Curiosity: Mars Science Lab Landing and Surface Operations

[spin0]

OK, rumour of a rumour here........
........but someone on the internet says that they think they've heard someone say that NASA has possibly maybe found methane.

First to observe methane in Mars atmosphere was ESA's MarsExpress in 2004: Mars Express confirms methane in the Martian atmosphere. The finding has been since confirmed by other observations, but not all experts have agreed about it.

It would be a significant finding to have a "ground truth" and isotopic composition on methane. It is possible for Curiosity to have found methane, though it's first observation was a fluke.

Is there any source of methane which doesn't point back to decaying organic matter?

There are other possible sources for it, so just the mere precence of methane would not be conclusive evidence of life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars#Methane

The principal candidates for the origin of Mars methane include non-biological processes such as water-rock reactions, radiolysis of water, and pyrite formation, all of which produce H2 that could then generate methane and hydrocarbons via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis with CO and CO2.[36] It was also recently shown that methane could be produced by a process involving water, carbon dioxide, and the mineral olivine, which is known to be common on Mars.[37] The required conditions for this reaction (i.e. high temperature and pressure) do not exist on the surface, but may exist within the crust.[38] To prove this process is occurring, serpentinite, a mineral by-product of the process would be detected. An analog on Earth suggests that low temperature production and exhalation of methane from serpentinized rocks may be possible on Mars.[39] Another possible geophysical source could be clathrate hydrates.[40]

 

[Craig B]

From your quote from Wikipedia:
As a hypothesis the plurality of worlds was part of officially accepted doctrine since 1277, and he was not charged for just claiming plurality of worlds. The eternity part is important to note here - it related to his claims about salvation, which were considered heretical.

But the claim of a plurality of worlds was included in the charge sheet, though I agree that he wouldn't have been pursued so vigorously if that's all they had had on him. However it sits ill with your

This idea is known as the plurality of worlds and it has never since been considered wrong or heretical.

Moreover, Bruno's statement in On the Infinite Universe and Worlds (1584) clearly contradicts the principle of the special status of the Earth, immobile at the centre of all things, promoted so resolutely by the Church.

For there is a single general space, a single vast immensity which we may freely call Void; in it are innumerable globes like this one on which we live and grow. This space we declare to be infinite, since neither reason, convenience, possibility, sense-perception nor nature assign to it a limit. In it are an infinity of worlds of the same kind as our own.

That was not "officially accepted doctrine" as I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[spin0]

But the claim of a plurality of worlds was included in the charge sheet, though I agree that he wouldn't have been pursued so vigorously if that's all they had had on him.

If it was just about the plurality of worlds he would probably not have been charged - I already provided as an example Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) who got no trouble at all with his ideas of extraterrestial worlds and alien life. And there's a long and vast history behind ideas of alien life and plurality of worlds, which can be traced back to ancient Greece. It was not an original idea of Bruno's. And as I already said the idea was accepted in condemnations of Paris in 1277 when it became wrong to teach that God could only have created just one world.

Now, is there a list of all who have been charged of herecy about the plurality of worlds? Who's on that list? Bruno? So why not everybody else before him? Why not Nicholas of Cusa? Because in Bruno's case it only mattered as related to his ideas of salvation.

Moreover, Bruno's statement in On the Infinite Universe and Worlds (1584) clearly contradicts the principle of the special status of the Earth, immobile at the centre of all things, promoted so resolutely by the Church. That was not "officially accepted doctrine" as I'm sure you'll agree.

So did Nicolaus Copernicus' De revolutionibus (1543) with it's heliocentric model. He wasn't charged for that nor was his book banned - though in 1616 church demanded corrections to the book to emphasize his model's status as a hypothesis. In those days there was nothing wrong in proposing heliocentrism as a hypothesis, and there was no conclusive evidence of it either (funnily enough we got that conclusive piece of evidence only in 1838).

My skeptical position would have been the same: it's good and interesting hypothesis but if you claim your model to be the Truth, then provide the evidence (plus ECREE). At that time the three competing models were more or less mathematically equal as observational accuracy goes. There was no way to discern between them which one was actually the correct one, except maybe for Venus' phases but they fit into the Tychonian model as well.

And you know what - neither Copernicus' nor Galileo's models were the Truth. They had a good hypothesis going there but they were both wrong, and it was Kepler who got it (mostly) right with his elliptical orbits, and later Newton who recognized that Earth does not orbit the Sun but Solar Systems common center of mass. And in Newton's times my skeptical position would have been different: his model is the most accurate as it's predictions and observations goes, so it's most probably true as well.

 

[icerat]

Curiosity has been doing other things since leaving Rocknest and has been driving to Glenelg. Now, if that sample really was the "one for the history books" then I'd expect Curiosity to stop other activities and reanalyze the sample, and maybe even return to Rocknest where it was taken to get more such samples.

Hmmm ... the problem with this thinking is that Curiosity did spend a deal more time at Rocknest than was planned, in order "to increase science return" and ended up taking 5 scoop samples. Wasn't Rocknest originally planned as a stop just to test the scooping mechanism?

 

[spin0]

Hmmm ... the problem with this thinking is that Curiosity did spend a deal more time at Rocknest than was planned, in order "to increase science return" and ended up taking 5 scoop samples. Wasn't Rocknest originally planned as a stop just to test the scooping mechanism?

You mean it's the number of scoops (5) that is significant here?

Some of the scoops were indeed just to test the scooping mechanism and delivery of samples. And some of the last ones were to test the sampling intruments and to compare their calibration or "preconditioning" (e.g. SAM, APXS): http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/news/i...usgs-scientist-ken-herkenhoff-preconditioning

There was applause in the MSL SOWG meeting room and on the phone lines as the first SAM results on solid Martian material were announced. The instrument appears to be working well, and the team is busy analyzing the new data. The plan for Sol 95 therefore included another SAM "preconditioning" activity to prepare for another scoop sample. The more complicated part of the plan involved lots of arm motion to process and drop the rest of the scoop 5 sample to the observation tray and measure it with APXS. This will allow results from various instruments to be compared, which will allow the team to more fully understand the detailed composition of the soil sample and to compare the calibration of the instruments. MAHLI images of the material on the observation tray will be taken to determine how much material is measured by APXS. It was nearly midnight in Flagstaff when my shift ended, almost like being on Mars time!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What I'm saying is that a meteorite of Earth origin could be identified as such based on it's minerals and composition - not necessarily entrapped gases. If it for example has minerals we know appear here on Earth but probably not anywhere else in SS then it's probably from Earth.

We could have meteorites here on Earth that were blasted into space billions of years ago and eventually reentered the atmosphere. I'm not aware any have been identified. Are you? Just curious.

Edited to add: Oldest dated rocks on Earth.

The oldest dated rocks on Earth, as an aggregate of minerals that have not been subsequently melted or disaggregated by erosion, are from the Hadean Eon. Such rocks are exposed on the surface in very few places.[1]

Some of the oldest surface rock can be found in the Canadian Shield, Australia, Africa and in other more specific places around the world. The ages of these felsic rocks are generally between 2.5 and 3.8 billion years. The approximate ages have a margin of error of millions of years. In 1999, the oldest known rock on Earth was dated to 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years, and is part of the Acasta Gneiss of the Slave craton in northwestern Canada.[2] Researchers at McGill University found a rock with a very old model age for extraction from the mantle (3.8 to 4.28 billion years ago) in the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt on the coast of Hudson Bay, in northern Quebec;[3] the true age of these samples is still under debate,[4] and they may actually be closer to 3.8 billion years old.[5] Older than these rocks are crystals of the mineral zircon, which can survive the disaggregation of their parent rock and be found and dated in younger rock formations.

 

[spin0]

We could have meteorites here on Earth that were blasted into space billions of years ago and eventually reentered the atmosphere. I'm not aware any have been identified. Are you? Just curious.

Yes, a re-entry could be possible, but I'm not aware of anyone finding and identifying one here on Earth. And I'd put a low probability for discovering such a meteorite even if some rocks had re-entered.

Here's a good related article about Moon meteorites found on Earth: How Do We Know That It's a Rock From the Moon?

 

[icerat]

You mean it's the number of scoops (5) that is significant here?

No, it's the fact they stayed longer than planned. You suggested if they actually had found something interesting then they would have stopped longer to look at it.

They did stop longer.

Personally I don't think this is some finding the public will find "earth shattering", but just thought I'd point that out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, a re-entry could be possible, but I'm not aware of anyone finding and identifying one here on Earth. And I'd put a low probability for discovering such a meteorite even if some rocks had re-entered.

Here's a good related article about Moon meteorites found on Earth: How Do We Know That It's a Rock From the Moon?

I'm quite familiar with meteorites, thanks, I own a number of them. But I'm sure other readers would like the link.

 

[spin0]

No, it's the fact they stayed longer than planned. You suggested if they actually had found something interesting then they would have stopped longer to look at it.

I said: Now, if that sample really was the "one for the history books" then I'd expect Curiosity to stop other activities and reanalyze the sample, and maybe even return to Rocknest where it was taken to get more such samples.

They did stop longer.

It's the last scoopful (5th) that is of interest here. That was the one analyzed with SAM, and apparently part of it is still in the scoop.

Remember how there were all kinds of minor technical delays before that: there was the bright object of Earth origin which led to discarding the second scoopful, then time spent in verifying a 100% clean spot for the third, communications problems with DSN, the safe mode etc which all added up to the longer than planned time spent there. But it's not even relevant how long they had spent on the spot before they eventually got to take that 5th scoopful (on sol 93). What I said relates to events after that.

And if that scoopful really was the "one for history books" I'd expect them to stop other activities and reanalyze the sample (ASAP while still in the scoop), and maybe even return to Rocknest where it was taken to get more such samples.

Personally I don't think this is some finding the public will find "earth shattering", but just thought I'd point that out.

Cheers.

 

[spin0]

Looks more and more that the unsubstantiated hype was just that.

Time: A Mars Announcement ‘for the History Books’? Not So Fast

JPL spokesman Guy Webster made just this point today in an e-mail to TIME: “As for history books, the whole mission is for the history books,” he wrote. That’s not to say he rules out the possibility of truly big news. “It won’t be earthshaking,” he said in a later phone call, “but it will be interesting.”
And as for the scoop the NPR reporter and HuffPo announced? “John was excited about the quality and range of information coming in from SAM during the day a reporter happened to be sitting in John’s office last week,” Webster wrote. “He has been similarly excited by results at other points during the mission so far.”

Also interesting to see if (or when) they re-run the SAM tests to confirm their results, whatever they may be. No word of such schedule so far, but I'd expect it to happen in the near future. And when SAM's baking nothing else gets much done on that sol.


ETA: Today's panorama around Glenelg looks gorgeus as always: http://www.db-prods.net/marsroversimages/curiosity.html#74
Lots of interesting rocks, outcrops and.. and.. stuff! Some of those rocks on the right foreground look like made of dough with their weirdlooking eroded forms (pareidolia paradise!). There's been a bit more dust in the atmosphere lately and the change in tau is obvious on far away objects.

 

[spin0]

When are they supposed to release this information?

^ AGU's fall meeting Dec 3.-7. and more spefically AFAIK 5th3rd.

From AGU's 2012 Fall Meeting scientific program:
MONDAY, DECEMBER 03, 2012

Session: U13A
Results From Mars Science Laboratory Mission Four Months After Landing
1:40 PM - 3:40 PM

U13A-01. The Mars Science Laboratory Mission: Early Results from Gale Crater Landing Site (Invited)
John P. Grotzinger; Dave Blake; Joy A. Crisp; Kenneth S. Edgett; Ralf Gellert; Javier Gomez-Elvira; Donald M. Hassler; Paul R. Mahaffy; Michael C. Malin; Michael A. Meyer; Igor Mitrofanov; Ashwin R. Vasavada; Roger C. Wiens

U13A-02. Overview of the Atmosphere and Environment within Gale Crater on Mars (Invited)
Ashwin R. Vasavada; John P. Grotzinger; Joy A. Crisp; Javier Gomez-Elvira; Paul R. Mahaffy; Christopher R. Webster

U13A-03. First results from the CheMin, DAN and SAM instruments on Mars Science Laboratory (Invited)
David F. Blake; Paul R. Mahaffy; Igor Mitrofanov

U13A-04. The Radiation Environment on the Martian Surface and during MSL’s Cruise to Mars (Invited)
Donald M. Hassler; Cary Zeitlin; R F. Wimmer-Schweingruber

U13A-05. Chemical Composition of Rocks and Soils at Gale Crater, Mars (Invited)
Roger C. Wiens; Ralf Gellert; Sylvestre Maurice


ETA: Unfortunately the session does not appear to be on Video On-Demand Lectures and Sessions list.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Oh come on, NASA. You have enough pull to keep a few conference jerkoffs from keeping the whole thing seekrit. Some of us non-rocket scientists are still interested in this crap, you know.

In particular I'm curious to know if there's any nitrogen in the soil, since it's kind of a big deal for terran life and would need to be shipped in otherwise.

 

[BenBurch]

NASA needs to control the message better, IMNSHO.

 

[AdMan]

It's sad to hear most of this thread has been lost (I think through nobody's fault)!

We were posting live as Curiosity landed on Mars, and all through the first few weeks.

Oh, well...

Thanks to RoseMontague for rescuing these posts from Google.

ETA: Just looked at the second new post... Hope this means all the earlier lost posts have been cached and can somehow be kept...

 

[spin0]

Oh come on, NASA. You have enough pull to keep a few conference jerkoffs from keeping the whole thing seekrit. Some of us non-rocket scientists are still interested in this crap, you know.

No worries! We non-rocket scientists have the best person on the job: Emily Lakdawalla informed that she will be there live-tweeting the session (if WiFi provided).


And then there's this recent media advisory about a press conference: http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/important-dates/single/media-advisory-4/

Mars Rover Curiosity’s Investigations in Gale Crater
Monday, 3 December, 9:00 a.m.

NASA’s newest Mars rover, Curiosity, has been investigating past and modern environmental conditions in Mars’ equatorial Gale Crater since August. This briefing will offer findings from examining the composition and textures of targets touched by the rover’s robotic arm. Curiosity is the car-size rover of NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory mission. At the time of the AGU Fall Meeting, it will be four months into a two-year prime mission.

Participants:
Michael Meyer, Program Scientist for Mars Science Laboratory; NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C., USA;
John Grotzinger, Project Scientist for Mars Science Laboratory; California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA;
Paul Mahaffy, Principal Investigator for Curiosity’s Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM); NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA;
Ralf Gellert, Principal Investigator for Curiosity’s Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer; University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada;
Ken Edgett, Principal Investigator for Curiosity’s Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI); Malin Space Science Systems, San Diego, California, USA.

Session: U13A

Will be broadcasted live here: http://live.projectionnet.com/agupress/fm2012.aspx
Related documents will be posted here: http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/media-center/virtual-press-room/

I tried to read and understand the rules, but wasn't successful at my attempts. So do not ask me if registration is needed. I hope not.


There's also another press conference about Opportunity’s investigations at Endeavour Crater (Tuesday, 4 December, 10:30 a.m.).


[...plus many more very interesting ones about various subjects... gotta just love AGU fall meeting...]

 

[volcano]

[...plus many more very interesting ones about various subjects... gotta just love AGU fall meeting...]

Lots of good stuff on the schedule this year-- I'll miss the Curiosity session (U13) because I have another session to attend that afternoon, but I have a number of planetary friends who will be at the Curiosity session and can tell me what I miss

I'm also really excited about these sessions: Countering Denial and Manufactured Doubt of 21st Century Science talks and posters
(I'll miss the talks-- too many Monday afternoon sessions! But I plan to go see the posters on Tuesday morning)

I wonder how many other JREF forum folks are going to AGU?

 

[spin0]

^ Hey, those look interesting, thanks for the links! I wish I could be there. Luckily AGU traditionally provides many lectures as webcasts, and there's the blog coverage and twitterati to keep us dregs up to date.


Curiosity's latest panorama has gotten wider with new images from sol 109: http://www.db-prods.net/marsroversimages/curiosity.html#74

The site is called Point Lake. Last sol Curiosity drove a little, just backed up and turned a bit to have a rock under her left front wheel into a better position for arm.


Curiosity: Cool Things to Find (Parody of "Dumb Ways to Die")

 

[Travis]

During the medieval renessaince there appeared demarcation problems, and the Catholic Curch felt it needed sorting out. Part of that process were the Condemnations of Paris.

In 1277 the catholic bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier condemned many doctrines he and the pope considered heretical or wrong. One of these condemned doctrines was the idea that the First Cause cannot make many worlds. It means that God, in his omnipotency, could very well have created more than one world (including life) and it was wrong to teach that it was impossible. This idea is known as the plurality of worlds and it has never since been considered wrong or heretical per se in the Catholic Church.

And for example in 1439 Nicholas of Cusa wrote in his book De docta ignorantia about many worlds and possible extraterrestial life on them. His ideas were not condemned by the Vatican, in fact the pope made Nicholas a papal envoy and later a cardinal.

So the ideas of possible extraterrestial life are rather old, and those ideas has been accepted in the Catholic church and in the Vatican for a very long time.

Here's an informative article about Nicholas of Cusa and extraterrestials: http://www.challzine.net/29/29extraterr.html (though the writer repeats some more recent myths about Bruno).

Who?

ETA: No I'm serious: Who?

Wasn't there an astronomer burned at the stake in Spain that was only charged with agreeing with others that Earth revolved around the Sun?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

^ Hey, those look interesting, thanks for the links! I wish I could be there. Luckily AGU traditionally provides many lectures as webcasts, and there's the blog coverage and twitterati to keep us dregs up to date.


Curiosity's latest panorama has gotten wider with new images from sol 109: http://www.db-prods.net/marsroversimages/curiosity.html#74

The site is called Point Lake. Last sol Curiosity drove a little, just backed up and turned a bit to have a rock under her left front wheel into a better position for arm.


Curiosity: Cool Things to Find (Parody of "Dumb Ways to Die")

I find all the broken up rock plates fascinating.