Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NASA's Mars News Is Not Life, But Perchlorate

Posted by kdawson on Mon Aug 04, 2008 09:01 PM
from the somewhat-less-than-alive dept.
leighklotz writes "In an update to the little green men story of not-life-on-Mars, NASA has twittered: 'The buzz this weekend was due to an interesting soil chemistry finding, still preliminary, but now avail here:' where 'here' is NASA Spacecraft Analyzing Martian Soil Data. The exciting bit: 'Within the last month, two samples have been analyzed by the Wet Chemistry Lab of the spacecraft's Microscopy, Electrochemistry, and Conductivity Analyzer, or MECA, suggesting one of the soil constituents may be perchlorate, a highly oxidizing substance.' Also, 'NASA will hold a media teleconference on Tuesday, Aug. 5, at 2 p.m. EDT, to discuss these recent science activities.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] White House Briefed On "Potential For Life" On Mars 610 comments
Veeoh writes "FTA: It would appear that the US President has been briefed by Phoenix scientists about the discovery of something more 'provocative' than the discovery of water existing on the Martian surface. This news comes just as the Thermal and Evolved Gas Analyzer (TEGA) confirmed experimental evidence for the existence of water in the Mars regolith on Thursday."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Perhaps I'm missing something obvious here, but how seriously are they considering the possibility of contamination? Because unless I'm remembering something wrong, perchlorates are most excellent oxidizers and hence commonly used in, oh, say, solid rocket fuel, among other things.
    • Re:Contamination? (Score:5, Informative)

      by smolloy (1250188) on Monday August 04 2008, @09:08PM (#24475479)

      These are intermediate results, and should be treated as such. From TFA,

      The team also is working to totally exonerate any possibility of the perchlorate readings being influenced by terrestrial sources which may have migrated from the spacecraft, either into samples or into the instrumentation.

      • by vrmlguy (120854) <`samwyse' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday August 05 2008, @06:16AM (#24477981) Homepage Journal

        These are intermediate results, and should be treated as such. From TFA,

        The team also is working to totally exonerate any possibility of the perchlorate readings being influenced by terrestrial sources which may have migrated from the spacecraft, either into samples or into the instrumentation.

        Wouldn't it be amusing if some joker, before launch, had sprinkled a handful of dirt into the analysis chambers? (And by "amusing", I mean in the "How close do you think I can steer this ocean liner to that iceberg?" sort of way.)

    • Re:Contamination? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MagusSlurpy (592575) on Monday August 04 2008, @09:13PM (#24475519) Homepage
      You are right, and generally, the Space Shuttle missions are launched using 2 solid-fuel rockets, composed primarily of ammonium perchlorate, so it is certainly a possibility; but one should consider that if the probe itself is contaminated, it should be detecting perchlorates in all of the samples. . .
      • Re:Contamination? (Score:5, Informative)

        by richdun (672214) on Monday August 04 2008, @09:33PM (#24475671)

        Eh, maybe. First, Mars missions aren't launched from the SS cargo bay, but often (and virtually always for interplanetary missions) the Delta 2's have solids attached for boosting as well as a solid third stage. But it's rare for launch material to get into a payload. If something did get in, it's likely to be a particle or two, not a whole spray, so it is possible only one sensor was contaminated.

        But we'll hear soon enough. Either that, or that perchlorate was left by some gooey, amoeba-looking alien of the week that feeds on salt...

      • Re:Contamination? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Gazzonyx (982402) on Monday August 04 2008, @09:37PM (#24475701)
        So, how much manufacturing does this stuff need to be a viable source of rocket fuel to fire rockets back to earth?
    • Re:Contamination? (Score:5, Informative)

      by silentben (1119141) on Monday August 04 2008, @09:45PM (#24475749) Homepage
      Not likely - yes, perchlorate is used in solid rocket fuel, but solid rocket fuel would not be used for a landing because you can't control the burn. It is only really good as a powerful launch vehicle because it can burn fast and hot, but you can't easily turn it on or off or control the rate of burn. For landings and precision manuveuring liquid fuels such as liquid hydrogen and oxygen are much more common.
        • Re:Contamination? (Score:5, Informative)

          by silentben (1119141) on Monday August 04 2008, @10:44PM (#24476089) Homepage

          This means that neither the propellant or the resultant chemicals are perchlorates, so this substance can be ruled out as a contaminant due to propellants. So contamination theory is out. See also the following excerpt from the same site you sourced:

          Will Phoenix's descent thrusters alter the composition of its landing site?
          Altering the chemistry of our landing site due to our thruster exhaust is unavoidable. The Phoenix Lander uses hydrazine, a hypergolic propellant that turns into ammonia during combustion. So essentially, we are spraying the surface with ammonia and a small amount of hydrazine that was not combusted. The way we get around that is by 1) knowing that we are going to be producing ammonia and 2) by designing the wet chemistry cells to carefully quantify the amount of ammonia in the regolith. We then use this information to interpret our other results.

    • by jon_cooper (746199) on Monday August 04 2008, @09:52PM (#24475791)
      Don't be silly. This is obvious evidence that extra-terrestrials have been on Mars and left behind perchlorate traces from their rockets. Either that, or Martians have just blasted off somewhere in their rockets. Wonder where they've gone?
    • Re:Contamination? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2008, @12:20AM (#24476577)

      Scientific American reported that "The fuel in the thrusters that Phoenix used to land on Mars was made of hydrazine, not perchlorate."
      http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=perchlorate-found-on-mars-makes-soi-2008-08-04 [sciam.com]

  • GW Bush (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04 2008, @09:09PM (#24475489)

    So who had the job of explaining this to Pres. Bush, and how long did it take before he understood?

  • by loraksus (171574) on Monday August 04 2008, @09:10PM (#24475497) Homepage

    Because it sure sounds like "whole heck 'o alot of rocket fuel just lying on top of frozen water on a planet with 38% of the gravity of Earth"

    Sounds like it would make space travel / trips to / from Mars dramatically easier.

  • by bsDaemon (87307) on Monday August 04 2008, @09:10PM (#24475499) Homepage

    OK, so at first I read "highly oxodizing" and was thought, "neat; now they know why Mars is rust colored." However, even after RTFA, I was still clueless as to why I should care. Luckily, Wikipedia comes to the rescue.

    From the wiki [wikipedia.org]:

    Both potassium perchlorate (KClO4) and ammonium perchlorate (NH4ClO4) are used extensively within the pyrotechnics industry, whereas ammonium perchlorate is a component of solid rocket fuel. Lithium perchlorate, which decomposes exothermically to give oxygen, is used in oxygen "candles" on spacecraft, submarines and in other esoteric situations where a reliable backup or supplementary oxygen supply is needed. Most perchlorate salts are soluble in water.

    So, it seems to me that the important discovery is that there could be a relatively massive supply of a chemical compound which is able to produce breathable oxygen, if and when we can ever get people to Mars. If this is indeed the case, then YES, this is exciting news, a whole lot more important than why Mars is red, and is on the level of the sort of thing that the President might want to know about.

  • Perchlorate (Score:5, Funny)

    by clang_jangle (975789) * on Monday August 04 2008, @09:28PM (#24475633)
    I used to perchlorate my coffee every morning, but then I read that the drip method actually gives you more caffeine. So the mars people are stuck with 1960s technology then?
  • Oxygen Generation (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rand310 (264407) on Monday August 04 2008, @09:30PM (#24475645)

    Perchlorate does three things:

    -Treats thyroid gland disorders

    -Used as rocket fuel

    -Used in generating oxygen (O2) chemically

    Seems like good happenstance to land on a planet with frozen water on tracts of rocket fuel and solid oxygen-generating salts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_generator

  • by buddahrock (857762) on Monday August 04 2008, @09:57PM (#24475835)
    Maybe the President just needed a few days to rent and watch Total Recall, then convince Governor Schwarzenegger to go to Mars and start the ancient Martian machine that creates a breathable atmosphere.
  • So, they start cutting a bunch of it into O2, and the next thing you know - KABOOM!!! The planet explodes. Awesome. Can't wait to see THAT go down. I'll swipe a bottle of scotch and watch the fireworks...

    RS

  • I never... (Score:5, Funny)

    by strabes (1075839) on Monday August 04 2008, @10:14PM (#24475937)
    I never want to see this phrase on Slashdot again:

    NASA has twittered

    God help us.

    • Re:I never... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by FooBarWidget (556006) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:43AM (#24477169)

      Or maybe Twitter is more useful than the average Slashdotter wants to believe. I was baffled last time when I read the Slashdot reactions on Identi.ca and microblogging. Apparently people here have never heard of microblogging as a way to keep in touch with one's friends.

  • Or maybe not? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by anadem (143644) <anadem&gmail,com> on Monday August 04 2008, @10:40PM (#24476067)

    Or maybe not, based on data from the Viking missions:

    http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/viking_life_010728-1.html [space.com]

    "Photos taken on Mars' surface of a Viking magnetic experiment on both landers show material clinging to the magnets. That suggests to Levin that whatever the surface processes are on Mars, they are not innately highly oxidizing. A highly oxidizing soil would convert magnetized materials to oxidized forms. Therefore, the magnet would be free of such particles.

    "Similarly, the Mars Pathfinder mission in 1997, Levin added, also had significant amounts of magnetic material adhering to magnets attached to the spacecraft.

    "Levin said that the paradigm of a Mars sterilized by a highly oxidizing surface is "too embedded in our scientific fabric to be set aside even by demonstrated proofs. He points to a John F. Kennedy quote that says 'the great enemy of truth is often not the lie --deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.'"

  • by caywen (942955) on Monday August 04 2008, @11:22PM (#24476265)
    Cmon NASA, stop being coy. You found it didn't you? I'm bummed you won't report on the ancient Martian gateway into deep inside the planet, marked with ancient pictoglyphic scriptures with overtones from Egypt. You know you have it. You know you've found the interdimensional gateway where your inside people had supersecret meetings with The Progenitor, a master being who designed evolution here on Earth. What's with this wussy "interesting chemical" crap?
  • by Eicos (1338783) on Monday August 04 2008, @11:35PM (#24476341)
    Back in the 70's, NASA ran an experiment on one of the Viking landers to try to see if there was any life on Mars. The experiment contained some radiolabeled "food," to which a sample of regolith and water would be added. If radiolabeled gas evolved from the resulting mixture and was detected, it would be taken as a sign that some kind of native microbe was eating the food and emitting the gas as a byproduct of anaerobic respiration. And in fact, the experiment did detect radiolabeled gas. However, none of the other analyses turned up positive, including the mass spectrometer. So scientists floated an alternative theory: that the Martian regolith contained some kind of oxidizing agent, which would have explained both the evolution of radiolabeled gas, and the absence of life on Mars. Most scientists accepted this theory, but even to this day, there were a few who believed it was a little bit too convenient, and that the labeled release experiment had actually turned up evidence of life. The discovery of perchlorate, a strong oxidizing agent, would put that speculation to rest.
  • by Gonoff (88518) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @07:01AM (#24478211)

    It is an ion. Was it perhaps Calcium perchlorate, hydrogen perchlorate or something else. Maybe it was Uranium perchlorate?

    Saying it was perchlorate is as meaningless as saying that the sea is full of hydroxide, In fact H20 is hydrogen hydroxide - or water. We need a more meaningful statement...

  • by peter303 (12292) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @11:50AM (#24482115)
    Viking explicitly tested for "biological activity" and had a false-positive result due to an oxidizing soil. I think they blamed it on a peroxide at that time, but Viking didnt have as accuratate analyszers as Phoenix has.
    I recall it was Carl Sagan who suggested biological life was locally anti-entropic and one should look for chemical disequilibriums like free oxygen or methane. Over time these substances naturally move into lower energy states through chemical reactions if life wasn't present. However, planetary surfaces and interiors may not be closed energy systems. Mars soil is bombarded by solar UV; Io is heated by Jupiter tidal stress. These energy injections can create life-like chemical disequilibriums too.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04 2008, @09:12PM (#24475515)

      Perchlorate can be used for explosives ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perchlorate ) and suggests the presence of unlawful combatants on Martian soil.

          • by Bemopolis (698691) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @11:47AM (#24482049)

            that would be the inverse of the situation on Earth, where life gets its oxygen from the atmosphere and takes up food in solid form ...

            I am the Lorax I speak for the trees...and algae, and bacteria, and...

            ...you oxymetabolistic-centric bastard.

    • by loraksus (171574) on Monday August 04 2008, @09:37PM (#24475699) Homepage

      So as I understand it, perchlorate can be used to make rocket fuel.

      Sort of -
      Perchlorates are oxidizers, which technically are not the "fuel" in the reaction. Oxidzers are, however, the stuff that is somewhat dangerous to handle / transport - the fuel is normally a rather ordinary substance (i.e. in black powder the fuel is charcoal, in modern rockets, powdered aluminum)

      A catalyst is required, but the less you have to ship to mars, the easier it is...

    • by sznupi (719324) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @05:03AM (#24477687) Homepage

      No Mars probes used perchlorates. And even if some did...do you realise the difference in scale between miniscule amounts such probe would care and the whole f***ing planet?

    • by alexborges (313924) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @11:58AM (#24482247)

      This sounds SO, SO, SO improbable.

      At least to me. Ya think they land in previously landed places?

      I mean its a whole planet. It would seem to me that if you calculate a, say 1000 kilometer radius from your landing site that is "clean" (noone landed inside the circle) by our records, this posibility you point out is highly improbable to happen.

      Even more so if you pick the lannding at random.

      In any case, i would be astonished to find out that they knowingly went in and landed in a contaminated site: everything we touch there we contaminate.