Mars Rock Supports Cross-Seeding Theory

914 writes "Mars rover Opportunity has found a rock (nicknamed 'Bounce') that "provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding." Not only that, but according to the UPI article: 'The discovery of Bounce raises the distinct possibility that life arising from a common source could have existed for a time on both worlds.'"

Comments

Which was first?

[ChronoWiz]

Which was first, Mars or Earth??

Re:Which was first?

[clovis]

It doesn't matter, because they're gone and we're still here. We Won!
nyaaah nyaah dumb Martians picked the wrong planet.

Re:Which was first?

[zors]

People are awfully fond of pronouncing the death of religion, but they are almost never right. There are two ways that religion could survive this:

1-God created us, God created them.
2-Good old fashioned denial, e.g. creationism, age of the earth, flat world theory, and so on.

Never underestimate people's ability to suppress inconvenient realities.

Re:Which was first?

[kfg]

You are speaking of the so called "Western" religions ( of Asian origins, go figure).

Thus the third possibility is that various other "nonstandard" ( in the sense that only billions of people adhere to such relgions, just not typically those people in Detroit). Some of these religions have already made strong footholds, at least, in Europe and the United States. Buddhism is widespread enough among physicists that it hardly even raises an eyebrow any more (well, at least not both eyebrows).

And the fourth possibility is the rise of new relgions founded upon these new ideas.

People are adaptable, even if dogma is not.

Of course there's also the possibility that the answer to the question "who was first" is neither the Earth or Mars, that each was seeded from some third bit of interstellar dust carried across the winds of space and time that predates us both, and by a goodly margin.

Yeah, that'll give those of the Judeo/Christian/Ismalic bent something to chew over, and quite possibly deny. There are still plenty of Millerites in the world, and they like to let me know about it.

No, thank you much, I do not want to buy a Watchtower. Would you care to come in anyway though? We're about to sacrifice to Ramtha and your arrival may be taken as propicious.

Hey! Where ya goin'?

KFG

KFG

Re:Which was first?

[AndroidCat]

It would be a lot easier for Mars rocks (and life) to get to Earth than vice-versa. Earth's gravity-well would require much more energy to splatter rocks around the solar system, eventually reaching Mars. Of course, if you're God, aliens, random-chance, Kibo, etc, and you have big planetoids to toss around, energy is not much of a problem. (How to blast Earth-life to Mars without killing everything might be tricky.)

Re:Which was first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Izz not over yet huuman!

Pasadina: What's that flare? See it? A green flare coming from Mars. Kind of a green mist behind it. It's getting closer. You see it, Burmuda? ...Come in, Burmuda! ...Houston, come in! What's going on... tracking station 43 Canberra, come in Canberra!... tracking station 63, can you hear me Madrid... can anybody hear me? Come in...! Come in...........!

Re:Which was first?

[iocat]

Ironically, since it's known for being fairly fuddy-duddy, the Catholic religion is offically fairly cool with both evolution and the big bang theory. They take the "it's all God's plan" attitude of the grandparent poster -- God created heaven and earth, and all the natural laws of the universe, that enabled us to be here, more or less.

It's not clear to me if this link is actually the official catechism of the Catholic church or just one person's analysis (and there's a lot near the end that I suspect most slashdotters will take issue with), but it gives an idea of how liberal the Catholic church's views on the subject are compared to say, fundementalist Christians.

Re:Which was first?

[kfg]

Hence the position of Vatican Astronomer, held by the Jesuit George Coyne, who states, "It's madness to believe that man is alone."

I suppose I could also point out that in like manner the views of most Islamics differ markedly from those of the fundamentalist sort, and there are plenty of Reformed Jews in the world, and that much of what we think we know about these religions comes to us not from the main line of thought but from those that their own contemporaries thought of as "extremist religious whack jobs."

KFG

Re:Which was first?

[modder]

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I know little about chemistry and I would like some clarification by someone who might know.

It seems to me like people are jumping to conclusions here. Isn't it possible that some other source, source C, was where these meteorites originated and then later collided with both earth and Mars?

The only thing which seems to not support this is
from the article:
"Micro-bubbles of gas trapped in dozens of meteorites found on Earth -- including Shergotty -- match the recipe of Martian atmosphere so closely that they must have originated on Mars."

But couldn't there be some other place (source C in my example above) which also has an atmosphere with such a "recipe".

Or are these atmospheric "recipes" that unique? (And if so, how was that determined?)

Re:Which was first?

[AndroidCat]

Also, how much has the Martian atmosphere changed over time? (Earth's certainly has, and there was life here before that blue-green algae started farting poisonous oxygen.) We need a better baseline on how Mars has changed over time.

Re:Which was first?

[christurkel]

Mars is smaller than Earth and would have cooled first, allowing lakes and seas for form first.

Re:Which was first?

[DarkSarin]

You will recall, if you are Christian, that Christ himself was included in that group you mention so tenderly. Hence the reason that they crucified him.

Re:Which was first?

[shadowbearer]

The Vatican learned a lot from the lesson of Galileo; even if it did take them until the 20th century to acknowledge so publicly. The Catholic church does seem to be keeping up with the times, however; contraception being one example of sorts...

I don't remember much of what I read about the origins of the Vatican Astronomer, tho; what was the reason for creating the position in the first place?

Christianity has fragmented so much that there are altogether too many whackies. Not really surprising, most authoritarian frames of mind tend to generate offshoots both more and less fanatical.

SB

Re:Which was first?

[Doomdark]

Actually, same (non-literal interpretation of Genesis story) goes for pretty much any non-fundamentalist christian group. At least all mainstream protestant groups are fairly ok with evolution as "implementation" of God's plans, and Genesis being story that was properly watered down by mr. G so that even ancient nomads could dig it.

Fundamentalist christians really are but minority in the world (or even amongst christians in general); many of them are loud and obnoxious in US, trying to leverage their zeal and energy to get more power to their "mission" (ie. pushing their ideals down others' throats)... but they are still minority, thank doG. :-)
Interestingly, though, there are plenty of less vocal christian fundamentalist groups, both in US and in european countries; folks like Amishes or luddite-like groups in scandinavia (don't own TVs, stay quite isolated from "non-believerers, but have no mission to convert "outsiders"). Those folks are generally easier to respect, because they walk the walk, without having to talk the talk; not vice versa.

Re:Which was first?

[shadowcabbit]

I'd like to jump in for a second here on the link you offered, and I'm willing to risk a whole three karma to do it (yeah, big risk, but who really cares). I noticed you put in your post the following advice regarding the link:

(and there's a lot near the end that I suspect most slashdotters will take issue with)

I realize I probably don't fit the profile of "most slashdotters", but frankly I don't see much of a problem here. I was raised Catholic, true, and have found myself doubting that faith as an agnostic seeker; but to be perfectly honest the link makes a compelling argument for the existence of [a/some/many/the one true/whatever] God.

It's probably not Catholic canon, to be sure, but the works cited in the article-- from Augustine to Darwin-- are enough for anyone to read for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Some people might say that it was merely luck that humans evolved in the way that they did-- that there was no divine force guiding the mutation and development of the unique characteristics that make a human a human. To this I say, "Well, if I have to prove to you there is a God, you have to prove to me there isn't." There is no evidence either for or against the existence of such a force-- certainly the odds are astronomical, but the greater the odds, the more likely it seems less of a coincidence and more of an intent.

Also, the bit about the soul simply not being possible in evolution also sits well with me. If evolution could have created humans exactly as they are now without the need for a creator's touch, what need would we have for the creator? It is my belief that when the creator (who or whatever that may be) saw that humanity was as developed as it was going to get naturally, this creator imbued the race with the spark of intellect-- a touch of the divine, if you will.

My beliefs are my own. You may or may not find truth in them, and frankly it's none of my business whether or not you do. I just thought I ought to thank you for giving me the opportunity to air that out a little bit. Oh, and I'll definitely be passing this link along to one of my old professors-- he's a Catholic priest and very much into this sort of thing.

Re:Which was first?

[NortWind]

The "recipe" for meteorite identification usually includes the ratio of oxygen isotopes. This ratio varies as you head away from the Sun. So, if you can identify the ratio, you can match pebble A to pebble B (or planet B) fairly well.

Re:Which was first?

[shadowcabbit]

Oh yeah, and a quick Google scan of the Vatican's web site shows that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says nothing about evolution, but a document from 1998 (here) seems to suggest what you and I have gone over-- that evolution happened but God (/Fate/Time/Whatever) either initiated or intervened in the process.

Re:Which was first?

[shadowbearer]

WRT to Galileo, true (to an extent! there were a lot of bishops who wanted Galileo burned), but the church still did not issue a formal apology/acknowledgement of his work until just a few years ago. (don't remember when it was exactly now, but not that long ago).

One might also think on the fact that Galileo's findings - and he was vocal about them, as he should have been - were in direct conflict with the church teachings at the time; so there is no way he could have avoided censure of one kind or another. (A lesson that could also be applied to our times with different subjects and different players, nay?)

I was actually more impressed by the acknowledgement by the Catholic church that condoms were perhaps not a bad idea, after all. Of course if this had come before nasty STDs such as HIV were becoming a really serious and widespread medical problem, it might have been more of an indication of real tolerance rather than forced recognition of reality. But at least they went that far. Shows that someone there is thinking.

I'm not religious, tho raised so; but I'll admit that the Catholic church is one of the more enlightened in matters of science. I personally consider it penance for past transgressions. :)

SB

Re:Which was first?

[Afrosheen]

I've had a feeling that the true history of humankind, and most of the early biblical events, took place on Mars or another planet. Not until you reach Noah's Ark do you begin the Earth section.

Noah's Ark, in my theory, is an allegory to a spaceship fitted for colonization of a foreign planet. You bring paired species to repopulate another world. Taken literally, this falls flat on it's face, because genetic diversity of most higher species wouldn't be great enough to support more than 2 generations, 3 with simpler organisms. Serious genetic defects emerge in humans in only the second generation (first generation being two non-related individuals). However, taken more loosely (which the majority of the bible should be anyway), it's somewhat feasible.

Re:Which was first?

[Afrosheen]

That's feasible in my estimation. The best creator would be one that creates self-sustaining systems that grow and evolve by themselves over time. Creating things one by one would be a major pain in the ass. Building a machine (earth) with all the ingredients to create more life in and of itself, along with all the interdependent systems required to sustain life, would be the most challenging creation of all. Consider the fact that many generations of literally millions of creatures have come and gone based on a complex ruleset of survival, variable environmental factors, etc. Some have killed others off, some have inherited niches that are extremely specific (sea vent worm tubes, deep sea shrimp, etc.). The variety, breadth and depth of life on this planet is staggering.

Perhaps God created this big ant farm we live in but not us?

Re:Which was first?

[Trolling4Dollars]

Yes. You are absolutely correct. That place was Babylon 5.

Re:Which was first?

[blincoln]

I've had a feeling that the true history of humankind, and most of the early biblical events, took place on Mars or another planet.

This is an idea I've heard before, but I can't see it making sense. There's evidence of life on earth (including our ancestors) for millions of years. The Bible was only written a few thousand ago. Do you think that our chimpanzee-esque forebearers preserved the history orally all of that time?

Re:Which was first?

[Graff]

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I know little about chemistry and I would like some clarification by someone who might know.

It seems to me like people are jumping to conclusions here. Isn't it possible that some other source, source C, was where these meteorites originated and then later collided with both earth and Mars?

Yes, it certainly is possible. However it is unlikely. The sort of analysis that goes into determining the source of origin of a rock is fairly accurate. There are a number of factors which are taken into account which, when combined, form a fairly unique "fingerprint" as to the origin of a piece of rock.

First of all, there is the relative amounts of elements. Mars has a different elemental mix than the Earth due to its distance from the Sun, its mass, the loss of atmosphere and water, among many other factors. Then there is the different proportions of isotopes of each element. Earth, partially due to the shielding afforded by its atmosphere and its magnetic field, has a different mix of isotopes of each element. Remember that each element often has 2 or 3 common isotopes, this significantly contributes to the complexity of the fingerprint.

Then there are differences in rock formation between Mars and the Earth. Rocks formed on Mars have gone through a different history of sedimentation, melting, crystallization, weathering, etc. than those formed on Earth. This results in not only different minerals being formed but also the patterns of how these minerals mix and the relative proportions that one mineral may be found in a mixture with others.

I'm probably missing a few other factors but you get the idea. Remember that the process of identifying rocks is not only used to tell if a rock is from Mars or the Earth but it is also accurate enough to possibly be used to tell if a rock is from near Moscow or from near Los Angeles. Scientists can get a fairly good idea of where on the Earth a diamond or a piece of uranium originated simply by using some of these techniques. Analysis of the isotope ratios alone is a strong indicator.

Re:Which was first?

[SonicBurst]

At 11:52 PM you said:

but they are still minority, thank doG. :-)

So I take it you're the agnostic and dyslexic insomniac I've been hearing about lately....

Re:Which was first?

[djplurvert]

To this I say, "Well, if I have to prove to you there is a God, you have to prove to me there isn't."

This is a logical fallacy often made by christians. While there are many "strong athiests" who would argue that god doesn't exist, Christians cannot avoid defending an assertion because others do. The vast majority of athiests might be called agnostic by some, but whichever word you use the result is essentiall the same.

One can make an assertion that god exists.
One can make an assertion that god doesn't exist.
One can make neither assertion.

The third choice is the only one that does not require defense. As a christian, of almost any sort, you cannot avoid the burden of proof that is on you. Christians cannot claim the third choice. If you claim to see god in the trees and the beauty of the world, you are making the agnostic argument and you are a nonbeliever. If you pray, you are a believer. If you believe in the supernatural, e.g. the soul, you are a believer.

Believers, make an assertion that god exists. Thus, they have an obligation to prove god exists. Many, if not most nonbelievers either make no such assertion, or make a more restricted version of the assertion. A more restricted assertion for example might be "there is no omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent being". More importantly if one says "I do not believe in god", it is fair to be claiming the third assertion. One can fairly rephrase that "I make no assertion that god exists." Therefore, there is no defense of this position necessary.

Finally, proof is a strong word, and something no believer has come close to developing. Perhaps try developing some evidence first. Or, perhaps even just a simple observable test. Perhaps instead of trying to defend such a large assertion, why not start with a smaller one like one of these:

Can god hear prayers?
Does he have ears to hear them?
Does he hear all of them, or just some?
Do saints talk to god?
If so, does god need saints to talk to him?
Where is heaven?
Can god make a triangle with four sides?

yada yada yada

The point of course, is that these are not the assertions of some fringe element of christianity, but rather, the mainstream. I assert none of the above, if you assert any of it, then the burden of proof is on you.

plurvert

Re:Which was first?

[dirt_puppy]

Actually, they are pretty much unique. Usually, in such examinations, they measure the noble gases, since they won't react away with the surrounding rock. Lets assume the measurement is 0.1% Accurate, which would be a conservative estimate. Lets further assume that we completely rule out concentrations above 10%. Now we take 1e-2 (0.1%*10 = chance of measurements being alike) to the power of 4 (radon isnt stable, and lets say that one of the noble gases isnt suitable for our examination in some way), that leaves you with a chance of 1e-8 for two measurments to be alike. Thats about a lottery win.

Good Luck.

Re:Which was first?

[mbone]

The Viking Landers carried, during their descent, mass spectrometers which sampled the Martian atmosphere on the way down. These provided our only measurements of Martian atmosphere isotope ratios to date.

It turns out that isotope ratios tell you a lot about the history of an atmosphere, as different isotopes get lost at different rates by different mechanisms.

The gas isotope ratios in these meteorites are unique to Mars, as measured by Viking. There are many other indications (most meteorites can be traced back to specific asteroid "families", these cannot, etc.), but it was the gas isotope ratios that were convincing.

I saw a debate about this in Paris back in 1985. The "non-Martian" advocate finally had to concede that these meteorites had to come from a planet very much like Mars in its size and history, and distance from the Sun, and were too new to come from any disrupted planet, so basically the only possible source was Mars.

Re:Which was first?

[MyHair]

If you claim to see god in the trees and the beauty of the world, you are making the agnostic argument and you are a nonbeliever. If you pray, you are a believer.

I do both. What does that make me?

God I can handle. Churches and religion I find too pushy, hypocritical and self-righteous.

Re:Which was first?

[MyHair]

Insert the word only before the word see. Now, do you still hold that position? Then what are you praying to?

I haven't analyzed it that closely; ultimately I don't know what/who God is. It's beyond me. I just generally accept there's more in existence than I will ever comprehend. I see no point in deciding whether God is a being, concept or whatnot. I have yet to meet another person who I trust or believe in enough to tell me that.

I don't know who I'm praying to. Well, God, but who's God? Maybe my praying is just wishful thinking, maybe it's mental masturbation, maybe it's a meditation. I don't spend much time worrying about it now; I figure I'll eventually find out or cease existing, so it works out either way.

If you are praying to the trees you either believe the trees can hear you, in which case you're a nutjob.

So if I believe I can pray to trees that listen to me I'm a nutjob, but I'm not a nutjob if I pray to a being I can't see or hear who created everything because of some intangible part of me that will live on after my biological death? I'm not arguing with you either way, I just find these kind of arguments funny, and most religious discussions are like this to me. Actually, my being a nutjob would explain a lot, like why I pray without really understanding who/what I'm praying to or whether it makes a difference.

If you are an agnostic and then become a christian, I doubt you were ever agnostic.

You are much heavier into defining Christian and agnostic than I. I generally don't discuss religion because everyone has such strong opinions (I live in the Bible Belt). Whether I describe myself as Christian or agnostic really depends on who I'm talking to and what I think it means to them. If I cared, I'd probably tell a fundamentalist Christian that I'm agnostic to avoid finer points of debate; I'd probably tell an atheist I'm a Christian not to inspire debate but to separate myself from his strong declaration that there is no God.

I guess I could be called a spiritual waffler, but really I just don't usually care much to discuss--and certainly not to evangelize--my spirituality and am more or less comfortable with it. I responded to you because I enjoyed the irony of my fitting both and neither of your descriptions for agnostic and Christian.

I find it hilarious how so many christians can interpret the agnostic postition as one that just needs a little more coaxing.

I don't. Organized religion from my point of view is a search for personal validation. It's easier to feel validated by God if all the people around you share the same ideas about God. It only makes sense that they would shun those who adamantly oppose their views but try to assimilate those whose views fall between them and their opponents.

Note the irony in the above paragraph that people search for validation from God through rallying with like-minded human mortals. Go figure. It reminds me of the joke about Unitarians: They believe that if you know enough you'll go to heaven.

This is the problem I have with church and religion as I see it implemented: It's all about humans telling other humans what to think and do. It's the same as any other power structure or clique. I resent that in general (but not on the basis of divine sanction, which goes back to the original argument, in which if you'll notice I'm not participating).

Re:Which was first?

[Jagasian]

Actually, the story of Noah and the ark was stolen from earlier Sumerian works. It turns out that thousands of years ago, in Sumer (Iran/Iraq), there was a big civilization and problems with floods. One of the floods was really bad, and a guy had build a boat to save himself, some livestock, and his family.

Filter this through word of mouth, retranslation, transliteration, etc... and you end up with Noah and the Ark. Just google "Noah Ark Sumerian" for more info. There are even ancient clay tablets that contain the original flood story. Also note that Sumer was eventually conquered/replaced by the Babylonians.

Re:Which was first?

[Afrosheen]

Well the fossil record preserves much of earth history pre-humans, but the fact remains that humans, in our present iteration, haven't been around very long relative to the age of the planet. The human race surely hasn't been around "millions of years". At best we've been here as Homo Sapiens Sapiens for around 130,000 years. Anything that predates what we've found to be historical evidence of past civilizations is usually fiction.

Panspermia

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course if life existed on Mars, this gives the whole SETI thing alot more significance. Next we need to find the ancient alien spacecraft that crashed on Mars and started life there!

Re:now the question is

[h4v0k]

Actually, the question is where did it come from to begin with?

Pretty lucky bounce

[bstone]

Add +5 Karma points to the Mars rovers

Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point?

[osewa77]

Instead of saying that the rock came from mars and ended up on earth, why not just take it that similar meteors to the one that landed on mars also landed on Mars. Afterall, the 'bounce' rock is reportedly unlike other Martian rocks. Am I missing the point? I blog from naija

Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA. Bubbles in the meteorites of this type found on Earth contain gas that matches the martian atmosphere, which strongly suggests they orginated on Mars. Then you have this rock already on Mars that matches them in composition suggesting that certain rocks found on both Earth and Mars have a common source.

Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point?

[Hard_Code]

Am I missing the point?

Yes, did you read the article?

"Controllers considered Bounce an odd find because it did not resemble any of the other rocks in the crater's vicinity -- nor did it resemble anything seen before on Mars, they said. ...

Rather more than that. Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865.

Called the Shergotty meteorite -- and the source name for a class of meteorites called shergottites -- its chemical composition is a "matching fingerprint" to Bounce, said David Grinspoon, professor of planetary science at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

The resemblance helps confirm something meteorite specialists and planetary scientists have suspected for more than two decades but until now have been unable to prove: Micro-bubbles of gas trapped in dozens of meteorites found on Earth -- including Shergotty -- match the recipe of Martian atmosphere so closely that they must have originated on Mars.

"There is a striking similarity in spectra," said Christian Schroeder, a rover science-team collaborator from the University of Mainz in Germany, which supplied both Mars rovers with Moessbauer spectrometers -- exceedingly sensitive instruments for identifying chemical compositions."

Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point?

[penguinland]

Not necessarily. The way I read the article, a much more likely scenario is that a meteorite crashed into Mars, and some of the ejected debris crashed into Earth. Here are some choice excerpts from the article:

The high proportion of pyroxene means Bounce not only is unlike any other rock studied by Opportunity or Spirit, but also is unlike the volcanic deposits mapped extensively around Mars...
Personally, I'm inclined to think that this means that Bounce probably did not originate on Mars. It sounds like Bounce is not like any other rock on Mars.

"Some of us think (Bounce) could have been ejected from this crater," Rogers said.
Craters are formed when meteorites smash into planets/moons/etc. To get a crater, you need something that came from another part of the solar system, if not another part of the galaxy. If Bounce came from this crater, as they hypothesize it did, then Bounce may or may not have come from another part of the galaxy, so this theory is starting to fit together well...

On a slightly related note, it should be much easier to find a meteorite on Mars than on Earth - Mars' atmosphere is much thinner than Earth's, so objects are less likely to burn up upon entry into the atmosphere. This explains why Mars has many more craters on it that Earth does. Also, I've read in several places (including a mention in the above quote) that many of the rocks on Mars are quite similar to each other. Thus, any different rocks will stand out rather a lot. This makes meteorite hunting fairly simple. Consequently, it would not surprise me at all if the rovers managed to find a meteorite on Mars.
I do not profess to be at all knowledgeable about Mars geology, but any fool can see that the author of the article knows even less. Not only did they dumb the finding down for laypeople, they have even added some inconsistencies:

Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865.
A less-distinctively named shergottite, EETA79001, found in Antarctica in 1979, has a composition even closer to Bounce's.

I for one am disappointed by the lack of information in the article. Give me a real scientific article with real scientific facts, and hopefully we can then come to real, scientific conclusions. Until then, many different interpretations of this article are equally valid.

Just in case

[Anonymous Coward]

Analysis: 'Bounce' rock's cosmic portent

By Phil Berardelli
United Press International
Published 4/16/2004 6:07 PM

WASHINGTON, April 16 (UPI) -- Opportunity's phenomenal luck continues.

Not only did NASA's rover land smack-dab in the middle of a neatly excavated and navigable crater on Mars, where it promptly uncovered persuasive evidence that water once flowed across the red planet, and not only has it been performing nearly flawlessly since it touched down on Jan. 24. Now, it also, essentially, has stubbed its toe on a rock whose discovery portends cosmic implications.

A few days ago, on its slow roll across the Martian terrain at its landing site at Meridiani Planum, an iron-oxide-rich area near the planet's equator, Opportunity's controllers noticed an odd-looking, football-shaped rock lying in the red dust. They named the rock "Bounce," because the lander most likely hit it as it bounced along the surface, cushioned by its airbags, before coming to rest inside the little crater called Eagle.

Controllers considered Bounce an odd find because it did not resemble any of the other rocks in the crater's vicinity -- nor did it resemble anything seen before on Mars, they said.

So they ordered Opportunity to train its formidable instruments on the rock, including the tool NASA engineers affectionately called the "RAT," for rock abrasion tool, which grinds away surface impurities to expose the undisturbed, primordial composition below.

The results stunned the NASA team.

The main ingredient in Bounce is a volcanic mineral called pyroxene, said rover science team member Deanne Rogers, of Arizona State University in Tempe. The high proportion of pyroxene means Bounce not only is unlike any other rock studied by Opportunity or Spirit, but also is unlike the volcanic deposits mapped extensively around Mars by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor orbiter, Rogers said.

Bounce is a unique rock, and it has been sitting at Opportunity's feet.

"We think we have a rock similar to something found on Earth," said Benton Clark of Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Denver, a science-team member for the missions of both Opportunity and its twin, Spirit.

Rather more than that. Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865.

Called the Shergotty meteorite -- and the source name for a class of meteorites called shergottites -- its chemical composition is a "matching fingerprint" to Bounce, said David Grinspoon, professor of planetary science at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

The resemblance helps confirm something meteorite specialists and planetary scientists have suspected for more than two decades but until now have been unable to prove: Micro-bubbles of gas trapped in dozens of meteorites found on Earth -- including Shergotty -- match the recipe of Martian atmosphere so closely that they must have originated on Mars.

"There is a striking similarity in spectra," said Christian Schroeder, a rover science-team collaborator from the University of Mainz in Germany, which supplied both Mars rovers with Moessbauer spectrometers -- exceedingly sensitive instruments for identifying chemical compositions.

A less-distinctively named shergottite, EETA79001, found in Antarctica in 1979, has a composition even closer to Bounce's.

As a result, NASA scientists are convinced Shergotty, EETA79001 and Bounce -- and maybe a couple dozen other Martian rocks that found their way to Earth -- were ejected from Mars by the impact of a large asteroid or comet.

The instruments aboard another orbiter, Mars Odyssey, suggest Bounce may have originated at an impact crater about 16 miles wide that lies about 31 miles southwest of Opportunity. The orbiter's images show some of the rocks thrown outward by the impact that formed the crater flew as far as the distance to the rover.

"Some of us think (Bounce) could have been ejected from this crater," Roge

is it really a rock?

[glen604]

or maybe an errant superball from Earth that got bounced just a little too high?

do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!

Fascinating...

[Jin Wicked]

I'm not usually much of one for news of outer space, but this particular research I find really interesting. Of course it would be interesting to know if life on Earth evolved from organisms in a Meteorite, or simultaneously evolved and was just cross-pollinated.

The conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts have held beliefs in life starting from anywhere from a single-celled organism on a meteorite, to outright terraforming for a long time.

As for life on Mars... I watched a really good documentary about the moon the other day, which basically explained that without the moon -- a single moon -- to help stabilize our planet, we probably wouldn't have ever been here. It will be interesting to see if life evolved on Mars, perhaps conditions were favourable in the past. Apparently since it has multiple small moons, it wobbles on its axis, which makes the climate really unstable over very long periods of times. Or, that was the gist of it.

This sort of thing is exciting again, since they're got more than just grainy pics giving the illusion of human faces in Cydonia. =)

Re:Fascinating...

[Oligonicella]

"The conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts ... "

Yes, well, they do that. My wonder about those nuts is why it's OK for life to have evolved elsewhere, then came here, but not to have evolved here? Some basic fear of not being devine, I guess.

Conclusive Possibility?

[Alphanos]

Mars rover Opportunity has found a rock (nicknamed 'Bounce') that "provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding." Not only that, but according to the UPI article: 'The discovery of Bounce raises the distinct possibility that life arising from a common source could have existed for a time on both worlds.

Perhaps I'm just unfamiliar with the lingo being used here, but the words conclusive and possibility don't quite seem to make sense when both used in reference to the same evidence.

Re:now the question is

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe look at two papers - he claims he found a meteorite carrying some weird liveforms in India during some 'Red rain'.

Re:What comes around goes around...

[the MaD HuNGaRIaN]

I don't know, but I think I saw a meteorite that was ejected from Uranus.

ba-dum-dum!

Thanks folks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal..I hear it's delicious.

A little ahead of things?

[toxic666]

There isn't any kind of evidence there ever was life on Mars, yet this article raises the speculation that life from Mars survived a high temp impact, ejection through the harsh radiation and temperatures of space and "cross-polinated" earth?

This is not supported by any facts and is pure speculation. It doesn't even qualify as junk science.

The authors should wait until we get some data back from Mars confirming that life was even present there before publishing these kind of claims.

Re:A little ahead of things?

[CheshireCatCO]

Well, how possible this is depends on, among other things, your interpretion of ALH84001.

And we know that organisms can survive in open space: the found some still-viable critters on one of the Ranger spacecraft when an Apollo mission brought some bits back from the Moon.

Re:A little ahead of things?

[mopomi]

There is a large body of research looking into the possibility of panspermia. The impact is likely to destroy organisms on a large impactor (this is not guarenteed), but not necessarily on the rocks that are subsequently ejected into space (those rocks almost certainly DO NOT come from the original impactor). On the subsequent fall to the other planet, the rocks are small enough and moving "slow" enough that, on the whole, they don't actually heat up much (and in fact, parts of them may cool off).

Re:A little ahead of things?

[CptNerd]

It was Apollo 12 that brought back bits of one of the Surveyor soft-landers. They brought back a piece of insulation, and when they examined it back on earth they found either a spore or a bacterium deep in the middle. So, it wasn't exactly exposed to all the conditions of space, except for the heat, cold and hard radiation.

And of course, there's also the bacterium that withstands high doses of radiation, Deinococcus radiodurans. NASA's been looking at it, apparently:

"Meet Conan the Bacterium"

Re:A little ahead of things?

[lovecult]

The article indeed is indeed wild speculation. It does not, however, make any claims. What it dies do, is spell out obvious implications. It just so happens, that these implications are quiet wonderful, and happen to inspire the imagination. It is one of the most beautiful aspects of science, that it can inspire human creativity, as well as be a product of that same creative impulse.

Re:A little ahead of things?

[CheshireCatCO]

It doesn't seem to have been insulation as foam inside a TV camera. While that is indeed sheltered somewhat, it'd be useful to know how dense and thick the foam was. A small peice of light foam isn't going to block a lot of radiation. I've certainly never heard anyone argue that it would do so, although some do claim that the bacteria contaiminated the sample after it arrived back on Earth.

Either way, while I don't think it proves that the little buggers can survive in space, it's reason to consider the possibility.

"identical" fingerprint, then a better match?

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically what they are saying is that a lot of meteorites have a (very) similar composition. Some end up on earth, some on mars - and yet others are probably still Out There looking for a reasonably sized planet-like entity to smash into.

Given that the article first states that Shergotty and Bounce match like a fingerprint, only to go on saying they found a better match somewhere else leads me to think more in the lines of the rocks being "extremely close" rather than "identical".

It is also probably likely that a meteorite on its way to either planet could shed rock and ice from its tail on the one before crashing into the other, thereby elimiting any "direct" contact between earth and mars.

Still waiting for the martians to make contact...

Penhead

Re:now the question is

[mehitabel]

I heard physicist and astrobiologist Paul Davies give a talk on this subject just yesterday ;) Davies proposes that the lower gravity of Mars makes it more likely for Martian rocks to reach earth, than vice versa, though transit both ways is statistically viable. He also suggests that the faster cooling rate of the Mars crust, the lack of a global ocean, and some of the largest volcanoes in the solar system made Mars a more favorable place for microbial life to form. http://aca.mq.edu.au/Research/research2003.html

Re:What comes around goes around...

[CheshireCatCO]

As far as I can recall, we only have meteorites from the Moon and Mars. Worse, a Venus sample return mission seems unlikely for the near future...

Possibly conclusively evident trueisms

[MisterLawyer]

>"provides conclusive evidence [...] of the possibility of cross-seeding"

Does conclusive evidence of a possibility make it true?

Re:Possibly conclusively evident trueisms

[Oligonicella]

You DO know that the little "..." is supposed to only remove non-essential info, don't you Mr. Lawyer?

Sensationalism

[geeber]

It's worth pointing out that the quote about "conclusive evidence" mentioned in the abstract does not come from any of the NASA scientists. The full quote reads, "So far, no one has broached the bigger implication: Bounce provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding." and comes from the article author himself, a UPI science and technology editor and is pure speculation. I would expect the NASA scientists to be considerably more cautious and not be making claims of conclusive evidence right off the bat.

Re:Sensationalism

[shadowbearer]

Yeah. Danged media. Not a bad article, tho, despite the speculation. But this got me:

Article quote: The way Opportunity's luck has been going, it would not be surprising to learn the rover has detected Martian microbes.

Although it's not equipped to, like the Viking landers were. Opportunity is a geological explorer, not a biological one.

SB

Re:Sensationalism

[sandrift]

Thank you! This is a very important point.

Having searched for shergottite meteorite signatures using orbital data from Mars (no luck yet), and being a close colleague of many of the MER science team members, I can confirm that NO ONE on the MER team is suggesting anything about life on Mars or cross-contamination based on this week's (or any other week's) results.

Although one of the instrument teams (Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer - APXS) is suggesting that Meridiani could be the source region of one class of Martian meteorites, their data (bulk chemistry) cannot actually tell us that. (It's also worth noting that the Meridiani plain is believed to be billions of years older than the rocks in this class of meteorites.) Those who were watching the press conference (the press release ignores this) heard that another instrument, the Mini-TES (Thermal Emission Spectrometer), determined that the mineralogy of Bounce is similar in some ways, but NOT identical, to the shergottite meteorite that the APXS team favors, although it IS different than the majority of the rock types observed from orbit.

Bounce may be the first recorded evidence...

[gentlewizard]

... of offshoring to India.

"Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865...NASA scientists are convinced Shergotty, EETA79001 and Bounce -- and maybe a couple dozen other Martian rocks that found their way to Earth -- were ejected from Mars by the impact of a large asteroid or comet."

Cross seeding

[dj245]

Mars rover Opportunity has found a rock (nicknamed 'Bounce') that "provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding."

Nobody tell the KKK or they'll start showing up at NASA press conferences to protest. Those guys have way too much time on their hands.

Hope influencing science

[Klatoo55]

What these scientists are overlooking is that all that the rock shows is that a rock could achieve escape velocity. There would need to be life present, and pretty hardy life at that, in order to be moved to Earth. Everyone keeps saying that life is everywhere in the Universe, why not have it evolve independently on both planets (or on just one). I would love nothing more than a confirmation of cross-pollination to be discovered, but we just don't know enough to say that this is conclusive.

Re:What comes around goes around...

[mopomi]

The problem with getting rocks ejected from Venus is that the atmosphere is so dense that the "low velocity" spallation that gets normal, non-shocked rocks from Mars to Earth probably won't work at Venus. That's not to say we couldn't get rocks from Venus, but they'd probably be shocked and we wouldn't recognize them as being from Venus since all the atmospheric gases would have been removed during the impact and subsequent shock. . .

Shocked rock: A rock in which its particles have been accelerated to higher than the speed of sound (in the rock). This causes an irreversible (high entropy) change in the rock, and possibly causes melting.

Well, THAT explains why...

[SnappingTurtle]

... Martians in science fiction are so darned humanoid.

Re:Well, THAT explains why...

[Gleapsite]

... Earthlings in science fiction are so darned Martian.

Re:What comes around goes around...

[another_henry]

Or is it more likely for ejected planetary meteorites to make their way down the Sun's gravity well?

Yes, it's much more likely for meteroites to make it from Mars to Earth than the other way round. Several orders of magnitude more likely. They need much more delta V, although that said a considerable amount is needed just to escape from Mars' gravity well. In other words it is possible but considerably less probable. Whether any microbes would survive an impact of sufficient energy, as well as the long ride through cold vacuum is a different story...

now NASA has admitted that...

[me98411]

... the rover experiments were indeed faked on earth. What more evidence do you want? ;)

Re:What comes around goes around...

[88NoSoup4U88]

'Worse, a Venus sample return mission seems unlikely for the near future...'

Bush will probably *cough* promise *cough* that in a month.
Hell, those WMD gotta be somewhere ?!

You mean...

[chendo]

God had a relationship with Mars -WHILE- dating Mother Earth? BLASPHEMY!

Nostalgia

[Decameron81]

Interplanetary pong!

Diego

Familiar breed of rock found on Mars

[PsiPsiStar]

Scientists announced recently that the rock found on Mars, nicknamed "Bounce," was of a breed of rock similar to the pet rocks popular in the sixties.

Pet rocks are the primitive ancestors of modern pseudo-pets such as tamagotchi and Aibo.

This has led some scientists to suggest that the curious human habit of creating emotional attachments to purposeless inanimate objects may actually be extraterrestrial in origin.

Re:Familiar breed of rock found on Mars

[PsiPsiStar]

Me, I hate people with no senses of humor. Especially when they're too lazy to look things up. And post anonymously. And use acronyms.

but it was 1975 apparently.


Pet Rocks were a 1975 fad originated in California by salesman, Gary Dahl.

http://www.virtualpet.com/vp/farm/petrock/petroc k. htm

Bet the creationists LOVE this one

[revscat]

Great. I keep hoping that we'll find definitive proof of abiogenesis occuring sponteaneously on another planet, and now look what the gods of chaos have given us: a huge, obvous excuse to give to the creationists. I'm sure we'll see this one crop up on the 700 Club if-and-when they ever find 100%-sure-fire-can't argue-with-that proof that life existed on Mars.

"But God planted the seeds of life in Eden, and he did smith the earth with a big rock, and it did spew forth flotsam into the universe, and it was good."

Grrr.

Re:Bet the creationists LOVE this one

[xaaronx]

Wow. I'm so overpowered by your eloquence that I can't help but be convinced.

Hoagland Was Right! Holy S#$!!

[sabat]

Richard C. Hoagland has been saying this for years, and to think I didn't pay attention just because he's a conspiracy theorist. He's been pounding on and on about how life here came from Mars. And now real evidence emerges that says that might actually be true -- it's living science fiction. See Hoagland's stuff at Enterprise Mission.

Holy sh#&!!

Re:Hoagland Was Right! Holy S#$!!

[GileadGreene]

(a) Hoagland is a crackpot. See for example the demolition job that Phil Plait at BadAstronomy.com did on Hoagland's claims

(b) The Bounce discoveries do not necessarily support the conclusion that life orginated on Mars and came to Earth. All they do is further support the notion that some of the meterorites striking Earth have a Martian origin. Whether or not those meteorites carried biological payloads is a whole different question.

We're all aliens?

[Galileo430]

I think it's amazing. I guess now when I make a joke about Micheal Jackson being from Mars I might actually be sort of right.

Certainly makes me think. Somewhere, Darwin is laughing...

well. mmm...

[zogger]

I saw it and read it completely differently. Well, except one part I'll get to we agree on.

I guess people are interpretating this according to their pre conceived "religiously held" beliefs.

Think on this, as an exercise taken from a generic macro evolutionist's standpoint. What are the odds of exact species arising at the same time on two different planets? Beyond practical chance? I think so. That indicates either poof simultaneous creation (or real dang close), or purposeful "seeding" or "cultivation".

Wouldn't the huge variance in natural selection come into play if it was true "random chance"? Of course, we still don't have exact "organisms" to compare****, but these preliminary findings over the past little while (the methane gas lately, more indications of water, etc) indicates that perhaps that "life" didn't evolve either place, but was seeded at both. There is good speculation that it-life- started at one or the other and got flung over the space fence, OR simultaneoulsy arrived somehow at both places, OR not just one or the other but both at the same time..

Also, no where in the bible (to become specific) does it preclude the possibility of life on other planets, simple or complex. I think too many have this vague notion that someone told them this as "fact", but it's just not there, basically, it's not addressed much,it's just not,it doesn't say yay or nay on it, the bible is more the allegorical and historical representation of "man's" history "on earth" primarily, not "the universe's" or even "another planet's" history, first by oral traditions, then eventually written down and translated to somewhat but not complete obscurity, IMO, over so many generations so that given it's hard to tell what is accurate, but the kernel of the storiy(ies) is still there, and it's remarkably similar all over our planet in many cultures and writings.

Almost all cultures with a good verifiable ancient record keeping system have stories of "other beings" and of "the whopper dang flood that sucked pretty bad" and of "weird large creatures that roamed the planet" early in *man's" history, and not all mammalian like "ice age" type animals, but pretty good descriptions of what were undoubtly reptile type animals as well. Funny they mostly all have that, unless one is to assume they were seriously advanced archeologists way back then, at least equivalent to 18th century representations that we are familiar with. Me, I am skeptical of that, very skeptical, it assumes a complexity of society there is little evidence of, my best guess is they had direct empirical evidence, because they were so non-chalant and matter of fact in their reportings of it.

Why would all these records have similar if there wasn't a large grain of truth there? Why would dissimilar cultures that had little contact with each other way, way, way back come up with other "life forms" in their own cultures early historical records?

My bottom line is "smoke=fire", as I am a skeptic by nature, and I am *most* skeptical of those who simply insist that "smoke" = "in 100% of the cases, there is absolutely no chance of fire whatsoever".

IMO, there's something to it (yes, I am of the faith most ridiculed here),but I really have found there's a lot to it just applying what science we really have (not what we think we have), and part of that - to me- simply must include the anecdotal testimony of "those that were there",our ancestors and their best attempts to keep some sort of historical and scientific records using the best techniques they had at the time; and as we have no handy time machine for checking other than archaeological records,and translations from ancient scripts, and the ability to look back and realise some times you have no adequate words to describe something just completely outside your capacity or general societal level of comprehension, you are lead to..consider them pretty good pieces of evidence.. You -any culture with designs on communicating with the future- can make an att

Conclusive evidence of a possibility?

[bob65]

provides conclusive evidence ... of the possibility of cross-seeding.

Okay, that sure says a lot.

1 in ?

[deathcloset]

seeding is an awfully loaded way of referring to material from celestial bodies winding up on each other.

What are the chances that life could survive an impact big enough to expel this material? imagine the size of such an impact on earth. Between the impact's turbulence (I speculate a mix of vaccum, shock waves and super hot atmosphere - not to mention lots of molten stuff) wouldn't the journey through space be even more harrowing?

Then the re-entry on the destination, that can't be a walk in the park.

The common source?

[Slinky Saves the Wor]

Could it have been a planet located at the position where the current asteroid belt is? Something hit it, blew it up, rocks fell everywhere and so on.

What kind of language is that???

[Alex Belits]

"So far, no one has broached the bigger implication: Bounce provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding."

How is that supposed to be read -- "...provides conclusive evidence ... of the possibility of cross-seeding"? How can anything provide a conclusive evidence of a possibility of such a thing? It demonstrates one of _prerequisites_ for cross-seeding, but the _possibility_ of cross-seeding does not depend only on the fact that the matter of Martian origin could reach Earth.

This is not the same as making the hypothesis of cross-seeding more plausible (or "possible" as in "possible to consider") -- ceratinly the discovery of matching materials on two planets does that, but "conclusive evidence" of the possibility of cross-seeding will only appear when organic matter similar to Earth organism will be found on Mars or meteorites -- it's beyond silly to call cross-seeding "possible" if there is nothing to cross-seed with.

In fact, this rock isn't even a proof that the origin of the meteorite is Martian -- it doesn't look like other rocks on Mars, so it may be produced by volcanic activity on Mars, or it may be from somewhere else. If anything, it's a good reason to research the Martian "geology", and maybe check the chemical composition of its moons.

so.....

[metallikop]

So men ARE from mars! In that case, lets send a probe over to Venus.

Re:Ugh

[Tablizer]

This may be redundant, but find all the evidence you want of cross seeding and you still have the question as to where that life came from and how it was created.

You are right. It is a sticky question. The true origin of the first life may never be known. At the best one might find the earliest known micro-fossil *so far*, but can never tell where its source originated from because many possible sources, such as gas giants, don't preserve any fossil history in rocks.

I suppose if life with a roughly similar genetic code was found in/from another solar system that was older than our solar system, then it might rule out our solar system as the origination point. Thus, we might eliminate some origins some day, but I doubt find the single for-sure *first* source because any source of life you can find could have been seeded. The single originating event probably happened in a tiny spec of real estate that is either long gone or the ultimate needle in a haystack.

Maybe off topic but UPI...

[fingerfucker]

Why are you citing sources such as UPI when posting in Slashdot? I find it hard to believe that sources other than UPI didn't cover the topics covered in UPI's article.

UPI's integrity as a news covering agency has disintegrated years ago and noone buys news from them any more. Just because robots like Google go fetch their articles doesn't mean they are any good.

UPI's integrity and news covering reliability has diminished to zero when a cult bought it, which dates back as long as 2000 which was followed by Helen Thomas leavingleaving in protest (UPI's leading reporter for over 20 years).