Curiosity: Mars Science Lab Landing and Surface Operations

Martians? I'd say the chances against that are a million to one.
 
icerat said:
I thought that scientist's kids reaction was about the "organic" meteorite?

ETA: yup, it was, read the NPR link above again. Slowly this time :)
Click to expand...
That's wrong twice then, biologic didn't get a reaction and it was the wrong discovery. :(
But then perhaps it bodes well for a new biologic discovery.:)
 
Word around Goddard is that it isn't all that impressive from the standpoint of public perception. I'm guessing it's just some chemical product that might have been created by life, but also has abiotic origins as well. These kinds of announcements are never as impressive as the teasing would make them seem. Which I think is really bad for NASA's public image, in the long run.
 
Maybe they have finally found the "One Vast Thinking Vegetable" as was reported by Salt Lake Tribune Oct.13, 1912: Mars Peopled By One Vast Thinking Vegetable!


FWIW, I don't much appreciate the form of a partial "leak" here. It builds up unnecessary hype in anticipation of an exciting discovery which eventually might be very boring to a layman (remember the presidential perchlorate?).

My guesses vary from poor news reporting to a possible organic molecyle - the former being much more probable IMO.

Here's what Bob Jacobs (NASA Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Communications) just twitted about it:
Bob Jacobs ‏@bnjacobs
There's out of control parroting regarding @MarsCuriosity. The "one for the history books" refers to the mission, not any one new discovery.

The hype might be just poor reporting here.
 
Last edited:
So they found:


Oil??!!

Gold??!!

John Carter's boots - BaarrssOOOM!!!1!!​
 
Sledge said:
Martians? I'd say the chances against that are a million to one.
Click to expand...

In one of the lost threads on this topic, I suggested that they found Jeff Wayne on Mars. I wondered whatever happened to him.

StankApe said:
I was always of the opinion that Sagan was a little ambitious with such statements.

Now if sentient life landed in space ships on the White House Lawn.... maybe he'd be on to something.
Click to expand...

Hey, I was a wide-eyed kid still in school, not the jaded cynic I am today.
 
The mission is one for the history books but we can't tell you why for a few weeks? Not buying it.

Discoveries that would of particular interest to Mars nerds:

Genetic material
Protein
Other complex organic molecules
Bacteria
Tardigrades
Liquid water (or ice)
Methane

The last two I think we already know exist on Mars.

Anyone care to add to the list who knows more than I do?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The mission is one for the history books but we can't tell you why for a few weeks? Not buying it.

Discoveries that would of particular interest to Mars nerds:

Genetic material
Protein
Other complex organic molecules
Bacteria
Tardigrades
Liquid water (or ice)
Methane

The last two I think we already know exist on Mars.

Anyone care to add to the list who knows more than I do?
Click to expand...
Not me, but this from Derek Lowe's In the Pipeline blogs: Derek is my go to person on things like this (chem, medicine, pharmacology, related). Anyway, his latest: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/11/21/the_galaxy_is_full_of_gunk.php
 
Space.com has more hints, I think.

They are calling it the x-ray amorphous stuff left over after the crystalline material is removed.

They said a few more things, called it "finally knowing what the stuff swirling around the planet was".

Maybe someone else can get more than that out of the video.


The link isn't direct. Look for "What Did Curiosity Find On Mars?"
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The mission is one for the history books but we can't tell you why for a few weeks? Not buying it.
Click to expand...
The way I read it - with the later clarifications - is that it's the mission that is the one for the history books and not some particular sample. And I'd think the mission is such because it's unprecedentedly accurate instruments work so well and provide accurate data, in this case the SAM instrument.

SAM's results will be made public at AGU's fall meeting Dec. 3-7.

Here's one thing to follow for those who wish to. Curiosity's scoop still has the rest of the last sample taken from Rocknest. From Curiosity's status report 11.20.2012:
"Although Curiosity has departed the Rocknest patch of windblown sand and dust where it scooped up soil samples in recent weeks, the sample-handling mechanism on the rover's arm is still holding some soil from the fifth and final scoop collected at Rocknest. The rover is carrying this sample so it can be available for analysis by instruments within the rover if scientists choose that option in coming days."

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.

But have to say that I'm not holding my breath.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Discoveries that would of particular interest to Mars nerds:
Genetic material
Protein
Other complex organic molecules
Bacteria
Tardigrades
Liquid water (or ice)
Methane
Click to expand...
SAM instrument isn't able to detect and identify genetic material, proteins, bacteria or tartigrades because it heats the samples to such high temperatures.
 
It used to be argued that if we found life on another planet , that would indicate that life is not a unique event on Earth, but abundant in the universe.

But as we know that meteoritic material from Mars has reached Earth in the past, it is perfectly possible life originated once - on Mars - and got here by rockmail, which puts us back to square one.

If life did get started on Mars though, I'd be very surprised if it is not still there in some form- and if Earth and Mars life started out from one source, it would surely be fascinating to see how different they are now. Of course, we would be comparing bacteria, not bison, but still fascinating.
 
Soapy Sam said:
But as we know that meteoritic material from Mars has reached Earth in the past, it is perfectly possible life originated once - on Mars - and got here by rockmail, which puts us back to square one.
Click to expand...
Or vice versa: it is possible for life originated on Earth to have hitch hiked to Mars. It is possible for rocks to travel from Earth's surface to Mars, though Earth's gravity well is deeper and it doesn't happen as much.

There's also another speculated way of travel: solar wind might blow microbes high in Earth's atmosphere out to space and towards Mars' orbit - but I think survival would be a challenge in that hypothesis. One might even speculate that hypothetical microbes high in Venus' atmosphere might be blown towards Earth's and Mars' orbits that way.

Soapy Sam said:
If life did get started on Mars though, I'd be very surprised if it is not still there in some form- and if Earth and Mars life started out from one source, it would surely be fascinating to see how different they are now. Of course, we would be comparing bacteria, not bison, but still fascinating.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be very exciting discovery whether related or not to Earth's life. But if Mars had life we'd probably have to wait for future missions to provide conclusive evidence of it. Curiosity is not designed to provide that as it's mission objective is to study the enviroment and it's geological history, and give answers to the question: Has Mars ever had an enviroment that could have supported life (as we know it)?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom