Slashdot Mirror
Methane on Mars?
mbone writes "Two independent groups are claiming the detection of methane in the Martian atmosphere, one using the
Mars Express orbiter,
and the other using ground based telescopes. This detection, if confirmed, would be of great significance for the search of life on Mars, as Methane will not last long in the Martian atmosphere and thus must be renewed, presumably either by biological processes or by volcanic vents, which would be a good place for life to develop. The leader of the ground based astronomy team, Michael Mumma of the Goddard Space Flight Center, when asked if the methane was biological in origin, said 'I think it is, myself personally.'"
This Crazy Wacko, Hoagland, is going to have a field day on this. He believes in all sorts of NASA coverups and apparently has a small following. He was mentioned recently on slashdot, as well, as the famous "Bad Astronomer" debunked some of his BS...
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
Who's to say we haven't taken any bacteria to mars the past few Yrs.?????
Methane is already pretty common in the universe. Given the amount of craters on Mars, the simplest explanation is probably that a methane-laden asteroid or comet hit Mars at some point.
...
I will love to see the ramifications to the worlds religions when life is actually found. The fall-out will be grand. With some luck it will put into proper perspective all the in-fighting that has been caused by 'holy wars' over the centuries.
Or they may just dismiss it as ' well, we don't consider that blob of bacteria life ' and move on believing man is the center of the universe, and continue to pummel their un-believing neighbors in a neighboring state.
Of course, depending on which book you use at the time...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
According to this article at The Guardian, NASA is actually thinking of creating earth-like conditions on Mars. Will I get to visit Mars in my lifetime? My expiration date is sometime in the years around 2070.
BTW, has anyone seen Red Planet?
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
...so little actual exploration happening now.
Seriously, I applaud the efforts of the rovers and the orbiters. They're doing a lot of good science, and we should be proud of what they've shown us. But at the same time, human explorers could do so much more, for not a heck of a lot more money (this $1 Trillion price tag that's been floating around is bad journalism at its finest). I say that all of this good news should serve as impetuous to get people on the surface of the Red Planet as soon as possible!
To all those people who worry about cross-contamination, come on...the two environments are so different, the chances that a microbe from one could survive in the other are basically nonexistent. Besides, it's been proven that unsterilized meteorites have been moving from one planet to another for several billion years now, so if cross-contamination was ever going to happen, it already would have.
How To Get Humans To Mars
The article says that methane in the atmosphere would decay over a few hundred years - so something is continuously renewing it...and that something is very likely to be life. Furthermore, we know (I think) that these hypothetical Martian beasts would have to be living underground in some very salty water.
o nd ay_040308.html ...which is talking about weird bacteria on Earth and how they manage to survive deep underground in salty water:
... produced in chemical interactions between water and rock" ???
OK - I can buy that - but I've been reading a bit about this subject - and I happened on this article:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_m
"On Earth, organisms do thrive deep underground -- hundreds of feet below -- without a single ray of sunshine. They live off chemical energy instead, like methane or hydrogen produced in chemical interactions between water and rock."
Wooaaahhh. Hold ON a minute. "methane
If methane can be produced between rock and water (eg: of the salty kind presumed to be found underground on Mars) then isn't the signature of 10 parts per billion of Methane in the atmosphere of Mars merely a further indication of underground water?
That's not what the 'experts' are saying though. Clearly I'm missing something - but I don't understand what.
Help?
www.sjbaker.org
I mean, how long did it take for them to even confirm it was once wet?
I don't think that ultimately mattered. People have been obsessed with life on Mars since it was first discovered and the possibility of canals that were built by other beings.
The thought that water once flowed on the planet wasn't really that much of a profound/thought provoking concept in the scheme of things. There is some fairly obvious evidence that has hinted at the possibility of water. (I know, that image is from Mars Express, but we've known about major valleys and canyons since at least the time of the Viking Landers).
Regarding whether we are being eased into the possibility of life being on other planets. There is a greater chance of that than trying to prepare of for the possibility of water existing on another body.
However, I think the confirmation of life would be such huge and amazing news, I doubt word of it could be covered up for very long before it got out.
I remember Viking very well, as I worked on analysis of its tracking data. They had 3 biology experiments, plus a mass spectrometer (and various other instruments for other purposes, such as weather monitoring.)
Before the mission, they published the criteria for a postitive result from each biological experiment (along the lines of, add water to Martian soil and CO2 is given off; sterilize another soil sample and add water, and CO2 is not given off). The biology tests passes _every one_ of the pre-published tests, albeit with some variations.
However, the mass spectrometer saw no significant organic molecules (and there were no obvious large critters visible through the camera). This, more than anything, made them discount the biology results. If they had detected large organiic molecules in the soil, they would have claimed life, in my opinion. Instead, they came up with non-biological explanations.
However, this was all before we knew about the ability of life to exist deep underground and buried in rocks, etc., While the Viking results are not generaly regarded as requiring life, they are certainly not against a biological explanation of the Methane findings.