24 ms·

NASA Rover Finds Active and Ancient Organic Chemistry on Mars

264 points by dylnclrk 12y ago

dylnclrk 12y ago
"NASA's Mars Curiosity rover has measured a tenfold spike in methane, an organic chemical, in the atmosphere around it and detected other organic molecules in a rock-powder sample collected by the robotic laboratory's drill."
swombat 12y ago
For those eager to read ahead, they are very, very careful in this article not to imply in any way that this is definitely from any sort of living sources. > Organic molecules, which contain carbon and usually hydrogen, are chemical building blocks of life, although they can exist without the presence of life. Curiosity's findings from analyzing samples of atmosphere and rock powder do not reveal whether Mars has ever harbored living microbes, but the findings do shed light on a chemically active modern Mars and on favorable conditions for life on ancient Mars. Shame. I for one am looking forward to reading about actual life on Mars within my lifetime. Hopefully active life. We shall see.
- manachar 12y ago
  > Shame Poor word choice. There's no shame in being careful about the science and trying to represent it carefully in your press releases. Many non-science types do not know that organic molecules can exist without life and will already be jumping to conclusions.
  - aaroninsf 12y ago
    I believe OP shares your sentiments, and that you mistake the usage here. 'Shame' as used here is shorthand for 'that's a shame,' which used colloquially to express disappointment colored with sympathy and understanding, does not imply that any of the nominal subjects is being criticized. Source: I'm a native English speaker.
    - TallGuyShort 12y ago
      I believe this is not the case in the US, at least in my experience. In South Africa people say "shame" to express pity for someone else (or even just when something is adorable) but when I say it hear I get weird looks :)
      - pdabbadabba 12y ago
        Native U.S. English speaker here: we do use the word "shame" as GP describes. We use "shame" both to say that someone should be ashamed and also to express general disappointment. (Though we would not use the word to talk about something that's merely adorable.) To my U.S.-English ears, swombat's use of the word "shame" seemed clearly of the "general disappointment" variety.
        tomrod 12y ago
        In the U.S. don't we generally use "for shame" when berating?
        pdabbadabba 12y ago
        Yes. But here the writer simply began a statement with the word "shame" and proceeded to give a sober explanation consistent more with disappointment than outrage. In this context, I think the better interpretation of the writer's sentiment is to read "shame" as, essentially, short for "it's a shame" rather than "for shame!"
      - publicfig 12y ago
        No, it is definitely a case in the US. In his sentence, you could expand it to "That's a shame" or "That's a crying shame", both idioms that can express that something is "unfortunate" or "disappointing", and does not always require a blame.
      - ChristianBundy 12y ago
        I'm a native English speaker and I was born and raised in the US (specifically the Pacific Northwest), and "shame" isn't weird at all. It's used to express disappointment – with or without blame.
- Thieum22 12y ago
  It may be comforting that considering the Great Filter theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter ) finding life on mars might actually be bad news.
  - omgitstom 12y ago
    It matters what stage of life is found on Mars. Regardless, one data point even if it is our own solar system won't be enough for us to determine what/where the Great Filter or Great Filters could be.
  - givan 12y ago
    Great filter theory is pure speculation because this is the only thing you can have in absence of any data on the subject. Beyond our solar system the best data we have are shadows blocking star light that indicate an exoplanet sometimes they are false alarms being just star (sun) spots, radio waves are something we use at this point in our very young civilization, there is no indication that this is a standard or efficient way of communication to associate missing radio data to absence of other civilizations. In conclusion we have no data about life in the universe to jump to such conclusions or any conclusion, the only thing we can do is continue exploring and speculate on the question if there are advanced civilization capable of contact why aren't they contacting us?
    - roywiggins 12y ago
      Von Neumann probes could reach every star in the galaxy pretty quickly. A civilization with a few million years start on us should have their robotic friends here already, basking in our sun. And there only has to be one civilization that 1) can and 2) does create such probes. If spacefaring civilization is common, it seems awfully unlikely that none of them have done so yet.
      - givan 12y ago
        > it seems awfully unlikely that none of them have done so yet. We don't know that, there is no way to detect that with our current technology unless one of the probes land on earth and the government/military agrees to disclose and confirm the information, maybe this already happened but nobody wants to see it because they are afraid of the implications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave
- givan 12y ago
  Mars and his satellites have many surprises, maybe we will find something extraordinary there during our lifetime. We should go boldly where man has not gone before. Fly by the comets, visit asteroids, visit the moon of Mars. There’s a monolith there. A very unusual structure on this potato shaped object that goes around Mars once in seven hours. When people find out about that they’re going to say ‘Who put that there? Who put that there?’ The universe put it there. If you choose, God put it there.. Astronaut Buzz Aldrin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_%28moon%29#Proposed_missions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_%28moon%29#Proposed_miss...
- WalterBright 12y ago
  Let's face it, like the canals, there is no life on Mars. 40 years of probes have come up empty. It's a sterile rock. We should be thinking in terms of terraforming it by seeding it with terrestrial life.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    40 years of probes haven't been testing for it. To my knowledge, the last formal attempt at actual detection of life (not conditions for life, but life) was the 1970s Viking landers. There's not even scientific agreement on the right way to search. Meanwhile, here on Earth, we thought until recently that deep sea vents were sterile. If we didn't know life's limits here, we certainly can't claim to know them on Mars.
harel 12y ago
It could also be a case of severe alien flatulence. Sorry, I could not resist...
- civilian 12y ago
  I think you were looking for this: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2phv82/nasa_rover_finds_active_ancient_organic_chemistry/ http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2phv82/nasa_rover_f...
  - cdelsolar 12y ago
    What is the current height of your horse?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - comex 12y ago
    A similar comment on the other /r/science thread about this was also downvoted into oblivion; don't make cheap criticism based on stereotypes.
    - harel 12y ago
      how is that criticism? it was obviously said as a joke...
greggarious 12y ago
Here's a fun exercise in speculation: How long does HN think it will be between confirming life (e.g. bacteria), confirming life (e.g. mammals / bugs), and confirming intelligent life? (Never is an an acceptable answer for all 3, but please state why you hold your position)
- danbruc 12y ago
  Another question is in which order this would happen - if there is no other life in the solar system it might very well happen that we find (signs of) intelligent life before simple life.
  - grecy 12y ago
    > we find (signs of) intelligent life Or it finds us.
- rybosome 12y ago
  I think we're nearly at confirmation of basic alien life. IIRC there are talks of missions to Europa as early as the 2020's, and I would honestly be surprised if no microbial life was found there. Liquid water, chemical processes that could support chemosynthesis, a likely abundance of organic compounds and protection from radiation and cosmic rays are all critical factors. That may even extend to larger fish-like life...there's a chance that the moon's icy shell releases oxygen into its interior liquid ocean in large enough quantities to promote the freakishly-large growth we enjoy. If we don't discover larger multi-cellular life within our solar system (perhaps also on Titan, though that seems less likely), then it'll be many, many years before we discover it. Interstellar travel is a massive hurdle. =) Intelligent life, though...that's tricky. Given the size of the universe, it is almost certain that there is other intelligent life but who knows whether or not it survives long enough to come into contact? Discovering another civilization would be one of the most incredible experiences I can imagine, so I certainly hope it happens (peacefully) within my lifetime.
  - lumpypua 12y ago
    Can't speak to likelihood of discovering life on Europa but it would be fucking awesome. To be clear, microbial life in no way entails higher life. It's only by the insanely chance event of the eurkaryotic cell emerging that sophisticated multicellular life became possible on earth. Even if life is common in the universe, sophisticated multicellular life is extremely rare. The selective pressures on bacterial life favors small size and rapid reproduction, jettisoning any unnecessary genetic material. Mitochondrial ancestors relieved those pressures in a couple ways. Once the eukaryotic cell developed, multicellularity has evolved several times. All the cool things (multicellularity, eyes, flight) have evolved independently a bunch of times, and the eukaryote has happened only fucking once. Here's a deeper explanation of why it's so rare: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/20120266 http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/2012... Even if life is common in the universe, multicellular life is extremely rare because the evolution of eukaryote-esque organisms is extraordinarily rare and chance. Edit: That is to say, there's a strong case that step 4 is the Great Filter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter#The_Great_Filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter#The_Great_Filter
r0muald 12y ago
I totally understand being very cautious about their findings, but the wording of this paragraph struck me as odd: > The ratio that Curiosity found in the Cumberland sample is about one-half the ratio in water vapor in today's Martian atmosphere > suggesting much of the planet's water loss occurred since that rock formed > However, the measured ratio is about three times higher than the ratio in the original water supply of Mars, based on the assumption that supply had a ratio similar to that measured in Earth's oceans > This suggests much of Mars' original water was lost before the rock formed. So I guess a lot of water was lost both before and after the formation of the rock, and they only have ballpark figures for the hypothetical amounts?
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  Correct.
pepve 12y ago
Methane outside of earth is more common than I thought it would be (after reading the article): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Extraterrestrial_methane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Extraterrestrial_methan...
codeshaman 12y ago
Totally unscientific impulse based speculation, but here it is, I want to be the first. A long time ago (billions of years), our ancestors lived on Mars. The climate was changing due to human activity and shrinking of the Sun. Shit was getting serious and humanity needed a way to escape. The third planet from the Sun was chosen for seeding life into, due to it's proximity to the star and life-supporting characteristics. A ball of DNA was sent here to seed the planet. It contained the code for all living things, including humans with the source code for a consciousness able to evolve until it finds out the truth of creation. And here we are, close to finding that out and able to continue what our ancestors left behind billions of years ago, before going extinct. But that is only Step 1. Step 2 is finding out who seeded Mars and the Sun and the Universe. Might just be that it was us all along forever. Good night world ;)
- jackkcaj 12y ago
  That's quite a narrative.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Houshalter 12y ago
If life is discovered on mars, would we be allowed to colonize it?
- Mahn 12y ago
  Colonization is probably not the motivation for finding some microbial life there at the moment, but provided we wanted and could colonize, I'd guess we would just do it.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    I do remember hearing there was debate if we should introduce invasive species, let alone terraform, or try to preserve life the way it is. There is also concern about it going the other way around mar's life becoming invasive on Earth or infectious to humans. Obviously neither of our planet's life has evolved to be very fit in surviving in the other's environment. But evolution often has "arms races" where organisms evolve highly optimized weapons and defenses against them. It's possible one planet has evolved something the other has no defenses against which would give it an advantage. E.g. on Earth, the cane toad produces a poison that no Australian predators can survive, and so they all die and the toad overpopulates. Same with many invasive species, like plants that produce poison that kill all the other plants nearby, and take over fields and native ecosystems. Or predators introduced on islands that are much better than the native predators and kill all the native life.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

264 points by dylnclrk 12y ago

"NASA's Mars Curiosity rover has measured a tenfold spike in methane, an organic chemical, in the atmosphere around it and detected other organic molecules in a rock-powder sample collected by the robotic laboratory's drill."

swombat 12y ago

For those eager to read ahead, they are very, very careful in this article not to imply in any way that this is definitely from any sort of living sources. > Organic molecules, which contain carbon and usually hydrogen, are chemical building blocks of life, although they can exist without the presence of life. Curiosity's findings from analyzing samples of atmosphere and rock powder do not reveal whether Mars has ever harbored living microbes, but the findings do shed light on a chemically active modern Mars and on favorable conditions for life on ancient Mars. Shame. I for one am looking forward to reading about actual life on Mars within my lifetime. Hopefully active life. We shall see.

manachar 12y ago
> Shame Poor word choice. There's no shame in being careful about the science and trying to represent it carefully in your press releases. Many non-science types do not know that organic molecules can exist without life and will already be jumping to conclusions.
- aaroninsf 12y ago
  I believe OP shares your sentiments, and that you mistake the usage here. 'Shame' as used here is shorthand for 'that's a shame,' which used colloquially to express disappointment colored with sympathy and understanding, does not imply that any of the nominal subjects is being criticized. Source: I'm a native English speaker.
  - TallGuyShort 12y ago
    I believe this is not the case in the US, at least in my experience. In South Africa people say "shame" to express pity for someone else (or even just when something is adorable) but when I say it hear I get weird looks :)
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      Native U.S. English speaker here: we do use the word "shame" as GP describes. We use "shame" both to say that someone should be ashamed and also to express general disappointment. (Though we would not use the word to talk about something that's merely adorable.) To my U.S.-English ears, swombat's use of the word "shame" seemed clearly of the "general disappointment" variety.
      - tomrod 12y ago
        In the U.S. don't we generally use "for shame" when berating?
        pdabbadabba 12y ago
        Yes. But here the writer simply began a statement with the word "shame" and proceeded to give a sober explanation consistent more with disappointment than outrage. In this context, I think the better interpretation of the writer's sentiment is to read "shame" as, essentially, short for "it's a shame" rather than "for shame!"
    - publicfig 12y ago
      No, it is definitely a case in the US. In his sentence, you could expand it to "That's a shame" or "That's a crying shame", both idioms that can express that something is "unfortunate" or "disappointing", and does not always require a blame.
    - ChristianBundy 12y ago
      I'm a native English speaker and I was born and raised in the US (specifically the Pacific Northwest), and "shame" isn't weird at all. It's used to express disappointment – with or without blame.
Thieum22 12y ago
It may be comforting that considering the Great Filter theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter ) finding life on mars might actually be bad news.
- omgitstom 12y ago
  It matters what stage of life is found on Mars. Regardless, one data point even if it is our own solar system won't be enough for us to determine what/where the Great Filter or Great Filters could be.
- givan 12y ago
  Great filter theory is pure speculation because this is the only thing you can have in absence of any data on the subject. Beyond our solar system the best data we have are shadows blocking star light that indicate an exoplanet sometimes they are false alarms being just star (sun) spots, radio waves are something we use at this point in our very young civilization, there is no indication that this is a standard or efficient way of communication to associate missing radio data to absence of other civilizations. In conclusion we have no data about life in the universe to jump to such conclusions or any conclusion, the only thing we can do is continue exploring and speculate on the question if there are advanced civilization capable of contact why aren't they contacting us?
  - roywiggins 12y ago
    Von Neumann probes could reach every star in the galaxy pretty quickly. A civilization with a few million years start on us should have their robotic friends here already, basking in our sun. And there only has to be one civilization that 1) can and 2) does create such probes. If spacefaring civilization is common, it seems awfully unlikely that none of them have done so yet.
    - givan 12y ago
      > it seems awfully unlikely that none of them have done so yet. We don't know that, there is no way to detect that with our current technology unless one of the probes land on earth and the government/military agrees to disclose and confirm the information, maybe this already happened but nobody wants to see it because they are afraid of the implications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave
givan 12y ago
Mars and his satellites have many surprises, maybe we will find something extraordinary there during our lifetime. We should go boldly where man has not gone before. Fly by the comets, visit asteroids, visit the moon of Mars. There’s a monolith there. A very unusual structure on this potato shaped object that goes around Mars once in seven hours. When people find out about that they’re going to say ‘Who put that there? Who put that there?’ The universe put it there. If you choose, God put it there.. Astronaut Buzz Aldrin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_%28moon%29#Proposed_missions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_%28moon%29#Proposed_miss...
WalterBright 12y ago
Let's face it, like the canals, there is no life on Mars. 40 years of probes have come up empty. It's a sterile rock. We should be thinking in terms of terraforming it by seeding it with terrestrial life.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  40 years of probes haven't been testing for it. To my knowledge, the last formal attempt at actual detection of life (not conditions for life, but life) was the 1970s Viking landers. There's not even scientific agreement on the right way to search. Meanwhile, here on Earth, we thought until recently that deep sea vents were sterile. If we didn't know life's limits here, we certainly can't claim to know them on Mars.

harel 12y ago

It could also be a case of severe alien flatulence. Sorry, I could not resist...

civilian 12y ago
I think you were looking for this: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2phv82/nasa_rover_finds_active_ancient_organic_chemistry/ http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2phv82/nasa_rover_f...
- cdelsolar 12y ago
  What is the current height of your horse?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- comex 12y ago
  A similar comment on the other /r/science thread about this was also downvoted into oblivion; don't make cheap criticism based on stereotypes.
  - harel 12y ago
    how is that criticism? it was obviously said as a joke...

greggarious 12y ago

Here's a fun exercise in speculation: How long does HN think it will be between confirming life (e.g. bacteria), confirming life (e.g. mammals / bugs), and confirming intelligent life? (Never is an an acceptable answer for all 3, but please state why you hold your position)

danbruc 12y ago
Another question is in which order this would happen - if there is no other life in the solar system it might very well happen that we find (signs of) intelligent life before simple life.
- grecy 12y ago
  > we find (signs of) intelligent life Or it finds us.
rybosome 12y ago
I think we're nearly at confirmation of basic alien life. IIRC there are talks of missions to Europa as early as the 2020's, and I would honestly be surprised if no microbial life was found there. Liquid water, chemical processes that could support chemosynthesis, a likely abundance of organic compounds and protection from radiation and cosmic rays are all critical factors. That may even extend to larger fish-like life...there's a chance that the moon's icy shell releases oxygen into its interior liquid ocean in large enough quantities to promote the freakishly-large growth we enjoy. If we don't discover larger multi-cellular life within our solar system (perhaps also on Titan, though that seems less likely), then it'll be many, many years before we discover it. Interstellar travel is a massive hurdle. =) Intelligent life, though...that's tricky. Given the size of the universe, it is almost certain that there is other intelligent life but who knows whether or not it survives long enough to come into contact? Discovering another civilization would be one of the most incredible experiences I can imagine, so I certainly hope it happens (peacefully) within my lifetime.
- lumpypua 12y ago
  Can't speak to likelihood of discovering life on Europa but it would be fucking awesome. To be clear, microbial life in no way entails higher life. It's only by the insanely chance event of the eurkaryotic cell emerging that sophisticated multicellular life became possible on earth. Even if life is common in the universe, sophisticated multicellular life is extremely rare. The selective pressures on bacterial life favors small size and rapid reproduction, jettisoning any unnecessary genetic material. Mitochondrial ancestors relieved those pressures in a couple ways. Once the eukaryotic cell developed, multicellularity has evolved several times. All the cool things (multicellularity, eyes, flight) have evolved independently a bunch of times, and the eukaryote has happened only fucking once. Here's a deeper explanation of why it's so rare: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/20120266 http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/2012... Even if life is common in the universe, multicellular life is extremely rare because the evolution of eukaryote-esque organisms is extraordinarily rare and chance. Edit: That is to say, there's a strong case that step 4 is the Great Filter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter#The_Great_Filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter#The_Great_Filter

r0muald 12y ago

I totally understand being very cautious about their findings, but the wording of this paragraph struck me as odd: > The ratio that Curiosity found in the Cumberland sample is about one-half the ratio in water vapor in today's Martian atmosphere > suggesting much of the planet's water loss occurred since that rock formed > However, the measured ratio is about three times higher than the ratio in the original water supply of Mars, based on the assumption that supply had a ratio similar to that measured in Earth's oceans > This suggests much of Mars' original water was lost before the rock formed. So I guess a lot of water was lost both before and after the formation of the rock, and they only have ballpark figures for the hypothetical amounts?

InclinedPlane 12y ago
Correct.

pepve 12y ago

Methane outside of earth is more common than I thought it would be (after reading the article): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Extraterrestrial_methane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Extraterrestrial_methan...

codeshaman 12y ago

Totally unscientific impulse based speculation, but here it is, I want to be the first. A long time ago (billions of years), our ancestors lived on Mars. The climate was changing due to human activity and shrinking of the Sun. Shit was getting serious and humanity needed a way to escape. The third planet from the Sun was chosen for seeding life into, due to it's proximity to the star and life-supporting characteristics. A ball of DNA was sent here to seed the planet. It contained the code for all living things, including humans with the source code for a consciousness able to evolve until it finds out the truth of creation. And here we are, close to finding that out and able to continue what our ancestors left behind billions of years ago, before going extinct. But that is only Step 1. Step 2 is finding out who seeded Mars and the Sun and the Universe. Might just be that it was us all along forever. Good night world ;)

jackkcaj 12y ago
That's quite a narrative.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Houshalter 12y ago

If life is discovered on mars, would we be allowed to colonize it?

Mahn 12y ago
Colonization is probably not the motivation for finding some microbial life there at the moment, but provided we wanted and could colonize, I'd guess we would just do it.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  I do remember hearing there was debate if we should introduce invasive species, let alone terraform, or try to preserve life the way it is. There is also concern about it going the other way around mar's life becoming invasive on Earth or infectious to humans. Obviously neither of our planet's life has evolved to be very fit in surviving in the other's environment. But evolution often has "arms races" where organisms evolve highly optimized weapons and defenses against them. It's possible one planet has evolved something the other has no defenses against which would give it an advantage. E.g. on Earth, the cane toad produces a poison that no Australian predators can survive, and so they all die and the toad overpopulates. Same with many invasive species, like plants that produce poison that kill all the other plants nearby, and take over fields and native ecosystems. Or predators introduced on islands that are much better than the native predators and kill all the native life.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]