Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Mars Rock Varnish May Harbor Life 15

Posted by timothy from the or-it-may-be-just-a-tasty-veneer dept.
flewp points to this CNN story about yet another bit of evidence for life on the red planet, writing: "Basically, two Mars probes have found similiarities between Mars rocks and terrestrial rocks found in desert environments. Some real promising stuff for the supporters of martian life. Essentially, the organisms (if there) take metals from the atmosphere and oxidize them, and make them stick using secretions, leaving a varnish like surface on the rock." The evidence here is pretty thin (ha!), but interesting.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mars Rock Varnish May Harbor Life More

Mars Rock Varnish May Harbor Life

Comments Filter:

  • *sigh* (Score:1)

    by mistr ( 61923 )
    <blockquote>"familiarity breeds indifference"</blockquote>
    (A. Huxley)

    <B>still looking for life on <em>mars</em>?!
  • hrrm.
    preview-button?
    *blush*
  • The evidence they are citing is not nearly as thin as the remark following the story makes it out to be, let alone as the very funny second post describes it. It is not that they have found rocks that look like earth rocks, but that the earth rocks which they look like get to be that way by metabolic processes. The way I read the article, it's a bit like finding something that looks an awful lot like poop: where there is poop, there is a pooper. Of course, a lot of non-microbial-poop things can look like microbial-poop in a photograph, so they're holding off judgement until we send something to analyze it, but they are letting us know that they think they see poop in a picture and want to investigate. (Thus making this the first on-topic fecal post.)
  • Rather than do the research and get a negative result - which gets you no money - they're releasing information before they do the research - which gives them a chance of cashing in.

    And what would you have them do? In order to test their hypothesis, they need to experiment. In order to experiment, they need money. In order to get money, they must convince people with money that the experiment is worth doing. What would be duplicitous is if they, having raised sufficient funds, then refused to carry out the experiment or performed an unrelated one. Or would you rather they just shut up about all their hypotheses and make no attempt to progress them further?

    Fund-raising is perfectly appropriate in areas where funds are needed. It only becomes inappropriate when it is misleading.

  • NASA seem to be employing an interesting short term strategy. Link everything to the possibility of extraterrestrial life in order to gain publicity and funds. It's probably working. But the cost is loss of credibility. Eventually everyone is going to get fed up of hearing about yet another bit of evidence that there is life on Mars and NASA will have cried wolf once too often.

    Doesn't this assume that all these little bits of evidence will turn out to have been misleading? Are you suggesting that there definitely isn't life on Mars, based upon the same evidence which leads NASA to say there might be? Are you then criticizing them for sending probes to determine the reality of the situation? I'm sure you can explain the appearance of those rocks without metabolic processes, but as there is other, unrelated evidence which suggests there might be microbes on Mars, why are these scientists wrong for wanting NASA to check it out (when NASA is already planning to send something there, anyway)?

  • What would normally considered good material for internal discussion, but not publication, by most academic institutions, is publicly paraded by NASA.

    According to the article, DiGregorio is presenting this report to a conference on astrobiology sponsored by the International Society for Optical Engineering [spie.org] (part of their annual meeting in San Diego). This isn't a NASA report; it's written by someone who is predicting that a future NASA or European mission can resolve this question. Moreover, it's for a conference about what technical methods could resolve such questions.

    (I should have checked out SPIE's website before this post; I think it could have cleared up some of this confusion.) I see nothing inappropriate about this sort of press.

  • I don't believe that. What they're actually doing is making a press release to keep the hype about life on Mars going in order to collect funds. Rather than do the research and get a negative result - which gets you no money - they're releasing information before they do the research - which gives them a chance of cashing in. This is entirely normal behaviour from anyone involved with Mars.
    --
  • And what would you have them do?
    NASA seem to be employing an interesting short term strategy. Link everything to the possibility of extraterrestrial life in order to gain publicity and funds. It's probably working. But the cost is loss of credibility. Eventually everyone is going to get fed up of hearing about yet another bit of evidence that there is life on Mars and NASA will have cried wolf once too often.

    I personally believe they are being misleading. Most of these 'leads' are bogus.

    --
  • why are these scientists wrong for wanting NASA to check it out
    I personally think it's not beyond the bounds of credulity to suggest that there may be life on Mars - simply because I think there may be organisms that could make the trip from Earth to Mars and occasionally events may have taken place in the history of the Earth that could have sent life bearing matter towars Mars (ejecta from volcanoes? debris from meteor collisions?)

    However it seems to me that NASA are grabbing any kind of evidence they can, no matter how unlikely, in order to produce publicity. What would normally considered good material for internal discussion, but not publication, by most academic institutions, is publicly paraded by NASA. At the very least it's embarassing - at the worst downright dishonest. Repeatedly crying wolf will lead to a loss of credibility - the kind of climate where Fox's show about the faking of the lunar landing are acceptable.

    --
  • Yes, you're right. For once this story isn't coming from a NASA press release and it is, in effect, nothing but private conversation between researchers. My complaint should be with the media and not NASA.
    --

  • More interesting press release (Score:4)

    by SIGFPE ( 97527 ) on Monday July 02, 2001 @04:08PM (#112535) Homepage
    NASA News
    Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Scientists at Nasa Ames Research center are pleased to announce the strongest evidence yet that there is life on Mars based on spectrographic readings of the Martian atmosphere.

    Using spectrographic techniques scientists have been able to determine the gaps between the energy levels of matter in the atmosphere of Mars. These energy level differences have been compared with simulations run at the Ames Research Center. What these simulations have revealed is that the energy levels correspond precisely to those of electrons orbiting a cloud of protons and neutrons.

    The implication has broad consequences. The Martian atmosphere contains matter that is substantially like that on earth that is made up of electrons, neutrons and protons that are almost indistinguishable from that on earth.

    Life science expert Kathryn D'Aumbert points out that all life on earth is carbon based. Carbon is made up of the same three particles - protons, neutrons and electrons. Therefore we can conclude that there is every reason to believe that there is life on Mars.

    Biophysicist John Dome has been studying the physical properties of living organisms. He notes that every chemical process of every organism on earth relies on the exchange of electrons between nuclei of protons and neutrons. "We now have every reason to believe that these kinds of processes are at work on Mars. At this stage it would be pure speculation to suggest that there isn't life on Mars"

    NASA is now optimistic that these results will play a key role in future discussions about the funding of this research.

    There are some dissenting views however. Stephen M Arter of the Propulsion Engineering division points out that exactly the same energy levels would be visible in antimatter, not just matter. "But that's good news, not bad - we could use Martian antimatter to power some of the alternative propulsion ideas we have been investigating such as the Alcubierre warp drive".

    --
  • Can't the science articles get a little more front page press?

    No. This knowledge would be dangerous in the hands of ordinary slashdot readers.

    Thanks, Travis forkspoon@hotmail.com

    You're welcome Travis!

    Oh, and fifth post.

    --

  • You can just pretend I closed that first italics tag properly. I really don't care anymore - I've lost 78% of my karma in the last 3 weeks or so.

    --
  • Talk about speculation. I rank this right up with the discovery of "canals" on Mars a few years ago by some guys named Secchi, Schiaparelli, and Lowell and the resulting conclusion of not only water, but advanced civilization on Mars.

  • There is varnish on Martian rocks. There is varnish on my piano. Therefore, the Martians like to listen to Horowitz.

Slashdot Top Deals

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Close