Slashdot Mirror


NASA Mars Rover Finds Organic Matter in Ancient Lake Bed (theguardian.com)

NASA's veteran Curiosity rover has found complex organic matter buried and preserved in ancient sediments that formed a vast lake bed on Mars more than 3bn years ago. From a report: The discovery is the most compelling evidence yet that long before the planet became the parched world it is today, Martian lakes were a rich soup of carbon-based compounds that are necessary for life, at least as we know it. Researchers cannot tell how the organic material formed and so leave open the crucial question: are the compounds remnants of past organisms; the product of chemical reactions with rocks; or were they brought to Mars in comets or other falling debris that slammed into the surface? All look the same in the tests performed. But whatever the ultimate source of the material, if microbial life did find a foothold on Mars, the presence of organics meant it would not have gone hungry. "We know that on Earth microorganisms eat all sorts of organics. It's a valuable food source for them," said Jennifer Eigenbrode, a biogeochemist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. The Curiosity rover also discovered that methane on the red planet changes with the seasons. The Verge: Where the methane is coming from is still a mystery, but scientists have some ideas, including that microbes may be the source of the gas. Researchers at NASA and other US universities analyzed five years' worth of methane measurements Curiosity took at Gale Crater, where the rover landed in 2012. Curiosity detected background levels of methane of about 0.4 parts per billion, which is a tiny amount. (In comparison, Earth's atmosphere has about 1,800 parts per billion of methane.) Those levels of methane, however, were found to range from 0.2 to about 0.7 parts per billion, with concentrations peaking near the end of the summer in the northern hemisphere, according to a study published today in Science. This seasonal cycle repeated through time and could come from an underground reservoir of methane, the study says. Whether that reservoir is a sign that there is or was life on Mars, however, is impossible to say for now.

148 comments

  1. Imagine finding remains ... by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... of complex life on Mars. Of the sort that screams: "The great filter is still ahead of you guys and it's coming for you too!"

    Ooooh, creeeepy. That would have me scared.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Imagine finding remains ... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Seems unlikely at this point. For the great filter to be ahead of us, they'd need evidence of complex civilizations that outstripped our current one and then collapsed. From all indications, we greatly surpassed Mars. Any new threats are of our own making, or come from the beyond.

    2. Re:Imagine finding remains ... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      You mean like the cretaceous bottleneck?

    3. Re:Imagine finding remains ... by Calydor · · Score: 2

      Looking at your sig, the names of languages (eg. English and German) are capitalized in English. Not ALL words capitalized in German are lowercase in other languages. ;-)

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:Imagine finding remains ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Imagine finding remains ... by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, the headline is a bit misleading. It would have been better to say, "organic compounds" or "organic chemicals" were found on Mars. The phrase "organic matter" is somewhat ambiguous and is suggestive of decomposing Martian bodies.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    6. Re: Imagine finding remains ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like... Please don't cut our funding.

    7. Re:Imagine finding remains ... by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      In fact, it is just a roundabout way of saying that no pesticide was found on mars.

    8. Re:Imagine finding remains ... by quenda · · Score: 1

      Seems unlikely at this point. For the great filter to be ahead of us, they'd need evidence of complex civilizations

      No, anything that eliminates the best candidate for the Great Filter being behind us (ie the development of complex life), increases the chance that the Great filter is ahead of us.

      But there is no point worrying, as there is nothing we can do. If there was even a 1% chance of our greatest minds finding a way around a filter, it would not be the great filter.

      The discovery of simple life would be minor bad news. Many scientists expect that simple life is common in the galaxy.
        But it took a billion years for the first complex cells to appear, and this is our best chance at explaining why we don't see any other intelligent life out there, without concluding that they all destroyed themselves before they could spread between stars, or even send their machines.
          We are getting very close to that point now, so we really want the Great Filter to be behind us. Finding complex life on Europa, even microscopic ones, would tell us we as a species are totally fucked.

    9. Re:Imagine finding remains ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. You're discounting the possibility that moving from single-celled to multi-celled life IS the Great Filter.

      The other problem is that the conclusion that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere is based on the lack of radio transmissions. Maybe intelligent life only sends out radio transmissions for a very short period of their civilization's development.

      Some might say we should see the aliens here in our solar system because it would only take millions of years to spread throughout the galaxy at the speed of light. My counter to that is: what if they decided the best way to spread throughout the galaxy was to spread their microbes and let them evolve to adapt to the various environments, aka panspermia.

    10. Re:Imagine finding remains ... by quenda · · Score: 1

      You're discounting the possibility that moving from single-celled to multi-celled life IS the Great Filter.

      I think you misread. I said that the move to "complex" life may be the most likely known possible great filter.

      But "multi-celled" is definitely not it. Life went from single to multi-cell many times independently. "Complex" life refers to eukaryotes (plant & animal cells), as compared to bacteria.

      The other problem is ...

      There is way more to it that that, AC. Go read if you are interested. All those obvious points have been addresses many times.

  2. I hope I'm alive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope I'm alive when we discover life on another plant - even if it's just microbes.

    1. Re:I hope I'm alive. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      it doesn't seem likely ANYBODY will discover life on another planet...

      Not true. We will likely find life on exoplanets soon. We just need some improvements in spectroscopy so that we get detect molecular oxygen in their atmospheres as they occlude their mother star. That is a sure sign of life. Other than photosynthesis, there is no other plausible explanation for high levels of O2.

      The James Webb Space Telescope will launch in May 2020, and can do atmospheric spectroscopy. We may get our first sign of exolife shortly after.

    2. Re:I hope I'm alive. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Because of the presence of water, Europa and Enceladus are better possible places to look. We’re focusing on Mars right now because it’s the easiest candidate place to reach.

    3. Re:I hope I'm alive. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That isn't discovering life, that is discovering evidence of something that may be caused by life. He is right, we aren't ever likely to actually find life since we have no way of observing it directly.

    4. Re: I hope I'm alive. by tsa · · Score: 1

      I hope I'm alive when we discover life on another plant - even if it's just microbes.
      Thereâ(TM)s life on every plant.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    5. Re:I hope I'm alive. by jwhyche · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Given we are not leaving the solar system, ever,

      Wrong!

      it doesn't seem likely ANYBODY will discover life on another planet

      Wrong! I'm sensing a pattern here.

      We are marooned here for the duration of our survival, which will be either until we destroy ourselves, or the Sun takes care of it as it expands and fries earth to a crisp before the end of 5 billion more years.

      Wrong!

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    6. Re:I hope I'm alive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't seem likely. Mars was the best option and it's not panning out.

      To be fair most of the Mars probes have not had the right equipment to look for life, only for organics.

      But the European Space Agency (ESA) has a rover in the works that will be equipped to look for microfossils, so it is possible that Europe will find the first signs of life beyond the Earth in the 2020's.

    7. Re:I hope I'm alive. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Doesn't seem likely. Mars was the best option and it's not panning out. Europa is about the only other option but that's a slim chance. Given we are not leaving the solar system, ever, it doesn't seem likely ANYBODY will discover life on another planet... We are marooned here for the duration of our survival, which will be either until we destroy ourselves, or the Sun takes care of it as it expands and fries earth to a crisp before the end of 5 billion more years.

      You're just a ray of sunshine aren't you? ;-)

    8. Re:I hope I'm alive. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      With science, unlike mathematics, there is never certain proof. All we ever have is evidence. Once the degree of uncertainty is small enough, it is a discovery.

    9. Re:I hope I'm alive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure is! We're toast long before the Sun engulfs the Earth. The oceans will have evaporated long before then and the atmosphere will have been stripped away. The Red Giant Sol will just burn up the evidence.

      Cheers!

    10. Re:I hope I'm alive. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      There's probably no life on planets in the solar system, but there's a good chance of life in many planets and moons. Even Pluto may have a subsurface ocean teaming with life (though it's not the best candidate). Keep in mind most of Earth's life is below the surface too.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    11. Re:I hope I'm alive. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      But will the uncertainty diminish enough, using just spectroscopy, to consider the presence of certain gasses or compounds evidence of life? That seems shaky, and subject to confirmation bias. As much as I would love to find some form of extraterrestrial life, I also have to acknowledge that it's possible there is none, at least in this system.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    12. Re:I hope I'm alive. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      With science, unlike mathematics, there is never certain proof.

      If some Martian dude were to walk up to Curiosity, tap on the camera's lens and say "Hey there!" - I'd say that would constitute proof.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    13. Re:I hope I'm alive. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Stick around for the next decade and you'll get to experience First Contact starting around ~2024.

      Regardless of how life is (re)discovered either way we'll be forced to re-examine every belief we have -- especially our sacred cows aka Dogma in Science, Politics, Religion, Money, etc. -- which in our case is a good thing consider how much of a spiritual immature teenager the planet behaves.
      e.g.
          Animals have figured out how to live on this planet for Millions of years without money and yet we _still_ can't figure out basic shit like this???

      As one alien said:

          You mean you have to pay to live on the planet you were born on?!?!

      Humans aren't exactly the sharpest species in the galaxy -- which is understandable considering we've only been here for ~200,000 years. But still ... progress feels S-L-O-W. Hell, just 2,000 years ago some guy said:

          Love everyone unconditionally, don't judge.

      And he got nailed to a tree because he threatened the false profits -- the status quo of the Pharisees profiting off the murder of animals.

      These days (almost) every government and corporation would rather sell your personal data to each other -- all to make a quick buck. At least we don't burnt at the stake for having heretical, aka, original, thoughts.

    14. Re:I hope I'm alive. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem likely.

      Personally I'm going to wait until we've surveyed more than 2 of the hundreds of billions of (projected) planets in our galaxy alone before I make a call.

    15. Re:I hope I'm alive. by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      we aren't ever likely to actually find life since we have no way of observing it directly

      Think bigger than the some number of decades you have left.

    16. Re:I hope I'm alive. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Given we are not leaving the solar system, ever

      Did you know that the human species will go on after you die?

    17. Re:I hope I'm alive. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      So, I'm flamebait but the OP, which is clearly a Troll is just fine? Very well, that is fine.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    18. Re:I hope I'm alive. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      If some Martian dude were to walk up to Curiosity, tap on the camera's lens and say "Hey there!" - I'd say that would constitute proof.

      An English speaking Martian? It would be far more likely that the comm channel was hacked by a prankster.

    19. Re:I hope I'm alive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect it's discovering something that as far as we know can only be caused by life.

      By contrast if we saw a stone statue of a money that would be less direct evidence for life as it might just be some really weird coincidence caused by erosion and fracture liens in the stone, rather than proof there existed a living thing to sculpt the statue.

    20. Re:I hope I'm alive. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Given we are not leaving the solar system, ever

      Did you know that the human species will go on after you die?

      Physics... We are stuck here or Einstein was wrong... No way biological life survives an trip to another star. It takes too long at physically possible speeds.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    21. Re:I hope I'm alive. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Survey? How exactly? Dial them up on the radio? Look at them though a telescope?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    22. Re:I hope I'm alive. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem likely. Mars was the best option and it's not panning out. Europa is about the only other option but that's a slim chance. Given we are not leaving the solar system, ever, it doesn't seem likely ANYBODY will discover life on another planet... We are marooned here for the duration of our survival, which will be either until we destroy ourselves, or the Sun takes care of it as it expands and fries earth to a crisp before the end of 5 billion more years.

      You're just a ray of sunshine aren't you? ;-)

      Ah, you have an issue with this? Makes you depressed to know the 2nd law of thermodynamics condemns all you survey to heat death? It's truth, sorry you don't like it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    23. Re:I hope I'm alive. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      it doesn't seem likely ANYBODY will discover life on another planet...

      Not true. We will likely find life on exoplanets soon. We just need some improvements in spectroscopy so that we get detect molecular oxygen in their atmospheres as they occlude their mother star. That is a sure sign of life. Other than photosynthesis, there is no other plausible explanation for high levels of O2.

      The James Webb Space Telescope will launch in May 2020, and can do atmospheric spectroscopy. We may get our first sign of exolife shortly after.

      Ah, such grand assumptions, so little time..

      What you may find is organic compounds, which only proves that conditions similar to what we know can host life exists, not that actual life does. So you see methane in the atmosphere, that doesn't mean life exists only that there is carbon there.

      I think we assume that life is somehow easy, just find the right ingredients and you must have a cake.. I don't think we fully understand how unique earth may actually be or what the full recipe for life actually was. And just like throwing all the ingredients into an oven is unlikely to produce a cake, just verifying all the ingredients are there doesn't mean life is. Earth is *really* unique among the known planets in all sorts of very important ways. The magnetic field, our water content, length of our day/year, the tilt of our rotation axis, how circular our orbit around the sun is, the moon and it's size and orbit... These things are *very* important parts of the recipe and many are unique to our planet.

      Seems to me we simply don't know enough yet to decide how likely life is or isn't, we don't fully understand the role of all this stuff in life, if it's a necessary part or just a unique thing we have.... Looking closer at possible habitable planets outside our solar system is a good idea, but I don't see how isolating spectral lines gives you more than telling you the ingredients may be there. Which isn't going to really prove life is there but could eliminate places it cannot be.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    24. Re:I hope I'm alive. by muecksteiner · · Score: 1

      Not if the guys have electronics. In that case they will have been watching our TV programs for the past few decades, and a few of their nerds might be quite fluent in English. And guess who they would send to tap on that lens?

    25. Re:I hope I'm alive. by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Generation ships though, right?

    26. Re: I hope I'm alive. by jd · · Score: 1

      In 2024, the Square Kilometre Array will be fully online.

      It will be capable of establishing active life on another planet, even at the microbial level, up to around 100 light-years away. If we have detected no life at all by 2030, assuming the telescope allows the data to be analyzed for it, then there is no life to detect.

      If there is life out there, we have a decent chance of finding it by 2025 and it's a near-certainty by 2030.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    27. Re:I hope I'm alive. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I see you point, but you didn't provide any kind of substantive rebuttal. You just gainsaid the OP's statements. I'm sure you're better than that, and you can show it.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    28. Re:I hope I'm alive. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Physics... We are stuck here or Einstein was wrong...

      Think long term- what will we be capable of in 10,000 years?

      Robotic ships that grow humans when they arrive.
      Ships that are able to support generations of humans.
      A ship housing uploaded humans.
      Humans with extended lifespans.
      Cryogenic sleep or some other form of suspended animation.
      A ship crewed with human-built AI (does this qualify as "we"?).

      That, and we have an incomplete understanding of physics. I wouldn't say there's zero chance we'll develop FTL.

    29. Re:I hope I'm alive. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I would have expected it to oxidize the iron on the planet's surface (and everything else) until after billions of years, there wouldn't be much free oxygen left, but apparently, if a planet has enough titanium oxide, that might not be the case.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    30. Re:I hope I'm alive. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Point taken. I should have done better than that. Lets see if I can.

      The over all point of the original post was that we will never find life on another planet because we will never leave the solar system. I will now explain why he is wrong.

      People do not realize how advanced our technology really is. If we pulled together all our technology from all areas, and tossed some untried technology but technology that we are reasonably sure will work we could launch a interstellar ship that could reach our nearest star in 40 years. The untried technology that I'm thinking about is the Orion space drive that could theoretically reach 10% the speed of light.

      If we look at theoretical technology that exists only on paper but we are reasonably sure will work with some work, we could launch ships to every star with in say, 20 light years in a few decades. I'm thinking of fusion drives where we could potentially reach 20% the speed of light.

      It is not technology that restricts us to earth and our star system, it's economics. Launching any such star ship would probably bankrupt the world economy but that will not always be the case.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    31. Re:I hope I'm alive. by balbeir · · Score: 1

      Not if the guys have electronics. In that case they will have been watching our TV programs for the past few decades, and a few of their nerds might be quite fluent in English. And guess who they would send to tap on that lens?

      Musk ?

    32. Re:I hope I'm alive. by enrique556 · · Score: 1

      But the colony sent to those places will not survive very long, if they successfully reach their destinations at all.

      We currently have the tech to lauch a rocket of some one or two dozen hapless humans at Mars, but that is a far cry from saying we have the tech to set up a self-sustaining colony on mars that could potentially grow to millions of people and last thousands of years.

      We don't even have anyone living permanently in Antarctica, where the magnetosphere protects them from harsh radiation, the air is breathable and the gravity is what they're evolved to tolerate.

      If we can get 10,000 people living in Antarctica for 50 years without any contact with the rest of the world, that would be far more meaningful than being able to launch a rocket with people in it at some distant rock.

    33. Re:I hope I'm alive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trains will kill you. It's the speed, you see. You'll suffocate.

    34. Re:I hope I'm alive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope I'm alive when we discover life on another plant - even if it's just microbes.

      Another plant? No problem. Buy a plant and you should discover some aphids.

    35. Re:I hope I'm alive. by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Proxima Centauri is 4.25 ly from earth. So with an ideal power source we could get there in just 5 years at close to C, 10 years at 0.5C, 20 years at 0.25C and 40 years at 0.125C. This last speed is the only one that is (close to) a theoretical possibility for us right now (nuclear pulse or fission fragment among others), but that is only because we don't have a viable space drive yet.

      Where's the math to back up your statements? There is nothing in Einstein's equations that limits us from traveling to other nearby stars. Einstein does limit us from traveling to stars more than say 20-30 light years away in a single human lifetime, but there are a lot of stars within 30 light years. Including Gliese 581.

      For the rest we would need generation ships which isn't a terribly big deal. Light speed is not really the problem. The problem is how to continuously accelerate a spacecraft long enough to get to high relativistic speeds.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    36. Re:I hope I'm alive. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Have we found possibly habitable planets with 30 light years?

      First off, we don't have the ability to go 1/2 C. If E=MC**2, and the only "drive" method we have in space is the equal and opposite reaction kind (where we emit mass one direction to go the other) then a couple of things are true. It's going to take a huge vessel to carry even a small crew that far and the energy required to sustain the crew is going to be massive. It's going to take a MASSIVE amount of fuel/mass to get up to speed and get slowed down when you arrive, and if you intend to return, it's going to be more than double that, meaning the vessel is going to be downright huge. Remember, we live in a huge gravity well that we have to climb out of, both on earth and in the solar system and that takes a LOT of fuel...

      Second off, if we don't find a way to get around this drive method, using the acceleration of mass one way to go another, it's going to make the attempt to leave the solar system doomed to fail. Ship sizes will be too big and transit times too long and the effects of weightlessness and radiation will kill any complex life forms aboard long before getting anyplace interesting. Even microbes will face extinction unless the shielding is absolutely massive, which brings more weight and more fuel required.

      You see, it's a catch 22 kind of thing. Once you start adding up weights, even with really aggressive high impulse assumptions from your fuel mass, things start getting so big and massive that it just becomes too large to be possible... Then you have the transit time restrictions of a few decades and it starts to look even less possible because that just multiplies your fuel requirement by orders of magnitude. No way we could assemble a vessel this size, provision it within a reasonable time and keep it working long enough to get to someplace interesting, much less get back.

      The ONLY way out of this is to invent some kind of drive that's not based on accelerating a mass and ejecting it one way to go the other. I know of no theory, no physics, no engineering of any such propulsion system. THIS is the problem we need to solve, or we are STUCK here. So far, there are no theories from physics that indicate this is possible. So put your physics hat on and get cracking, until you come up with a whole now physical model of the universe, one that allows for a drive system that doesn't need to eject mass to push something along in space, Until then, I'm right, we are stuck here.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    37. Re:I hope I'm alive. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The basic problem here is rocket science... Eject mass one way to push you the other.

      The issue is mass and how fast can you accelerate it as you push it out the back. Right now, Ion rockets are about as efficient as we can get, but they "burn" fuel that is hard to find (xenon gas) and pretty expensive to obtain because it's limited concentrations on earth. Finding billions of tons of this stuff would be impossible from known sources and it's going to take billions of tons of this to get any kind of reasonably sized vessel any place we'd want to go with current technology.

      We need something else, some other kind of propulsion technology that doesn't depend on ejecting mass to push the vessel forward. When you have something, call me. Until then, none of what you propose will matter because the transit times will be too long or the fuel requirements too massive.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    38. Re:I hope I'm alive. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Still not possible...

      The issue is the mass of "fuel" required as we are limited to ejecting mass to accelerate. You need enough to get the vessel out of the solar system and up to speed with enough left over to stop and descend into the gravity well of the solar system you are visiting. Then add the mass for the return fuel if you don't want a one way trip... Even for a really small craft and really high impulse from your fuel's mass, the mass required is huge.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    39. Re:I hope I'm alive. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      When you have something, call me.

      I don't think you understand the difference between not being capable of something now, and not being capable of it ever. Did you think people were suggesting that we were capable of leaving the solar system today?

    40. Re:I hope I'm alive. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      When you have something, call me.

      I don't think you understand the difference between not being capable of something now, and not being capable of it ever. Did you think people were suggesting that we were capable of leaving the solar system today?

      I'm claiming that the laws of physics as currently known preclude our leaving the solar system, ever... I'm not so naive to assume that the laws of physics are 100% understood, but I'm pretty confident that we have a pretty reasonable handle on the physics involved in rocket science. I am not aware of any possible technologies that fit within the current laws of physics, even conceptual ones, that allow us to leave this solar system. Thus, I claim we are stuck here for the duration.

      So, do you have any physics theories we need to change or refine that might allow this? No? Ok, Call me if/when you do, but I don't expect to hear from you.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    41. Re:I hope I'm alive. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      So, do you have any physics theories we need to change or refine that might allow this? No? Ok, Call me if/when you do, but I don't expect to hear from you.

      If you can't be bothered to even read my previous response, what are we doing here? There are many ways for us to get to other star system that don't require FTL drives or the existence of travelable worm holes. Scroll up to expand your mind.

    42. Re:I hope I'm alive. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Well first of all the original post was that we would never find extraterrestrial life because we will never leave the solar system. I hope that my post response how incorrect that was. Nothing in ether post was anything said about a colony.

      With that being said, I think your post has merit. At 10% the speed of light with a 80 year round trip time to Alpha Centari I believe we can assume that a ship going there will be a one way trip. It would be inhuman and waste full to spend such resources without the end goal of establishing a colony there.

      I'm going to disagree with you with the technology to set up a colony. Launching a ship with on a 40 year voyage will clearly need to be a self sustaining colony on its own. Again we have that technology. We are capable of growing food stuff in a green house. With genetic modification we could even modify any plants we send to grow specifically in artificial environments. The reason so many colonies failed on Earth in the early days of colonization of America was because crops failed due to weather and other environmental factors. Growing food in a artificial environment will completely remove any chance from the growing environment.

      Establishing a colony on Mars would use the same technology. In fact building a colony on Mars would be easier than building one on a starship. Most of the resources you need are already there. You have CO2, water, and soil. All just need to be processed for plants to grow. Again, we have the technology, we just don't have the economic resources to pull it off.

      As for a colony in Antarctica. It would be cheaper to establish such a colony but I doubt it would be easier for it to be self sufficient as a Mars colony. Virtually all the resources that you need to sustain a colony in Antarctica are locked under 2 KM of ice. Virtually all raw materials for everything will need to be imported. Besides, we don't need colonies in Antarctica. We need to establish off world colonies soon as possible. You know, "having all our eggs in one basket", kind of thing.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    43. Re:I hope I'm alive. by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Well, it's obviously a one-way trip, unless you can build another ship when you get there. Plenty of people have left on one-way trips, exploring the unknown, in the past.

      Still, the fuel thing is... pesky. Is it possible to pick up material on the way somehow?

    44. Re:I hope I'm alive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unique to our planet? Maybe you just don't realise how many planets there are.
      Even on our planet those things changed and life is still here.

    45. Re:I hope I'm alive. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Ring Ring .. here is your wake up call.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Please take the time to read the linked to article. The part that proves you wrong is under Theoretical applications. Freeman Dyson, a man who is probably way smarter than both of us, clearly shows that a mission to Alpha Centauri is possible in just over 40 years with a Orion drive system at 10% light speed.

      Since your argument seems to be based on the mass required to get a star ship up to the speed required. That being the mass of the fuel. There are plans that will work where the ship doesn't have to carry the fuel on board.

      One of these plans is the send the fuel ahead of the ship. The fuel would be launched ahead of the ship. The ship as it accelerates would over take each fuel package. It is called a acceleration trail.

      Another method would denseness with fuel and reaction mass all together. In system lasers, big honking lasers, would be used to push a starship to a star using a version of the solar sail plan.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    46. Re:I hope I'm alive. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Orion drive? Just so the unknowing reader understands what this is.. Orion drive is basically blowing up a long series of nuclear blasts behind your vehicle and "riding the wave" of particles and radiation.

      Problem for this method of propulsion is obvious and not so obvious. Nuclear fission is pretty energetic, and if you boost the event with fusion you can get quite a bit of energy out of a small device. The problem here is channeling the energy to push you in the desired direction. To get the best push, you need to keep the detonation close, but because of the intense radiation released, you will need a lot of shielding to absorb this energy (to better capture the push) AND protect the crew. Radiation shielding is basically mass. Lead, water, uranium other heavy dense things are what you need for it. This will make your ship MASSIVE.... Needing a lot more fuel, needing more fuel to get all that mass and fuel moving....

      Radiation kills, pretty much everything, if you expose living things to it long enough, and it's REALLY hard to shield a vessel from just the background radiation in space so you cannot just skip the shielding stuff and hope for the best..

      Not even the Orion Drive System gets you to Alpha Centauri with a reasonably sized crew alive....Just not possible because of the size of the ship required to house enough fuel/supplies and shielding isn't possible to build. And who want's to go to AC anyway? Nothing of much interest there that we could possibly land on even temporally.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    47. Re:I hope I'm alive. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      A link was provided in the original post. A unknown reader can do the research for themselves and make up their own mind.

      Lets take you, an unimaginative slashdot poster with little understanding of the discussion at hand. Who says it can't be done. Yet can't or won't produce any evidence to back up his clam.

      Then we have Freeman Dyson. Probably one of the most brilliant man alive. A world renown physicist and mathematician. A man who say not only is it possible, has done the math to back it up.

      So, which of you two do you think we should go with? Yeah, I think we'll go with Freeman Dyson on this one.

      As for Alpha Centauri , there is evidence of a earth size planet in the habitual zone of Alpha Centauri B. Taking the data from the reports I dropped it into Universal Sandbox and created a model of the system. I found it is possible for a planet to be in the habitual zone and have a stable orbit.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    48. Re:I hope I'm alive. by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Still, the fuel thing is... pesky. Is it possible to pick up material on the way somehow?

      Why yest there is. Many years ago I read a paper about a ship designed to go to Alpha Centauri. From what I remember the project looked pretty do able. I can't find a copy of the paper online now but I did save it in a pdf and have it some where.

      One of the things that has stuck with me for a number of years is how the author came up with a solution to the fuel problem. "Pellets" of fuel would be launched from the home system at speeds slightly slower than what the ship should be going when it catches up to the fuel pellet. The author called it an "acceleration trail" or something like that.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    49. Re:I hope I'm alive. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      You made no attempt to explain why the GP (who could very well be right) might be wrong.

      You contributed nothing to the discussion.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  3. Thats cool. by zippo01 · · Score: 0

    Neat!

  4. Yeah, and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's also CO2 in the atmosphere and iron oxide in the ground. Yipee.

    1. Re: Yeah, and? by jd · · Score: 1

      Those are lowest energy state. Organics rarely are. Complex organics never are.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  5. Been waiting for this my whole life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The discovery of organic matter on Mars is such a monumental milestone of the human race. Knowing that there were other organisms, regardless of whether they originated here or there, or whether life here may even have originated there, or there and then came here and after all these years goes back there, is akin to knowing the mind of God. The discovery of organic matter in the fossils on Mars is something that I will be able to tell my kids and my kids' kids about where I was at the time. Well done my scientist friends.

    1. Re:Been waiting for this my whole life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even bother reading past the headline, fool? No current or ex-organisms were found, just organic matter. Try actually READING THE ARTICLE before shooting your mouth off.

    2. Re:Been waiting for this my whole life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a typical Space Nutter post. Fact-free, embarrassing, pseudo-religious sci-fi dreck from a pablum-minded fool.

    3. Re:Been waiting for this my whole life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "discovery of organic matter in the fossils on Mars"

      Wait, what?! They found FOSSILS on Mars?!?! Whoa!!

    4. Re:Been waiting for this my whole life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Um, what? Are we reading the same story?

      Yes, but many people don't know their basic chemistry.

      "Organic," in chemistry terms, is the study of all the fun things Carbon does.
      "Organic," in the minds of many, means "non-GMO farming."

      As you can see, there is a lot of difference in the scope and implications of those two categories. Someone reading a NASA release and thinking in terms of their soy latte will reach a false interpretation of the terms used.

      As a mild reminder, carbon does loads of fun things even when not directed by enormously complicated carbon-based carbon-shaping machine (with repair and self-building features!), and methane is a pretty simple organic molecule. Sauturn's moon Titan is covered in simple and complex organic molecules bonding and breaking through processes guided primarily by local temperature and the dim sunlight.

    5. Re:Been waiting for this my whole life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, what?! They found FOSSILS on Mars?!?! Whoa!!

      Republicans on Mars? Incredible! Did they also die of willful Treason or something less obvious?

    6. Re:Been waiting for this my whole life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad I wasn't the only one worried that people would start thinking there's a locovore farmer's market (or at least a Whole Foods) on Mars.

    7. Re:Been waiting for this my whole life! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Organic compounds are not life. The discovery just points in that direction. The seasonally varying methane (natural gas to us) is just as interesting.

    8. Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! by tsa · · Score: 1

      I was told by many people that organic molecules made from oil in a factory are different from the same molecules made by plants. No amount of explanation could convince them that that is not true.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    9. Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... the thing is, life is quantum in nature -- and therefore, molecules derived from living sources, have quantum energy.

      Unfortunately, due to the nature of quantum effects, whenever a scientist looks at naturally derived molecules? It is not viewable. It also means that due to the lost energy, which can not be viewed and tasted at the same time, that the molecules are actually subtly *different* in organically derived molecular compounds.

      Of course, again -- sadly, we can't SEE this, for as soon as one attempts to observe quantumly effected molecules? They *change*!

      But we can prove it. Simply go on a diet of biologically derived, NOT man-made derived molecules, and you will be sure to feel the difference. It is true! Look at this product on (href=amazon sponsor link), and you'll feel incredible in no time!

    10. Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! by jeff4747 · · Score: 1, Informative

      I was told by many people that organic molecules made from oil in a factory are different from the same molecules made by plants. No amount of explanation could convince them that that is not true.

      That's because it is true. Because of chirality

      TL:DR version: there are "left hand" and "right hand" versions of virtually every organic molecule. "Hand" refers to the orientation of the various groups of atoms in the molecule. When you make the molecule artificially, you get a 50/50 mix of left-hand and right-hand molecules. Lifeforms on Earth make 100% left-handed versions of molecules, with a few exceptions. In those exceptions, they make 100% right-handed.

      So those molecules made in a factory are actually different than the same molecules made by plants.

      In your defense, chirality doesn't affect the molecule's chemistry. And we have yet to scientifically demonstrate chirality affects how the molecule is processed by a living system (such as eaten and digested). There are claims that right-hand molecules can't be digested properly by humans and that makes things like HFCS bad (50% of the fructose is right-handed). But those aren't proven.

    11. Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I can't pronounce it, I won't eat it. That's why I don't eat quinoa

    12. Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      " And we have yet to scientifically demonstrate chirality affects how the molecule is processed by a living system"

      I hope you're fucking kidding?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      https://academic.oup.com/toxsc...

      To be so spectacularly ignorant and blithely arrogant, you're either an engineer or a doctor?

    13. Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! by jd · · Score: 1

      Economics is a zero-sum game. So is freedom. So is much of life.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    14. Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! by jd · · Score: 2
      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    15. Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And kale is NOT salad, it's the fucking garnish that goes AROUND the salad!

    16. Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How so?

    17. Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      Like the sig, or should that be Spigg?

  6. Krom will be pleased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you referencing the riddle of steel? Steel is weak, boy! Flesh is stronger. -TD

    1. Re:Krom will be pleased by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You're just another snake cult.

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Republican Congress cancelled science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It turns out science was a liberal hoax that didn't align with Republican talking points, so they cancelled it. Scott Pruitt will open a Chick-Fil-a instead and call it the extent of human scientific knowledge. Problem solved.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have expensive furniture to buy on the taxpayer dole.

  9. Car remains? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Are there the remains of a red Tesla roadster scattered around the area?

    1. Re:Car remains? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are there the remains of a red Tesla roadster scattered around the area?

      Was Mars avoidance programmed into the Autopilot braking subroutines?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Car remains? by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Was Mars avoidance programmed into the Autopilot braking subroutines?"

      Yes, but a software update is required to ensure that it will brake in the required distance :-)

    3. Re:Car remains? by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1

      "Was Mars avoidance programmed into the Autopilot braking subroutines?"

      Yes, but a software update is required to ensure that it will brake in the required distance :-)

      I'd like to point out that the name "autopilot" does not relieve the vehicle's operator from duty as he or she should be in command of the vehicle at all times. Any suggestion that this name "autopilot" leads to complacency or that it makes people assume the vehicle is completely autonomous and road worthy are against our terms of service. There are many flashy flashy alerts to say that the person should be in control, not Tesla software. Crucially the user must note that software updates and scheduling of such are solely the responsibility of the car's system administrator. Tesla Motors cannot be held liable for any failure on the part of the administrator to apply critical braking patches and failure to do so should result in the operator not driving the vehicle. Also, the media are just full of crap and they should know better than to criticise an engineering genius and god-like human such as our beloved leader Elon Musk. It is fake news to criticise Tesla, Elon, production figures and or other things that piss Elon off. /sarcasm (Yes, it's necessary)

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    4. Re:Car remains? by BranMan · · Score: 1

      Lighten up Francis!

  10. Re:Trump should be imprisoned on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He has built-in camouflage.

  11. Bobby you don't know anything about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are actually several potential candidates in our solar system alone and many hundreds we haven't even named yet. Bobby your survival isn't important to our species, you're a moron.

  12. Was hoping for more than this by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    This is an important find, and so far as I'm concerned totally validates the effort that's gone into exploring Mars up to this point, but frankly I was hoping they were going to announce they'd found actual lifeforms, or solid evidence lifeforms once existed there. This is a big step towards that but there's too much wiggle-room to conclude Mars has or once had life of any kind on it. More work to do yet I guess! Progress is progress though.

    1. Re:Was hoping for more than this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Earth special in that it is the only planet that has organic compounds on it?

      No.

      I am happy that we know this for sure now. Sure, it is still a long way to go before we are chatting with intelligent extra-terrestrial species....but, another reason to suspect that we might be alone in the universe has just been squashed.

    2. Re:Was hoping for more than this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an important find, and so far as I'm concerned totally validates the effort that's gone into exploring Mars up to this point, but frankly I was hoping they were going to announce they'd found actual lifeforms, or solid evidence lifeforms once existed there.

      As awesome as that may be, they plopped two wee little rovers onto a planet, one of which is still chugging along through what can only be described as some serious ingenuity, and a determined little robot which has way outlived its original mission by years, and which has travelled less distance in six years than I do on my morning commute.

      Let's not lose sight of the fact that we're even still getting science back from it is incredible, or forget that for it to have found something like this is a pretty long-odds thing.

      I can't even begin to express my thanks and admiration to the NASA team who have pulled this off. To me, this is one of the most astounding feats of engineering we've accomplished as a species.

      If anybody reading this has any direct means of communicating this to the people involved ... wow, thanks for doing such amazing things, you truly uplift and inspire many of us.

    3. Re: Was hoping for more than this by tsa · · Score: 1

      Problem is: you canâ(TM)t prove that Mars never had life. Even if we search until mankind has become extinct: if we didnâ(TM)t find substantial proof that never means Mars doesnâ(TM)t or didnâ(TM)t have life.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    4. Re:Was hoping for more than this by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      That's pretty technically difficult, even on Earth it was only relatively recently that we discovered how common archaea are since they generally can't be cultured. We'll probably need to bring samples back or send very well equipped humans there before we can definitively state that we've found Martian life.

    5. Re:Was hoping for more than this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait for the ESA's 2020 Mars Rover which will be designed to search for life. That will be the first time we have a strong chance of finding it because landers and rovers so far did not have the right instrumentation.

    6. Re: Was hoping for more than this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is, besides your horrific character set, that's not how science works. You can't prove Mars never had giraffes on it either, does that mean Mars had giraffes?

    7. Re: Was hoping for more than this by jd · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes you can.

      Life always alters the geology and chemistry of a planet, even if it's microbial. And it does so in ways that aren't going to occur in any other way.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re: Was hoping for more than this by jd · · Score: 1

      You don't need to find the life. NASA engineers established, back in the 60s, that it alters the geology and chemistry of the planet. If you find a discontinuity in the geology for which there's no non-living mechanism, you have established there was life.

      Life necessarily creates an n-way dynamic equilibrium at a moderate energy state. You always get two or more streams of molecules that cannot coexist but whose ratio is fluctuating around a non-zero value. Non-life always tends to a static equilibrium of the lowest energy state. You don't get local negative entropy in non-living chemistry, so although you can produce unstable molecules, you can't produce a range of such molecules that react with each other.

      Organics is not surprising, they're found on comets and in interstellar clouds. For all we know, these were brought to Mars by comets. The chirality will be interesting, but what is important is what is beneath them. That's protected geology that dates to a time life could have been supported. That's where you want to look for interesting molecules.

      However, the organics might be helpful. There may be a point where there's a fairly thick sludge that could have trapped bubbles from the early atmosphere, or loose rocks. Something that can tell us about aspects of conditions that overall geology can't.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  13. Maybe rover/curiousity took by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some microbes with them and they are starting to take root.

  14. The Word Organic [Re:Been waiting for this...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

    "Organic," in chemistry terms, is the study of all the fun things Carbon does.
    "Organic," in the minds of many, means "non-GMO farming."

    As you can see, there is a lot of difference in the scope and implications of those two categories.

    And "organic" in the original sense of the word, "relating to or derived from living matter."

    (cf: https://dictionary.cambridge.o...)

    I think that this is the confusion here. "Organic" molecules, originally, meant molecules which were derived from living matter. But after 1828, when Friedrich Wöhler first synthesized Urea (an organic molecule), it was realized that the carbon molecules labelled "organic" could also be created by non-biological means. The word continues to have both meanings, chemists using it to mean molecules containing carbon, and non-chemists using it to mean molecules derived from living organisms (and, more recently, foods grown without technological intervention.)

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:The Word Organic [Re:Been waiting for this...] by careysub · · Score: 1

      The word continues to have both meanings, chemists using it to mean molecules containing carbon...

      More precisely molecules containing carbon-hydrogen bonds. CO2 contains carbon, but is considered inorganic.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    2. Re:The Word Organic [Re:Been waiting for this...] by TheSync · · Score: 1

      But after 1828, when Friedrich WÃhler first synthesized Urea (an organic molecule), it was realized that the carbon molecules labelled "organic" could also be created by non-biological means.

      Urea!
      I just synthesized Urea!
      And suddenly that compound
      Will never be the same
      To me
      Urea!

  15. Cue David Bowie! by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Life On Mars never gets old.

  16. poor headline by ole_timer · · Score: 1

    organic matter = carbon, not proof of life at all as carbon and methane are all over without life too

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
    1. Re:poor headline by suman28 · · Score: 1, Funny

      quit it!
      Those scientists need the story to hold, so that they can get paid and remain on the job for 30 or 40 years.
      You telling the truth will make them jobless. Is that what you want?

    2. Re:poor headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't logic these poor slobs! Some of them are hoping to find life that doesn't reject them outright somewhere in the universe.

    3. Re:poor headline by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The question is "What does 'complex organic matter' mean?" It's not just carbon, and you wouldn't find methane in a lake bed. It's a gas at Mars STP.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:poor headline by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      the methane wasn't found in the theorized lake bed - read the article again

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    5. Re:poor headline by HiThere · · Score: 1

      OK, here's someone who actually understands what the article was about. It's interesting and informative, but the short is, not enough info to decide about bio-synthesis:
      http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  17. OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the universe full of literally every naturally occurring element? Is it really surprising to find any # of organic compounds, anywhere?

    1. Re:OK? by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      yep...means nothing that Mars has 'em too

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
  18. The Guardian and The Verge? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Direct links to the two papers since our eminent editors can't seem to be bothered to do their job.

    Organic matter preserved in 3-billion-year-old mudstones at Gale crater, Mars

    Background levels of methane in Marsâ(TM) atmosphere show strong seasonal variations

    Posting anonymously to not karma whore.

  19. Rover found genetic material, methane in sedimentary material.

    Sounds like the sewer outside the average slashdotter's house!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re: Hydro by jd · · Score: 1

      No, it didn't. If you're going to try for satire, make it accurate.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  20. With Blathering Bill, unlike an actual expert... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill offers nothing but his owl self-licked asshole smearing his craven self-important ideology into sectors he knows nothing about, like science and mathematics and law, most other things he blathers about fecklessly. (Cunt.)

  21. Space pirate! by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    They found what's left of Matt Damon's potato garden

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  22. Too much to expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It must be too much to expect /. to actually get into the specifics of what was measured, since that would be far, far too "technical" and above the heads of 99.9% of /. readers. Martian methane isn't news. Other organic compounds isn't news. So, the stupid (literally) post failed to state what the news actually was. Epic fail. I guess I need to go elsewhere to get content worth reading.

    1. Re:Too much to expect by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, one article linked above seemed to indicate that about all the determined was the melting, or possibly sublimation, temperature and possibly the mass. Some of the stuff they tested for "does it contain sulfur?", It also sounded like they tested, somehow, for carbon rings. This is wildly out of my area of expertise, and someone whose organic chem was a few decades closer than mine could probably have gotten a lot more out of it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  23. Coal On Mars! Does Trump Know? by careysub · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    When the samples reached 500 to 820C, the rover’s instruments detected a range of so-called aromatic, aliphatic and thiophenic vapours. The science team believes these are breakdown products of even larger organic molecules, similar to those found in coal, which were trapped in the Martian rocks in the distant past.

    Clearly we need to create a permanent base of Mars to stake our claim to Martian coal!

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  24. Sorry to disappoint you all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just needed somewhere REALLY private to jack it.

  25. The Guardian (UK) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "When the samples [were heated to] 500 to 820C, the rover’s instruments detected a range of so-called aromatic, aliphatic and thiophenic vapours. The science team believes these are breakdown products of even larger organic molecules, similar to those found in coal, which were trapped in the Martian rocks in the distant past."
    Article also mentions sample was from "mere centimeters" under surface. For decades there was debate about the origin of coal and oil (petroleum) on Earth. One camp said it (or a large fraction of it) was primogenic, from the methane captured and trapped as the Earth formed. While the other camp said it was only from biological processes. So, just as on Earth, they won't be able to differentiate between biological petrochemicals and abiological petrochemicals. That is, not with the equipment that is currently available there.
    You spell life CHONSP. Those elements are thought to be necessary (not necessarily sufficient) for life. We already knew that Cl, and S and C and H and O (and N) were present. Where's the CHON compounds. Proteins, DNA, RNA, all have N present. Any article that describes Mars ancient oceans as a "soup" signals an enormous bias. It was (thought to be) a brine, not (necessarily) a soup.

    1. Re: The Guardian (UK) by jd · · Score: 1

      Silicon words, you don't need carbon.
      The Goldstein-Hoyle theory of heavy oils has long been falsified.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  26. Shotgun DNA sequencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the next thing, is to send up molecular biology analysis equipment like a DNA sequencer with all of the appropriate sample prep.

    This seems like a perfect application for "shotgun sequencing" to digitally reconstruct the organisms, assuming that other simpler detection methods check out for amino acids, etc.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_sequencing

    1. Re:Shotgun DNA sequencing by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      They found organic molecules, not DNA. The headline is wrong.

    2. Re:Shotgun DNA sequencing by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      And methane... but you know, there are huge clouds of methane in the universe, it's not like it's all created by biological processes. "Organic" as in "organic chemistry" doesn't necessary imply "produced by living organisms".

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Shotgun DNA sequencing by volvox_voxel · · Score: 1

      Foolish of me, I got too excited. I read that you cant extract DNA from from fossil fuel for example. https://www.reddit.com/r/asksc...

      It looks like they don't have the instrumentation to detect complex organic molecules - What kind of instruments would we need to detect this?What are the limits of detection, and what can you put on a rover? Would nMRI work? FTIR..? I'd love to read from the perspective of an analytical chemist.

      " . When the samples reached 500 to 820C, the rover’s instruments detected a range of so-called aromatic, aliphatic and thiophenic vapours. The science team believes these are breakdown products of even larger organic molecules, similar to those found in coal"

  27. Shotgun DNA sequencing by volvox_voxel · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the next thing, is to send up molecular biology analysis equipment like a DNA sequencer with all of the appropriate sample prep.

    This seems like a perfect application for "shotgun sequencing" to digitally reconstruct the organisms, assuming that other simpler detection methods check out for amino acids, etc.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  28. Organic Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the very least It's great to see our martian friends don't like using pesticides on their matter either. Good for them!

  29. Or even "carbon" by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Chemists know what organic compound means (somewhat), but to a significant percentage of the population organic means "natural". Heck even chemists can't agree on a definition of "organic compound". Maybe "carbon" would have been more specific and therefore more clear, if that's what is meant.

    Of course, a certain percentage of Slashdot readers would think "carbon" means "omg Martians were burning fossil fuels and destroyed their planet by global warming", but I guess no wording is completely idiot proof.

    1. Re:Or even "carbon" by mentil · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's got what carbon-based microbes crave. It's got organic compounds!

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  30. Mars colonization just started by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    they discovered organic mater ... next step a drilling rig.

  31. That's nothing! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    We all remember NASA's best announcement of findings on Mars: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap0...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  32. Dana Carvey's "Wrong!" would jazz that up by Babel-17 · · Score: 1
  33. Detecting complex molecules question by volvox_voxel · · Score: 1

    I spoke to a biochemist from my work about the limits of detection for complex molecules, and me mentioned that you need something like a mass spectrometer to detect mass, and a gas chromatography to detect structure. I just read that curiosity rover has this, but am unsure of it's limitations.

    What are the limits to detection in terms of molecule complexity? Any how can you unambiguously tell that they were generated from life?

    Could polarimetry be used to detect handedness? I've read that over time, most living things on earth have a right-handed optical activity, but over time it becomes more random as a living thing decays. If you took coal, would the optical activity be 50%50% for right and left handedness?

  34. Re:The Guardian and The Verge? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you. The summary was useless and so were the links.The primary question is what organic matter? Which compounds? Your link answers the main question.

  35. Why so surprised? by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    It's a cool discovery but shouldn't be surprising. The planet DID have water on it long ago. And still does albeit in not as large amounts and mostly frozen.

  36. Chemistry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it wasn't Hawaii spewing out all those CFC's, they just spontaneously formed up in the atmosphere by themselves.