Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rover Finds Complex Chemicals But No Organic Compounds

techtech writes in with the results from the first soil samples tested by the Curiosity rover. "Although NASA's Curiosity rover hasn't yet confirmed the detection of organic compounds on Mars, it's already seeing that the Red Planet's soil contains complex chemicals — including signs of an intriguing compound called perchlorate. The first soil sample analysis from Curiosity's Sample Analysis at Mars lab, or SAM, was the leadoff topic today at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco. The findings were eagerly awaited because of rumors that the Curiosity team was on the verge of announcing major findings — and although NASA tamped down expectations, the scientists said they were overjoyed with the first round of analysis."

137 comments

  1. NASA have nearly finished testing the new camera by Max_W · · Score: 5, Funny

    on Curiosity and are just about ready to go... http://imgur.com/VWcAU

    :o)

  2. Can't keep this up by mws1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NASA can't keep up being the "boy who cried wolf." People will just stop listening if every little thing is "breakthrough" and something "earth-shattering!" My goodness.

    --
    Nothing is more dangerous than a programmer with a screwdriver.
    1. Re:Can't keep this up by GodInHell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My assumption: It's one of those "if you know what you're talking about this is BIG new" stories I think. Means a lot to people who are deeply invested in the material, everyone else just stands around and says "so what does that mean?" Of course, a presentation aimed at an audience that is supposed to /know/ what they're talking about already assumes you know what it means.

    2. Re:Can't keep this up by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did NASA refer to this as "earth-shattering" or a "breakthrough"? Since you use quote marks, I assume you can point to the quote where they said that, and aren't just using exaggerated paraphrasing so you can then criticize your straw man.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:Can't keep this up by codewarren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it NASA that is crying wolf? TFS suggests only "rumors" of "major findings" and that NASA was downplaying those expectations.

    4. Re:Can't keep this up by mws1066 · · Score: 1
      --
      Nothing is more dangerous than a programmer with a screwdriver.
    5. Re:Can't keep this up by crazyjj · · Score: 1

      I suspect it's a case of NASA *THINKING* they *MAY* have found something like organic compounds, and one of their loud-mouths shooting off to the press about it. When follow-up tests confirmed that it wasn't organic compounds, they saved face by pulling this "Oh, the press just misinterpreted what he was saying" stuff.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    6. Re:Can't keep this up by Squidlips · · Score: 3, Informative

      Get your facts straight before you fly off the handle. Neither NASA or JPL said anything about earth-shattering or breakthrough. Nothing. There was no official announcement of the kind. There were just a few off-the-cuff remarks by the chief scientist (Grotzinger) made to Joe Palca of NPR about MSL being a landmark missions and how the mission would re-write the history books. But then it was the press and bloggers who blew this way out of proportion.

    7. Re:Can't keep this up by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please point out in that story where anyone who actually works for NASA used the phrases "earth-shattering," "earth-shaking," or even "breakthrough."

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    8. Re:Can't keep this up by mws1066 · · Score: 0

      My facts were mostly straight. Yes, it wasn't an official statement, but the chief scientist dude had to have known how his comments would have whipped people into a frenzy. I mean, c'mon.

      --
      Nothing is more dangerous than a programmer with a screwdriver.
    9. Re:Can't keep this up by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Informative

      The quote comes from rover lead John Grotzinger, in a recent NPR interview:

      Here are the relevant quotes from the interview:

      "We're getting data from SAM as we sit here and speak, and the data looks really interesting,"

      "The science team is busily chewing away on it as it comes down."

      "This data is gonna be one for the history books. It's looking really good."

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    10. Re:Can't keep this up by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When follow-up tests confirmed that it wasn't organic compounds, they saved face by pulling this "Oh, the press just misinterpreted what he was saying" stuff.

      Or maybe ... the press just misinterpreted what he was saying. Because that's usually the way to bet when it comes to sensationalist science reporting. But you know, if you'd rather believe the worst about NASA scientists, go ahead. They'll keep doing good, professional work regardless of what you think.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    11. Re:Can't keep this up by miltonw · · Score: 1

      Nope. No "earth-shaking" there. Yes, the Slashdot headline written by I-don't-know-who has that phrase, but I don't see NASA saying it. If you are going to make a big point of criticizing NASA for saying "earth-shaking" and "breakthrough" you just might want to find out if they actually said it. Just an idea.

    12. Re:Can't keep this up by mws1066 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Grotzinger says they recently put a soil sample in SAM, and the analysis shows something Earth-shaking. 'This data is gonna be one for the history books. It's looking really good,' he says.""

      --
      Nothing is more dangerous than a programmer with a screwdriver.
    13. Re:Can't keep this up by Digicaf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point the GP is making is that reporters outside of NASA blew this up, not NASA themselves. That's not semantics, that's just really bad reporting.

      As far as I've seen, NASA didn't make this out to be more than it was. In fact, I saw a couple of NASA releases stating that people shouldn't get too excited about it.

    14. Re:Can't keep this up by hakey · · Score: 1

      Go to the linked article, it uses "something remarkable" where Slashdot used "Earth-shaking" in the summary. Not sure if Slashdot changed the word, or if NPR revised the article. Either way, the over-hype is as much the fault of the media as it is NASA.

    15. Re:Can't keep this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you'd rather believe the worst about NASA scientists, go ahead.

      Have you ever worked with them?

    16. Re:Can't keep this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid you are seeing sensationalized press in the working, NOT those from NASA. When these reports are released from JPL, they do not contain any of the words you quote.

      If you don't like this sort of exaggeration (and I certainly don't either) demand better reporting, not better scientists.

    17. Re:Can't keep this up by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      The only place where that line about "Earth-shaking" appears, AFAICT, is in the Slashdot summary. It's not even in reporter's words in the linked story, much less in any direct quote from Grotzinger. And contrary to your previous post, the difference between "This data is gonna be one for the history books. It's looking really good" and "the analysis shows something Earth-shaking" is far more than one of semantics. It's about as serious as the difference between "mws1066 got arrested" and "mws1066 is a serial killer."

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    18. Re:Can't keep this up by mws1066 · · Score: 1

      Is there really a significant difference if NASA blew this out of proportion or if the media did? The end result is the same. They look bad when they have to backpedal and release underwhelming findings.

      --
      Nothing is more dangerous than a programmer with a screwdriver.
    19. Re:Can't keep this up by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      Please point out in that story

      The news media put those words into NASA's mouth, but Grotzinger* made it sound like a bigger deal. He should have been a little more reserved but it's understandable, from a geek perspective, that he was excited over something geeky. Which most people will not understand.

      Footnote: Interesting.. NPR has apparently since edited the original version of their story and changed "earthshaking" to "remarkable".

      "Grotzinger says they recently put a soil sample in SAM, and the
      analysis shows something earthshaking. "This data is gonna be one for the history books. It's looking really good," he says."

      [*] - http://www.npr.org/2012/11/20/165513016/big-news-from-mars-rover-scientists-mum-for-now

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    20. Re:Can't keep this up by drerwk · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Facts mostly straight:

      NASA can't keep up being the "boy who cried wolf." People will just stop listening if every little thing is "breakthrough" and something "earth-shattering!" My goodness.

      You know that Grotzinger probably does not even work for NASA right? He is a Caltech professor, likely that Caltech pays his salary. He is not a NASA employee or spokesman.
      You really have not gotten your facts straight, but do not fret you might have an excellent career as a science reporter :-).

    21. Re:Can't keep this up by Squidlips · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the press looks bad, not NASA. When Grotz said it was gonna be one for the history books, he meant the mission as a whole not the latest SAM findings. Unfortunately, this means that Grotz or any other MSL project scientists will be very very disinclined to talk to the press, alas.

    22. Re:Can't keep this up by gman003 · · Score: 1

      That quote was in the context of the entire mission, not this particular data point. He was saying that the Curiosity mission data, overall, is groundbreaking.

      Naturally, NPR quoted him out of context, and then everyone else ran with it.

    23. Re:Can't keep this up by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I knew it would just be dirt. On, sorry, *complex* dirt. And this is from a big space fan.

    24. Re:Can't keep this up by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but the act of saying you have some results, but you're not telling anyone yet... eh... just release the results when you have them. And NASA guy *did* say it was going to be the one for the history books. People hear than and don't assume he means "History Of Martian Soil Chemistry, Volume 3".

    25. Re:Can't keep this up by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      the term used by one of the JPL guys was "one for the history books"

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    26. Re:Can't keep this up by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      didn't you hear, they discovered mardi-gras beads on mars.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    27. Re:Can't keep this up by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      There are large gaps between what different groups find to be a big deal. For some it's complex chemicals. For some it's proof of Bejebus. For others, it's 3 boob martian pr0n.

    28. Re:Can't keep this up by skelly33 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's all over the fricken Internet. It was in the NPR report and it looks like the report has since been edited to remove the comment, perhaps out of embarrassment. The transcript from the same report however still includes the quote...

      "PALCA: Put a sample of Martian soil or rock or even air inside SAM and it will tell you what the sample's made of. Right now, SAM is working on a Mars soil sample, and [John] Grotzinger says the results are earth-shaking."

      From NPR Transcript

      Grotzinger is the "principal investigator for the rover mission".

    29. Re:Can't keep this up by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      the only thing they could have done better is control their staff. i'm sure there's group emails going round there to that effect now.

      the problem is, when they have a big robot looking for life on Mars, everyone's going to assume that when they call a press conference, they'll announce that they've found life on Mars.

    30. Re:Can't keep this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when has the media ever downplayed new announcements, from anyone?

    31. Re:Can't keep this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it NASA that is crying wolf? TFS suggests only "rumors" of "major findings" and that NASA was downplaying those expectations.

      I can't find anything anywhere about these alleged packs of wolves roaming Mars... just a few links describing a legend about a couple of italian twins sired by Mars, who where subsequently adopted and raised by a wolf.

    32. Re:Can't keep this up by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but this 'big finding' directly contradicts last week's 'big finding'...

      Last week: ."we found plastic".... plastic is based on Carbon --- Plastic is an Organic compound. If you're not a chemist and don't know what scientists call Organic, please don't vote me down or bother criticizing this point. Organic in science means carbon-based; organic in common dialogue means 'natural'.

      This week: "we found complex chems, but no organic compounds"....

      WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THE PLASTIC FROM LAST WEEK?

      As a cell biologist involved in cell reprogramming, I can't help but wonder how much of the scientific journalism is focused on Space even though biomedical research is making huge leaps nearly every day. There are findings that hit the journals that would blow the minds of the public, every single day, and yet things found in Space that are unique but not really awe-inspiring are reported because they have pretty pictures. FIGHT THE BIAS! Demand more interesting science!

    33. Re:Can't keep this up by drerwk · · Score: 1

      And NASA guy *did* say it was going to be the one for the history books. People hear than and don't assume he means "History Of Martian Soil Chemistry, Volume 3".

      Not NASA guy. Caltech professor, lead investigator, not a NASA spokesman!

    34. Re:Can't keep this up by DerekLyons · · Score: 1, Informative

      So, no... NASA didn't refer to this as "earth-shattering" or "a breakthrough", and the original poster is talking out of his ass.

    35. Re:Can't keep this up by drerwk · · Score: 2

      the only thing they could have done better is control their staff. i'm sure there's group emails going round there to that effect now.

      the problem is, when they have a big robot looking for life on Mars, everyone's going to assume that when they call a press conference, they'll announce that they've found life on Mars.

      Grotzinger is not NASA staff - he is a Caltech professor. And Curiosity is equipped to look for organic chemistry, not current life.

    36. Re:Can't keep this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The media portrays an event where a group of highly paid individuals defeats another group of highly paid individuals at a competition that consists of more-or-less adhering to completely arbitrary rules, scored in a consistent but arbitrary fashion to be an incredible, awesome achievement. They provide these competitions with vast amounts of free advertising so that those highly paid individuals and their employers can continue to fund these competitions, indeed, the advertising is beyond free, in many cases the media pays extremely large amounts of money to provide this advertising (granted, they can then re-sell the privilege of advertising profitably).

      About all the media does these days is hype press releases without making any real effort to understand them. It's what they're best at. Investigation, contextualizing or re-framing the world we live in is largely something from the past, or left to a few dinosaurs on the internet.

      The fact that they hyped up something that they didn't know details of, that they really couldn't put in context had they known the details of, isn't too surprising. When you consider that this "thing" being presented, had the wildest hopes been met, would have had philosophical implications that would take decades to work through, it's pretty predictable.

    37. Re:Can't keep this up by FrankSchwab · · Score: 2

      WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THE PLASTIC FROM LAST WEEK?

      What happened is that you got trolled. Go look at the link in the original story - a photo of Mardi Gras beads badly photoshopped onto the martian surface, and an accompanying story written at about a 10th grade level.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    38. Re:Can't keep this up by meglon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, there is.

      This is a historic finding, which could very well repaint the landscape of Mars as we know it. That is a big deal. The problem is, we have a bunch of barely educated morons in this country who jump to the conclusion of little green men in flying saucers whenever someone looks up and sees a bird fly overhead, or who think there's ghosts everywhere because some dipshit on Ghost Hunters says "what was that!!?" every fucking episode.

      Real science suffers in the US because our citizens are being bred to be stupider than shit. NASA hasn't one anything wrong, it's just there's too few people with actually brains in this country to understand basic language, much less basic science.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    39. Re:Can't keep this up by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Your statement is so consistent with how people view scientific progress in general - by dreaming up some arbitrary vision of how the future will be, then feeling cheated when the universe doesn't turn out to be what they vaguely imagined.

      As far as I am concerned the Curiosity mission is accountable for this: to gather the data they got funded to gather. This includes developing the sensors, getting them to the right spot on Mars, collecting the data, and transmitting it home. Whether that data confirms or disproves 1950's sci-fi (or blogosphere buzz) is really beside the point.

    40. Re:Can't keep this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you know something about Rome.

      Now get out.

    41. Re:Can't keep this up by ChronoFish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the MarsCuriosity Twitter account - which I assume to be targeting a more "social" audience to include scientist, space-fans, back-yard astronomers, and people who may or may not know or get "soil science".

      Oct. 9: Shiny Object Update: My team continues to assess a small object on ground, likely a shred of benign plastic
      Oct 12: All Shook Up: Dusted off my sampling system this week & investigated a mysterious "FOD"
      Oct 15: Time for a third scoop... and a second look. Investigating newfound bright material on Mars
      Oct 18: Distinctly Martian: Just had my 1st taste of Red Planet regolith. Mineral analysis underway
      Nov 2: I found clues to changes in Mars' atmosphere, but no methane... yet. More observations planned
      Nov 21: What did I discover on Mars? That rumors spread fast online. My team considers this whole mission "one for the history books" .
      Nov 29: Everybody, chill. After careful analysis, there are no Martian organics in recent samples. Update Dec 3

      The whole twitter account is there to make mundane rock observation sound interesting to someone (anyone) who is not a (astro-) geologist. If "Curiosity" is excited, so should be everyone who follows. 128 characters is barely enough to convey a message, much less "tone" - but readers will inject their own tone - which is dangerous for an agency that wishes not to release any data with less than 5 9s of precession.

      -CF

    42. Re:Can't keep this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA didn't report it anything like you claim. A reporter took a remark from an interview and ran with it, utterly misunderstanding what was said or deliberately hyping it into something it wasn't.

    43. Re:Can't keep this up by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Funny, your post works better if you read in your sig at the end. Makes sense that way.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    44. Re:Can't keep this up by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      You can't totally blame NASA for crying wolf. Last week some yahoo pulled a prank on everyone, and that yahoo had nothing to do with NASA. That got everyone's hopes up and had, again, nothing to do with NASA.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    45. Re:Can't keep this up by bhartman34 · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is NASA's fault. Not entirely, anyway.

      NASA has never announced, "OMG, you guys! Life on Mars!!! We think we found it!" What they've done is release significantly lower-key findings that got themexcited (much like GodInHell says).

      It looks like people want the one, big, "Holy crap! Little green men!" announcement. That's not going to happen. What'll happen (if it turns out that there's microbial life on Mars, or even was microbial life on Mars) is that the evidence will amass slowly. Even if they were to find a green, pulsing mass of Andromeda Strain goodness, scientists would still have to argue for a long time about just what it means.

    46. Re:Can't keep this up by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Wow.. Katrina blew those *REALLY* far, didn't she?

    47. Re:Can't keep this up by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Uhmmm... to be fair, *MOST* science press releases that are aimed at being seen by the public, and not specifically only for peers with a particular level or type of education, are actually written at about 7th or 8thj grade level.

    48. Re:Can't keep this up by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I see the problem. You're confusing Slashdot with NASA. While there are some rocket scientists who contribute to Slashdot, the vast majority... ain't.

    49. Re:Can't keep this up by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes. If NASA, a trusted scientific source, blew it out of proportion, shame on NASA. If the media (which includes Slashdot), a known non-scientific hype factory, blew something out of proportion and you believed it, shame on you.

    50. Re:Can't keep this up by petsounds · · Score: 1

      When speaking to the general audience of NPR and other media sources, making a statement that findings are, "One for the history books" is irresponsible if it is *not* something that most of the populace would find earth-shaking. I think even most of us thought this was an exceptionally-important finding, such as the presence of organic compounds.

      The levels of science classification by the general public are as follows:
      1) blah blah blah blah
      2) wtf, science is weird. what's on TV?
      3) when will that be on my iPhone?
      4) one for the history books? OMG ALIENS

       

    51. Re:Can't keep this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kudos to NASA for taking a swipe at yellow journalism AND announcing a discovery.

    52. Re:Can't keep this up by mikael · · Score: 1

      To me, something "earth-shaking" would be to prove that the Mars sized planet that collided with an early Earth to form the Moon, was in fact Mars.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    53. Re:Can't keep this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason people jump is because there is so much secrecy and disinformation from non-transparent government agencies such as NASA.

      To start, did the American people OR IBM, and other aerospace companies benifit MOST from our moon programs?

      I hear the technology behind hassleblad cameras is strictly controlled to the tune of 50,000 dollars still. You would think we would have allot more science and less obfuscation of the truth. HAM radio operators do more science then NASA =/

    54. Re:Can't keep this up by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      Or that the chances of anything coming from Mars actually are a million to one.

    55. Re:Can't keep this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA can't keep up being the "boy who cried wolf." People will just stop listening if every little thing is "breakthrough" and something "earth-shattering!" My goodness.

      The last thing I ever want to hear from NASA is the phrase "earth-shattering." Just sayin'.

    56. Re:Can't keep this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could it have been a bad pun?

    57. Re:Can't keep this up by skelly33 · · Score: 1

      Any journalist worth their salt would not use the words, "so-and-so says [insert something they did not actually say here]". I'm going to give benefit of the doubt on the side of journalistic integrity here.

  3. So no Mardi Gras beads... by hawks5999 · · Score: 3, Funny

    What a let down.

  4. Much Ado About Nothing? by clm1970 · · Score: 2

    Seems like they wanted to try to build some excitement when there was nothing to be excited about.

    1. Re:Much Ado About Nothing? by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      It just sounded better than "We spent XXX Billions of dollars to send the rover to mars and discover that there is dirt there."

    2. Re:Much Ado About Nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But didn't sanzenpus post a story about them finding Mardi Gras beads?

  5. ...aliens or not aliens? by stepdown · · Score: 5, Funny

    Reminds me of this recent SMBC comic.

    1. Re:...aliens or not aliens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perfect. Not just for the "aliens or GTFO" sentiment, but also for the "All we have is a shapeless mass of raw data, and we're not even positive the instruments were calibrated, but we assure you: It's very important."

  6. Now that we have all sobered up.... by Squidlips · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is some good science being done and the Good Stuff will be when Curiosity reaches the clay layers at the base of Mt Sharp, so be patient. There is also the minor mystery of the chlorinated methane products...

  7. Eek! the Rocknest Monster by CrowdedBrainzzzsand9 · · Score: 1

    There they will find the Rocknest Monster and the end of the rover. (Warning: not funny unless you actually read TFA.)

  8. Sooo.. No aliens? by cod3r_ · · Score: 1

    Or aliens?

    1. Re:Sooo.. No aliens? by Hatta · · Score: 0

      Or vagina?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  9. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    on Curiosity and are just about ready to go... http://imgur.com/VWcAU :o)

    That doesn't look like Jimmy Hoffa to me...

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  10. Rocket fuel by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They mention that the Calcium Perchlorate may be an energy source. How about using it to manufacture rocket fuel on mars? It's similar to other oxidizers used in solid fuel rockets. Wouldn't it be strange if the fuel for a return-to-earth trip could be manufactured right there from materials lying right there on the planet surface? Or am I totally smoking something?

    1. Re:Rocket fuel by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Search on Zubrin and "Mars Direct". The idea makes a lot of sense.

  11. I'm sure K'Breel had something to do with it. by sconeu · · Score: 2

    Probably had some flunkies hide all the plastics and mess up some sand. I'm also willing to bet that those brave volunteers willingly had their gelsacs pierced to preserve the secret.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:I'm sure K'Breel had something to do with it. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I think Patrician K'Breel may no longer be with us.

      http://billiongraves.com/pages/record/PatkBreel/514255

  12. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I only got a 3 on the AP Chemistry test many years ago, but even I know that perchlorate is not "an intriguing compound", but an ion that forms a variety of salts.

  13. soil sifting != earth shaking by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I can't believe Grotzinger would be so sloppy with his terminology when discussing sifting Martian soil samples into the SAM.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  14. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Informative

    Perchlorate is intriguing for a number of reasons that are tangental to the compound's intrinsic character.

    First, it is a potentially biologically useful compound as an oxygen source for single cellular respiration in autochemotrophs.

    Second, if concentrations are high enough, the salt lowers the melting point of water sufficiently that martian soil could be "moist" at sufficient depths.

    Also, the compound usually only forms in nature from UV irridation of aqueous saline solutions. A high abundance of the mineral is very suggestive of a very different mars from what we see now.

    Previous rovers have detected gypsum, and perchlorates at other locations. Additional samplings of perchlorates increases the probability that the mineral is very prevelent in the crust, which greatly increases the chances of finding microbiotic life.

    The fact that perchlorate salts are about as "interesting" as O2, salt, silicon dioxide, and other inorganic substances here on earth does not mean that they are uninteresting in an environment that is radically different from our own.

  15. perchlorate = rocket fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am only an expert on this because it contaminated all our drinking water around Las Vegas valley. It is a very important component in rocket fuel as I recall (like makes it go bang).

    So, yea, I can see that being kind of important if you ever want to go home from mars.

  16. Where's the Kaboom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's supposed to be an Earth shattering kaboom!

  17. Weak ass backpedal by mbrod · · Score: 0

    http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/19426

    The taxpayer deserves more for their 3 billion.

  18. Perchlorate by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Isn't perchlorate a component of some fuels? Perhaps it comes from the hover stage during the lowering phase....

    1. Re:Perchlorate by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Perchlorate is a powerful oxydizer, yes. It has 4 bound oxygen atoms per molar quantity. That's a lot of oxygen. Further, it sheds the oxygen when heated, making it useful for a wide assortment of purposes, not just limited to propellants.

      For instance, heating it in an oven will release breathable oxygen. If we ever establish martian habitats, perchlorate salts in the crust would be invaluable to maintaning a breathable atmosphere inside the enclosure.

    2. Re:Perchlorate by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Some fuels. Not the fuels used in the descent thrusters.

    3. Re:Perchlorate by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Now we know what Arnie set in motion when he slapped his hand down on that plate.

      A giant perchlorate heater.

      Get your ass to Mars, indeed....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  19. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

    I thought the discovery of perchlorates dashed their hopes of finding microbial life - something about it being a wicked oxidizer?

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  20. Re:Where's Phil Plait? by FrankSchwab · · Score: 2

    A third rate hack who pimps his blogs... that's all Phil Plait is.

    Well, as a regular reader, I'd say he's more "A first-rate hack who pimps his informative, entertaining (though over-focussed on AGW zealotry) blogs."

    If you don't learn anything from his blog, and aren't simply blown away by the galactic imagery he links to, then you're simply dead inside.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html

    /frank

    --
    And the worms ate into his brain.
  21. the Martian who cried wolf by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I bet Martian wolves would have to be pretty bad-ass, surviving on rocks and stuff, given the dearth of children to carry off on Mars.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:the Martian who cried wolf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah,m thats coyotes and dingos that carry off children.

  22. Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/27478475

    Better to just watch the press conference than to read something that has gone through people who most likely do not understand a thing about it...

  23. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is a wicked oxydizer, and it does kill most terrestrial microbes almost instantly. (Its basically bleach.)

    However, the degree of lethality is deprendent on concentration of the perchlorate salt (my understanding was that it was under 1% of the sample, suggesting it was a low yeild, but omnipresent mineral), as a small qualtity would be tolerable to extremophiles, which is what you would expect in the extreme conditions on mars.

    Life on mars appears more and more to fall into a very narrow band of habitablility, like the photosynthetic soil microbes of antarctica, assuming it exists at all.

    Missions like this one give us a better understanding of martian environmental conditions, and allow us to make better guesses about what areas of mars might potentially harbor life.

  24. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perchlorate is NOT a compound, you moron. How could this ever be modded up!?

  25. Speaking of crappy reporting... by strangeintp · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised nobody else has pointed out yet, the headline for the first-linked article says "Curiosity rover finds organic compounds...", directly refuting the statement in the first sentence of the article: "Curiosity rover hasn't yet confirmed the detection of organic compounds on Mars"... geez, what a flub. Who's editing at cosmiclog.nbcnews.com?

  26. My high school chemistry is rusty... by pongo000 · · Score: 1

    ...but isn't perchlorate an ion? The article reads:

    including signs of an intriguing compound called perchlorate

    Did they detect perchlorate ions? Or perchlorate compounds? Or perchlorates perhaps? I'm sorry, but this just struck me as a rather in-your-face mistake if that is indeed how it was reported. Or maybe I'm just being pedantic and should find a better use of my time?

    1. Re:My high school chemistry is rusty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I think you are just being pedantic.

    2. Re:My high school chemistry is rusty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:My high school chemistry is rusty... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The science undoubtedly reported "perchlorates" which the journalist then translated into "an intriguing compound called perchlorate" because he remembered vaguely from high school chemistry that "chemical" is kind of like "compound" and apparently this perchlorate stuff is some kind of chemical.

  27. You can't handle the truth by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, the guy that let the "earth shattering" leak get out had been dealt with. Which in government speak means that he was promoted, given a big fat raise, and now sits alone in an office all day and fears losing his income if he ever tells the truth about this. The perchlorate story is the story that people can handle, just as Roswell's weather balloons were last century. Nothing to see here, move on.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  28. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oxygen is, wait for it, a wicked oxidizer. Current life forms have evolved multiple processes to mitigate damage caused by having such a reactive chemical in the atmosphere.

    But it's an energy source. Gotta have those electrons.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  29. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    chemistry fail AC.

    Try again after you learn the differences between compounds, molecular elemental quantities, mixtures, solutions, and coloids.

    The perchlorate ion is a covalently bound molecule of oxygen, chlorine, and hydrogen. It is therefor a compound. It forms ionic associations with metals, and decomposes organic compounds via oxidation reactions.

    *raspberry*

  30. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well it sure prevents entire classes of organisms to develop there, but life might be based on different reactions and elements. As long as it grows, multiplies, and adapts itself to a changing environment it can be classified as life (according to genesis chapter 9, I mean :D)

  31. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 0

    Actually, Perchlorate isn't a compound, and it's certainly not a mineral. Perchlorates are a family of salts, and you need a word in front of "Perchlorate" for it to be useful. Something like Ammonium Percholorate or Sodium Perchlorate, etc. So, I want to know, what kind of perchlorates did they find?

  32. Re:Where's Phil Plait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Shill.

  33. Martians killed of by Dry Cleaning? by RealGene · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
    1. Re:Martians killed of by Dry Cleaning? by Hartree · · Score: 2

      This pretty much shows that NYC Environmental Protection doesn't know what the hell it's talking about. The solvent used in dry cleaning is perchoroethylene.

      Perchlorate and perchloroethylene are not even remotely the same thing. You'd think they'd be able to notice such a glaring error.

      Then again, maybe that's hoping too much.

  34. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Entry: "chemical compound"

    Entry: "chemical compound"

    Entry:"chemical compound"

    What definition of "chemical compound" are you using exactly, that perchlorate ion would not be a chemical compound?

    As for the question: calcium perchlorate.

  35. Rocket Fuel.... by future+assassin · · Score: 1
    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  36. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Oh, as for it not being a mineral, you fail again. It is not produced by an organic process, does not contain carbon, and forms natural crystalline associations in soils. Perchlorates are minerals.

    Eg, did you know that rock salt is a mineral? Geologists call it "halite". ;) perchlorate complexes are indeed minerals my friend.

  37. Pffft call me when they find Midi-chlorians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otherwise move along... nothing to see here.

  38. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by Rich0 · · Score: 0

    Yup, but perchlorate makes oxygen seem tame by comparison.

    I'd think that dealing with it in any kind of high concentration would be difficult, which kind of rules out the whole "well, maybe there is an ocean of salt water stabilized by perchlorates under the surface" bit.

  39. Re:Where's Phil Plait? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Because he's got better things to do than argue with ACs on Slashdot? Really? The guy has kids. I wouldn't bother arguing with ACs on Slashdot either if I had kids to troll.

  40. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I certainly see how you draw the inference that "compound" can be used this way, but I have yet to find any online source using it this way.
    Can you give any links to sources that actually refer to a polyatomic ion as a "compound"?

  41. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Martians had bath salts?

  42. Earthshaking news? by Rational · · Score: 1

    Is this is the earthshaking news we were promised, or are we still waiting for that? Okey, so the first full soil sample analysis was completed. Did they expect it to fail halfway through or something?

    --
    "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
  43. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by jo_ham · · Score: 0

    I certainly see how you draw the inference that "compound" can be used this way, but I have yet to find any online source using it this way.
    Can you give any links to sources that actually refer to a polyatomic ion as a "compound"?

    If you log in, I might.

  44. perchlorate? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    OMG RUN, CURIOSITY! IT'S ONE GIANT BOMB!!!!! Seriously, isn't perchlorate a significant component of some high explosives?

  45. Probe Dupe - Phoenix Was First by Tablizer · · Score: 0

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phx20100524.html

    "During its mission, Phoenix confirmed and examined patches of the widespread deposits of underground water ice detected by Odyssey and identified a mineral called calcium carbonate that suggested occasional presence of thawed water. The lander also found soil chemistry with significant implications for life and observed falling snow. The mission's biggest surprise was the discovery of perchlorate, an oxidizing chemical on Earth that is food for some microbes and potentially toxic for others."

    In other news, Curiosity found red rocks!
       

    1. Re:Probe Dupe - Phoenix Was First by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      However, one probe's sampling is insufficient to build a general soil minerology statistic from.

      Imagine, aliens send a probe to a mountain on earth and discover gold nuggets. Would it be sensible for the aliens to conclude that the earth has a high soil concentration of gold? Clearly not.

      Likewise, nasa scientists thought the perchlorate discovery was a very unusual anomaly.

      Discovering yet more perchlorate several hundred kilometers away in a different region makes the case that the perchlorates could be a widespread feature in the surface regolith.

  46. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by wierd_w · · Score: 2

    That isn't how the language works.

    A compound is an identically structured association of different types of atoms, participating in either covalent or ionic bonding, resulting in a substance that is fundamentally different from its constituent parts. Eg, mixing nitrogen and hydrogen gasses together in a tank will not be the same as a tank containing the same stoichiometric quantity of anhydrous ammonia.

    In fact, ionized anhydrous ammonia is a perfect test subject for this debate.

    Ionizing ammonia by ripping off a hydrogen atom causes it to become free amonium ion, a polyatomic ion, which you are asserting is not a compound. Under laboratory conditions, and in interstellar clouds, this substance does exist in free and unbound states. The mere fact that the molecule has a reasonably strong ionic charge, and a strong affinity for electron accepting metals and hydrogen (protium) atoms does not remove it from being in the "compound" class of substances. Ammonium ion behaves very differently from a mixture of ionized nitrogen and hydrogen gasses of similar charge.

    Symantically, "compound" is a classification that is intended to differentiate between "mixtures", "solutions", and "colloids", and polyatomic molecules.

    Components in a mixture retain their individual chemical identities, and can be seperated based on that retention of chemical identity.

    A solution is one compound being dissolved into another. When the solvent is removed, the solute will reconstitute unchanged, but disperses eavenly within the solvent when mixed.

    A colloid is a mixture of suspended microparticle of one substance, floating in a homeostatic suspension inside another substance.

    A polyatomic molecule is comprised of homogenous atoms held together by covalent or ionic potentials. (Eg, N2, H2, O2, etc.)

    A "polyatomic ion" can be a compound, but also not be a compound.

    For instance, ozone (O3-) is a polyatomic ion that is NOT a compound. (It also tends to decompose rather than engage in an ionic bond, but in its free state, it is an electrically charged polyatomic molecule that is not a compound.)

    NH3 is a polyatomic ion that *is* a compound, because it is comprised of discrete and identical quantities of heterogenous atoms. (All ammonium ions are the same: NH3.)

    In this case, perchlorate is comprised of 4 oxygen atoms, 1 chlorine atom, and one hydrogen atom. It is therefor a polyatomic ion, that is also a compound.

    Compound and polyatomic ion are not exclusive.

    That is where the disconnect lies.

    Returning to interstellar ammonium, the usual way to describe this is to call it ionized ammonia. This is to differentiate it at the macro level from ammonium ions suspended in water, or interacting with some other partner or solvent. This is simply to avoid confusion. Likewise, to describe perchlorate all by itself, one would likely refer to it as "anhydrous, ionized perchloric acid." (Given the strength of the ion, and the thermal instability of the ion, it is unlikely that this could form without radically unusual conditions though.)

    The point here is that the burden to show that perchlorate is NOT a compound rests on your shoulders, and not the burden to show that perchlorate IS a compound on mine.

    I have pointed to the established definition of what a compound is, which fully encompases all aspects of the perchloate ion. You now have to assert why the ion is not a compound.

  47. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the answer to the question is no.

  48. Re:Probe Dupe - Phoenix Was First - Viking maybe by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Yup, I also remembered that one. Even worse, the Viking probes likely also found the same schtuff, circa 1975.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  49. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Your argument is immaterial. Chemists don't call it that, because polyatomic ion is more precise, and not all polyatomic ions are compounds.

    The terms are not interchangable, but many are a subset of the other.

    If we play a substitution game to test the logic, it makes sense.

    You say: "perchlorate ion is not a compound. It is a polyatomic ion."

    I respond with this substtution:

    "A rabbit is not an animal. It is a mammal."

    There are animals that are not mammals, but a rabbit is both an animal, and a mammal.

    In the same way, perchlorate is both a polyatomic ion, and a compound.

    Scientists use precise language, whenever possible. The amusing diversion that they don't use the general descriptor when dealing with a specific type of molecule does not add weight to your argument.

    I will say again. The burden of proof is yours, to prove that it ISN'T a compound.

    I'll be waiting.

  50. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Martians had bath salts?

    Sounds like McAfee could ask for asylum there.

  51. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, FFS.

    The perchlorate anion is the interesting part of the discovery. There's no need to state what cation it's associated with. In fact, alkali-metal and alkaline-earth perchlorates are so heavily ionic that it doesn't make sense to state what cation it's associated with. If I dissolve sodium chloride, lithium hydroxide, calcium perchlorate and strontium nitrate in a bucket of water, "what kind of perchlorate" does the bucket contain? The perchlorate ion -- which, if you evaporate out enough of the water, will precipitate out in the form of various ionic salts.

    Maybe you should be off pestering food manufacturers to specify what kind of "sodium" they're calling out on their nutritional labels. Is it sodium chloride? Sodium acetate? Sodium caseinate? It. Doesn't. Matter.

  52. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ionizing ammonia by ripping off a hydrogen atom causes it to become free amonium ion

    Um, no, that makes an amide anion. Adding a hydrogen atom (actually a hydrogen cation) makes an ammonium cation.

  53. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Blagh.. you are right!

    That will teach me not to rant on the internet while doing NC programming!

    Still, despite the naming faux pas, the argument still holds.

  54. Re:NASA have nearly finished testing the new camer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An analogy would be in an era gone by. My faithful dog Benje, was so excited and barking up a happy storm. You see, he downed an intruder and just barked, and jumped, and wagged his tail like there was no tomorrow. Arriving at the scene, I discovered a felled mighty bee. Benje was so proud of this accomplishment, I just had to congratulate him with praises of "atta boy!","great guard dog!", "yeah! you really did good Benje!" victory hugs and pats on his dog back followed. One day he caught another bee, but this one went down with a furious fight and stung him on the nose. Benje promptly ran past the crowd on the patio BBQ, through the chatter in the living room, kicked my door open and dove under my bed for the safety and comfort he would feel. Poor fella. I miss my faithful dog Benje and those days.