BOLD Plan To Find Mars Life On the Cheap 61
techfun89 writes "There is a BOLD new plan for detecting signs of microbial life on Mars. The nickname is BOLD, which stands for Biological Oxidant and Life Detection Initiative, would be a follow-up to the 1976 Mars Viking life-detection experiments. 'We have much better technology that we could use,' says BOLD lead scientist Dirk Schulze-Makuch, with Washington State University. He elaborates, 'Our idea is to make a relatively cheap mission and go more directly to characterize and solve the big question about the soil properties on Mars and life detection.' To help figure out the life-detection mystery, Schulze-Makuch and his colleagues would fly a set of six pyramid-shaped probes that would crash land, pointy end down, so they embed themselves four to eight inches into the soil. One of the instruments includes a sensor that can detect a single molecule of DNA or other nucleotide."
Am I the only one... (Score:1)
...who pictured Stargate when they read this?
What if the creature uses N2 rather than 02 ? (Score:2)
The B.O.L.D. program hinges on detecting oxygen exchange
What if the life form on Mars uses N2 instead?
Re:What if the creature uses N2 rather than 02 ? (Score:5, Informative)
The B.O.L.D. program hinges on detecting oxygen exchange
What if the life form on Mars uses N2 instead?
Nitrogen is a bit on the inert side to be useful as life's energy source.
Re:What if the creature uses N2 rather than 02 ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The B.O.L.D. program hinges on detecting oxygen exchange
What if the life form on Mars uses N2 instead?
Nitrogen is a bit on the inert side to be useful as life's energy source.
Well, what if they just breathe iron? You know, like some of the creatures here on Earth. [wikipedia.org] Mars has lot's of iron... it has sulfer, and even some water. I suppose the life on Earth currently uses oxygen, so that's what we're looking for? I mean, what about The Great Oxidation Catastrophe? [wikipedia.org] During which lots of this planet's anaerobic life was likely killed off (oxygen was poisonous to them, they didn't use it). Point being: We don't even know what to look for -- we have hardly any idea what the parameters of life are on our own planet. Until recently we thought nothing could survive at the bottom of the ocean, boy was that wrong.
I guess you've got to begin looking somewhere, and looking for the presence of life as we know it is a good start. However, all evidence will be inconclusive as to the existence of life unless they actually find life, or we do a whole lot more exploration of Mars than we've done of our own planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately they're doing more than one experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
Nitrogen is a bit on the inert side to be useful as life's energy source.
Well, the vast majority of Americans are a bit on the inert side too but we seem to manage just fine.
Will it detect intelligent life (Score:3, Funny)
Because there is bugger all down here on earth
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Will it detect intelligent life (Score:5, Funny)
Should've read the title of your post first
*hides in a corner*
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is, but that's not what NASA is for.
No, they're for stuff like testing Toyota's brakes [autonews.com].
Crash land? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Crash land? (Score:5, Funny)
Just run this as a joint mission between the US and the EU, problem solved.
Too risky. It may just float softly to the ground. And then explode.
BOLD plan? (Score:4, Funny)
Looks more like an all-caps plan to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot probably doesn't support the <b> tag in headlines ;)
Re: (Score:1)
When there's a wind-storm on Mars, it becomes the italics plan.
Re: (Score:3)
For one, there's an eight-minute lag between here and Mars, and AFAIK, machine vision algorithms are not yet advanced enough to identify a generalized bacterium-shape among all the crystals and debris in a Martian soil sample. You'd need real-time human oversight for that.
Also, I'm not sure whether the optics would survive such a landing, but that's beside the point.
Re:Microscope? (Score:5, Informative)
No, you don't need machine vision algorithms or real-time human intervention. People often deal with much bigger delays in analyzing microscope images on earth. Phoenix actually had a microscope, they just aren't good at detecting bacteria.
Re:Microscope? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we can't reliably detect unknown life on THIS planet with an optical microscope?
I may be mad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If this is the argument that comes from being sober, then we should be glad that so many of our brilliant scientists were inebriated for large parts of their lives.
To be more serious; it is about a thirst for knowledge and discovery, one of the main reasons for any scientific advances. Why should we be satisfied with exploring earth? Why shouldn't we explore the rest of our universe for life and other discoveries?
Re: (Score:3)
You're asking this question using the culmination of 40,000 years of technological advancement, every single step of which was based on the premise that our reach should always exceed our grasp.
On the day that we all collectively shrug and say "Eh, that's good enough" (likely after plugging in the first holosuite), then we're done as a species and might as well hand things over to the rats or cockroaches.
Re: (Score:2)
utterly improbable
What if it's not? What if, instead, life is very probable in places with the right environment? What would that mean? What would that imply about all the planets around other stars that we are finding? Could there be life, even civilizations? Are they watching our star and wondering about the rocky planets orbiting it?
All of these just being components of one of the biggest questions humanity has ever asked itself:
Are we alone in the universe?
If you just aren't interested in the answer, fine, but to me
Re: (Score:1)
it's called "soup" here on Earth.
False positives? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how many DNA molecules the probe might encounter on its way to Mars.
Re:False positives? (Score:4, Informative)
Not sure why you got modded insightful. Space is almost a perfect vacuum, and the vast majority of the matter out there will be hydrogen with very little else. Even if there was DNA floating around in space, it would get destroyed by the radiation that's out there. If the probe can make it out of our atmosphere without getting contaminated with DNA then it will make it to Mars without encountering any DNA.
Valles Marineres (Score:3, Interesting)
They should make a seventh probe, and aim it at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valles_Marineris. It's kilometres deep so the atmosphere down there ought to be thicker (it's certainly more turbulent). Assuming Mars once had a thick atmosphere and running water (which seems to be the prevailing consensus) then it seems to me that the place that environment and any possible inhabitants would have been preserved longest is in the Valles.
Unless, of course, this huge crack in Mars was the epicentre of some great event that stripped away the atmosphere in the first place...
Pyramids of Mars (Score:4, Funny)
a set of six pyramid-shaped probes
So that's what the title of the Doctor Who episode was referring to! I wonder if the probes will locate Sutekh.
Re: (Score:1)
Remember, the Spirit rover had a BSOD moment when it tried to grind into a pyramid-shaped rock. Perhaps they should try another shape. Cones don't seem demon-associated much (unless Marvin tries to put CO2 ice-cream in it.)
Just six static probes? Good grief. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mars may be smaller than Terra, but it's still an awfully big place. Even if life exists or once existed on Mars, there's no guarantees its presence would leave a mark everywhere. Six immovable probes might find nothing and STILL not answer the question. The only way we get a useful answer at all from just six bullets fired into the dunes is that one of them actually finds something; if they find nothing it still doesn't disprove the presence of life.
It's great that the people behind this want to make names for themselves, but we need to think - and plan and budget - much bigger than this if we truly want a definitive answer. This plan with a spaghetti western budget won't give us one. It's essentially a waste of time. Bold, yes, but also pointless where the stated goal is concerned.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if life exists or once existed on Mars, there's no guarantees its presence would leave a mark everywhere.
If it's anything like terrestrial life, it would.
But you are right in that this project will not give a definitive answer. There are many points of failure, the instruments can go wrong, the craft can introduce contamination to the sample etc. The only solid proof would be returning some soil sample to earth and finding the actual bacteria in it, but currently that's out of our reach both financially and technically.
Re: (Score:3)
It's great that the people behind this want to make names for themselves, but we need to think - and plan and budget - much bigger than this if we truly want a definitive answer. This plan with a spaghetti western budget won't give us one.
An even better plan is to do a few simple experiments do help decide on what the big plan should be. If we can eliminate a few things first then it can make the big plan a whole lot cheaper.
Re: (Score:1)
and they landed on top of princes, killing them, and the radiation mummified them. Perhaps the princes on the African continent back then spammed space once too often, like they do now.
"All worlds are yours except Europa..." (Score:1)
Let's just hope we don't turn up any black monoliths.
Pfff, Beagle 2 already did that (Score:2)
They should just embed a microphone, if they hear "ouch", they found life... well... alive up till then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_2
no new Mars probes this decade (Score:2)
And this is before conservative republicans chop the budget, which they could do with a congressional majority next year.
Re: (Score:2)
Super Pork Launcher! Sounds like a little-known SNES title, and is about as relevant to space exploration today.
Which life? (Score:2)
All these plans to "find life" on Mars will inevitably result in humans putting life on Mars...which we will find later. How much "contaminants" do we put on a planet's surface before we realize that something will eventually slip through the cracks?
Re: (Score:3)
So why is it (Score:2)
Didn't this kill Mars exploration for years? (Score:2)