4 ms·
Organic Chemist here engaging in some speculation. My best guess: Curiosity's SAM module has discovered significant levels of small organic molecules in the Ma
by apo 14y ago
Organic Chemist here engaging in some speculation.
My best guess: Curiosity's SAM module has discovered significant levels of small organic molecules in the Martian soil. Not just any organic molecules, but either byproducts of life - or more exciting, the actual building blocks of life.
This would be strong evidence for present or past life, but would be far from an observation of life itself.
Some commenters have made the point that 'something for the history books' (the quote from the missions's PI) means different things for scientists and the public.
I'm pretty sure the discovery falls into the category of exciting for scientists, not exciting for the general public.
The data in question are coming from SAM, Curiosity's sample analysis tool. It's equipped with six gas chromatography (GC) columns. The output of these columns can be fed into either a mass detector (QMS) or spectrometer (TLS). IMO, none of these tools can detect life itself:
http://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/sam/samiam.html http://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/sam/samiam.html
SAM's purpose is specifically to find evidence for organic molecules - molecules based on carbon. The announcement will have something to do with discovery of organic molecules of some kind:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20110118.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20110118.html
So direct observation of microbes or any other life form will not be the announcement. I'm pretty sure that's the only discovery that would be 'earthshaking' for the public.
What would be earthshaking for me as an organic chemist?
One possibility would be that SAM has discovered known byproducts of life, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), as was found in the Martian Meteorite studied by the Zare group:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/97/4.3.97/Mars_rock.html http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/97/4.3.97/Mars_rock.ht...
PAHs can be made through a variety of inanimate processes, so I'd view this discovery as more ho-hum.
Still, it should be remembered that Viking failed to detect the presence of any organic molecules at all. Finding any organic molecules would be a big change in how we view Mars - but not in my view 'one for the history books'.
However, if familiar building blocks of life such as amino acids or carbohydrates were detected, that would indeed fall into the earthshaking category.
Life on Earth uses a selection of about 20 different amino acids. I would consider observation of a similar assortment of amino acids as strong evidence pointing to past or present life on Mars.
Observation of five- and six-carbon carbohydrates, which are generally much more difficult to synthesize than amino acids, would be even stronger evidence for life. It's hard to overestimate how important that discovery would be.
Observation of peptides - amino acids strung together as is done by all known life would probably be the most mind-blowing thing I could imagine SAM discovering. Depending on what specifically was found, it could remove any doubt - Mars has or had life. Very long peptide chains can be synthesized without life, but it's not easy. The exact composition of amino acids in the peptide chain would be critical for the interpretation and would be more time consuming than just, for example, observing a PAH.
The fact that amino acids, peptides, or carbohydrates themselves were detectable today, given that they do degrade over time, could point in the direction of life having been present recently.
- duaneb 14y agoI feel like the detection of e.g. amino acids on mars is just wishful thinking. That either points to panspermia (either mars->earth or earth->mars or, uhh, alien-> both?) or concurrent development of extremely similar forms of life. Both scenarios strike me (irrationally) as extremely unlikely. I'm guessing it will discover a biproduct of biological processes, e.g. high levels of methane.
- jlgreco 14y agoIt seems to me that the probability of life independently developing along similar routes is hard to really peg a probability on. We only have one example of abiogenesis to study right now, but evolution of earth-life could give us some basis to reason about independent instances of abiogenesis. Certain "features" just make sense for life on Earth, and have evolved numerous times independently. Flight is a classic example, having evolved four completely separate times (bugs, (extinct) pterosaurs, birds, and bats). Complex eyes also seem to have independently developed many times. Similarly, it seems fairly reasonable that certain "life chemistries" "make more sense" than others. The extent to which that may be the case could also be up in the air I think. Maybe 'carbon with a water solvent' is particularly common, but amino acid based is less so. Or maybe amino acid based life tends to naturally follow from an also likely carbon based chemistry. It will be exciting to see what we uncover in the future. I think either two cases of abiogenesis or a solid case of panspermia would be pretty wild, for their own reasons.
- maaku 14y agoSpeak to a(n astro)biologist. It is exceedingly likely that independently developed extraterrestrial life will use amino acids in some way, shape, or form. It is exceedingly unlikely that it would use the exact same 20 amino acids, however, which would give a way of detecting panspermia. For that matter, any chemically unlikely preponderance of a subset of amino acids would be very strong evidence for life.
- jerf 14y agoIntra-solar-system panspermia is far more mundane than the galactic-sized versions. It is well known that pieces of all the planets end up on other planets due to being ejected during meteor impacts and eventually landing on the other ones. We know this, because we have found some of the ones that have landed on Earth. It is a reasonable hypothesis that certain hardy bacteria could conceivably survive the trip. If Mars was ever hospitable to live, there is a plausible path for simple Earth life to get there. So in the event Martian life is discovered, there's still some work to be done; is it "just" Earth life that got there, albeit presumably heavily-adapted, or can it be established that it is not from the same line as Earth? The second one is the real jackpot question that has profound implications for our place in the universe. The first one, less so. Not zero, but definitely less so. And if it is the first one, it's going to be a real bear trying to explain that it isn't the second one to a press that is mostly incapable of understanding the difference, let alone explaining it to the public....