you could say that believing in the big bang requires a certain amount of faith but at least there is evidence for it and it is a lot more credible than a 2000 year old book that has been translated so many times it can't be accurate.
BTW, what happened before Creation? See, everyone, at some point, gets backed into the taking-something-on-faith corner. Some are just more explicit about it than others.
Saying "I don't know" or even "That information is unknowable" has nothing to do with faith. Faith is, by definition, a belief in something where there is insufficient evidence for proof.
We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, and we will almost certainly never know. It's quite possible the question makes no sense, as time itself may be an artifact of the Big Bang. But confessing ignorance is not the same as professing belief in an unprovable postulate, particularly one as complex as a Creator.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
what happened before Creation?
Small kid: "What's North of the North pole, daddy?"
Dad: "Nothing, son. you can't go North of the North Pole."
SK: "yeah, but, daddy, suppose you did? What would be there?"
Dad: "Nothing."
SK: "You mean, like, a big empty space?"
Dad: "No, I don't mean a big empty space, I mean, no space at all, nothing, there's nothing North of the North Pole becuase that's as North as you can get."
SK: "So, if you're at the North Pole, and you go North, which direction do you go in?"
Dad: "You CAN'T go North of the North pole, because there is no North from there!"
SK: "So, suppose you're half a mile south of the North Pole, and you walk north for a mile, where are you?"
Dad: "You're still half a mile South of the North pole, but on the other side."
evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
The Viking landers performed soil tests that were supposed to check for living organisms. Interestingly, they were inconclusive - the reactions observed to the agar solution could have either been the result of microorganisms, or unusual soil chemistry. Either Spirit and Opportunity will tell us which it is, or we'll just have to send some folks up there to check things out.
Eggzactly.
One of the less ridiculous "proofs" for God's existence is that, "the world exists. Because there cannot be infinite causes, an ultimate originator must exist and that originator is God."
The "no infinite causes" ('nic') line is from Aristotle.
The problem is that NIC is only true if you take Aristotle's word for it. Now, he was assuredly a smart dude, but he was not infallible. His philosophy denies the existence of atomic particles (so if you agree with Aristotle 100%, you either have a fantastic take on all the science of the last 100 years, or you're provably wrong about something.)
The second problem is the assumption that, "if there is an ultimate originator, then it is God."
This is also simply an article of faith, which does not per se make it wrong, merely unjustified.
I can say with equal emphasis and personal faith that, "Since there cannot be an ultimate originator, there must be infinite causes." Further, I could say: "Therefore, those infinite causes are God", or equally, "Therefore, belief in God as an ultimate originator is fallacious."
No one can disprove that without assuming something on faith, either in a trusted authority (philosophical, religious, or otherwise) because no one actually has evidence either way.
Faith is a natural and healthy part of the human experience. Self righteousness and moral absolutism are comfy illusions. The difference between faith and zealotry is that zealots can't or won't change their beliefs under any cirumstances. Even when their own intelligence officers tell them that Iraq abandonded it's WMD programs in 1991.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
We do it because we want to know. I know I have that urge, and obviously the people at NASA have the same itch to scratch.
I don't know. Could be the question is meaningless, like "What positive integer is less that 1?" or "What is further North than the North Pole?" Could be an oscillating universe, or an endless stream of universes being created. (Though this might require slippery considerations of wat "before" means.) Could be the whole thing was sneezed out of the nose the Great Green Arkleseizure.
I do know that positing a pre-existing creator explains nothing, because one then is left with the puzzle of the creator's origin. Shifting mysteries is no solution.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Well, limestone would also be a pretty clear indicator of the presence of life in the past, too, since it's normally produced on Earth by the deposit of the remains of tiny organisms, which concentrate calcites in their shells or other structural elements. Okay, there's other ways to make limestone, but I think if there were limestone deposits on Mars, we'd see it as a lot closer to finding life in itself than just seeing it as evidence of ancient water..
Anyone that isn't a religious nut can come to the conclusion pretty easily that life in some form is out there in all probability.
Probability less than 1.00 is not proof. If proof was found that life exists or had existed on Mars in the past, then it changes the way we look at the Universe. If life could develop on two planets in the same solar system, what does that say for the possibility and commonality of life elsewhere?
Perhaps Mars is boring. It's the same argument people said about the lunar missions a generation ago. It only became boring because we let it.
Take a step back and stand in awe of the fact that we have the ability to even do what we are doing. It isn't boring. It wasn't in 1969 and it isn't now. It should be considered anything but boring. Maybe if we hadn't gotten "bored" in 1972, it wouldn't be a robot up there analyzing samples up there and sending back imagery used preprogrammed commands on a 20 minute delay. It would be a man or woman instead, with us hearing their voice, the excitement and thrill at walking on another world and making that thrill of discovery, curiousity and exploration infectious to entire planet and to another generation. But we didn't. We should have.
Have a sense of romance and excitement. I wish I could send commands to the rover along the lines of "Look that way! What's over there?!?" or "Drive over there and look behind that rock.".
There are some things that should transcend day-to-day living and the focus on our daily lives and exist simply for the sake of doing it, cost and politics aside. Space exploration should be one of those things.
I think you are confusing scales. In the short term finding Osama MAY be more important than finding life, or traces of, somewhere else in the cosmos. But in the long term Osama doesn't matter in the least, neither does 9/11, America, You, I, or much else. Finding life would answer a COSMIC question, killing Osama with some little Geneva convention violating bug would answer a wholly secular, and temporal question.
Finding traces of life on Mars would further the work of Galaleo[sp], Darwin, Einstein, and all the other great minds who pushed the boundries of knowledge, who led to BIGGER questions. Finding Osama would make George Bush look like he already did not waste BILLIONS (not just millions) of dollars, and MIGHT increase Americas sense of security by a minute modicum.
Finding life would challenge theology, and put some serious stress on the creationists, which in my opinion is a good thing. It also would expand the Earthly feilds of science, answering some time-old questions. Finding Osama and killing him would only answer the question "Where is Osama?", which is of little importance to the world-as-a-whole, and the greater reach of intellectual history streaching before us.
Finding life would be comforting to us, now and generations hence. We would for once know that we are not alone, and that the odds of alien life, albeit simple, are greater than some nay-sayers say. Finding Osama, well, would be comforting to the US, at least until the next "evil doer" comes along to rain on our parade.
You must look at the bigger picture. Killing Osama is a sign of hatred, dark emotions, revenge, war. Finding life, a sign of hope, progress (in a good way), knowledge, and a greater respect for life itself. What is wrong with embracing both goals, vengence and death, and hope and respect?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
To what end do we use the answer to the question?
Well, inasmuch as the desire to know is part of our (humans) nature, knowing is an end in itself. That is, knowledge doesn't have to be useful as a means to an end to be worth pursuing. That's just the way we are. Knowledge often *is* useful, of course, but it doesn't have to be.
While I'm fascinated by the rovers on Mars and finding out what's there, is that really the best way to spend $400 million (not just dollars but resources)?
It's important to remember that when NASA spends USD 400M to learn about Mars, it's not as if they're dumping that money into a big pit, and then expecting to be given the information in exchange. They're paying contractors, vendors, and hosts of other private individuals and businesses for their time and efforts. The money is injected directly into the economy, which is a Good Thing. People often talk (though the parent didn't) about how the money spent on projects like this could go toward feeding the hungry or some other (admittedly) noble thing. Well, you might argue that NASA is (indirectly) feeding the hungry by giving millions of dollars of contract work to companies.
Belloc
I got more rhymes than Jamaica got Mangoes.
I'm sorry, but that article is total bullshit.
The math is wrong. In a string of 10 dna bases there are only 4^10 possible combinations, and because of the way base pairs meet each other half of these are exactly the same.
(4^10)/2=524288
The article asumes that there is only one correct string of dna, and only that one correct string will work to allow life. this is false, but given their example the "magic" sequence would be one of only this small handfull.
If you have ever looked at dna you will see that it is mostly random with areas of repetition, not ordered in the way they put forth. there are huge swaths of DNA, that do nothing, in our genome.
The article asumes that there is only one correct string of dna, and only that one correct string will work to allow life. this is false.
Cells are not ordered. they are a complete mess of shit that somehow works. true there are regions within cells that do different jobs, but for the most part cells vary widely and could certainly not be considered "ordered" in the way that idea is presented.
also, the view of "information" they present is false. A string of digits in order contains 1 piece of information. a string of seemingly random numbers can mean an infinity of things depending on how you decipher it. there is a reason we call it genetic "code".
If you truly believe what that article says, read this website and kindly do not reproduce. It is as close as I have found to memetic birth control, and a weak-minded person might believe it's arguments leaving others to evolve without them.
-John Fenley
That is a strange geocentric way of looking at space exploration. Olivine reacts with water, but the atmospheric conditions on Mars are quite different (colder and drier) than those here on Earth, and the formation of a meta-stable sticky silicate/silica hydrate mixture seems quite plausible. To state that to find a rock with this mineral it must be igneous (where we have an example of only Earth) is to miss the point of the exploration.
The surface isn't as dusty as they originally thought right? If dust is the limiting factor on Spirits battery life since it eventually blocks out it's solar panels. Dust will now accumulate at a much slower rate and thereby give Spirit a much longer life. We might have a good year of roving possible. Think of how much we could explore!
Things are not as they appear, nor are they otherwise
I honestly don't believe anyone is listening, but sometimes the good that prayer does has nothing to do with the existence of God. How else can you explain the huge number of 'miracles' that happen at Loudres in France?
(Phil braces himself....)
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy