Rover Exiting Crater To Continue Martian Marathon

Riding with Robots writes "The robotic geologist Opportunity has nearly reached the rim of Victoria Crater, which it is leaving after a year of exploration inside. Rover handlers decided to abandon attempts to approach the crater's cliff walls when they saw a power spike similar to the one that preceded a broken wheel on its twin, Spirit. Opportunity is already making do with a stuck robotic arm. The mission's manager said, 'Both rovers show signs of aging, but they are both still capable of exciting exploration and scientific discovery.' Opportunity is set to continue trekking across the Meridiani Plains of Mars, even though its wheels have already seen 10 times the use they were designed for. Meanwhile, Spirit has survived yet another harsh Martian winter to produce another striking panorama." Adam Korbitz notes other Mars-related news that funding has been approved for the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Genomes (SETG) Project. The project was one of 15 selected to receive funds through a NASA research opportunity program. The stated goal of the proposal is to "develop a PCR detector for in situ analysis on other planets, most immediately, Mars. This instrument is so sensitive it should allow the detection very low levels of microbial life on Mars, and will determine its phylogenetic position by analysis of the DNA sequence of the genes detected in situ."

Comments

PCR? With what primers?

[Hatta]

PCR requires 2 primers of known sequence, roughly 20 bases long, between 100 and 1000 base pairs apart. Given that we have absolutely no sequence information from which to design these primers, how do they expect to do PCR on completely unknown DNA?

Gene expressions?

[KasperMeerts]

WTF? I think we should first concentrate on finding something that somewhat resembles our microbial life before we spend a lot of government funds to ship a PCR detector there.
Not only do they assume that life there has genes in about the same way as ours but also that they are made from the same nucleotides. What would be the odds of that? (excluding panspermia and so on).

Re:Gene expressions?

[DerekLyons]

I don't see any plans to fly a PCR detector - only to develop a PCR detector. Expanding the technology base for compact, low power, automated laboratory and detector systems will be useful as it could lead to any number of useful spinoffs. Like portable blood sugar analyzers, or pregnancy detection kits, or decreasing the time it takes to perform forensic DNA analysis...

Re:PCR? With what primers?

[Shimmer]

It's much worse than that. What makes them (or you) think that alien life will have any DNA at all?

They seem to be assuming that alien life will share a common ancestor with Terran life. This seems like a pretty dubious assumption to me.

Re:secrets to rovers' success?

[Colonel Korn]

Are there any key lessons to be learned from these rovers' success? Or is it simply that they have no critical consumables (being solar powered and all) and they evidently were overengineered? I guess for starters, having redundancy and the ability to turn off failing components is good, seeing as they're six wheel drive and one of the rovers is now dragging a bad wheel around. What else has been learned from these rovers about engineering long-lasting probes?

Another lesson to learn is that despite highly publicized mistakes, NASA does have a lot engineers who are both brilliant and wise.

Re:PCR? With what primers?

[MyLongNickName]

Because they have to start somewhere? It isn't unreasonable to think that most naturally occurring forms of life are based on DNA. Yes, that is an assumption that could be wrong. We have one data point to work from. If our assumption is wrong, we can create different methods of detection other types of life.

My question to you: what kind of machine would you put together that would search for microscopic life forms that are of a type we have yet to imagine? When you answer this, then you can mock the article's approach.

Kind of a waste

[Reality Master 101]

I wish NASA would get off the "looking for ET life" kick. The probability of finding any sort of life on Mars is vanishingly small. I suspect that NASA knows this, but thinks that it can capture the public's imagination (and thus pocketbook) by pushing the whole "Searching For Life" thing. There are so many other experiments we could do that have a much higher payoff.

I don't think the search for life is going to fire the public's imagination more than the cool photographs they get back. If they *really* want to get the public excited, send an HDTV recorder up there to zoom around... maybe even stereo HDTV so we could see 3D. Let me see a Martian sunset. Those are tactile things that everyone can be excited about. The search for life is an endless string of boring failures. Sure, if it *did* succeed, it would be immensely exciting, but that's like saying it would be exciting to win the lottery, instead of paying the rent. Except winning the lottery is a lot more probable.

Re:Kind of a waste

[fiannaFailMan]

The probability of finding any sort of life on Mars is vanishingly small.

How can you know this without knowing the outcome ahead of time?

There are so many other experiments we could do that have a much higher payoff.

Such as...? And how do you define 'payoff?'

I don't think the search for life is going to fire the public's imagination more than the cool photographs they get back.

Sure, if it *did* succeed, it would be immensely exciting

Which is it? Is the search for life exciting or isn't it?

I don't think the search for life is going to fire the public's imagination more than the cool photographs they get back.

Huh? 'Cool photographs' are better than performing actual science to answer one of the greatest questions that has been on the minds of man ever since we discovered that ours was not the only world in the universe? What's it going to be next? Canceling experiments on the ISS to make way for a weekend visit by Paris Hilton?

OK, I'll give you that the likes of the Apollo program might have had a skewed ratio of scientific usefulness to inspirational value, but I have my doubts that cool photography from Mars is more inspiring than the possibility of finding evidence of life there.

Re:PCR? With what primers?

[jesdynf]

My question to you: what kind of machine would you put together that would search for microscopic life forms that are of a type we have yet to imagine?

A microscope.

Re:secrets to rovers' success?

[Kjella]

Another lesson to learn is that despite highly publicized mistakes, NASA does have a lot engineers who are both brilliant and wise.

I don't think anyone has questioned that. But one mistake from one engineer and it's game over, so it takes a very unique process to deliver on that. Even in healthcare people die because of mistakes, and while fatal to the patient it's not like the hospital will crash and burn because of it. It doesn't matter how remote in the wilderness you are here on Earth, it's a lot easier to fix or try again than any space probe. I think SpaceX is starting to figure out how hard it is to avoid all potential problems at once...

Re:PCR? With what primers?

[Jhon]

And if that is the case, then through the vast amounts of universe that there is, we would have seen SOMETHING SOMEWHERE from a more intelligent race.

(A) we're either the first, or basically it takes ~X amount of time (X being the age of the universe) for intellegent life to evolve and we can't see ET sending us signals because he hasn't evolved yet or he's sending them from 200k light years away as we speak and wont see them for a very long time.

(B) Signal loss is so huge in the vastness of space we just cant possibily detect ET's version of Eight is Enough and Electro Woman and Dyna Girl. Maybe it's a blessing...

After all, we can't be the only beings that would be sending/looking for extraterrestrial signals, could we?

Yes we could.

Re:PCR? With what primers?

[John Miles]

There's no reason I can think of to think that the end result of any abiogenesis process has to be DNA as the replicating molecule.

Earth is an incredibly diverse planet, environmentally speaking. The fact that no living things on Earth are non-DNA based makes me think that DNA is indeed the most-efficient way to handle replication. In other words, it's likely to outcompete any alternatives in Earth-like environments that are capable of supporting life to begin with.

Everything from the extremophiles found in deep-sea thermal vents to the highest mammalian forms is DNA-based. It's reasonable to start with DNA-based assumptions when you look for life elsewhere, abandoning those assumptions only after they fail to pan out.

Re:From the f'ing article

[HTH NE1]

16S RNA gene PCR, the most sensitive detector for life on Earth

What part of Mars don't you understand?