NASA Says Mars Once "Drenched With Water"

Key point by Mukaikubo · 2004-03-02 07:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

If these rocks are sedimentary, then, as Squyres said, that has to be our main target for a sample return mission. Because sedimentary rocks are going to have fossils.

Re:Key point by Madcapjack · 2004-03-02 07:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

>Very true. If there was life in this 'ocean', then >it's very likely fossils are in sedimentary rocks >in that region. If there are no fossils? Absence of >evidence is not evidence of absence, but it'll be a >really curious coincidence.
I'm not sure how much of a fossil bacteria-like creatures would leave behind. There might have been life, but still be no discernible fossils (even assuming that fossils would have been preserved). Chemical signature would be more likely method of identification. Then again, we might find fossils and not even recognize them! Life need not be organic. For example, A.G. Cairns-Smith's book "Genetic Takeover and the mineral origins of life" argues that the first forms of life on earth were colloidal clay organisms without organic chemistry. If Cairns-Smith is correct, then perhaps we should be looking for something like that on Mars instead.

--
Logic, macros, and more
Re:Key point by Paulrothrock · 2004-03-02 07:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Which is exactly why we should send a manned mission with a microbiologist or two who can spend a year and a half looking at various types of sediment for hundreds of kilometers.

NASA has never lost a human in space, so sending them on a 1.5 year mission is actually safer than throwing them to orbit.

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:Key point by tigersha · 2004-03-02 07:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Purely out of interest, what are the chances (in percentage) that the average sample of, say 1 kg of earth based sedinmentary rock would have fossils in it?

--
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Re:Key point by avgjoe62 · 2004-03-02 07:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

We're still working on Earth.

Actually, according to this Penatgon report we've already finished here...

--
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Re:Key point by mikerich · 2004-03-02 08:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

Chemical signature would be more likely method of identification.
One good way that has been used here on Earth is to look for isotopic anomalies in the carbon 12/carbon 13 balance. Life preferentially selects the lighter carbon 12 isotope, so carbon minerals in rocks show carbon 12 enrichment.
Graphite found in 3.85 billion year old gneiss from Greenland is suspected of being organic in origin from isotopic evidence, even though the original rock has been distorted almost beyond recognition. Since these are the oldest rocks known on Earth, it seems reasonable to attempt similar techniques on Martian rocks when we have some decent samples.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Key point by Jerf · 2004-03-02 08:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

We don't need to contaminate Mars with the Earth Bacteria that a manned mission would introduce until we are sure there is a very low probility of finding living independantly evolved life.

Why?

(Don't dismiss this. It's a hard question. Give it some thought.)
Re:Key point by meiocyte · 2004-03-02 11:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is a nice illustration of the logical fallacy of "begging the question", or circular logic.

Your first premise, "I am having thought", assumes the very thing you're trying to prove, namely that "I" exists. You have no right to use "I" in your premises if what you're trying to prove is that "I" exists. So nothing has been proven here.

--
The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something; for the box might even be empty.
Re:Key point by thales · 2004-03-02 11:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

"we have designed special chambers where we can simulate the Martian environment. They are, of course, called "Mars jars." With earthly organisms, mainly bacteria, in the jars, we have reproduced the daily temperature variations, the low atmospheric pressure, the composition of the Martian air, and the ultraviolet radiation.

Earth Life Survives Martian Conditions

Most of the organisms quickly die. But in every sample of terrestrial soil we have found varieties of micro-organisms that survive the Martian conditions, some indefinitely. They find the lack of oxygen and the temperature extremes to their liking. They find perfect safety, under small particles of soil, from the deadly ultraviolet light. When the subsurface water content increases slightly, they thrive in the seemingly hostile environment"

Carl Sagan

Mars Jars experiments over the past 30 years have shown that Earth Microbes CAN survive in a Martian enviroment, so don't even try to pretend that it can't happen.

--
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est

Not very surprising by Z00L00K · 2004-03-02 07:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

That there once has been water on Mars, considering that a lot of comets contains water.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.

Where did it go? by gid13 · 2004-03-02 07:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but where does the water go? Vapour in the atmosphere? Did the hydrogen and oxygen break apart somehow? Chemical reactions with something else? Did it just float off into space? Those all seem unlikely to me, but then, what do I know?

you might still get your free giant shrimp!! by 7-Vodka · 2004-03-02 07:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

their offer reads "Evidence of Ocean Water on Mars; If Found by Feb. 29, America Gets Free Giant Shrimp on March 15"

Well, the news may not have been announced by feb 29, but the evidence may have been found by feb 29.

--

Liberty.

Fixing Opportunity after the fact by Danathar · 2004-03-02 07:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Interesting...That means we could possibly come back with a another rover that not only could look for life, but could possibly "repair/rejuvinate" the current rover by 'sweeping" the dust off of the solar panels? I would imagine just leaving the rover would be interesting to engineers and scientists to see what happens to a man made object that sits out in the open for extended periods of time....good information if you want to build stuff on Mars.

Anybody out there like to comment? Is it a possibility? Could we come back with another rover and get Opportunity working again after it runs out of juice?

Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact by visgoth · 2004-03-02 07:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

The next rover should drop solar panels in favor of a much more robust power source. I recommend somthing based on harnessing the heat of decaying heavy elements*.
*Nuclear power (oooh the scary word!)

--
My patience is infinite, my time is not.
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact by JahToasted · 2004-03-02 07:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

If it were as simple as just sweeping off the dust from the solar panels, wouldn't they have jsut built the rovers with a little robotic arm and a broom so they could clean themselves off?
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact by caffiend666 · 2004-03-02 08:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

If there was already an appropriate rover on the way, yes.

The death of the rovers will likely be slow and gradual. First a camera goes, then the arm, then it doesn't have power to move, then the batteries die, not having enough heat to keep the rover warm at night, the one or two functional devices left only operate during daying hours. Then, eventually, they can only ping the things. And, then everything goes quiet.

Once the batteries fail, many other components will fail due to lack of heating during night and thermal cycles.

Decades from now, we might still be getting signals from the rovers. The orbiters from viking lasted over a decade. One of the russian lunar rovers operated for 10 months. I would hate to think we can't surpass what the Soviets pulled off 30 years ago.

The last successful rover lasted several times longer than it was expected to, in fact the rover outlasted the lander that served as a transmitter and a relay station. Upon death of the lander the Soujourner probe was to try to return to the lander. I wondered how long that thing circled the lander, if it if got back at all.... Part of the reason these rovers are all in one units, capable of communicating with earth (at low baud) on their own, was because the last rover outlasted the lander.

In the two weeks Spirit was useless a few weeks ago, they were afraid components would fail. Now, try to imagine the years it takes to design/launch/wait on/land rovers? What would keep working? One of NASA's pre-Bush-Space-Initiative goals was to build a robot colony on mars. These rovers are not the start though.

I for one, would like to see them relaunch at least one rover similar to these in the next launch window. They are (were) planning on relaunching the polar lander. And, it would be nice if the next gen non-nuclear rovers could dust themselves, think $20 wiper blades.

--
Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....

New info by DarkHand · 2004-03-02 07:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

The conference is going on now and theres new news: Not only was there a large amount of water, there's good evidence that it was salty.

Re:WTF? by Ironix · 2004-03-02 07:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually that is not entirely true...

St. Augustine, back in the day, posited that if there are other planets with life on them, Jesus would have had to visit them all in order to "save" them.

If Jesus did in fact do this, it would remove the uniqueness of Jesus. Since the bible states that Jesus' is unique, this could not have happened.

Thus he surmised that there is no life on other planets.

--
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek

First Life by canineK9 · 2004-03-02 07:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

Archeabacteria are closely related to the oldest life on earth. Many are thermophilic, acid tolerant, anaerobic, sulphur-loving microbes. Just the sort that would be happy in the acidic hot springs hypothesized on ancient Mars. And they go dormant when the conditions are not just right so the ride to Earth on some rock fragments splashed out by a meteor impact would have been in suspended animation. People who can't grasp the Out of Africa concept are really gonna have trouble with Out of Mars.

RIP hubble by parcel · 2004-03-02 07:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

The downside being, if there was any chance of saving hubble before, it's gone now. I heard the story on NPR a few days ago... something like $200 million in parts are built and ready to go, just waiting on a shuttle mission that would extend hubble's lifespan beyond 2006. "safety concerns" were cited as the cause, but reduced budgeting due to mars' popularity is a far more likely reason. (listen to the audio stream of the program)

*sigh* The bell tolls for yet another victim of society's apathy.

Re:A great breakthrough... by b-baggins · 2004-03-02 07:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

Considering the difficulty evolution has in explaining the origins of life, finding life on Mars would not boost evolution as much you'd like to think.

Even Dawkins admits that selection can't work until the right proteins are in place and can replicate. In his book the Blind Watchmaker, he basically admits that abiognesis is required involving some VERY unlikely chemical combinations, before evolution can get started and then, in my opinion, offers a huge copout by basically saying: Well, with so many planets in the universe, the odds of it happening at least once may not be so improbable.

The odds of it happening twice in the same solar system strain credibility.

I suspect the explanation will be that life on Earth actually started on Mars.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.

Is this news??? by Ektanoor · 2004-03-02 07:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

Frankly I'm disappointed. Until now they roam around and claim that the findings are not wholly conclusive:

"The images obtained to date are not adequate for a definitive answer. So scientists plan to maneuver Opportunity closer to the features for a better look. "We have tantalizing clues, and we're planning to evaluate this possibility in the near future," Grotzinger said.

Besides hydrated minerals were already hinted by Spirit. One of the very first press releases pointed to that fact. Besides this is not the only weird thing between Opportunity and Spirit outputs. If one compares the first wave from results from Spirit with Opportunity's then it seems that the second robot is clearly giving very thiny results. Until now I could not see broadscale spectral and infrared analysis like the ones Spirit did. Maybe I'm missing something but frankly it seems that data feed from Meridiani goes a long way from it could.

PS: To those who are discussing theologies... Frankly don't get you people. Try to find a super SF author by the name of Nicolau Cusanus and his bestseller "De docta ignorantia". He already discussed a lot of what you keep rumbling till now...

What happened to the "Mud" by Hiroto.+S · 2004-03-02 08:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

They are all talking about the outcrop, but what happened to the mud:

Other images show the rover tracks clearly are being made in "mud", with water being pressed out of that material, Levin said. "That water promptly freezes and you can see reflecting ice. That's clearly ice. It could be nothing else," he said, "and the source is the water that came out of the mud."

Why they are all talking about the water of the past and not about the "mud" which is more exciting news about the "current" water. Also why nobody asking the question regarding this?

Re:A great breakthrough... by b-baggins · 2004-03-02 08:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

You didn't even read my comment. Evolutionary theory as it currently stands requires some form of abiogenesis to get started. It would NOT have good explanatory power for the life getting STARTED.

If you do the math on the chances of the right precursor molecules spontaneously forming without selection pressures, the odds are ridiculously low. I'd have to look it up, but it's on the order of 10^26 against, and that's with ridiculously optimistic concentrations of the right chemicals in the soup. In that time frame, a trillion years is nothing, thus Dawkins' comments.

To be fair, Dawkins does try to get around the limitation by assuming that the precursor molecues got a kick start from a non-organic matrix that could undergo selection (clays), but he fails to explain how the molecules would be embedded in the right amounts in the clay (a random process). A critical analysis shows the argument to be basically flawed, and we're back to the abiogenesis requirement again. Even Dawkins' doesn't give the clay idea much more than a "just-so" story treatment.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.

Bacteria *do* leave fossils! by Mr.+Underbridge · 2004-03-02 08:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm not sure how much of a fossil bacteria-like creatures would leave behind. There might have been life, but still be no discernible fossils (even assuming that fossils would have been preserved). Chemical signature would be more likely method of identification. Then again, we might find fossils and not even recognize them! Life need not be organic. For example, A.G. Cairns-Smith's book "Genetic Takeover and the mineral origins of life" argues that the first forms of life on earth were colloidal clay organisms without organic chemistry. If Cairns-Smith is correct, then perhaps we should be looking for something like that on Mars insteI'm not sure how much of a fossil bacteria-like creatures would leave behind. There might have been life, but still be no discernible fossils (even assuming that fossils would have been preserved). Chemical signature would be more likely method of identification. Then again, we might find fossils and not even recognize them! Life need not be organic. For example, A.G. Cairns-Smith's book "Genetic Takeover and the mineral origins of life" argues that the first forms of life on earth were colloidal clay organisms without organic chemistry. If Cairns-Smith is correct, then perhaps we should be looking for something like that on Mars instead

Actually, bacteria do in fact leave fossil records

I don't know much (actually, anything) regarding purported non-carbon "life," but regular ol' bacteria can leave fossils, believe it or not.

Re:Biggest story of all time... by mithras+the+prophet · 2004-03-02 08:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

Probably? Life on Mars would be the biggest scientific discovery in all the human lifetimes lived thus far, I would say.

I mean, maybe Copernicus... no... or Galileo... no... Darwin... maybe, but I'd really say that each of those would be mere stepping stones on the way towards the discovery of exobiology. Personally, I'd give my right leg to live in a time when extraterrestrial life is discovered. Maybe others don't feel that strongly, but it would be history-changing.

Good point about this discovery, though. This is significant, but I agree, maybe more on the level of the peak of an individual's career, and a milestone that people will point to later. But not quite lifetime status. :)

--
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty

Re:We will infect Mars by applemasker · 2004-03-02 08:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

There are international guidelines on the amount of biological hitchhikers that are allowed on the probes that are sent to other planets. Presumably, Spirit and Opportunity were de-contaminated to these standards (as was Pathfinder/Sojourner). Incidentally, Viking landers were both put in ovens a sterilized before launch, but these days the standard has been to only sterilize certain parts like this and wipe-down disinfect others, which is probably better on the electronics in any event.

--
Bush Lies On the Record.

Magnetite signature for bacteria by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-02 08:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

One signature may be small magnetite crystals. One the controversies with the "fossils" in the martian meteorite was how to be sure they were really fossils. The argument pretty much devolved into two lines of reasoning when it was reduced to the simplest form. The objects pro) looked like fossils, but con) they were far, far smaller than expected from comparable earthly forms, but pro) contained magnetite (hematite) in a form that ONLY occurs in lifeforms on earth, but con) they came from Mars, which totals up to "no one has the vote." Interestingly, hematite was one of the attractions of the Opportunity landing site.

What I want to know is ... by AftanGustur · 2004-03-02 09:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

What was that Rabbit thing. opportunity photographed on Mars and why did Nasa destroy it ??

--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc

Mars is already contaminated by Decaff · 2004-03-02 11:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Mars is already contaminated with Earth Bacteria. There has been significant exchange of materials between Earth and Mars as a result of meteor impacts splashing small bits of each planet into space. It has been demonstrated that lots of bacterial species can cope with the tremendous forces and pressures that these bits would be exposed to, so they could (and almost certainly do) easily survive an interplanetary trip. Discovery of DNA-based life on mars, or anywhere else in the solar system, would not answer the question about whether or not we are alone in the Universe, as all that life is very likely to have come from the same single source.

Re:Religion by jregel · 2004-03-02 11:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

Maybe I can provide a Christian perspective on this (as I am a practicing Christian).

The Bible was not written as a scientific text book. It has a different purpose: To reveal God's interaction with humankind. Some of the language is poetic, some historic, some is written in a very pictorial language. This shouldn't be surprising if you consider the Bible is composed of 66 books written by many different people in different times and different cultural contexts.

My personal view that those who say the Bible is to be read completely literally ignores the historical context and we can easily apply our cultural norms to a situation and get something completely different out of it. I don't believe that the world was created in 7 days, although I do believe that God could do it that way if He wanted to. The point of the opening part of Genesis is to establish that God was around before the world, that He was responsible for creation (the actual details are pictorial) and that the mess we are in today is a result of us rebelling against God. That's the important bit - the relationship between God and us.

Now to stay on topic, I believe in a Creator God. A God that looked at His work and was pleased. We have a pretty rough idea of how big the universe is and the thought that it's all empty apart from this little planet may be true, but the God portrayed in the Bible is more likely to have created a universe that is teeming with life.

Was there life on Mars? I wouldn't be surprised, because if God wanted to put it there (or created the laws of physics that enable it to start) he could.

Re:Mission Accomplished by QuantumFTL · 2004-03-02 13:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

Slashdot may have its faults, but this is one if its best features. We can hear directly from the folks actually making the news. Rock on, Justin! Thanks for posting here and giving us a first person view of JPL, and thanks for helping advance human understanding of the mysterious universe in which we exist.

Well, I may be pretty darn low on the totem pole here (I develope portions of the rigorously engineered ground data systems software, and solve random technical/mathematical problems for the scientists) however there's a nontechnical, human side to this exploration effor that I feel I"m qualified to shed some light on regardless of my rank. I work with a lot of qualified, amazing people, (Squyres really is as cool as he seems on TV) and it's something I wish more /.ers could experience. I'd invite all of you over here to be part of it (though I think a real-life slashdotting would be a horrible thing to see... it'd make a riot seem like a tea party). But I guess all I can do is share a few tidbits.

I hope everyone here takes what I post as it should be - the thoughts of an intern who's been working with the team for 4 years, caught up in something so much bigger that never ceases to surprise, amaze, and overstress :)

I would like to put forth something that many /.ers don't realize, that /. itseslf has been a contribution to NASA's space program. Myself and others I know have found many useful pieces of information on slashdot that we use in our work (that's how I justify my addiction :)). Hell, we certainly wouldn't be where we are without open source. Almost all of the tools my team uses are open source, and we have a lot of open source software incorporated into our program (Maestro/SAP, which will hopefully be fully openned up by the end of the year). I don't think I coudl give back to slashdot/OSS what has been given to me.

Yes most of the comments are people randomly shouting about things they know nothing about, but there's always that insightful/informative gem in there that's educational, enlightening, or maybe just brings a chuckle to my workday (though I have a tendency to laugh rather loudly, probably not good for at the office).

Thanks to all of you who post, especially those with something good to say!

Cheers,
Justin Wick
Mars Exploration Rovers

Re:If there was water... by cavac · 2004-03-02 17:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Hard to say. Except for earth, we don't have any examples yet, which means there could be only very rude educated guesswork.

But i'd say the chances are pretty good, since it's known (or at least highly possible) that primitive live like one-cell-organism could survive in space for a long time through hybernating. And it is known that planetary material could be ejected into space (like from meteor impacts or violent vulcanic explosions like in Krakatau - see here and here and land on another planet like mars.

Although the chances of survival for one-cell-organisms in a single incident are fairly small, there must have been thousands - if not millions - of these catastrophic events in earths past. One of the biggest was presumably the asteroid that created a thermonuclear winter about 65 million years ago. This one is known to have ejected material out of earths orbit.

So, all things considered, chances are that some bacteria could have survived an ejection from earth, the travel through interplanetary space, reentry into mars' atmosphere and adaption to mars' climate.

For the chances of complex life-forms: Well, it pretty much depends on many factors: The past climate of mars, if the first life-forms were native or not - and if not - how sucessfull presumed introduced life-forms from other planets adapted to the given and changing climate on mars.

As for fish, i'm don't really know, i'll rather bet on plant-life and rather primitive water-based or sand-based animal life-forms.

--
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev

Slashdot Mirror

NASA Says Mars Once "Drenched With Water"

33 of 1,048 comments (clear)