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.'"

Comments

And if they find sulfur...

[andyrut]

...it will be indisputable evidence of living, farting Martian beings!

Actually, a couple of sources indicate that humans emit little or no methane when they pass gas.

Re:And if they find sulfur...

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Actually, a couple of sources indicate that humans emit little or no methane when they pass gas.

well I say 6 Bean burritos and a Zippo lighter will prove your sources wrong

Re:And if they find sulfur...

[prash_n_rao]

"humans emit little or no methane when they pass gas."

What are you talking about? Michael Mumma already admitted he did it. Reference: "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.'"

Uh-oh!

[LordK3nn3th]

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...

for want of a comma

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is myself, personally

He who smelt it, dealt it. ...with an Earth-shattering Ka-boom!

Hi. I'm Troy McClure

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such Martian flatulence films as "The Baked Bean Crater" and "Angry Red Anus".

Well, what about...

[Professor Cool Linux]

Who's to say we haven't taken any bacteria to mars the past few Yrs.?????

Re:Well, what about...

[Hakubi_Washu]

Assuming we didn't take them there deliberately, one has to assume there can't be many. Those few might resist the unsupportive environment, though it is unlikely for them to prosper (Given that earth microbes are quite resistant, but would need serious adaption/evolution to accomplish more than simple survival). So, IF we have taken microbes there and some of them even survived, how likely is it that they already have a measureable impact on a planetary scale atmosphere? I personally tend to think it is most likely to find either active volcanism on mars or some sort of algae...

Existence

[Justifiable_Delusion]

It is slowly coming closer. The day we actually find that source of life on another planet. It is beautiful and logical and perfectlly of sense to understand and grasp that we will some day find life, but the day we actually do discover it. That will be an amazing day simply for the achievement. Though anything we find on mars will be very simple (single celled things? bactiera? virii?) it will nonetheless be something.

It is life.

Re:Existence

[BiggerIsBetter]

I'm getting the impression we're being slowly eased into the concept of life on Mars. I mean, how long did it take for them to even confirm it was once wet? And although we've sent several probes to Mars, we're detecting methane by telescope from Earth? Maybe my tinfoil fat needs adjusting, but something is wrong with this picture...

Re:Existence

[sbaker]

When (and I think it's a matter of 'when' - not 'if') we find simple life on Mars, the implications of it depend critically on which of four likely possibilities it is:

1) Life originated only on Earth and travelled to Mars in an ejected rock. This would be just *boring*.

2) Life originated on Mars and travelled to Earth in an ejected rock like the famous Mars meteorite. We are all Martians? Well, there's an interesting thought.

3) Life originated somewhere else and travelled to both Mars and Earth by one of these mechanisms. Panspermia. Life would be very likely to exist throughout the galaxy in every niche you could imagine.

4) Life originated quite differently and separately on Earth and Mars. Woahh! Now *that* is a deep thought.

It seems likely to me that Scientists (being careful people) will start off with assumption (1). It would be hard to tell the difference between (1)/(2) and (3) without going off to mine some comets that have never been close enough to Earth or Mars to pick up a stray life-bearing meteorite. It would be hard to imagine any test that would distinguish between (1) and (2).

So it'll come down to (1)/(2)/(3) versus (4). If it's (4), I'd expect us to be able to see that pretty easily - eg: Totally different fundamental mechanisms for just about everything.

Re:When has he been to Mars?

[Imperator]

Actually, they found it on the smelloscope.

Terraforming Mars?

[kilogram]

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?

Outgassing stopped 4B years ago?

[craXORjack]

He added: "It's difficult to imagine that primordial methane [from geological activity] would continue outgassing for four billion years [the age of Mars]. This looks very intriguing."

Is he assuming that geological activity stopped 4 billion years ago? I believe it used to be assumed that Mars core had cooled to a solid state long ago, but a NASA release just last year concluded that the core is indeed still molten. But maybe the crust has cooled so much and become so thick that there are no plate tectonics to break the surface and release primordial hydrocarbons.

Re:Doesn't have to be life

[Wyatt Earp]

This article states that Methane on Earth would have a life of 300 years and that on Mars it'd be shorter.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medi ca l/story.jsp?story=505454

"Methane is destroyed by the intense ultraviolet radiation on Mars because the gas has a relatively short photochemical lifetime of about 300 years, so if it is present there must be something producing it continually, Professor Formisano said. "[Its presence] is significant and very important. If it is present you need a source," he added."

Re:Myself, personally..

[kps]

Methane is actually odorless. What you smell are mercaptans, which are either biologically generated along with methane, or, in the case of commercial gas, deliberately added to make leaks noticable.

Can somebody explain something?

[sbaker]

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.

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_mo nd ay_040308.html ...which is talking about weird bacteria on Earth and how they manage to survive deep underground in salty water:

"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 ... produced in chemical interactions between water and rock" ???

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?

Re:Two Words

[Derek Pomery]

Exponential growth is a best-case situation. In a harsh environment, bacteria replicate very slowly.
It isn't the same, but studies of bacteria living far underground offer a good example. They are starved, tiny. Often less than a thousandth the size of a normal bacteria. Their metabolism is so slow that according to Sci Am they may have an average frequency of cell division of once a *century* or even less.
Mars is even less hospitable. Far colder, far less water, and hardly more nutrients.

It seems to me that if you're going to believe we managed that with the probes it also seems just as likely one could argue for earth bacteria having made it there long ago on meteors.