Slashdot Mirror


NASA Rover Fails to Turn Up Methane On Mars

The Washington Post is one of many sources to report the possibly disappointing news that NASA's Curiosity rover has failed to find any methane on Mars. "[NASA planetary scientist Michael] Mumma had high hopes for a positive result because he and his colleagues believe they have detected methane on Mars remotely, from telescopes on Earth that can discern the chemical nature of Mars’s atmosphere. A European orbiter around Mars also spotted methane. But the methane has proved ephemeral — now you see it, now you don’t. Mumma said he and his colleagues are reviewing their work to see if there is some error in the mix. Perhaps the methane simply disappears quickly on Mars, through some unknown chemical process. 'It’s possible that we don’t understand something that’s going on in the Martian atmosphere,' said Michael Meyer, lead scientist for NASA’s Mars Exploration Program.'"

70 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Which to trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    On the one hand, we've had a lot of experience with spectroscopy, and on the other we have a rover actually there.

    1. Re:Which to trust? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      On the one hand, we've had a lot of experience with spectroscopy, and on the other we have a rover actually there.

      Depending on exactly where in the atmosphere the light used for the spectroscopy data is coming from, they might both be accurate: If you were working by telescope, Earth should show plenty of ozone; but if your ground-level sampling station is turning up any nontrival amount, that means that something is rather wrong...

      Were that the case, I have no doubt that all sorts of vexing questions about how such a methane distribution could come to be would come up; but atmospheres do vary by location.

    2. Re:Which to trust? by msauve · · Score: 1

      "ozone; but if your ground-level sampling station is turning up any nontrival amount, that means that something is rather wrong..."

      Or your LASER printer is next to your sensor.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Which to trust? by utube-youtube · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the methane simply disappears quickly on Mars, through some unknown chemical process. 'It’s possible that we don’t understand something that’s going on in the Martian atmosphere

      --
      utube youtube helps you share videos onl
    4. Re:Which to trust? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Yea but... the rover is also using a spectrometer.

    5. Re:Which to trust? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      Whenever ephemeral methane is detected around here I blame the closest dog...
      Seriously, with the oddball magnetic field structure that focuses on the southern hemisphere (insert Uranus joke here) it's a wonder solar ablation has not wiped all gases from the place. As the solar wind (fart joke optional) takes gas from lesser protected areas of the globe gravity pretty much demands that pressures equalize, but I'm not sure if you would get a tequila sunrise effect(lighter elements on top) or if the normal heat engine circulation of an atmosphere would keep things mixed enough that traces of light things like methane would remain without a source of replenishment. And that's the real question, is there a cause for new methane to be released into the atmosphere of Mars? Or could it be that we are reading gases BETWEEN here and the target when we do these long distance detections... Because if it is inter-planetary or even interstellar methane we detect, then I'm going to blame it on Space Truckers...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    6. Re:Which to trust? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Uranus? I think you mean UrRectum. That's the modern name according to television which never lies...

    7. Re:Which to trust? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, we've had a lot of experience with spectroscopy, and on the other we have a rover actually there.

      Depending on exactly where in the atmosphere the light used for the spectroscopy data is coming from, they might both be accurate: If you were working by telescope, Earth should show plenty of ozone; but if your ground-level sampling station is turning up any nontrival amount, that means that something is rather wrong... Were that the case, I have no doubt that all sorts of vexing questions about how such a methane distribution could come to be would come up; but atmospheres do vary by location.

      Mars doesn't have much of an atmosphere nor much atmospheric pressure. I'm thinking methane just disperses fast and gets blown away on the solar wind.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    8. Re:Which to trust? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      The name change isn't due for a few centuries, astronomers still think it's funny.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Which to trust? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Martian methane plumes have been observed remotely, they appear to be a localised seasonal phenomena. It's not known if biology or geology is the source, I believe the rover was supposed to do isotopic analysis of the methane to determine if it was biological in origin. The fact they can't find any methane at all is odd, and we all know that the phrase "that's odd" has lead to some amazing discoveries.

      I've followed climate science for a long time and it's interesting to note that the methane cycle on Earth is also poorly understood and notoriously difficult to model with confidence. It's a genuine problem in climate modelling that is fiercely debated in the community, but for some reason climate "skeptics" rarely (if ever) mention it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    10. Re:Which to trust? by Sique · · Score: 1

      Most climate sceptics have no real insight in the actual science behind the climate debate. That's why.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    11. Re:Which to trust? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      rather wrong?

      It's like saying an Earth Rover failed to turn up any bauxite in it's drilling samples.

      While we have an enormous amount of methane in our atmosphere, we also have a teeming biosphere. The methane might be frozen in the ground.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    12. Re:Which to trust? by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      I've watched a great lecture about methane "observations" on Mars a while a go. It's really worthwhile if you want to get some background into the claims made. Needless to say, what you hear in the press is not to be trusted. Listen to the scientists themselves, they give a lot more subtle story than the headlines in a newspaper.

      2011 SETI lecture about methane on Mars.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  2. Which Pretty Much Proves ... by Toad-san · · Score: 5, Funny

    there are no cows on Mars.

    As I had long suspected.

    1. Re:Which Pretty Much Proves ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, that escalated quickly.

    2. Re:Which Pretty Much Proves ... by pahles · · Score: 1

      meh.

      So there are sheep?

      --
      Sig?
    3. Re:Which Pretty Much Proves ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good to have that sorted. It also proves that there are no humans on Mars.

      Exactly. They are under Mars.

    4. Re:Which Pretty Much Proves ... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      ......you're in more dire need of a blow job than any white man in history. - Robin Williams.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Which Pretty Much Proves ... by wmac1 · · Score: 1

      @Toad-san :

      You see how denial of the existence of cows turned out? I guess you disappointed those sensitive creatures.

    6. Re:Which Pretty Much Proves ... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Then it shouldn't be hard to get colonists lined up. There should be plenty from the Falklands and Utah.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  3. Roundtable discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As I remember from a discussion we had on Friday the methane detection claim has been held in some doubt because he didn't take the redshift/blueshift context into account. It's likely the ground observation just saw the methane in Earth's atmosphere. The satellite observation is harder to explain -- if the methane was there and disappeared, the forces making it go away would have to be over a hundred times more powerful than it is on Earth, a planet with a much more volatile atmosphere.

    1. Re:Roundtable discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with the satellite observation lies with the low resolution of the instrument used for the detection: the methane bands were not observed directly.
      Without going into the details, we can say that the error bars were pretty high on that observations.
      So, these results by Curiosity are not really unexpected, nor dissatisfactory: they match very well with the understanding of the CH4 chemistry!

      An interesting paper was published on that subject by Zahnle in 2011 : http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Zahnle2011_Mars_CH4_Doubts.pdf

    2. Re:Roundtable discussion by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The problem with the satellite observation lies with the low resolution of the instrument used for the detection: the methane bands were not observed directly.

      Interesting, the theory of AGW was rejected for the same reason up until the 1950's, the narrow CO2 bands were said to be overlapped by the broad H20 bands thus "cancelling out" any warming from CO2. Work on infrared technology for heat seeking missiles lead to higher resolutions that showed the bands were interleaved rather than overlapped (as expected).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  4. Poor NASA by djupedal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can't find water, can't find their DICP, can't find methane - no wonder they have a hard time finding funding :)

    1. Re:Poor NASA by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just you wait 'til they find oil.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Poor NASA by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure he meant 'find oil on Mars', which while also unlikely, would guarantee them funding if they managed to do so.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Poor NASA by jythie · · Score: 2

      Well, the former at least, there are some models for how oil could be produced from purely geological rather then biological processes, so there very well may be oil on mars.... but it would still be economically useless to try to bring it back to earth.

      Now, as a one (long) time fuel source for a potential colony....

    4. Re:Poor NASA by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      But it would make it easier to live there if we had a fuel source. Not to mention all the good work that carbon emissions should do for Martian atmosphere. Mars could certainly benefit from global warming.

    5. Re:Poor NASA by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      See? This proves NASA is staffed with incompetent government employees! Why, if we gave it over to private industry, I'm sure they'd find water and methane! NASA is just a useless jobs program!

      (The above is sarcasm, for those who are sarcasm-deficient)

    6. Re:Poor NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, could you describe what use oil would have on a planet with no oxygen? Include that fact into your calculations. Yeah, suddenly you have to bring a planet's worth of oxygen with you. Makes lots of sense.

    7. Re:Poor NASA by libtek · · Score: 1

      Just you wait 'til they find oil.

      ...or WMDs, then BOOM! We already have our first drone on standby in the area. No boots on the ground. 'Murica!

      --
      Unequivocally the realest of the realz...
    8. Re:Poor NASA by cpotoso · · Score: 2

      With a small atmospheric pressure and small concentration of O2, having a FUEL source would also seem pointless.

    9. Re:Poor NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, could you describe what use oil would have on a planet with no oxygen?

      LUBE

    10. Re:Poor NASA by someone1234 · · Score: 1
      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    11. Re:Poor NASA by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Titan has oceans of hydrocarbons, the logistical problems of getting it into your car are currently insurmountable.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Poor NASA by Sique · · Score: 1

      The main problem is that the transport from Titan to Earth consumes much more energy than the hydrocarbons actually contain. Just accelerating the hydrocarbons enough to get them on a trajectory to Earth takes more energy already. So the logistics will stay unsurmountable for the future -- there is just no point in transporting hydrocarbons from Titan to Earth. It would be cheaper energywise to use that energy to synthetize hydrocarbons on Earth, where the materials (water and carbondioxide) are aboundant.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    13. Re:Poor NASA by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      What about transporting Titan itself, putting it into an earth orbit? I bet you can crowdsource a pretty big amount of funding for that.

    14. Re:Poor NASA by kdogg73 · · Score: 1

      Just you wait 'til they find oil.

      QFT: Mod parent Insightful.

      --
      Let's face it, most of us are scoffers. But moments before zero hour, it does not pay to take chances.
    15. Re:Poor NASA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Give it time, give it time. Nobody considered the oil sands a commercially viable source of oil, then the barrel hit the 120s and suddenly it is.

      We just have to wait until the barrel hits the 1000s. Which is far from unlikely, since we so vehemently avoid looking for an alternative to oil. After all, pretty much anyone who could decide to look has an interest that we don't.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Poor NASA by Sique · · Score: 1

      It still doesn't change the equations. The amount of energy necessary to move 1 kilogramm of matter from a Titan orbit to Earth orbit is larger than the chemical enery of 1 kg of hydrocarbonates.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    17. Re:Poor NASA by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that by the time oil get's THAT scarce, we will have long since moved on to nuclear and other sources of energy.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    18. Re:Poor NASA by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Considering how high in the sky Titan is, I'm pretty sure the whole route is downhill.

    19. Re:Poor NASA by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Don't bother me with details. We have people for that.

    20. Re:Poor NASA by lgw · · Score: 1

      A big enough solar sail and a lot of patience?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    21. Re:Poor NASA by cusco · · Score: 1

      Fuel is only one use for petroleum. If you want to spend 30 seconds thinking about it you will probably realize that there are a number of other uses for long-chain carbon compounds.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    22. Re:Poor NASA by cusco · · Score: 1

      Cheaper to transport the car to Titan, right?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    23. Re:Poor NASA by cpotoso · · Score: 1
      You really don't know much chemistry, do you?

      From the wiki on Fuel: "Fuels are any materials that store potential energy in forms that can be practicably released and used as heat energy. The concept originally applied solely to those materials storing energy in the form of chemical energy that could be released through combustion,[1] but the concept has since been also applied to other sources of heat energy such as nuclear energy (via nuclear fission or nuclear fusion), as well as releases of chemical energy released through non-combustion oxidation (such as in cellular biology or in fuel cells)."

      Given that the article is about methane, fuel clearly refers to a material that can be oxidized to release energy. Without an oxidizer, the presence of methane would be useless for this use.

    24. Re:Poor NASA by Sique · · Score: 1

      For some reason, the solar wind blows in the wrong direction, and without a keel, you can't beat (e.g. sail against the wind direction).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    25. Re:Poor NASA by lgw · · Score: 1

      You have gravity instead of a keel. You don't ever really thrust "inward" to get a lower orbit, BTW, you "slow down", which moves the other side of your now-elliptical orbit closer to the primary, then repeat once you've reached there to move the other-side of your orbit to now-circular.

      Anyhow, I'd expect most of the energy would be needed in escaping Jupiter's gravity, and a solar sail was just a joke in that regard. But perhaps you could light half the planet on fire to use as a thruster?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    26. Re:Poor NASA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I've heard that line in an old commercial from the 1950s...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. No shit, Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "It’s possible that we don’t understand something that’s going on in the Martian atmosphere" - Ya think?
    In truth, this is an excellent result. Some of the most profound scientific discoveries have been preceded by a null result.
    How many times have we heard this sequence... "If we look here we should find X... WTF??... Oh!!... Hole crap!!!!!"

  6. Late-breaking wind: Quadhydrocarbon release! by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Council has declared a day of rejoicing, relaxation and release as intelligence reports from the blue world confirm that the latest invader from the blue world has failed to detect appreciable quantities of quadrohydrocarbon.

    K'Breel, Speaker for the Council, addressed a tightly-clenched world: "Our collective tightening effort over the past year has not gone in vain. Long and hard have we clenched, and now it is time for all right-thinking citizens to reap the rewards. Our symbol must no more be the clenched fist, but the unfolded flower! REJOICE with your podmates, RELAX your cloacae, and RELEASE upon our impoverished atmosphere a deluge of accumulated flatulence so great that the very canyon walls shall shake, enveloping the invaders in dust and cutting off their vital power!"

    When a junior reporter reminded the Speaker that the latest invader was powered by something other than mere radiant stellar energy, K'breel, in his mercy, had both of the junior reporter's cloacae sealed until the pressure of accumulated quadrohydrocarbon was released through the second-weakest point of structural failure: the gelsacs.

    1. Re:Late-breaking wind: Quadhydrocarbon release! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the "meh" meme is so unique and thought-provoking.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Late-breaking wind: Quadhydrocarbon release! by Ultra64 · · Score: 1

      How is "meh" a meme?

      It's simply a reply indicating indifference.

  7. Yo Mumma by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    The martian extractor fan is on!

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  8. Hint: by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Hint: Farts float

  9. Major Tom ... Major Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The trouble is being in the wrong spot and at the wrong time and with the wrong equipment and with the wrong people trying to figure things out on the Government dime.

    The worst of all worlds.

    1. Re:Major Tom ... Major Tom by larwe · · Score: 1

      Given that more or less every month we find out some new organism, some new life process, or other similar thing on this planet, I think the only "right" place to be on a body is "everywhere". So any one spot is definitely the wrong spot to observe all the possible processes that are occurring on Mars. I mean, hell, one very simple explanation is that all the CH4 is being created by microorganisms that live in a specific stratum of the atmosphere. (Note: I am ENTIRELY in favor of disbanding government space exploration programs and privatizing them. I think people looking for freedom, fame and riches will make inroads into space much faster than scientists looking for research papers funded by governments looking for military applications or ego boosts. We won't really understand for sure if Mars does or did have life until we have a lot - a LOT - of prospectors accidentally finding fossil Martian trilobites while looking for uranium or whatever).

  10. Dup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Rover didn't manage to find this dup, either.

  11. Daily updates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are we having daily updates on this topic?

    21/09: No methane on Mars
    22/09: Still no methane on Mars
    23/09: Breaking news ... no methane. Check back tomorrow!

    This exciting barrage of news makes the moon landings look pretty boring! Go NASA!

  12. Are they sure the sensor was plugged in? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Silly debugging question but how do you they know the sensor is working?

  13. Re:Refreshing view from scientists by ae1294 · · Score: 1

    "It’s possible that we don’t understand something.."

    How refreshing. A scientist that admits they don't know everything--and quoted on /. I wonder how often scientists neglect to tell us that something isn't known or understood or observable? How often scientists pontificate when they should be quiet. The difference between Science the religion and science the field of study that that the quote reveals is refreshing.

    Well now when the first atom bomb was exploded the scientist did take bets on whether or not it would ignite the atmosphere and burn the whole earth. Don't recall but I think the odds where 70/30 against with a very generous payout if it did! I think they, much like computer programmers never admit they are wrong for fear of the bean counters. It must be hard to find a job as a scientist in a nation that wants to go back to teaching creationism!

  14. It's dead by Vintermann · · Score: 1

    How long does it have to take before we go from "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it" to "It's dead, Jim"?

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  15. Key word: "disappointing" by Prune · · Score: 1

    Mars has a long history of unfulfilled wishful thinking associated with it. Let's not forget Percival Lowell's early telescope observations of the planet leading him to claim it was covered by canals undoubtedly built by an extraterrestrial civilization. Mumma and Meyer's are the modern day Lowells. Other posts in this discussion already have the large error margins in the satellite observations covered, and the scientists behind this ought to have known better. But hey, NASA needs the hype, right? After all, they managed to do the impossible over the last 40 years and make space boring--complete with a shrinking budget.

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    1. Re:Key word: "disappointing" by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      I'm actually rather pleased that no life has been found. This increases the probability of the long term survival of humanity.

      After all, if some simple life form existed on Mars, we could reasonably expect the galaxy to be teeming with life everywhere. And in the right conditions (which exist in plenty of places), we would expect those life forms to have evolved just like we did. So why haven't we received any intelligent signals from space, then? Only one variable left: maybe intelligent civilisations tend not to survive very long. Maybe we're overdue for some huge natural disaster, or maybe it's just the inherent instability of civilisations with huge destructive power in the hands of individuals.

      If, on the other hand, no life is found on Mars, the very occurrence of the first basic forms of life may be so extremely rare that that explains why we haven't detected any other civilisations.

  16. Re:Refreshing view from scientists by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    I would have taken that bet and put all my savings on the earth not burning. Who were the idiots betting the other way? What did they think they would do with the money if they won?

  17. Re:Refreshing view from scientists by ae1294 · · Score: 1

    They only bet a dollar.... black humor. None of them really knew for sure. If such a device had went off in the distant past it probably would have burned the whole earth.... o2 was much higher at one point... If I remembering my epoch old info... But I'm not sure that was the problem. You would need to google it but they did place a bet and Oppenheimer did say right afterwards "I have become death, distorter of worlds." and not in a cute way. It really freaked him out because he knew he had helped end the world. He was sure what he and his people made would kill all of us. I saw an interview with him and it was clear the man was scared although he hide it well but a few questions you can see it show. Wish I could point you to it but this was years ago and on pbs or something so I donno... I'm talking 1994 here...

  18. Oops by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    And yet this is the method they use to determine the exact makeup and temperature and earthiness of a planet lightyears away. Good job, guys.

  19. They already found oil ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    ... and LPG/LNG on Titan. Lakes, if not oceans of it.

  20. Re:Refreshing view from scientists by ae1294 · · Score: 1

    You would think that but wait for it.... You will see....