NASA Says Mars Once "Drenched With Water"

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.

Key point

[Mukaikubo]

If these rocks are sedimentary, then, as Squyres said, that has to be our main target for a sample return mission. Because sedimentary rocks are going to have fossils.

Re:Key point

[RLW]

if there was life to swim in those seas.

Re:Key point

[Mukaikubo]

Very true. If there was life in this 'ocean', then it's very likely fossils are in sedimentary rocks in that region. If there are no fossils? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it'll be a really curious coincidence.

Re:Key point

[Madcapjack]

>Very true. If there was life in this 'ocean', then >it's very likely fossils are in sedimentary rocks >in that region. If there are no fossils? Absence of >evidence is not evidence of absence, but it'll be a >really curious coincidence.

I'm not sure how much of a fossil bacteria-like creatures would leave behind. There might have been life, but still be no discernible fossils (even assuming that fossils would have been preserved). Chemical signature would be more likely method of identification. Then again, we might find fossils and not even recognize them! Life need not be organic. For example, A.G. Cairns-Smith's book "Genetic Takeover and the mineral origins of life" argues that the first forms of life on earth were colloidal clay organisms without organic chemistry. If Cairns-Smith is correct, then perhaps we should be looking for something like that on Mars instead.

Re:Key point

[mikerich]

Chemical signature would be more likely method of identification.

One good way that has been used here on Earth is to look for isotopic anomalies in the carbon 12/carbon 13 balance. Life preferentially selects the lighter carbon 12 isotope, so carbon minerals in rocks show carbon 12 enrichment.

Graphite found in 3.85 billion year old gneiss from Greenland is suspected of being organic in origin from isotopic evidence, even though the original rock has been distorted almost beyond recognition. Since these are the oldest rocks known on Earth, it seems reasonable to attempt similar techniques on Martian rocks when we have some decent samples.

Best wishes,
Mike.

What I want to know is ...

[AftanGustur]

What was that Rabbit thing. [weirdload.com] opportunity photographed on Mars and why did Nasa destroy it ??

Re:What I want to know is ...

[El]

It was a piece of the airbags, and Nasa didn't destroy it, it blew away... at least that is the most plausible explaination.

Bacteria *do* leave fossils!

[Mr. Underbridge]

I'm not sure how much of a fossil bacteria-like creatures would leave behind. There might have been life, but still be no discernible fossils (even assuming that fossils would have been preserved). Chemical signature would be more likely method of identification. Then again, we might find fossils and not even recognize them! Life need not be organic. For example, A.G. Cairns-Smith's book "Genetic Takeover and the mineral origins of life" argues that the first forms of life on earth were colloidal clay organisms without organic chemistry. If Cairns-Smith is correct, then perhaps we should be looking for something like that on Mars insteI'm not sure how much of a fossil bacteria-like creatures would leave behind. There might have been life, but still be no discernible fossils (even assuming that fossils would have been preserved). Chemical signature would be more likely method of identification. Then again, we might find fossils and not even recognize them! Life need not be organic. For example, A.G. Cairns-Smith's book "Genetic Takeover and the mineral origins of life" argues that the first forms of life on earth were colloidal clay organisms without organic chemistry. If Cairns-Smith is correct, then perhaps we should be looking for something like that on Mars instead

Actually, bacteria do in fact leave fossil records [berkeley.edu]

I don't know much (actually, anything) regarding purported non-carbon "life," but regular ol' bacteria can leave fossils, believe it or not.

Magnetite signature for bacteria

[Anonymous Coward]

One signature may be small magnetite crystals. One the controversies with the "fossils" in the martian meteorite was how to be sure they were really fossils. The argument pretty much devolved into two lines of reasoning when it was reduced to the simplest form. The objects pro) looked like fossils, but con) they were far, far smaller than expected from comparable earthly forms, but pro) contained magnetite (hematite) in a form that ONLY occurs in lifeforms on earth, but con) they came from Mars, which totals up to "no one has the vote." Interestingly, hematite was one of the attractions of the Opportunity landing site.

Re:Key point

[tigersha]

Purely out of interest, what are the chances (in percentage) that the average sample of, say 1 kg of earth based sedinmentary rock would have fossils in it?

Re:Key point

[mikerich]

Purely out of interest, what are the chances (in percentage) that the average sample of, say 1 kg of earth based sedinmentary rock would have fossils in it?

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.

Re:Key point

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be highly variable. In a limestone or chert composed entirely of macroscopic or microscopic shells, it would be nearly 100% fossils -- the rock is *made* of biological remains. These deposits can comprise cubic kilometres of rock over vast areas on Earth. In other sedimentary rocks, fossil content would be lower, or almost zero (e.g., wind-deposited sands are pretty poor). Fossil content is highly variable, and depends upon the geological environment at the surface, the age (e.g., Phanerozoic is much richer in fossils than the Precambrian), and biological factors, as well as the scale of the observations (macroscopic versus microscopic). It also depends greatly on the compositions in the original organism -- did it produce a mineral shell, did it have tough organic material that preserves easily (e.g., spores and pollen)? Hell, there are cases where fossils are known from igneous rocks (e.g., trees encased in lava flows) and plenty of metamorphic rocks too (e.g., just about any fossiliferous sedimentary rock can be metamorphosed to a degree before the fossils are destroyed). Bacterial fossils can occur just about anywhere that suitable mineralization is simultaneously occurring, but they can be tricky to distinguish from non-biological processes (even on Earth, where we *know* there is/was life). Some biological molecules are also recognizable ("biomarkers"), even if the body of the organism is not preserved.

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

[meiocyte]

This is a nice illustration of the logical fallacy of "begging the question", or circular logic.

Your first premise, "I am having thought", assumes the very thing you're trying to prove, namely that "I" exists. You have no right to use "I" in your premises if what you're trying to prove is that "I" exists. So nothing has been proven here.

Re:Religion

[jregel]

Maybe I can provide a Christian perspective on this (as I am a practicing Christian).

The Bible was not written as a scientific text book. It has a different purpose: To reveal God's interaction with humankind. Some of the language is poetic, some historic, some is written in a very pictorial language. This shouldn't be surprising if you consider the Bible is composed of 66 books written by many different people in different times and different cultural contexts.

My personal view that those who say the Bible is to be read completely literally ignores the historical context and we can easily apply our cultural norms to a situation and get something completely different out of it. I don't believe that the world was created in 7 days, although I do believe that God could do it that way if He wanted to. The point of the opening part of Genesis is to establish that God was around before the world, that He was responsible for creation (the actual details are pictorial) and that the mess we are in today is a result of us rebelling against God. That's the important bit - the relationship between God and us.

Now to stay on topic, I believe in a Creator God. A God that looked at His work and was pleased. We have a pretty rough idea of how big the universe is and the thought that it's all empty apart from this little planet may be true, but the God portrayed in the Bible is more likely to have created a universe that is teeming with life.

Was there life on Mars? I wouldn't be surprised, because if God wanted to put it there (or created the laws of physics that enable it to start) he could.

Re:Key point

[Valdrax]

"Swim" is a sufficiently vague term to apply well.
Don't forget that bacteria can leave fossils too.

Re:Key point

[Anonymous Coward]

> sedimentary rocks are going to have fossils. ... and fossils means fuel, which in turn means they must have WMDs.

Re:Key point

[mark-t]

sedimentary rocks are going to have fossils. ... and fossils means fuel, which in turn means they must have WMDs.

Right... and fossil fuels mean more greenhouse gasses, which causes the temperature to rise...

Egad!!! We may have just found a way to teraform mars! ;)

Fossil fuels?

[MAXOMENOS]

This would be great news for the space program, as Bush would make the invasion and conquest of Mars a national priority.

Re:Fossil fuels?

[taped2thedesk]

This would be great news for the space program, as Bush would make the invasion and conquest of Mars a national priority.

That's the liberation of Mars, you insensitive clod!

Speaking of Terraforming...

[Dread_ed]

I am really tired of people "looking for life on (insert planet/moon name here)." If it can't jump up and say "Howdy!", prance around in a skipmy outfit like that Vulcan chick from Enterprise, or shoot a ray-gun with a tentacled appendage, who cares! Evolution is king, baby: let's not coddle those weak little Martian organisms. If they can't handle the competetion with some strapping Earth-born organisms...fuck em!

Think about how long it takes to terraform a planet. Shouldn't we have started by now? It's past time to seed some plants to eat the carbon dioxide, release some oxygen and let them begin digging the water out of the earth and releasing it into the atmosphere.

Speaking of plants, I wonder if tossing cactus/sensamilla seeds out of a baloon bourne lander would be a good way of finding water. Those plants are pretty hardy, and anywhere the plants start to grow would potentially have water sources near the surface. I bet I could devise some wicked experiments to carry out on Mars with plants that were modified genetically to withstand the harsher conditions.

If only the scientific community would grow some gonads we would have a great decade of science and experimentiton ahead of us.

What is the matter officer? I have obeyed all of your silly Earth laws!

Re:Key point

[avgjoe62]

We're still working on Earth.

Actually, according to this Penatgon report [yahoo.com] we've already finished here...

Re:Key point

[wankledot]

If we brought back 10 tons of mars rocks, the chances of getting a fossil are still slim to none. Talk about needle in a haystack. Not to mention the fact that you have to land near some of it to begin with.

Re:Key point

[Paulrothrock]

Which is exactly why we should send a manned mission with a microbiologist or two who can spend a year and a half looking at various types of sediment for hundreds of kilometers.

NASA has never lost a human in space, so sending them on a 1.5 year mission is actually safer than throwing them to orbit.

Re:Key point

[thales]

No Manned Missions should be sent to Mars until we are reasoably certain that no life presently exists on the Red Planet.

Fossils can wait. We don't need to contaminate Mars with the Earth Bacteria that a manned mission would introduce until we are sure there is a very low probility of finding living independantly evolved life.

Re:Key point

[DJayC]

Couldn't the machines and devices we have sent have just as good of a chance to contaminate Mars than humans?

Re:Key point

[Chester K]

Couldn't the machines and devices we have sent have just as good of a chance to contaminate Mars than humans?

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

[hetairoi]

I don't think so, since the rovers are "among the most biologically clean spacecraft ever launched from Cape Canaveral." [spacedaily.com]

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:Key point

[Jerf]

We don't need to contaminate Mars with the Earth Bacteria that a manned mission would introduce until we are sure there is a very low probility of finding living independantly evolved life.

Why?

(Don't dismiss this. It's a hard question. Give it some thought.)

Re:Key point

[thales]

The Origin of life is one of the most important questions facing Science. We have made some good gusses about it, but we are handicapped by only having life from one planet to study. Finding Independantly evolved life would shed light on the questions of how common life is in the Cosmos and how it started. That is far more important than any information that can be gained by having Humans on the Surface of Mars.

We need probes designed to answer that fundemental question, does life presently exist on Mars before we land Humans there. If we find that there is little likelyhood of Martian Life then it's time for Human Exploration. If we finf that there is life on Mars it needs to be carefully studided before we contaminate the planet with the Bacteria that a manned mission would introduce.

Mars is already contaminated

[Decaff]

Mars is already contaminated with Earth Bacteria. There has been significant exchange of materials between Earth and Mars as a result of meteor impacts splashing small bits of each planet into space. It has been demonstrated that lots of bacterial species can cope with the tremendous forces and pressures that these bits would be exposed to, so they could (and almost certainly do) easily survive an interplanetary trip. Discovery of DNA-based life on mars, or anywhere else in the solar system, would not answer the question about whether or not we are alone in the Universe, as all that life is very likely to have come from the same single source.

Re:Key point

[thales]

"we have designed special chambers where we can simulate the Martian environment. They are, of course, called "Mars jars." With earthly organisms, mainly bacteria, in the jars, we have reproduced the daily temperature variations, the low atmospheric pressure, the composition of the Martian air, and the ultraviolet radiation.

Earth Life Survives Martian Conditions

Most of the organisms quickly die. But in every sample of terrestrial soil we have found varieties of micro-organisms that survive the Martian conditions, some indefinitely. They find the lack of oxygen and the temperature extremes to their liking. They find perfect safety, under small particles of soil, from the deadly ultraviolet light. When the subsurface water content increases slightly, they thrive in the seemingly hostile environment"

Carl Sagan

Mars Jars experiments over the past 30 years have shown that Earth Microbes CAN survive in a Martian enviroment, so don't even try to pretend that it can't happen.

Re:Key point

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA has never lost a human in the sun, therefore a 1.5 year mission to the surface of the sun is perfectly safe as well.

Re:Key point

[ThisIsAnExampleAccou]

Not if you go at night.

Fixing Opportunity after the fact

[Danathar]

Interesting...That means we could possibly come back with a another rover that not only could look for life, but could possibly "repair/rejuvinate" the current rover by 'sweeping" the dust off of the solar panels? I would imagine just leaving the rover would be interesting to engineers and scientists to see what happens to a man made object that sits out in the open for extended periods of time....good information if you want to build stuff on Mars.

Anybody out there like to comment? Is it a possibility? Could we come back with another rover and get Opportunity working again after it runs out of juice?

Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact

[SB9876]

Unlikely, the uncertainties of the atmospheric entry result in a landing footprint that's (IIRC) a few thousand square miles. The chances that we could get a new rover down within driving range of an existing rover is pretty small. By the time we've got rovers capable of driving those sorts of distances or landings that are accurate enough to make that plan practical, I think that we'd have enough experience that there wouldn't be much to be gained from going back and looking at the old rovers.

Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact

[AKAImBatman]

Anybody out there like to comment? Is it a possibility? Could we come back with another rover and get Opportunity working again after it runs out of juice?

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:Fixing Opportunity after the fact

[AKAImBatman]

The problem is, that RTGs are huuuuge, for space stuff, and they really don't generate very much power, and introduce all sorts of cooling problems, cause they get hot.

Don't be ridiculous. An RTG with twice the power output would have weighed far less than the batteries, solar panels, and mounting. Not to mention that 5 pounds of PU is pretty small (remember, atomic number in the 90's). Cooling is the least of their concerns on Mars. (Or getting it there, for that matter). They had a working RTG system for the Mars rover. NASA just backed off of it because of the outrage over Cassini. (Insert comment about stupid tree huggers with oatmeal for brains who can't even take 10 minutes to find out what the hell they're protesting over. And that also goes for that whats-his-name physicist who complained about Cassini. "Oh no! A little plutonium in an indestructible box that has had flight testing during several accidents is going to kill us all!!!! Run for the #$*%#$*%$%$ hills!!!!")

Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact

[visgoth]

The next rover should drop solar panels in favor of a much more robust power source. I recommend somthing based on harnessing the heat of decaying heavy elements*.

*Nuclear power (oooh the scary word!)

Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact

[JahToasted]

If it were as simple as just sweeping off the dust from the solar panels, wouldn't they have jsut built the rovers with a little robotic arm and a broom so they could clean themselves off?

Re:Fixing Opportunity after the fact

[caffiend666]

If there was already an appropriate rover on the way, yes.

The death of the rovers will likely be slow and gradual. First a camera goes, then the arm, then it doesn't have power to move, then the batteries die, not having enough heat to keep the rover warm at night, the one or two functional devices left only operate during daying hours. Then, eventually, they can only ping the things. And, then everything goes quiet.

Once the batteries fail, many other components will fail due to lack of heating during night and thermal cycles.

Decades from now, we might still be getting signals from the rovers. The orbiters from viking lasted over a decade. One of the russian lunar rovers operated for 10 months. I would hate to think we can't surpass what the Soviets pulled off 30 years ago.

The last successful rover lasted several times longer than it was expected to, in fact the rover outlasted the lander that served as a transmitter and a relay station. Upon death of the lander the Soujourner probe was to try to return to the lander. I wondered how long that thing circled the lander, if it if got back at all.... Part of the reason these rovers are all in one units, capable of communicating with earth (at low baud) on their own, was because the last rover outlasted the lander.

In the two weeks Spirit was useless a few weeks ago, they were afraid components would fail. Now, try to imagine the years it takes to design/launch/wait on/land rovers? What would keep working? One of NASA's pre-Bush-Space-Initiative goals was to build a robot colony on mars. These rovers are not the start though.

I for one, would like to see them relaunch at least one rover similar to these in the next launch window. They are (were) planning on relaunching the polar lander. And, it would be nice if the next gen non-nuclear rovers could dust themselves, think $20 wiper blades.

Checking the "Big Bend" rock

[drmike0099]

They mentioned that they are going to go check the nearby rock outcropping named "Big Bend" and do basically the same that they did on this rock, in order to see if these rocks were laid down there. I think they're checking exactly that, i.e. whether or not this whole area is laid down with rocks of the same origin (soaked in water), or if they were thrown here by a collision or something.

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.

Re:Key point

[Narcissus]

Oh I love being able to set a caption from within the URL [space.com]!

Re:Key point

[Cruciform]

Fossils aren't that rare. If you wait outside a Tom Jones concert a few of them might even hit on you.

So much...

[i.r.id10t]

... for CowboyNeil saving money on his auto insurance...

and this couldn't have come sooner?

[chrisopherpace]

I wanted my free shrimp from Long John Silvers! Damn! Info Here [longjohnsilvers.com]

you might still get your free giant shrimp!!

[7-Vodka]

their offer reads "Evidence of Ocean Water on Mars; If Found by Feb. 29, America Gets Free Giant Shrimp on March 15"

Well, the news may not have been announced by feb 29, but the evidence may have been found by feb 29.

Not very surprising

[Z00L00K]

That there once has been water on Mars, considering that a lot of comets contains water.

Re:Not very surprising

[cmowire]

No, comets contain water-ice. In a vaccum, ice subliminates into water vapor without an intervining liquid step. Neither water vapor nor ice can support "life as we know it".

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:Not very surprising

[SkreamNet]

Obviously you've never had one of those air plants you never have to water! Pulls moisture from the air...

(Hoping I don't sound stupid)

Long term liquid water

[Hoi Polloi]

The results they are finding imply water was in a liquid state for a significant amount of time. It was long enough for hydrated minerals to form and salt lake signatures (sulfur and bromine deposits) to form, similar to what forms in dry salt lakes.

gun jumping

[kippy]

I love how this story was posted during the opening remarks of the press conference before they could go into much detail.

Yeah

[Greyfox]

Before they even got to the good bits about the Ewoks...

So how long before...

[The Ancients]

Some creative company wants to find, and market this 'untouched natural' water?

Geek planet alright

[AndroidCat]

So Mars haven't taken a bath or shower in ages. No wonder they're finding crusty salt brine residue.

"...and then...

[mark0]

"... the lense on the camera got really fogged up. That's when we really got suspicious."

Link to the web case

[seann]

Its not too late to watch: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/landing.cfm

Where did it go?

[gid13]

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but where does the water go? Vapour in the atmosphere? Did the hydrogen and oxygen break apart somehow? Chemical reactions with something else? Did it just float off into space? Those all seem unlikely to me, but then, what do I know?

Re:Where did it go?

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

Yes, floats off into space, or turns into ice. There is very little atmosphere, so there is some speculation that the water is in liquid form under the Mars surface somewhere, and it eventually gets pushed up to the surface where it instantly evaporates into water vapor. The thin atmosphere sends this water vapor off into space, or it eventually collects at the two polar ice caps.

Re:Where did it go?

[mackinaugh]

Actually, I watched this documentary once with Arnold Schwarzenegger where they showed where all the water is. It's in giant ice blocks in this huge cave. There's also an alien device designed to release it as vapor, thereby creating an atmosphere on Mars.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Where did it go?

[xeaxes]

Rent the movie Spaceballs. It explains how to move water and other features from one planet to another.

the full article from nasa.gov

[therealcaf]

can be found here [nasa.gov]

There's water, maybe there's life

[lavalyn]

And then there are fossils. Which means the next NASA mission will be funded by Halliburton after all.

You spend $100 billion...

[Ga_101]

To equip 2 Rovers with the best water detecting equipment known to man and how do you find water?

You get mud stuck to the tyres!

But in all seriosness, Good on NASA.
But it certainly makes a more life seeking mission like beagle 2 all the more important.

A la Steve Jobs

[gfilion]

and at the end of the conference, they'll pretend that it's over and say:
and one more thing... we found life on Mars!

Sulphates and Amino Acids

[aacool]

Of the elements known to exist in the body, some, possibly all, are necessary to life. They are carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, potassium, sodium, iron, copper, manganese, zinc, magnesium, lithium, phosphorus, sulphur, chlorine, iodine, barium, silicon.

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.

New info

[DarkHand]

The conference is going on now and theres new news: Not only was there a large amount of water, there's good evidence that it was salty.

NASA Press Release

[athorshak]

No link in the article. Here is the press release: NASA Press Release [nasa.gov]

Men are from Mars

[Fragmented_Datagram]

Oooh... so maybe humans were originally on Mars... and they screwed up their planet with pollution, overuse of resources, etc., but managed to transport a few people to Earth to start over...
And maybe we'll look to terraform Mars and move there once we've hosed this planet too. The cycle continues...
Heh... yeah. Anyway, back to work now.

Free Food?

[WebGangsta]

Does this mean that we ARE going to get free jumbo shrimp [longjohnsilvers.com] or not?

Crap. Fine print says...

If NASA's Mars Exploration Mission team discovers conclusive evidence that an oceanic body of water currently exists or previously existed on the planet Mars, and an Official Declaration of such existence is made on or before February 29, 2004, Long John Silver's will offer every person in the United States the opportunity to obtain one (1) free Giant Shrimp (Approximate Retail Value of $0.79) ("Free Giant Shrimp") at participating Long John Silver's(R) restaurants in the United States.

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.

It's time to crash the moon into mars!

[Dutchmaan]

Add some mass to the planet for added gravtiy, massive heat increase to melt the ice caps and creat liquid water...

Make it pay per view to keep it profitable!

We can call it a Weapon of Mass Creation!

WE CAN'T LOSE!

Re:It's time to crash the moon into mars!

[PYves]

for some reason your post made me want to play billiards.

Is this news???

[Ektanoor]

Frankly I'm disappointed. Until now they roam around and claim that the findings are not wholly conclusive:

"The images obtained to date are not adequate for a definitive answer. So scientists plan to maneuver Opportunity closer to the features for a better look. "We have tantalizing clues, and we're planning to evaluate this possibility in the near future," Grotzinger said.

Besides hydrated minerals were already hinted by Spirit. One of the very first press releases pointed to that fact. Besides this is not the only weird thing between Opportunity and Spirit outputs. If one compares the first wave from results from Spirit with Opportunity's then it seems that the second robot is clearly giving very thiny results. Until now I could not see broadscale spectral and infrared analysis like the ones Spirit did. Maybe I'm missing something but frankly it seems that data feed from Meridiani goes a long way from it could.

PS: To those who are discussing theologies... Frankly don't get you people. Try to find a super SF author by the name of Nicolau Cusanus and his bestseller "De docta ignorantia". He already discussed a lot of what you keep rumbling till now...

I Was Hoping

[jazman_777]

they had found some Spice.

Jarosite, defined

[RobertB-DC]

The NASA scientist held up a sample of Jarosite. For the curious, here's a definition [galleries.com]. Note -- the page referenced has several very cool links for more information.

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.

Mission Accomplished

[QuantumFTL]

Here at JPL, it is an interesting mixed feeling the scientists are having.

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:Mission Accomplished

[QuantumFTL]

Slashdot may have its faults, but this is one if its best features. We can hear directly from the folks actually making the news. Rock on, Justin! Thanks for posting here and giving us a first person view of JPL, and thanks for helping advance human understanding of the mysterious universe in which we exist.

Well, I may be pretty darn low on the totem pole here (I develope portions of the rigorously engineered ground data systems software, and solve random technical/mathematical problems for the scientists) however there's a nontechnical, human side to this exploration effor that I feel I"m qualified to shed some light on regardless of my rank. I work with a lot of qualified, amazing people, (Squyres really is as cool as he seems on TV) and it's something I wish more /.ers could experience. I'd invite all of you over here to be part of it (though I think a real-life slashdotting would be a horrible thing to see... it'd make a riot seem like a tea party). But I guess all I can do is share a few tidbits.

I hope everyone here takes what I post as it should be - the thoughts of an intern who's been working with the team for 4 years, caught up in something so much bigger that never ceases to surprise, amaze, and overstress :)

I would like to put forth something that many /.ers don't realize, that /. itseslf has been a contribution to NASA's space program. Myself and others I know have found many useful pieces of information on slashdot that we use in our work (that's how I justify my addiction :)). Hell, we certainly wouldn't be where we are without open source. Almost all of the tools my team uses are open source, and we have a lot of open source software incorporated into our program (Maestro/SAP, which will hopefully be fully openned up by the end of the year). I don't think I coudl give back to slashdot/OSS what has been given to me.

Yes most of the comments are people randomly shouting about things they know nothing about, but there's always that insightful/informative gem in there that's educational, enlightening, or maybe just brings a chuckle to my workday (though I have a tendency to laugh rather loudly, probably not good for at the office).

Thanks to all of you who post, especially those with something good to say!

Cheers,
Justin Wick
Mars Exploration Rovers

Re:Finally.. an end to religion

[System.out.println()]

The next find I expect is simple life living on Mars.

Water != life

How can any religion survive that revelation?

I don't recall the Bible saying that there was no life anywhere but Earth. I've always believed it was possible that simple life could exist elsewhere. Intelligent life would throw religion a curve, though... I haven't thought as much about that.

Re:Finally.. an end to religion

[FreemanPatrickHenry]

Well here goes my karma...

How can any religion survive that revelation? ...because no religion is dependent upon the earth being the only planet with life on it?

Re:Finally.. an end to religion

[rayvd]

As far as Christianity is concerned, where in the Bible does it say life only exists / was created on earth?

Re:Finally.. an end to religion

[RobertB-DC]

As far as Christianity is concerned, where in the Bible does it say life only exists / was created on earth?

Excellent point. I think my fundamentalist brethren tend to forget that when God came to Moses, he wasn't dealing with a Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking -- or even a Galileo. He was dealing with a guy whose claim to fame was running away from a life of luxury to tend sheep. At the best, Moses' idea of the universe might have dealt with Egyptian gods, and a universe whose origin was a direct result of some rather kinky onanism.

God came to Moses in a way Moses could understand, in a way that his fellow shepherds and stonemasons could understand.

Imagine Moses up on the mountain, getting the first four books of what we now call the Old Testament from the Almighty:

Moses: So, where did we come from?

God: Well, I started with a singularity. Pretty much an undifferentiated soup of degenerate nucleons at first, but a little stir here and there produced some dense spots. Of course, it was just a few million years until the nucleons were able to condense into fermions, and then baryons...

Moses: tilt!

God: Oh, just tell 'em that the world was created from the void.

Moses: How long did it take to create the world?

God: Well, it took a few billion years to... oh, never mind, let's call it "seven days".

A bit cheeky, but the point is: God comes to us in a way we can understand. That's different for an illiterate goat breeder in 2000 BC than it is for a nuclear physicist in 2000 AD. Whether you choose to believe doesn't have as much to do with how God appears as it does with your own faith.

Re:Finally.. an end to religion

[System.out.println()]

Do you honestly expect every single thing God created to be written down?
And Sirius begat M-551, and M-551 begat Polaris, and....
Someone's going to say "Life elsewhere would be pretty important."
Sure, to you. Probably not so interesting to most people living 4000+ years ago, who would have been quite shocked to discover that there was more than one continent, or that the world was round.

Re:Finally.. an end to religion

[23skiddoo]

Even though I am an atheist, I must disagree with what you say. The revelation only refutes a portion of the Judeo-Christian(-Muslim?) tradition of the creationism story (which could easily and eventually be modified and bent to the new evidence). But in terms of philosphies, especially in regards to how we treat one another and our surroundings, abundant life in the universe is a non-issue. Other religions like Buddhism aren't touched by the news either.

My $0.02...

Calm down there Nietzsche

[kippy]

This is a troll if I ever saw one but I'll bite.

The idea that God created the universe with countless planets, stars and habitable worlds is not in conflict with at least Catholicism. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of other religions who would have no problem with such an idea but I'm no religious scholar.

If I recall correctly, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Earth is the only world in the universe or even the only one with life, intelligent or not. It's kind of an open question.

Please give me a verse if I'm wrong.

Re:Finally.. an end to religion

[Azog]

Why would most religions care?

Christians (at least _informed_ Christians, yes there are some) in particular, would not be disturbed to find that God had created life in more than one place. Why shouldn't He? It's not like the Bible says somewhere in it "Oh, and by the way... this planet is the only one with life on it."

C.S. Lewis discussed the subject fairly completely in an essay decades ago. In case you don't know, he was a famous and very influential Christian author, as well as writing some science fiction and fantasy. Besides writing a non-fiction essay about it, you could view his "Space Trilogy" fiction as an examination of the life-on-other-planets issue with a Christian background.

The more interesting question (also discussed by C.S. Lewis and many others) is how different religions would react to the discovery of _intelligent_ life somewhere else in the universe.

Microbes on Mars... scientifically, that's amazing. From a religious point of view... well, it's "just" another example of a Creator God at work.

Re:Finally.. an end to religion

[General Alcazar]

Religion can be a lot of things besides explaining our physical reality. In my humble opinion, one of the major issues it struggles with is, what is the meaning of our existence.

Of course, I understand your criticism, which is, I think, directed mostly at dogmatic adherence to ancient traditions without questioning them. However, religion will survive, I am sure. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Science is concerned with one aspect of our reality - the quantifiable, and predictable. Religion is concerned with all those things that you cannot quantify - love, anger, thought, the experience of death, wonder, awe, consciousness. They are both parts of our reality, and neither can be used to explain everything.

Re:WTF?

[Ironix]

Actually that is not entirely true...

St. Augustine, back in the day, posited that if there are other planets with life on them, Jesus would have had to visit them all in order to "save" them.

If Jesus did in fact do this, it would remove the uniqueness of Jesus. Since the bible states that Jesus' is unique, this could not have happened.

Thus he surmised that there is no life on other planets.

Re:Finally.. an end to religion

[Fjord]

Actually, an ellipsis usually has three periods. An ellipse is usually a conic section whose plane is not parallel to the axis, base, or generatrix of the intersected cone.

Re:Finally.. an end to religion

[Just Some Guy]

Sorry you had it that bad. I grew up in a conservative Christian household and was highly encouraged to choose what I wanted and what I was good at for a career. My parents were excited that I wanted to study science, and supported me every step of the way.

My kids are growing up in a conservative Christian household and I am highly encouraging them to choose what they want and what they're good at for a career. I hope that they want to study science, but will support them every step of the way regardless of their decision.

I know that doesn't help you any, but I thought you should know that Christianity and a love of science are not mutually exclusive. Any belief system (or lack thereof) will have a few bonehead adherents, but that doesn't mean that's the norm, or even particularly common.

Re:woohoo

[Xeed]

Well, I think you were forgetting about the whole alien overtone. Also, the water isn't there anymore. They are still looking for the big alien device to bring it all back.

Also, I'm voting for Arnold when he runs for King of Mars. I'd like him to fix the drought.

Re:So what?

[stratjakt]

The common knowledge was that the ice caps are carbon dioxide ice - dry ice.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The common knowledge was that the ice caps are carbon dioxide ice - dry ice.

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:So what?

[cmowire]

Liquid water on Mars required the atmospheric pressures to be higher than they are right now. There was no proof, only speculation, that this was the case. Now there's something closer to proof.

Re:A great breakthrough...

[b-baggins]

Considering the difficulty evolution has in explaining the origins of life, finding life on Mars would not boost evolution as much you'd like to think.

Even Dawkins admits that selection can't work until the right proteins are in place and can replicate. In his book the Blind Watchmaker, he basically admits that abiognesis is required involving some VERY unlikely chemical combinations, before evolution can get started and then, in my opinion, offers a huge copout by basically saying: Well, with so many planets in the universe, the odds of it happening at least once may not be so improbable.

The odds of it happening twice in the same solar system strain credibility.

I suspect the explanation will be that life on Earth actually started on Mars.

Re:A great breakthrough...

[b-baggins]

You didn't even read my comment. Evolutionary theory as it currently stands requires some form of abiogenesis to get started. It would NOT have good explanatory power for the life getting STARTED.

If you do the math on the chances of the right precursor molecules spontaneously forming without selection pressures, the odds are ridiculously low. I'd have to look it up, but it's on the order of 10^26 against, and that's with ridiculously optimistic concentrations of the right chemicals in the soup. In that time frame, a trillion years is nothing, thus Dawkins' comments.

To be fair, Dawkins does try to get around the limitation by assuming that the precursor molecues got a kick start from a non-organic matrix that could undergo selection (clays), but he fails to explain how the molecules would be embedded in the right amounts in the clay (a random process). A critical analysis shows the argument to be basically flawed, and we're back to the abiogenesis requirement again. Even Dawkins' doesn't give the clay idea much more than a "just-so" story treatment.

Re:Biggest story of all time...

[mithras the prophet]

Probably? Life on Mars would be the biggest scientific discovery in all the human lifetimes lived thus far, I would say.

I mean, maybe Copernicus... no... or Galileo... no... Darwin... maybe, but I'd really say that each of those would be mere stepping stones on the way towards the discovery of exobiology. Personally, I'd give my right leg to live in a time when extraterrestrial life is discovered. Maybe others don't feel that strongly, but it would be history-changing.

Good point about this discovery, though. This is significant, but I agree, maybe more on the level of the peak of an individual's career, and a milestone that people will point to later. But not quite lifetime status. :)

Re:We will infect Mars

[applemasker]

There are international guidelines on the amount of biological hitchhikers that are allowed on the probes that are sent to other planets. Presumably, Spirit and Opportunity were de-contaminated to these standards (as was Pathfinder/Sojourner). Incidentally, Viking landers were both put in ovens a sterilized before launch, but these days the standard has been to only sterilize certain parts like this and wipe-down disinfect others, which is probably better on the electronics in any event.

Re:For all the overtly religious people...

[Skeezix]

I'm sorry, what the hell does finding water on Mars have to do with religious belief? I don't see anyone of any religious faith claiming that there was no water on Mars because their religion says so.

Re:Get off the cross

[parcel]

The ISS and Mars have the forest. Hubble needs a tree.

The cost so far for this most recent mars mission is over $800 million. Budgeting through further missions is set to exceed $15 billion. The ISS outdoes even this, with an expected cost of near $30 billion to finish the station, and estimated operating costs of $1.5 billion a year once completed.

Hubble needs about $100 million for a single shuttle launch. $200 million in equipment has already been constructed and is only waiting in a warehouse for a mission.

I don't deny the importance of the ISS and Mars missions. All these projects have significant importance for science, technology, and society as a whole. Hubble is about far more than "getting to see a black hole". We have made dramatic advances in astrophysics with the help of the telescope. We have gained immense insight into the depths of our universe, to an extent that won't be possible again for a very long time.

Taking relative cost of the three projects into account, Hubble is by leaps and bounds the most effective. Do the math. Fixing the hubble will only take 0.2% of the cost of the ISS and Mars missions. Given the advances in science [nasa.gov] and technology [nasa.gov] we have extracted from Hubble, the return on this small investment is tremendous.

That's why I sigh.

Re:If there was water...

[cavac]

Hard to say. Except for earth, we don't have any examples yet, which means there could be only very rude educated guesswork.

But i'd say the chances are pretty good, since it's known (or at least highly possible) that primitive live like one-cell-organism could survive in space for a long time through hybernating. And it is known that planetary material could be ejected into space (like from meteor impacts or violent vulcanic explosions like in Krakatau - see here [irfamedia.com] and here [sdsu.edu] and land on another planet like mars.

Although the chances of survival for one-cell-organisms in a single incident are fairly small, there must have been thousands - if not millions - of these catastrophic events in earths past. One of the biggest was presumably the asteroid that created a thermonuclear winter about 65 million years ago. This one is known to have ejected material out of earths orbit.

So, all things considered, chances are that some bacteria could have survived an ejection from earth, the travel through interplanetary space, reentry into mars' atmosphere and adaption to mars' climate.

For the chances of complex life-forms: Well, it pretty much depends on many factors: The past climate of mars, if the first life-forms were native or not - and if not - how sucessfull presumed introduced life-forms from other planets adapted to the given and changing climate on mars.

As for fish, i'm don't really know, i'll rather bet on plant-life and rather primitive water-based or sand-based animal life-forms.