What the @!$%#?

....because that makes so much sense. I think we've found a candidate to send to Mars who would be willing to lick a few rocks to see if its really poisonous....

^ Umm... Wtf did I just try (and fail) to read? Denko95, are you high? Because that might explain a lot.

Read my lips...we're 'IT'.

Take off on LifeLine commercial: Hep me, hep me, lord have mercy, hep me! I'm high and I can't get down!

Seems to me that they are going to have to do a hell of a lot of digging before they can get to organics, if any. Send in the archaeologist.

denko is speaking exaggerated ghetto-speak. I hear it in my neighborhood all the time.

What he said was that NASA's marketing dept is the entirety of Congress and the current administration, so what else can one expect from their announcements.

Now, that does make sense--if you've ever read government contract requirements (my company subcontracts with government at all levels) some of the legal doublespeak in procurement contracts can be obscure--a recent government contracting requirement document told me that:

Any paper reports submitted to the contracting agency have to be printed on both sides of a sheet of paper that has to be at least 30% post-consumer recycled material.

The frustration here is that it took me 30 words to say that. It took the government 2 pages to say the same thing. So when NASA says:

SAM also identified a type of perchlorate, a compound that includes oxygen and chlorine. Perchlorate,which was also found by NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander in 2008, is considered a toxic substance and used as an ingredient in rocket fuel on Earth. But scientists say the compound could conceivably serve as an energy source for hardy microbes on Mars. Mahaffy said the particular type of compound detected by Curiosity appeared to be calcium perchlorate, but "we have to study that further."

Reactions with other chemicals in SAM's oven formed chlorinated methane compounds, which geologists consider organic chemicals because they contain carbon. Mahaffy said it was most likely that the chlorine came from a perchlorate-like compound in the soil. However, he said it wasn't yet clear whether the tiny amount of carbon in the compounds came from the Martian soil or was actually brought to Mars from Earth by Curiosity itself.

What they really mean is;

"We found a chemical that could indicate the possibility of life having been here once but we can't be sure until we verify that it's native to Mars and not just passing space dust possibly from Earth."

Now, that being said...

Denko, ghetto-speak is not amusing. I'm not amused, and I doubt anyone else is either. I've seen you write like this before, and it's irritating--and that's putting it mildly. If you are going to take the time to read an article, then take the time to type a comment on it, then try to show some self-respect and respect for others by posting something that is distinguishable to speakers of the English language. What you said actually did make some sense but no one is going to be able to agree with you if they don't understand the language you write it in.

Speak English!

tomcoz read my lips "I doubt IT"

Very well said Amanda!

..a toxic substance and used as an ingredient in rocket fuel on Earth. But scientists say the compound could conceivably serve as an energy source for hardy microbes on Mars. Perhaps perchlorate could be bought over the counter?

denko is just some loser wannabe. problem is, neither denko or anyone else can figure out what he wants to be.

Read my lips...we're 'IT'.

(as ekwitsch of abanumbktz laughs his third pseudopod off reading that comment while watching the silly , primitive apes from his stealth observation craft)

Amanda well said.

denko, are you trying to make sense?

markwills:

You know how much ginger ale hurts when it comes out of your nose cause you're trying not to be heard laughing? Oy.

Thanks for the laugh--you have no idea how much I needed it today!

I had to look at the comments section to see what kind of wild uneducated babble might show up with an out of the world article like this one. I'm here, though they had collapsed denko's comment before I could read it. Maybe I will add some babble to this mess before I leave.

Even by the time I finished the first paragraph my thought was, "Well this author has dropped a line for some fine speculation". I guess I am prep'ed to hear speculative stories about how rocket fuel is to be found on Mars possibly because there have been other visitors there before our NASA mechanical explorers started arriving back in July, 1976.

Now, start the absurd and wild....!

(Reread my comment a little slower, then a third time, a little faster. You will understand it.)

...or maybe stop wasting my f$^ing tax dollars and help the waiting (and some homeless) people on the upper east coast? Just saying....:)

This just in, Scientists discover more rocks on Mars! More on this thrilling subject later tonight.

Woah! Amanda, you could actually read ALL of those words AND figure out the context he meant? Denko has some serious grammar, phonetics, and spelling issues. Despite this I could actually read most of his babble from his other comments (and yes I tried just to make sure I wasn't losing it) if I cared to try hard enough for half a minute or so. But that one up there had me totally lost. Congrats Amanda, on being a very effective Dumb@33 translator. I clearly am not worthy of the explanation, nor do I know why I should care what some random English challenged troll says.

Something fishy...

Original article quotes Grotzinger as follows:

Grotzinger says they recently put a soil sample in SAM, and the analysis shows something remarkable. "This data is gonna be one for the history books. It's looking really good," he says.

This article NASA recants:

"NASA later said Grotzinger was referring to the two-year mission as a whole, rather than any specific findings to be announced in the near term."

Now, do you really think he was talking about the "two-year mission as a whole" or about "This data is going to be one for the history books."

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I clearly see intentional downplay here by the government. I'm not buying it. I believe there was something more in the data that we aren't being told. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the government kept something like this quiet, right?

So, what would be the ramifications of announcing that they found life on mars, even if it is microbial. Perhaps our entire religious infrastructure would start fracturing and then begin to crumble?? The domino effect on that would be epic. To announce that they have definitive proof that "we are not alone". Religious writings and belief have always centered around mankind to be the unique. The infinite universe... well, just a very large and unreachable storage space of a bunch of gasses and minerals that we will never access, right??

Just think about it... what really would happen should that announcement be made? Obviously there was some excitement before that has been purposely downplayed. This seems to have created more questions now than answers.

Absolutely right. Cover up. My vote is that they found signs of life.

Religion has not crumbled due to evolution, the big bang theory, carbon dating, ect, ect.

Life on another planet wouldn't result in, "well guys, I guess that's it. Science 1-Religion 0."

NASA is probably one of the most transparent governmental agencies; they gain nothing by purposely withholding information on findings.

Could be toxic waste left over from the civilization that became extinct before we were walking upright. It would only take a millennium for everything we've built up to turn to dust. Except for the radioactivity and toxins of course.

Infinite possibility's, just saying.

workingpoor...your right...possibilites are endless...could have been one of those old martian meth labs...it might tweek analyzer out...or amelia earhart old perfume spill from a time warp...

Amanda--Re. your post:Yes and No. I'm not a scientist but I roomed with a number of them in college. I even knew a theoretical physicist! They were on a different planet than me. Generally I understood about 40% of what they were talking about but I did learn a very important RULE when it comes to scientist speak: Specificity and detail are the name of the game. Arcane, ponderous, scrupulously detailed facts and minute descriptions. You, however did a fine job of reducing it to the basics.

God of Fate,

it was something about Congressmen, the President, and the SCOTUS. That was all I was able to discern from that pile of illegible crap and completely fked up grammar.

@ Robert keister

I think there would be profound implications if/when the government would state they found life.

The CIA did a study decades ago concerning the impact this revelation would have not only on the US but every other continent/religion on Earth. Their conclusion: total chaos.

Now...granted, microbial organisms would be much different than other intelligent beings, however, it would form a crack in the faiths around the world.

I mean, picture what the muslim reaction would be alone if the United States said there was life elsewhere. They riot if you make a cartoon of their god, let alone stating a fact that directly conflicts with their understanding of the cosmos?

I mean, picture what the muslim reaction would be alone if the United States said there was life elsewhere. They riot if you make a cartoon of their god, let alone stating a fact that directly conflicts with their understanding of the cosmos?

I mean, picture what the "christian" reaction would be alone if the United States said there was life elsewhere. They riot if you make "an assertion about evolution", let alone stating a fact that directly conflicts with their understanding of the cosmos?

Yes, when I first saw the headlines 'one for the history books' I too, thought that possibly Curiosity had found microbes, but even with the explanation advanced in this article my enthusiasm is not dampened at all.

The water molecules are an intriguing and exciting find; the presence of water, if it is Martian water, could indicate a capability for life. If the perchlorate is indigenous to Mars then that would indicate that at one time there were organics that produced methane, and that too would indicate life--and that there might still be microbes buried deep in Mars's crust.

No. All NASA said was "one for the history books." Everyone else let their imaginations run wild, rather than waiting for all the info. But hey, you'd click on a "Life on Mars(?)" headline, wouldn't you? I can tolerate a bungled media campaign if it means keeping science in the hands of passionate scientists instead of private interests for a bit longer.

RJF-NJ

Better yet NASA needs to stop jumping the gun until preliminary results are in. They made it sound like they found some form of extinct life on Mars...very unprofessional.

They didn't jump the gun nor did they make it sound like they had found signs of life. You need to realize that what excites a scientist may not be so thrilling for many people. What they found WAS one for the history books and just because that might not be a book you are interested in don't assume no one else is either.

...he was quoted as saying ...would be "one for the history books." That led to speculation that an earth-shaking discovery could be revealed

Today, Grotzinger said his original comments were misunderstood.

"What I've learned from this is that you have to be careful about what you say,"

The misunderstanding was a result of Mr. Grotzinger not knowing that he has to "be careful about what you say." Having a robototic science lab roving about Mars certainly is "one for the history books," but it's just not what a lot of us understood his comments to mean.

Either way, if scientists who know waaaaayyy more about this stuff than I do are excited about it, then I'm excited for them.

The problem was talking about "one for the history books" before he was prepared to say exactly what "one" was. Keep your mouth shut until you are prepared to show the data.

The presence of water was confirmed many times over several years ago by the prior rover missions.

If perchlorate and clorinated methanes are present in the immediate subsurface, I find it very difficult to devise how exactly they would have "landed" on the surface. Organic compounds aren't very hardy, particularly upon reentry.

Perchlorate has been theorized to exist on the surface for years. What I find more intriguing is the fact that chlorinated methanes have been found.

Chemistry students, correct me if I am wrong, but chlorinated methanes are lighter than air, correct?

1. Lighter than air and immediately present at surface

2. Seasonal fluctuations in methane levels in Mars

3. Methane has a relatively short half-life

= presence of microbiological organisms producing said byproducts???

Chemistry students, correct me if I am wrong, but chlorinated methanes are lighter than air, correct?

Mars doesn't have air. It has CO2 and not a lot of it. CH3Cl would weigh 50 g/mol whereas CO2 is 44 g/mol. Perchlorate weighs 99 g/mol. So everything should be heavier than the atmosphere.

D.Man:

Intriguing hypothesis. I tend to agree, but org chem wasn't my favorite class. ; ) I'd love to hear an expert weigh in, but the first thing I thought was something micro producing these as byproducts. THAT is exciting, but of course more evidence is required. Still, fun to consider!

What they found WAS one for the history books and just because that might not be a book you are interested in don't assume no one else is either.

but, but, but, if I am not interested in it, then it MUST be a waste of money!

(sarcasm off)

Mars doesn't have air. It has CO2 and not a lot of it. CH3Cl would weigh 50 g/mol whereas CO2 is 44 g/mol. Perchlorate weighs 99 g/mol. So everything should be heavier than the atmosphere.

Definitely used the wrong terminology there, but methane is regularly measured as an atmospheric gas on Mars. And it is not believed to be coming from volcanic or subsurface eruptions as these would be easily spotted from orbit and would generally not occur as regularly as they have been witnessed (during the Martian "summer" months)

at·mos·phere/ˈatməsˌfi(ə)r/

Noun:

1. The envelope of gases surrounding the earth or another planet: "part of the sun's energy is absorbed by the earth's atmosphere".
2. The air in any particular place: "we couldn't breathe in the dusty atmosphere".

Great posts guys. Yes some people let this get more built up in there minds, I suppose they were expecting the rover to find a headstone marking ET's grave or something, and maybe NASA could've done a little better, but I agree that this is still some exciting news and could lead to something more, much much more. These very well could be the first markers we've been looking for. The question in my mind though, is should they find something else more substantial, will NASA release it or will it be covered up and withheld?? If they do find something I'm sure some heads will be exploding.

It is time

If your budget were annually slashed, you might want to create some excitement about your research too.

I think the most exciting find is the chlorinated methane. The real question now is its source. Curiosity was aptly named...

Isn't that what a coffee pot does? I'm thinking you ought to know, since your avatar is a coffee pot.

But more to the point, why do they keep qualifying their statement? They don't have "DEFINITIVE" proof of organics???

I know, I'm just wishing and probably reading something into it that they didn't intend (again) but why the qualification?

Does it mean they HAVE found indications of organics and they are waiting to prove it scientifically or what?

Why can't they say what they mean? Maybe they're using too many syllables for me to understand what they are trying to say. K-I-S-S Keep it simple scientists!

Skip:

Coffee makers 'percolate'.

In simple terms, they found a compound called perchlorate that is a product of methane and, when combined with other chemicals, can form carbon compounds. This is significant because carbon compounds indicate the possibility of life, and methane indicates the possible presence of organics that produce methane as a waste product. Before they announce it as a find they have to verify the percholorate is indeed from mars and is indigenous to the Red Planet rather than being some space dust drifting by that got sucked into the planet's surface via gravitational pull.

Oh, you're right. I was excited they found coffee on Mars. Now THAT would be one for the history books!

I think they have preliminary findings that point to organic compounds, but they are not finished with the analysis.

This was a big deal for scientists, which is why they were excited. It's not as big a deal for the general public. It's like finding a misprinted stamp. Most people wouldn't notice it, some would see it and say, "That's weird. Hey, look at this stamp", but a stamp collector would lose his breath and his heart rate would increase while he's fumbling to get his magnifying glass out.

Edit: Damn, two posts while I'm replying to Skip.

deleted for redundancy

Who cares about organic compounds traces of possible life etc.. finding organic compounds etc or even some form of life would not change anything really. It would not be proof of anything outside of proof of life.. like plants and what not.. The important question is can we make the planet habitable!

I disagree johngis...finding life elsewhere would be the hugest thing humanity every accomplished IMHO. Futhermore I believe if we find life anywhere else, we will find it everywhere that would be remotely reasonable to look.

Skip where are the worms? :)

Don't get me wrong it would be interesting and yes perhaps we could find intelligent life somewhere out there.. but i still don't see how it would help us. New energy sources and discovering a new form of power like the discovery of electricity would be a much greater find. Hunting for proof that some sort of life existed on another planet It is not a priority of mine because outside of it being interesting and neat i do not see any capability advancement of the human race. All in all i would rather the money go somewhere else or the mission be focused on finding things we can use.

Amanda, I know coffee makers "percolate" I"m just jacking with Tony.

Greg...PRECISELY MY POINT. And I still believe...

THERE WILL BE WORMS

(and thanks for remembering :-)

John:

They did.

Did you miss in the article where they said they found compounds that we use in rocket fuel? if this planet is full of the raw ore needed to produce rocket fuel, think about not needing to depend on OPEC countries for energy anymore--we'd have a huge advantage economically and socially.

Somebody needs to learn a bit of chemistry. Perchlorate has nothing to do with methane. It is an inorganic material composed of 1 chlorine atom and 4 oxygen atoms. No carbon!

Rocket fuel is nothing new but the good thing is it may be possible to use resources on mars to make fuel for liftoff so it would not be a 1 way trip. Its not however worth it to take those resources back to earth when we can make it so cheap here. The logistic cost is too great from mars even if it was pure platinum. The chemicals for making rocket fuel being located on Mars is a good thing for possible future missions though

Homebrewer:

My apologies, I misunderstood what I was reading--I'm a writer, not a chemist.

I saw this line in the article:

SAM also identified a type of perchlorate, a compound that includes oxygen and chlorine.

And then this;

Reactions with other chemicals in SAM's oven formed chlorinated methane compounds, which geologists consider organic chemicals because they contain carbon.

So I wrote this;

...they found a compound called perchlorate that is a product of methane and, when combined with other chemicals, can form carbon compounds.

What I should have written:

They found a compound called perchlorate that, when combined with other chemicals can form methane and other carbon compounds.

Chemistry was never my strong suit--I flunked Chemistry the first year of high school, in fact. Thank you for the correction!

Perchlorates are oxidizers and ammonium perchlorate is what is used as rocket fuel, specifically solid rockets. I don't believe they said which of the perchlorates were detected.

"I don't believe they said which of the perchlorates were detected"

They're not quite sure yet, but they think it's calcium perchlorate.

johngis,

You make a good point about its irrelivance but everyone should understand that proof of previous existence, such as organic compounds and carbon, tell us not only did life exist but that the planet itself contains that which could produce life again were we to terraform the planet in the distant future. So, for example, if you try to grow plants in the desert sand, you won't be very successful because none of the neccisary elements are present for growth but if you do so in good soil, it will thrive. this is what these developements are all leading towards so you are right to ask about the terraforming possibilities of Mars but we shuld all recognize this as a long process to determine if these mandatory conditions for life are even present on Mars or if it is indeed a planetary desert, so to speak.

To the rocket fuel posts:

It can be used as a component in certain types of rocket fuel; that does not mean it is rocket fuel waiting to be processed. :P

I do recall that one proposal for a manned or sample return mission included sending a preliminary craft to process material in advance to create rocket fuel (perchlorate?)for the return trip.

been a while, and I don't remember the details

The logistics of harvesting dissolved phase perchlorate in soil would be ridiculous. You would burn more fuel harvesting than what you would accumulate.

If future Mars missions are going to use anything in terms of natural resources on the planet, they will use the ice at the poles for hydrogen fuel production.

no, it wasn't harvesting from the soil, I just looked it up, it was harvesting methane directly from the CO2 by catalyzing it with hydrogen, resulting in water and methane. the water is split to produce hydrogen and oxygen, the O2 is kept as an oxidizer, and the H2 is kept to produce more methane.

a sufficient supply of hydrogen is needed, but the article I read states a weight/fuel impulse gain on the order of 18-1 over straight hydrogen

suite101 (dot) com/article/mars-direct-mission-fuel-generation-for-return-a187146

Thanks for posting Homebrewer. Its been a long time since I took chemistry, but a thought there was something amiss.

I really don't see the overall importance of this exercize. I like exploratio and scientific discovery as much as anyone, but will the exploration of Mars really provide any meaningful information?

If they find chemical footprints of biological matter, doesn't it just emphasize that complex lifeforms are that much more unique, and that perhaps the Earth is unique?

no, it wasn't harvesting from the soil, I just looked it up, it was harvesting methane directly from the CO2 by catalyzing it with hydrogen, resulting in water and methane. the water is split to produce hydrogen and oxygen, the O2 is kept as an oxidizer, and the H2 is kept to produce more methane.

Hydrogen from where? Water from where? Still, it would take more energy just to catalyze the elements together than you would get.

just hydrogen (which would probably have to be shipped in or possibly taken from martian ice) and energy (solar panels), the water is a byproduct of the co2 to methane conversion.

the process would be done by a robotic lander/minifactory set in place 6 mos to 1 year before the return vehicle arrives. it would even make sense if the hydrogen was brought in, since the lift impulse from the o2/methane is greater than that supplied by h2/o2. (the site claims 18-1 greater impulse)

denko95.......man, you must be one huge @!$%#!!!

I just him/her/it on IGNORE.

I understand that scientists get excited about findings that may seem mundane to us. But, I listened to the interview of scientists that said that these findings would make history, but they didn't want to make a statement until all findings had been thoroughly analyzed. Perhaps it was my imagination running wild, and I am not a conspiracy theorist but lets just suppose that maybe they found materials indicative of a past civilization or at the very least that at one point in Mars history the atmosphere was viable for organic life forms.

Either way, if its the former then I can see NASA and the American government playing down the findings in order to keep chaos from ensuing on Earth (so they would more than likely think). Can you imagine the reaction if we found that life existed on that planet? It would call into question everything that we have been taught. The Government could no longer deny that there are other organic beings in the Universe.

So, I will accept what NASA has to say, but I must say that I am highly skeptical that the public was given all of the findings.

Can you imagine the reaction if we found that life existed on that planet? It would call into question everything that we have been taught. The Government could no longer deny that there are other organic beings in the Universe.

But it begs the question. Why would it be a big secret in the first place? Why does it matter? It would be a huge economic boon. For starters, we're constantly finding new life here on Earth and much of it has unique properties that are useful to us humans. Companies are making new products from deep sea microbes. A new form of life would have countless molecular tools that could be tremendously useful to us economically. There's no sense in keeping that under wraps. There may be some religious backlash, but when has that ever stopped a scientific finding? It hasn't. It just doesn't make any sense.

So, I will accept what NASA has to say, but I must say that I am highly skeptical that the public was given all of the findings.

They probably weren't given everything. Not because there's something to hide, but because the findings are BORING.

Could be like the same deal with the Higg's boson. They are only going to talk about what they feel is 99+%. The perchlorates are salts and would be further evidence of a watery world. It also means that they are in a good spot.

you must be from the sister planet!!!!!

It had water in the past and has water under the surface, even as we speak.

Nods to Alan.. Thanks... Possibly water under ground... doubt it Rex. It appears as I first mentioned.. Life is just rare and not common. Finding carbon would not mean life even if it was "present" It is such small amounts that Digging deeper is the only way to know for certain... I think that it is good science and there is more to come but... nothing "earth shattering" just a better understanding of Mars.. but not life beyond earth.

Why so, when Phoenix previously found it?

Science has to be able to replicate the results for it to be valid or it is not science

Too late, we're already giving plenty to China.

MORON!!

What the general public thinks is historic versus a scientist can be very different. NASA gets less than 1% of the US budget each year, and their budget gets smaller each year. Personally, I'd rather the money be spent on something like this.

I would rather that money be spent looking for new places for us to live. Change mars climate via whatever to where we can live there. All this looking for life i think is kind of a waste because it would not change anything even if we did find it. It would not help to ensure the future existence of the human race and would not help the human race become more advanced.

John:

But if they found evidence that prior life was on Mars or if they find microbes deep in Martian soil that holds out hope that what was there once could be introduced again. we could theoretically turn Mars into a giant greenhouse growing more food for the population on Earth.

Added to which, the compounds they found are in what we currently use as rocket fuel. If that is found to be native to Mars then we have a giant planet of raw ore that could be refined to produce more fuel for rockets--or an additional energy source so we can stop draining our planet of fossil fuels.

The country who would be the first one to discover, refine, harness, and use that energy would have an unbeatable edge over other countries who may be dependent on OPEC countries or solar/wind energy or nuclear energy.

I hope Obama cuts your funding and gives the money to a country with a real space program.

We're currently the only nation to ever put a rover on another planet. The Soviets managed to get a couple on the moon, and China is hoping to put a rover on the moon. But we're the only ones to put rovers on another planet. Four times now. We're getting pretty good at it.

In addition to that, the US is the only nation to send craft to Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Saturn's moons, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. The US is the only nation to send probes beyond the solar system. And finally, the US is the only nation to ever land humans on another celestial body.

Real space program? Nobody in the world has come close to those accomplishments. As far as I know, the only thing the Soviets ever did that we never did was land something on Venus and take pictures.

right now life can not exist on mars due to 10% of 1 bar. Water can not exist on mars in a liquid state due to the same reason. Finding organic compounds and microbes would not matter if we wanted to grow plants on mars or not.

The entire Curiosity project is roughly 2.5 billion dollars over several years and people are saying it cost to much? NASA's budget this year is less than half of one percent of our GDP. The lowest it has ever been.

Anyone know how much a stealth bomber cost? 1.2 billion, each. So for the cost of 2 B-2 stealth bombers we can send a lab to Mars. Teaching us not only about Mars, but more about ourselves and this galaxy we live in.

Remind me, what is a stealth bomber used for again? I might also add, we have 22 stealth bombers...

Sounds to me our priorities are all screwed up....

Be accountable;

Absolutely!

It absolutely baffles me why anyone has to even say this. It should be common sense that funding for NASA is one of the best ways to spend tax revenue.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!! You gotta be kiddin' me!!!!

@ johngis:

"It would not help to ensure the future existence of the human race..."

That's an important thing. But it's not the only important thing.

"...and would not help the human race become more advanced."

So, learning that life is not unique to this planet does not constitute an 'advancement' to you? It's difficult to make generalizations about biology, for instance, with an example of one.

John,

Mars doesn't need women. It has Venus. And Earth is their love child. :)

No, mars needs moms....

That's a fun idea, but "just put the return capsule in Earth's orbit" would still be quite the undertaking. Luna 16, a Russian moon probe that returned lunar soil samples the way you described, weighed six times as much as Curiosity - and that was just for the return trip from the Moon! Mars would be even harder.

Rocket liftoffs and orbital transfer maneuvers are costly, tricky business. It's much easier to just analyze the stuff while it's over there.

And if those samples have some form of dormant life which we don't recognize as life, life not based on carbon, and when it came in contact with earth's atmosphere, what if it mutates into something we have no way of controlling or stopping?Remember 'War of the Worlds'? The alien spaceships were in the end, defeated by Earth's microbes and germs because they had no defenses against them--probably didn't recognize those germs as life.

And whenever humankind has introduced non-native species into an ecosystem, they become destructive--look at nutria in the southern states. They were originally introduced as fur-bearing animals that people wanted fur coats from...now that fur is falling out of favor, the animals are nuisances and no one can figure out how to get rid of them. Imagine if that were to be repeated with alien microbes--how would we get rid of them?

Amanda, Life that evolved outside Earth would have little to no chance of causing harm to Earths biosphere.

"War of the Worlds" was fiction

Well, Amanda, if we got it back here and it ended up killing all of us, at least we would know for sure that some form of life existed there.

Actually, I think the discoveries are pretty indicative of some past life with the outside chance that the evidence could have potentially have been formed by some other process we don't understand or came from some other non-Mars source. This is fundamentally what they just told us. What they are being extremely careful of is saying that it is 100% conclusive proof. It isn't, but it does indicate that it is/was highly likely.

The way I read this is that we are now "pretty sure" that at least some microbial forms of life once existed. The trouble is that to say it 100% conclusively is not going to be possible with Curiosity unless we somehow capture some crawling creature on film. Or stumble on to some plant or animal fossil in a rock. As I understand the capabilities, if within the scoop of material we put into the Curiosity lab, was a thriving colony of Martian bacteria, we wouldn't know it conclusively. (The higher than expected amount of water molecules is intriguing.) We would break it down into its chemical constituents and be able to say that we found some things indicative of life forms, but we can't be sure.

The fact is that we don't have enough capability to say conclusively that we found evidence of ancient microbial life. If fact we don't have the capability of saying conclusively that we found evidence of currently living microbial life. In all likelihood on the early Earth, there existed quite a bit of low level microbial life for a very long time.

But it wasn't until substantial amounts of Oxygen began to flood the atmosphere, that things really took off. Cyanobacteria in massive quantities is what slowly built up the Oxygen on Earth. For a very long time, most of the Oxygen being produced was very quickly transformed into some type of oxide. Exposed Iron very likely ate up most of the Oxygen for a very, very long time. Eventually, molecular Oxygen built up faster than it could be used up.

The Red Planet, has a lot of Iron Oxide on its surface but very little free Oxygen, only trace amounts. Did a lot of Oxygen once exist on Mars? Not likely. Is it possibly in the process of slowly building Oxygen today? Maybe.

It seems possible that the early phase of life existed and maybe still exist today. It is even possible that if enough water existed long enough, as evidenced by flowing streams or lakes, that early vegetation in the forms of simple algae might have existed. But it seems unlikely that Mars was ever a green planet. I believe that if the planet had been ever covered with vegetation, the surface today would not appear so ancient. If algae once existed, it seems possible that some traces in the form of organic carbons could be buried within ancient stream of lake beds.

I think we will continue to find more similar evidence and over time as it becomes clear that the evidence exists predominantly in areas where we are confident that water existed, I would view it as conclusive circumstantial evidence. But to say with 100% assuredness is unlikely. Depends on how much convincing you need. I'm pretty close to there right now. I think that with the findings they have you could easily theorize a pretty historic conclusion, but they aren't going there because they can't prove it.

It's of interest that two of the chemicals detected, chloromethane (CH3Cl) and dichloromethane (CH2Cl2), were also found by Viking 1 and Viking 2, respectively. At the time these detections were attributed to residual cleaning compounds, but more recent analysis following the detection of perchlorates by the Phoenix lander, revisited that conclusion--it may have been indigenous material.

Does Curiosity's finding lend weight to the recent work?

If the Big Bang Theory is correct, then it would follow that we would find the same chemical compounds on other planets in our solar system that we find here on Earth, so what would be the point of questioning "how the chemicals being detected got there"? They got there when the universe was made.

It isn't that simple Charle,

First I'll include a disclaimer of how I don't believe in the current big bang model.

Next, the big bang details the creation of matter in the universe; short lived, overly reactive stars created heavier elements. The Sun is thought to be a third generation star; so natural evolution of the cosmos created some of the more interesting elements in the solar system, not the big bang itself.

Now the inner planets have a similar composition, NASA is looking for organic molecules, some of which could have formed through chemical process on Mars itself. (which would also be found on Earth.) Their holy grail is to find complex organic molecules that could have only arisen—as we know it—from life.

The question they have is, are their results contamination from Earth or indigenous to Mars itself. This would be important as we've never verified that organics exist on Mars, although we speculate they do.

Kind of overly simplified, my brain isn't working today.

I'll check out the Virtually Speaking Science podcast tomorrow. Interesting that Gil Levin has a video "The Untold Truth - How The NASA Viking Mission Found life on Mars" available on Amazon instant video.

The Bible's got nothing on the Dead Sea Worm Scrolls

FYI, calling any supernatural Christian entity a "form of life" by the scientific definition is a pretty extreme theological claim.

You're not one of those "Ancient Aliens" fans, are you?

It is actual quite hard to fake science. People have treid, but it is almost always ferreted out eventually. There are just to many people with incentive to be skeptical.

And Piltdown Man was a 150 year old amateurish hoax that was debunked by..... wait for it.... scientists.

zocolo,

In order to satisfy the insatiable curiosity of so many, it will be 'faked'.

You know most of the early scientists were devout Christians right? Curiosity is not an anti-religious trait. The great men, whose shoulders we all stand upon, wanted to understand God's universe as a way of being closer to their Creator. I hope you can shake that toxic pessimism.

And if you're going to use the Bible, isn't there a passage somewhere in the new testament that says "For I have other sheep, and they too shall hear My voice..."

Think just MAYBE He could have been referring to other life out there?

no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will go and map it

I'm not a scientist but I'm a hardy strong construction guy. I'll do the heavy lifting you scientist guys can't.

Where do I sign up?

I'm a writer--I'll document the discoveries (in terms non-scientists can understand!)

Where do I sign up?

I'm not a scientist but I volunteer my services.

I submit that most Americans are convinced that intelligent life exists somewhere else.

Why, exactly, would the discovery of simple, but definite life forms on Mars be a 'truth' we can't handle? NO ONE is going to riot in the streets over that...

I agree. Although I was thinking more along the lines of more commonly used metals such as iron, saving the real precious stuff like Gold or Diamonds (maybe) for later. Either way, there has to be plenty of useful rocks and metals we can find on Mars. Mining would probably be the single largest factor in driving commercial businesses (not related to government sponsored Space Programs) to want to invest in Mars. It could be what ultimately drives us to start settling planets other than Earth.

Urr, guys, if you figure what it costs to move a pound from earth to mars (or Mars to earth), if there wre pure gold bars and cut diamonds lying around there, it would not pay to bring them back. Now some day in the future, if we get an electric/ magnetic linear accelerator to shoot things back toward earth, maybe. But finding materials there that we could use to build a habitat, now that would be precious.

Uh...you did see the part where they mentioned some of the compounds they found are used in rocket fuel?

Think about an entire planet made of the raw ore used to make rocket fuel. We wouldn't have to go to OPEC countries for fossil fuels anymore, we would be mining, refining, and producing our own. It would give us a huge edge to have this new source of energy that other countries didn't have--they would bend over backwards to get some!

I think they already found gold. If not, give them time. Curiosity will be there a long time, hopefully.

Amanda, it's not rocket fuel that you would bring back to use on Earth, it's potential rocket fuel that you would use to bring yourself back from Mars. Spaceship design is much simpler, of you ban use local fuel resources for the return (and thus not have to bring that mass with you)

This is not something we get from OPEC even now, it's not some ultra-powerful fuel that everyone is dying to have, the 'whole planet' (or even whole surface) is not made of it.

And everybody, it costs more to get there with existing technology, than any profit you might make from returning gold. Period. Learn some economics. Learn to Google gold prices.

Haha it is not even a potential rocket fuel; it's merely a component used in some rocket fuels. The only kind of rocket fuels OPEC has a hand in is the various RPs and some solid state designs. Other types of fuels such as liquid hydrogen and methane are mixed with liquid oxygen; both of which OPEC dose not produce. (At least to my knowledge)

You cannot make these fuels on Mars without some serious infrastructure in place already to even use it as a return mechanism. It would just be easier to launch those return mechanisms from Earth for any return trips.

Kirk,

"I don't think anybody could realistically expect to find microbes in the first sample of windblown sand and dust."

Why not? I think you would find millions of microbes in a sample of windblown sand an dust on earth. But they have not even found any organic chemicals; much less living micro-organisms.

It's like, after you've heard the Waldstein, you can't listen to rock n roll anymore

who cares!!!! it means nothing!!!!

It's electric, no oil.

However, you would think the bearing would need greasing.

Probably wouldn't be wise to use graphite as a lubricant. "CARBON! COMPLEX CARBON! WE'VE FOUND IT! IT IT IT'S graphite?!"

A pit crew pops out and changes oil, rotates tires, etc.

It's nuclear powered.

Well, sort of anyways. Not nuclear powered how Joe Blow would think anyways.

Everything is sealed, like a u-joint. And it's nuclear.

Buckaroo Banzai has the NASA maintenance contract for all space vehicles outside of the Eighth Dimension. With his Oscillation Overthruster he can actually be in two places at once when he's not anywhere at all.

Pragmatic is probably right. No conventional lubricants at those low temperatures and pressures.

I think most of us are just looking for the "Speedy Lube" on Mars.

Where are all the Mars Bars. I'd need a drink the moment I arrived.

In the red light district? Would there be a red light district on the Red Planet? Would it be a different color? Would the whole planet be a red light district?

That would be one hopping planet. You'd have to drag me out.

thats the way they keep the grant money flowing into their projects.

NASA's funding model is far worse than grants. They have to ask Congress for money. Ever asked a cobra for spare change? Pretty much the same experience.

Yes Jimmy, and the Earth is flat.

I am rather sad about these comments on Grant funding lately, we have PhDs on food stamps, the last thing we need is for a group to target research funding.

Actually the funding process is quite competitive, and very good at weeding out fraud. For some reason, people like jimmyd think it is easy to fake peer-reviewed science and just publish a bunch of junk so they can keep the funds coming. In truth, the peer review process literally rips apart the research to make sure the science is good. And if it gets past that part, other scientists will be more than happy to tear it to shreds if something isn't right. And if your research turns out to be fraudulent, good luck funding future work.

Sure, there is some fraud that gets by every year, but considering the rate of publication, the amount of fraud as a percentage of the whole is very small. That's why the few that are found make the news. If fraud was rampant, it would be just another ho-hum science story.

Ummm... Sorry, meant that response for jimmyd. Of course I agree heartily with Pragmatic - a lot of the problems with NASA can be traced directly to the political process that funds it.