Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mars NASA Space

Scientist Says Potential Signs of Ancient Life in Mars Rover Photos 142

Posted by samzenpus from the did-you-see-that? dept.
mpicpp notes that a scientist named Nora Noffke says she thinks that the Curiosity rover may have found fossils on Mars. "Time and time again, as we carefully scrutinize the amazing high-resolution imagery flowing to Earth from NASA’s Mars rover Curiosity, we see weird things etched in Martian rocks. Most of the time our brains are playing tricks on us. At other times, however, those familiar rocky features can be interpreted as processes that also occur on Earth. Now, in a paper published in the journal Astrobiology, a geobiologist has related structures photographed by Curiosity of Martian sedimentary rock with structures on Earth that are known to be created by microbial lifeforms."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientist Says Potential Signs of Ancient Life in Mars Rover Photos More

Scientist Says Potential Signs of Ancient Life in Mars Rover Photos

Comments Filter:

  • No coverup (Score:5, Funny)

    by meglon ( 1001833 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @04:14PM (#48758881)
    It's not that NASA is covering up the proof of life they've found on Mars, it's just that they're trying to figure out who this Kilroy guy was before publishing the report.

    • Re:No coverup (Score:5, Funny)

      by Deadstick ( 535032 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @04:29PM (#48759099)

      You're showing your age.

      OK, OK, I'm off your lawn.

  • Slashdot today. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MozeeToby ( 1163751 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @04:17PM (#48758935)

    Seven comments in, so far there's 4 jokes, 2 anti-us spam/trolls, and 1 crank. Quality discussion there.

    • The trolls are taking over. I read it can even be a source of income now, from certain countries. Oh yay. Now, jokes, OTOH.. a little levity never hurts.

    • Re: Slashdot today. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DustinB ( 220805 )

      More like koala tea. All jokes aside, this place isn't what it used to be... :( at its best its usually just inward bickering back and forth instead of discussion. I don't know where to go for insighful intelligent discussion online anymore.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by TWX ( 665546 )

      Seven comments in, so far there's 4 jokes, 2 anti-us spam/trolls, and 1 crank. Quality discussion there.

      So, kind of like it's always been then, but with less goatse...

      Which of your categories is your post?

    • Re:Slashdot today. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by iONiUM ( 530420 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @04:41PM (#48759215) Journal

      To be fair, there have been many of these "we think we may have found life / ancient life / we have a big announcement" type things out of NASA in the last few years, none of which had "conclusive" (or at least, relatively so) evidence of life.

      It's getting to the point where there's nothing really to discuss until they stop releasing these meta-statements, and actually give a real "we fucking found life FOR SURE" statement.

      • Nora Noffke, a geobiologist at Old Dominion University in Virginia...

        NASA didn't release anything.

      • To be fair, there have been many of these "we think we may have found life / ancient life / we have a big announcement" type things out of NASA in the last few years, none of which had "conclusive" (or at least, relatively so) evidence of life.

        I read, long ago, that scientifcally speaking, there is no conclusive proof of life on Earth either; probably tongue-in-cheek, but with a core of truth. There is that well-rehearsed and widely misunderstood phrase, that 'correlation is not causation'; what that actually means is that scientifc data will only ever indicate a correlation - the causation part belongs entirely in theory, in the interpretation of that correlation. Same here - the pictures show something that would most likely be created by life,

    • What site am I supposed to move on to? I'm not interested in Reddit. Where are the nerds today?

    • That's the price you pay for a completely uncensored forum. Personally, I think it's worth it.

      You don't have to read at -1 (you should if you're modding, though.) You're also reading and posting when the story has literally been here 15 minutes. There hasn't been time for quality discussion and moderation to take place (jokes, trolls and spam begin immediately, real discussion takes longer.)

      • You're also reading and posting when the story has literally been here 15 minutes. There hasn't been time for quality discussion and moderation to take place

        It'd take at least 5 minutes to read the first FA, and another couple to be fairly sure that the second FA was a complete regurgitation of the first. (Actually, I'm not really sure which was first and which second ; there may be a third FA.) So you're only allowing about 7 minutes to think of an analysis and compose a reply.

        It took me pretty much that

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dimwit ( 36756 )

      This isn't even my first Slashdot account, my old one dates from 1998 or 1999.

      When I first got on Slashdot, there was meaningful, technical discussion. A good number of actual experts in scientific and technical fields were present. Yeah there were always trolls and people racing to have the initial comment, but I feel like the entire tone of Slashdot has changed. You rarely get technical experts on here anymore, the trolls are just as prevalant if not more, and the entire readership has turned a lot to the

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by steelfood ( 895457 )

      It's published in the Journal of Astrobiology. That's the field that thinks they'll find star-devouring organisms.

    • Re:Slashdot today. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by solios ( 53048 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @05:40PM (#48759743) Homepage

      ...and unlike reddit, a registered and logged in user can dock "funny" posts and read at a threshold that scrubs most of the jokers and trolls under the rug. A feature slashdot has had since the 90s; a feature the rest of the internet still hasn't implemented.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Seven comments in, so far there's 4 jokes, 2 anti-us spam/trolls, and 1 crank. Quality discussion there.

      Launch a rover to Slashdot to see if you can find any intelligent life.

    • Seven comments in, so far there's 4 jokes, 2 anti-us spam/trolls, and 1 crank. Quality discussion there.

      You assume they are cranks, and not terrorists who hate cartoonists.

    • Seven comments in, so far there's 4 jokes, 2 anti-us spam/trolls, and 1 crank. Quality discussion there.

      Thanks for the informative, insightful post. You've really opened my eyes.

        Without your well written expose I'd still be reading those posts. I think we're all fortunate to have someone here with your hard hitting journalistic instincts.

    • Seven comments in, so far there's 4 jokes, 2 anti-us spam/trolls, and 1 crank. Quality discussion there.

      What were you expecting, petrified Martian grits?

      There isn't much that is substantive to discuss at this point. It looks exciting, but it is all very inconclusive. The paper from TFA is just a thought experiment by somebody in a field unrelated to Mars exploration, describing what features that look the same on Earth would be caused by. The difference in gravity alone makes it an absurdity to take it as science, though it is a great exercise and valuable brainstorming.

  • Time for some leaps and not baby steps (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <slashdotbin@hotmail.com> on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @04:35PM (#48759143) Homepage Journal

    Is it me, or does NASA seem scared to get the answer to the question of is/was there life on Mars?

    Viking’s results where ambiguous, so we decided – NO LIFE – no need to go back for over 20 years.

    Now we keep getting a tantalizing clues, but can’t seem to summon the will to do a sample return mission. How many sample return missions could the ISS fund? How much more scientific benefit would come from it?

    Of late it almost seems like they want to be just shy of proof so they can keep sending missions, getting us just a little closer each time. Call it the scientific method if you want but as Keynes once observed – “in the long run, we are all dead.” How-about we get our answers now?

    How about a real microscope on one of these missions, not just a camera that can take photos of small objects -- far short of microbial dimensions – then insist on calling it a microscopic imager. Hell, why not a scanning electron microscope?

    Most of the scientific instrumentation seems focused on geology. Granted Geology can be related to conditions for life and is important knowledge, but what we really want answered is “is there life on Mars”, not “is there hematite on Mars?” OK hematite on Mars is cool to know, but not as important I think as the Life question.

    When we went to the moon there were far less important questions to be answered. How can the Life question on Mars be so much less a priority when it could up-end so much of scientific knowledge?

    One final note to my rant – is it possible there is some drag on this quest so as to maintain the status quo and not upset a largely religious electorate that assumes we should only be concerned with our fate here on Earth as their God has decreed, or that life on Mars might raise too many uncomfortable questions.

    • Re:Time for some leaps and not baby steps (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @04:39PM (#48759195)

      No, they're afraid of saying there is life and being wrong. They're not currently saying there isn't life, they're saying they dont know either way. They have no definitive proof.

      I don't think anyone in the scientific community has any doubts that there was life there at one time. It's just a matter of proving it. I think it's rather likely that there still is life on mars and it will be surprisingly similar to microbial life hear on earth. I suspect our two planets have been inoculating each other for a very very long time.

      • I don't think anyone in the scientific community has any doubts that there was life there at one time. It's just a matter of proving it.

        I certainly hope you're wrong in this statement. Otherwise, it implies the "scientific community" is no better than a bunch of religious wackos when it comes to evaluating evidence.

        There is absolutely no reason to believe one way or another that life should exist or should have existed on Mars. If you go back to the Drake equation, we have only one datapoint regarding the probability of abiogenesis. It could be that life spontaneously appears on every random planet and is even multiple places in our so

        • The poster wasn't suggesting abiogenesis though, he was suggesting that Earth and Mars have been exchanging life for billions of years. I don't know if that's the case, but it's certainly easier to investigate the likelihood of than abiogenesis.

        • I don't think anyone in the scientific community has any doubts that there was life there at one time. It's just a matter of proving it.

          I certainly hope you're wrong in this statement.

          Well, speaking as an industrial geologist (not publishing for public consumption, but certainly researching), I can certainly state that this geologist is not convinced that Mars has ever had life. Certainly I'd be fascinated if life were found on Mars, or if evidence of past life on Mars were found. either event would hugely

      • I suspect our two planets have been inoculating each other for a very very long time.

        While that is certainly not impossible, I don't think that it's at all likely. And it is much, much easier to achieve the transfer from Mars to Earth than vice versa.

    • Now we keep getting a tantalizing clues, but canâ(TM)t seem to summon the will to do a sample return mission. How many sample return missions could the ISS fund? How much more scientific benefit would come from it?

      Serious question. What would be the scientific benefit coming from discovering that there might have been life on Mars at some point?

      • That's like asking "what's the benefit of studying this mold growing on my oranges?". No one knows. Maybe nothing. Maybe everything.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjm1231 ( 751545 )

        Serious question. What would be the scientific benefit coming from discovering that there might have been life on Mars at some point?

        Presumably, this discovery would be accompanied by some facts about the nature of the organisms that lived on Mars, not just the fact that they existed. It's hard to know what uses you can put knowledge to when you don't even know what that knowledge is yet.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

          Presumably, this discovery would be accompanied by some facts about the nature of the organisms that lived on Mars,

          I recall one of those 1950s sci-fi comics of a manned Mars mission exploring surface, come across some ruins (there really was a cilivization here millions of years ago). They find this one place of various apparatus and documents (maybe it's advanced mathematical studies and high technology). After spending some time analyzing the numbers, one concludes it doesn't seem much more than just a balance sheet for a business. Another finds the equipment some kind of holographic projector and manages to get it op

      • If we could compare it with life on Earth we would have a much better understanding of the nature of life itself in the universe. Do we share genetics with life on Mars, showing that life can travel between planets on asteroids? If life developed independently on Mars it would show that life could be very common in the universe, and it would be very interesting to see if life on Mars uses the same methods as life on Earth.

        • Do we share genetics with life on Mars, showing that life can travel between planets on asteroids?

          While I don't put any stock in panspermia, I find it interesting that when the theory is presented, it only seems to travel to Earth, and never from it. It seems to me that it would be more likely that panspermia FROM Earth to Mars [wikipedia.org] would be the more likely scenario if such a thing was possible, and then life on Mars would have existed for a short while in an inhospitable environment.

          • The reason for this asymmetry is that Mars has a much smaller gravity well than Earth, so spallation of surface material into space by an incoming meteorite is more likely.

          • Mars had conditions suitable for known life in an earlier period than Earth, that is why. The probabilities just add up better for Mars->Earth seeding, with smaller amounts then going back the other direction.

      • What would be the scientific benefit coming from discovering...[XYZ]

        The scientific benefit is the discovery itself, whether it has any social/commercial benefits is a different question.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

      Is it me, or does NASA seem scared to get the answer to the question of is/was there life on Mars?

      Viking’s results where ambiguous, so we decided – NO LIFE – no need to go back for over 20 years.

      that's why mission is not to ask "is there life?" Because if answer is no, then we ain't going back for another 20 years because that is exactly what happened with Viking (ok maybe I'm stretching it). But then I feel the same way, the next big thing is even a bigger rover. I've read stories of the "Mars Mafia" to keep the money rolling to JPL by continuing easy missions (but talk to people that worked on Curiosity and they'll tell you it is ***NOT*** easy). Now for a mission of big leap is a Europa lander a

      • If the answer is no life on Mars, then we send missions to moons that may have life. Is anyone at NASA really that invested in Mars over Europa for a mission 30 years down the road, to the point where they don't want to find out if Mars has life just so they can keep going there? Unlikely.

    • The followup to Curiosity currently in the works is a sample return mission. The long absence after Viking is a bit strange and I'm not sure what the explanation is, but I think the Mars rovers were a bit of a fluke, actually. This wasn't some big, orchestrated "find life on Mars" initiative. At the time of Spirit and Opportunity getting developed it was more like NASA was hurting from a couple of high profile failures and needed something doable enough that it was almost a sure thing, and compelling enough

      • before Spirit and Opportunity there was really only one successful science mission using a wheeled platform, which was a Soviet deal

        You're forgetting the Mars Pathfinder mission. It was a very successful rover mission that paved the way for Spirit and Opportunity.

        • Actually, that was Sojourner, which I did mention. You are right that I messed up though - I said it was after Spirit and Opportunity, but Sojourner was first as you correctly stated.

    • Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, there is still plenty of room for reasonable doubt. The focus on geology is how they will find past life, dig up a chunk of Martian coal (plants), iron ore nodules (anaerobic microbes) limestone (plankton sea shells), quartz (sponge fossils), etc, and you have your extraordinary evidence. If there is microbial life on Mars today the geology experiments have shown it's very unlikely to be found on the surface. If there was life on the surface in the past i
    • Mars ain't the kind of place you raise your kids. And a return sample mission is far more difficult than I think you grasp. This isn't some comet where we can just swing into the dust trail, and even that almost failed when it landed back here. Just designing and building the return rocket is incredibly difficult and far beyond anything we've ever done. Per Zubrin, it's right at Mars_ve = 5.00 km/s ==> 11185 mph. The escape velocity of Mars is 5017 m/s, Earth's is around 11,000 m/s. So for a return mi

      • So for a return mission we would have to land both a rover AND a rather large rocket to get a sample back.

        Why land a rather large rocket? Seriously. This same discussion took place pre-Apollo when engineers thought we'd have to land a large rocket on the moon. Their solution then would work equally well now. Send a lander with a small, lightweight return-to-orbit ascent stage. Leave the Earth-return rocket in orbit awaiting the ascent stage with sample. Your landing/takeoff mass problem is thus solved.

        Granted, you now need an automated docking procedure in Mars orbit, but I can't imagine that would be mor

    • Is it me, or does NASA seem scared to get the answer to the question of is/was there life on Mars?

      yes, it's you. they put a f'ing car full of sensors and tools on mars. has anyone else even come close to that?

      Hell, why not a scanning electron microscope?

      cost, weight, fragility?

    • The electorate is largely religious, Christian mostly, but that doesn't mean they can't accept life on Mars. I've never heard any mainstream Christian religion say that life on Mars would be blasphemous. However, I have seen some odd statements from Muslims.
    • Existence of bacteria or other similar life, millions of years ago on Mars, should not be scary to anyone (or surprising).
  • I only had time to skim, but the need to be hear the top is overpowering because of the obvious relevance. What's the scale in these pictures? I know microbes make macro-sized imprints, but certainly the parallels being proposed require some sort of scale? E.g. if the martian structures are hundreds of miles across they are not the same scale, and so are less likely to be from the same cause. Not that I disbelieve, but skepticism in science leads to truer truths.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Most of the identified structures are cm to tens of cm and metre scale. The area in the picture in the web article is maybe couple of metres across. There are scale bars on the pictures in the paper. The microbes are tiny, but (on Earth) they form microbial mat communities that look like a thin carpet of algae and bacteria that covers the sediment surface. This changes the way the sediment surface behaves, and (on Earth) leaves characteristic features that can be recognized as sedimentary structures pre

  • evidence of RECENTLY existing life: on the tires (Score:3)

    by fikx ( 704101 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @06:25PM (#48760137) Journal
    I keep waiting for the report that evidence of past life was found on the tire treads of one of the rovers.
    "Look: proof life used to exist on Mars! Quick, send a command to rotate the tire some before the press notices we ran over the last one on the planet..."

  • I mean, it only makes sense to send a mars rover to scout out Eden Prime. Hopefully, the first person to land there will be able to understand the vision.

  • From a link on microbial lifeforms found on Earth http://www.astrobio.net/news-e... [astrobio.net] "What’s more, MISS have remained unchanged over the last 3 billion years" MISS: microbially-induced sedimentary structure.

    Says a lot really, it's considered a fact you will get cancer (a mutation of the a cell) if you live long enough.

    "A certain irreducible background incidence of cancer is to be expected regardless of circumstances: mutations can never be absolutely avoided, because they are an inescapable consequence

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close