NASA Says Mars Once "Drenched With Water" 1048
NASA is currently holding a press conference (carried live on NASA TV) where they are discussing findings from the Mars rovers. They are saying that the crater that the second rover has landed in has convincing evidence that it was once drenched or covered in liquid water. They cite the tiny spherules, odd holes in the rocks, sulfur in the spectrometric analyses, and evidence of an iron sulfate hydrate (a hydrate is a chemical compound which includes water molecules in the crystal lattice). Update: 03/02 19:45 GMT by M : CNN has a story, or see the NASA press release.
Link to the web case (Score:5, Informative)
the full article from nasa.gov (Score:5, Informative)
Re:and this couldn't have come sooner? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not very surprising (Score:4, Informative)
The big thing here is that there was a body of water for some geologically continuous amount of time, which implies that there still is the potential for "life as we know it" on Mars.
Re:So much... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Where did it go? (Score:5, Informative)
Sulphates and Amino Acids (Score:5, Informative)
Also, Methionine is an essential amino acid that is not synthesized by the body and must be obtained from food. It is one of the "sulphur-containing" amino acids and is important in many body functions.
It is likely that sulphur, coupled with the different ferrous hydrides can produce viable conditions for life.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
NASA TV (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html [nasa.gov]
They are talking about it right now it is real interesting.
NASA Press Release (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not very surprising (Score:4, Informative)
(Hoping I don't sound stupid)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:2, Informative)
Genesis would be a good place to start. Only Earth is ever mentioned as the place where god created life.
Genesis does say that god created the heavens and the earth but nowhere does it say that god created life anywhere but Earth.
Of course the excuse, the same that is used to explain the story of Noah, is that god created life elsewhere but it just wasn't written down.
For reference [awitness.org]
Sample Return? (Score:4, Informative)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mars_2003_05. html
Re:Where did it go? (Score:1, Informative)
Or of course it could be reacting en masse with something, like iron, but IIRC the most likely process is "boiling".
Checking the "Big Bend" rock (Score:5, Informative)
They said that they weren't sure if the rocks were sedimentary or not. From the sounds of it they aren't, but they did happen to be "soaked in water" or whatever the quote was, allowing the concretions to form in spaces in already existing rock. They haven't found any evidence of layering yet, as far as I know, which would mean sedimentary.
NASA Press Release (Score:4, Informative)
Evidence the rover found in a rock outcrop led scientists to the conclusion. Clues from the rocks' composition, such as the presence of sulfates, and the rocks' physical appearance, such as niches where crystals grew, helped make the case for a watery history.
"Liquid water once flowed through these rocks. It changed their texture, and it changed their chemistry," said Dr. Steve Squyres of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., principal investigator for the science instruments on Opportunity and its twin, Spirit. "We've been able to read the tell-tale clues the water left behind, giving us confidence in that conclusion."
Dr. James Garvin, lead scientist for Mars and lunar exploration at NASA Headquarters, Washington, said, "NASA launched the Mars Exploration Rover mission specifically to check whether at least one part of Mars ever had a persistently wet environment that could possibly have been hospitable to life. Today we have strong evidence for an exciting answer: Yes."
Opportunity has more work ahead. It will try to determine whether, besides being exposed to water after they formed, the rocks may have originally been laid down by minerals precipitating out of solution at the bottom of a salty lake or sea.
The first views Opportunity sent of its landing site in Mars' Meridiani Planum region five weeks ago delighted researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., because of the good fortune to have the spacecraft arrive next to an exposed slice of bedrock on the inner slope of a small crater.
The robotic field geologist has spent most of the past three weeks surveying the whole outcrop, and then turning back for close-up inspection of selected portions. The rover found a very high concentration of sulfur in the outcrop with its alpha particle X-ray spectrometer, which identifies chemical elements in a sample.
"The chemical form of this sulfur appears to be in magnesium, iron or other sulfate salts," said Dr. Benton Clark of Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Denver. "Elements that can form chloride or even bromide salts have also been detected."
At the same location, the rover's Mossbauer spectrometer, which identifies iron-bearing minerals, detected a hydrated iron sulfate mineral called jarosite. Germany provided both the alpha particle X-ray spectrometer and the Mossbauer spectrometer. Opportunity's miniature thermal emission spectrometer has also provided evidence for sulfates.
On Earth, rocks with as much salt as this Mars rock either have formed in water or, after formation, have been highly altered by long exposures to water. Jarosite may point to the rock's wet history having been in an acidic lake or an acidic hot springs environment.
The water evidence from the rocks' physical appearance comes in at least three categories, said Dr. John Grotzinger, sedimentary geologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge: indentations called "vugs," spherules and crossbedding.
Pictures from the rover's panoramic camera and microscopic imager reveal the target rock, dubbed "El Capitan," is thoroughly pocked with indentations about a centimeter (0.4 inch) long and one-fourth or less that wide, with apparently random orientations. This distinctive texture is familiar to geologists as the sites where crystals of salt minerals form within rocks that sit in briny water. When the crystals later disappear, either by erosion or by dissolving in less-salty water, the voids left behind are called vugs, and in this case they conform to the geometry of possible former evaporite minerals.
Round particles the size of BBs are embedded in the outcrop. From shape alone, these spherules might be formed from volcanic eruptions, from lofting of molten droplets by a meteor impact, or from accumulation of minerals coming out of solution inside a porous, water-soaked rock. Opportunity's observations that the sp
Read NASA's Weblog (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Where did it go? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:5, Informative)
Opportunity's batteries will be dead (as in won't charge) inside a year of landing. Since the little guy can't rove without a stored supply of juice, he'll be as good as dead. That's actually one reason why scientists had wanted to use an RTG on the mission. An RTG could have kept it running for years, and in fact would have been one of the LAST components to kick the bucket. Sadly, NASA doesn't want another PR problem like with the Cassini probe.
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:4, Informative)
Also as to the central reason for Christianity is that sin affects humans (read man on earth) how does that affect there being life on other earths.
C.S Lewis also had a sci-fi book about life on other plants.
Free Food? (Score:5, Informative)
Crap. Fine print says...
If only they could have booked the conference room for the press conference 2 days ago instead of using it to hold Jerry's retirement party.'cause I *really* wanted to have that free jumbo shrimp.
dammit.
Re:So what? (Score:2, Informative)
Long term liquid water (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sulphates and Amino Acids (Score:4, Informative)
Aside from sulfur, iron, phosphorus, monovalent and divalent cations most of the other trace elements are required in levels so low that just about any random location will have enough to suffice.
Re:Checking the "Big Bend" rock (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:1, Informative)
GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
That would be worlds, PLURAL.
Re:Men are from Mars (Score:3, Informative)
Them Martians then screwed it up with that whatchacallit infection and went phut!
Why do you think reality shows are so popular?
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Water alone isn't enough (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not very surprising (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Key point (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on the type of rock and what scale you are looking at. For instance if you look at a wind-blown sandstone you'll be hard pushed to find a fossil on any scale, look at a marine sandstone and there is a good chance of finding something.
But then you have certain limestones which are almost pure fossil contents - fractured shells and the like - all the way through to materials like chalk or diatomaceous clay which are made entirely from microscopic fossil shells.
So the answer from a geologist is - it depends where you look and how hard.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Jarosite, defined (Score:5, Informative)
THE MINERAL JAROSITE
Chemistry: KFe3(SO4)2(OH)6, Potassium Iron Sulfate Hydroxide.
Class: Sulfates
Group: Alunite
Uses: Only as mineral specimens.
Specimens
Jarosite is not a common mineral. It is closely related to the mineral natrojarosite. Jarosite is isostructural with natrojarosite which means that they have the same crystal structure but different chemistries. In this case, jarosite contains potassium instead of natrojarosite's sodium (natro is derived from the Latin for sodium, natrium, from where sodium gets its symbol, Na). The two minerals are difficult to distinguish without a chemical test.
Both minerals are isostructural with alunite with a formula of KAl3(SO4)2(OH)6, who lends its name to the Alunite Group of which all three minerals belong.
The symmetry of jarosite is the same as the members of the Tourmaline Group. Crystals of jarosite however do not form prismatic crystals like those of the typical tourmaline mineral. Jarosite's crystals are more flattened and resemble nearly cubic rhombohedrons. The "rhombohedrons" are actually a combination of two trigonal pyramids.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Color is an amber yellow or brown.
Luster is vitreous to resinous.
Transparency: Crystals are transparent to translucent.
Crystal System is trigonal; 3 m
Crystal Habits include tabular to flattened rhombohedral looking crystals. The "rhombohedrons" are actually a combination of two trigonal pyramids. Crystals are somewhat scarce and small, more commonly as earthy masses, films or crusts, botryoidal and granular.
Cleavage is good in one direction but only seen in the larger crystals.
Fracture is uneven.
Hardness is 2.5 - 3.5.
Specific Gravity is approximately 2.9 - 3.3 (average to slightly heavy for translucent minerals, but hard to obtain from crusts)
Streak is a pale yellow.
Associated Minerals are barite, turquoise, galena, goethite, limonite, hematite and other iron minerals.
Notable Occurrences include Jaroso ravine, Sierra Almagrera, Spain and Iron Arrow Mine, Colorado; Maricopa Co., Arizona; Idaho and California, USA.
Best Field Indicators are crystal habit, associations, color and hardness.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
This is 5, Informative in a sneaky small print kinda way. Yes, common knowledge was that the caps are carbon dioxide.
Today common knowledge is that the ice caps are a mix of CO_2 and water. In the last couple years, there has been mounting evidence that it is actually mostly water ice, with some CO2.
Google mars polar caps if you don't beleive me.
Posted anonymously 'cause most moderators today wouldn't notice anyways.
Re:Where is the nitrogen?? (Score:3, Informative)
95.32% Carbon Dioxide - CO2
2.7% Nitrogen - N2
1.6% Argon - Ar
0.13% Oxygen - O2
0.07% Carbon Monoxide - CO
0.03% Water - H2O
0.00025% Neon - Ne
0.00003% Krypton - Kr
0.000008% Xenon - Xe
0.000003% Ozone - O3
This does not take into account nitrates in the ground, which might have contributed to atmospheric nitrogen in the past. Also, the water % in the table above is probably going to be revised, perhaps, studies on Nitrogen density are likely.
Further, nitrosomas and nitrobacter are extremely common bacteria in earth water - ask anyone who's run an aquarium - I predict they may be among the first bacteria discovered on Mars.
My .02 cents
Re:Key point (Score:5, Informative)
Machines and devices can be sterilized, autoclaved, and what have you, to remove any presence of life, even at the bacterial level.
Human beings can't have such precautions taken. If we're going to send anything to Mars, machines are by far the safest option.
Re:Key point (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt it would be as easy to scrub all the nasties off a human. Even if they wear protective suits there would be a greater chance of contamination.
Re:A great breakthrough... (Score:3, Informative)
Ahem. _The_RNA_World_. Get it. Read it. Accept it. I worked with the authors during a lab rotation at the University of Utah.
Points to keep in mind: amino acids and nucleic acids are abundant in the universe. They form naturally in the interstellar medium. They are detected in nebulae all over the sky. They are part of the basic building blocks that exist all over the universe.
Next point: there are numerous other helpful items in nature that lead to SELF ORGANIZATION. Self organization is an area of scientific study if you are inclined.
Next point: there are various scaffolds available that can act as substrates for projected proto lifeforms (self-replicating nucleic acids, RNA molecules).
All life involves is basic chemistry that exists everywhere in nature, abiotic and biotic.
Combine all the above naturally occurring elements and you have all that is needed to produce, ultimately, life from non-life. Life is not magic. It is ultimately about self-replicating, sustained, chemical reactions.
It is possible to derive self-replicating RNA molecules. Once such a molecule exists, it is subject to evolution, plain and simple. There are no "buts", there are not "wait a minutes". Once you have a self-replicating ANYTHING, it is immediately subject to evolutionary forces. Given time and range(and we are talking BILLIONS of years here and a virtually infinite sized universe) you have plenty of time and opportunity to evolve virtually any type of possible lifeform. No magic. Just plain old chance, chemistry, and evolution. All plain logic and mathematical simplicity.
It took something like a billion years for life to evolve on earth into a form that is recognizable as life. A billion years is a LONG time. It is much longer than you imagine, much longer than you CAN imagine. You cannot take in that amount of time and really get a grasp on what it really means. A billion years is a long-frickin'-time. Time enough.
Not simply "might" (Score:3, Informative)
They have found extremely compelling evidence that there was/is water on mars. Essentially the only questions that remain are, "How much water?" and "How long was there water?". True, the evidence isn't 100% conclusive, but it is definitely within a range that several scientists are willing to place their reputations in jeopardy to announce.
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You spend $100 billion... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Key point (Score:5, Informative)
So, I don't have a good answer for, but based on intuition, I would guess between 1 to 10% on average for Earth. There are vast areas, however, where you could drive for miles and find 100%, or 0%. Because the distribution is so variable, and we can only speculate on the range of likely environments and rock types on Mars, this would not be much of a guideline.
One thing is for certain, though -- it would take more than a couple of good rovers to eliminate the possibility for Mars.
Re:Key point (Score:3, Informative)
MadCow.
Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact (Score:1, Informative)
1) It did spew high-level radioactive material over a wide area, much of which was never recovered. Some of it was potentially highly dangerous stuff (i.e., lethal exposure in relatively short time), and there was a huge recovery effort. The main reason there were no deaths or injuries was its remote location, not lack of risk from it. Had it been in a populated area, no doubt some people would have picked it up and it probably would have resulted in illness, at least.
2) Most importantly, it was not designed for containment survival during reentry like the RTGs are. It was exposed to space with little shielding, and it was designed so that the reactor could be separated from the rest of the satellite and boosted to a higher orbit (one from which it would hopefully not deorbit for a looong time, after most of the radioactivity had decayed). The Russians lost control of it shortly after launch and it crashed to Earth.
I think it was called Cosmos 954.
Re:Also: harsh radiation splits apart water (Score:3, Informative)
That's not quite the right way to put it. Hydrogen can escape because it is light, yes, but not because gravity isn't "strong enough." Remember that gravity accelerates all objects equally (the falling feather and bowling ball experiment). An atom of hydrogen and an atom of lead would both fall toward the ground at exactly the same speed, and hit at the same time.
Because hydrogen is so light, however, it has a much higher velocity for a given kinetic energy than any other kind of atom, so it is much easier for it to reach escape velocity via collisions with other gas particles.
Re:What I want to know is ... (Score:5, Informative)
Mission Accomplished (Score:5, Informative)
On one hand, we've acomplished almost all of the stated goals of the mission. I saw the Long Term Planning briefing and the chart had item after item checked off... only the endurance section was left unfinished.
Think about it. We landed not one but two fully functional rovers on mars, with the most comprehensive science package ever sent to another world. We have spectrometers of unmatched precision, we have the ability to examine betneath the surface of rocks and outcrops, and we've taken the most detailed pictures of mars ever recorded.
We've explored rocks and craters and soils, and that was just the first few sols! All of this is an incredible accomplishment, especially considering the track record. The engineering part alone is enough to consider the mission a success.
But since last week it's been clear to us here that we've found what we were looking for: evidence that clinches the case that Mars was once wet. That's when I say, "Mission Accomplished". That's more than many hoped to find, though we sent the mission as it is primarly because we expected this was *possible* if even somewhat unlikely.
But we're not done yet. In fact if anything we have more questions to answer now. Mars has never failed to throw curve balls at us. There's all kinds of minerology that we're not sure about. We don't even know yet if this was just ground water, or actually lakes or oceans. But as long as these rovers still have life in them we'll continue to advance our scientific understanding of the planet.
Regardless of what anyone thinks about the specifics of the President's plan, it's clear that public support for the program is very high now, considering that we have learned from our mistakes and have accomplished more than we could have hoped. I'm very optimistic that future missions will unravel many of the new mysteries we have discovered. It is truely, as they said on the briefing, a great time to be alive. The field of astrobiology is finally beginning to be taken seriously by the scientific community and even the public at large. We have seen that Faster, Better, Cheaper *can* work - as long as we don't try to bite off more than we can chew.
I don't know when we'll actually have humans on Mars, but I'm hopeful that there's a real chance that in my lifetime (and maybe even my parents') we will find evidence of previous life on Mars. It'd be nice to know we're not quite alone.
My congradulations to the science team for an incredible discovery, and I extend that to the taxpayers that graciously fund us, and to our supporters in all nations of this earth. We could not have made these discoveries without our valued partners in Europe, and they deserve to share much of the credit.
I know some of you on slashdot ask why fund the space program. I hope that this makes it clear that you are getting your money's worth. Thanks for all of your support!
Cheers,
Justin Wick
Science Activity Planner Developer
Mars Exploration Rovers
Re:Dune (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That's not so far fetched, actually (Score:3, Informative)
Any attempt to teraform Mars would be futile because Mars does not have a magnetic field which would keep the atmosphere from being slowly stripped away by the solar wind as well as protecting the surface from much of the harmful radiation the sun emits continuously.
Re:Finally.. an end to religion (Score:4, Informative)
How can any religion survive that revelation?
I know you're a troll but it's a decent question.
I work at JPL on this mission, however I'm also a Christian. And as a Christian I believe personally that God made some damn cool stuff for us to explore. If we find past life on Mars (and believe me, we are a long ways away from that) that won't make me feel any worse about how I believe. I will feel more awe, not less, at what I see around us.
I'm not advocating my religious beliefs but it's amazing how many people assume all Christians are violently against the existence of extraterrestrial life. The Bible says we are special compared to what else is on this planet, and nothing more. Personally I'd be surprised if God wouldn't make more awesome, different types of "people" to enjoy this crazy universe
Cheers,
Justin Wick
Mars Exploration Rovers
Re: There was NOT WATER!!! (Score:3, Informative)
FeH doesn't mean anything, because iron has valence 2 or 3 in stable compounds.
FeS3H2 doesn't spell anything but ignorance.
Iron sulfate hydrate is FeSO4.n(H2O). "Hydrate" means it has water bound up with it.
Congratulations on being able to count atoms on both sides -- and even multiply small integers, wow! -- but there's a lot more to chemistry than that.
Wrong (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Key point (Score:2, Informative)
There exists a bowling ball.
I am defining this bowling ball as "I".
Therefore "I" exists.
This is also a valid argument. But like yours it misses the point. Where does the definition come from? What makes it valid?
(Also, you've used "I" again, in your 2nd premise. Try not to use the word "I" as a subject before the conclusion that "I" exists..
Yes, I do like to get this technical... isn't this slashdot?)
Re:So will Earth lose it's water sometime? (Score:4, Informative)
AFAIK, Mars lost much of it's atmosphere (and i assume its water as well because of the lowering atmospheric pressure) to the solar wind, because it has no magnetic field (or at least no global one), so the solar wind could rip the uppermost part of the atmosphere away.
Of course, this process takes millions ans billions of years, but mars has been around a long time...
Re:So will Earth lose it's water sometime? (Score:4, Informative)
They have presently been doing research related to Earths fluxuations in its magnetosphere. At present the major indicators used to determine the stability (as we understand it) has been dropping. The speculation is that we are going to eventually have a poll flip (north becomes south and vice verse). In the interim their will be a period of time where holes (for lack of a better word) similar to those existing at the north and south poles that cause the Aurora Borialis will exist in multiples. In otherwords, during this period of time these will drift around the surface of the earth until the fields stablize. The results will be spectacular night sky showings in such unlikely places as Paris or Hong Kong or where have you - the downside is the exposure to solar radiation of people under these zones.
The magnetosphere is dependent on the internal heat generated by the Earths core and it's rotation. In Mars case it is speculated that its core went cold a very long time ago and this was the primary reason its magnetosphere failed and let the solar wind work away the atmosphere.
Re:Mission Accomplished (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately no can do... all that stuff is ITAR sensitive [pmdtc.org].
It makes a lot of what we do very difficult (some would say unnecessarily so) and keeps us from sharing some of the most awesome details with the public at large.
This is the same treaty that limits the export of strong crypto, and has experienced so much resistence from geeks around the country that there is a civil disobedence [offshore.com.ai] process that has been going on online. I'm not advocating this but I find it interesting that people are willing to be "arms traffickers" to stop this kind of law.
So if you want more details, you're going to have to ask your politician for it, because unfortunately it can't come from us
*NOTE: This post is not a criticsm of government policies and does not in any way reflect NASA opinions, only publically stated policy.
Cheers,
Justin Wick
Mars Exploration Rovers
P.S. Good luck with your robot. I'm thinking about making my own rover sometime... hmm...
Re:That's not so far fetched, actually (Score:3, Informative)
Teraforming techniques concentrate on climate and environmental changes, but don't talk about changing fundamental geological properties of the planet as a whole such as giving one a magnetic field when it didn't have one previously.
The Real Answers (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Key point (Score:2, Informative)
If L is Life and
E is Evidence of Life, then
E ===> L
but
!E =/=> !L
That is:
Evidence of Life implies that there was life, but lack of evidence of life does not imply that there was no life.
For the same reason, not finding a vulnerability cannot prove that software is secure