No bug eyed monsters: after hype, NASA finds carbon, chlorine on Mars

Team not yet ready to rule out contamination from Earth either.

Read the whole story

 

[g0m3r619]

Whatever came of the discovery of formaldehyde on Mars? I remember back in the 90's there were rumblings about this but I never heard anything more about it.

 

[iandisme]

Whoever broke out the "one for the history books" line ought to be ashamed. It's hard enough to drum up good PR for NASA without some yahoo over-hyping a discovery.

 

[baloroth]

High quantities of deuterium? Could be useful. If (and I stress that is a pretty big "if") we ever figure out nuclear fusion power, deuterium is likely to be pretty key to fueling fusion reactors. It might not be worth mining Mars for them (although if we could get such cheap power, maybe), but it would certainly help establishing a Mars base. Just speculating here. The rest of the findings seem pretty mundane to me.

 

[Unclebugs]

I find the explanation of greater frequency of heavier water on Mars interesting. I wonder if it can be explained to a lay person? I get the idea that the "heavier" water would be less likely to leave the planet, but I find it more reasonable that some kind of nuclear effect from increased solar activity reaching the surface might explain the increased frequency of heavier water.

 

[Chuckstar]

High quantities of deuterium? Could be useful. If (and I stress that is a pretty big "if") we ever figure out nuclear fusion power, deuterium is likely to be pretty key to fueling fusion reactors. It might not be worth mining Mars for them (although if we could get such cheap power, maybe), but it would certainly help establishing a Mars base. Just speculating here. The rest of the findings seem pretty mundane to me.

I really don't think we need to go to Mars for deuterium. There's more than an ample supply on Earth. I think the estimate is that there's enough deuterium in the oceans to provide fusion fuel for about a billion years.

Furthermore, even in the medium to long term it's very unlikely we'd end up with fusion power on Mars. The fuel would be the least of our problems. You'd have to get all the other material for a reactor up there.

 

[Torbjörn Larsson OM]

Thanks for this! The results are consistent with Phoenix (oxidants, specifically of perchlorate type), which is encouraging. It also goes a long way towards predicting the Vikings' results, with or without organics as source for the chlorinated organics.

As for the hype, one gets the ironic feeling that the bug-eyed monsters are the web generation. (Cue Simpsons.)

Whatever came of the discovery of formaldehyde on Mars?

There was never a confirmed discovery, but claims of observation.

I assume these claims were never confirmed, akin to how the stronger signal of methane never have been verified for certain.

Whoever broke out the "one for the history books" line ought to be ashamed. It's hard enough to drum up good PR for NASA without some yahoo over-hyping a discovery.

It was Grotzinger. And it is correct in the sense that Curiosity will be "one for the history books". (Though I suspect he was exulting over the quality of the results, see the article. Those will be in the scientific books, and they will certainly help making Curiosity's mission a memorable one, but they won't be noticed in any lay books I'm sure.)

So he has nothing to be ashamed of (except maybe forgetting how journalists act), neither did he over-hype. The hyping journalist that was adding a qualification of "earth-shaking", now withdrawn without notice, should be ashamed. Twice.

 

[Torbjörn Larsson OM]

... I find it more reasonable that some kind of nuclear effect from increased solar activity reaching the surface might explain the increased frequency of heavier water.

How do you envision an alternate "nuclear effect" mechanism? Fusion?

Gravity sorting is a null hypothesis inside a deep gravity well.

 

[Chuckstar]

I find the explanation of greater frequency of heavier water on Mars interesting. I wonder if it can be explained to a lay person? I get the idea that the "heavier" water would be less likely to leave the planet, but I find it more reasonable that some kind of nuclear effect from increased solar activity reaching the surface might explain the increased frequency of heavier water.

Mars' atmospere escaped through some combination of (i) insufficient gravity allowing thermal escape and (ii) the solar wind knocking high-altitude molecules with enough force to achieve escape velocy. There is debate as to whether one or the other of those causes predominated, but certainly there must be at least some element of each at play.

Both of those causes favor lighter particles escaping more easily than heavier particles. In the case of deuterium, we're really talking about water molecules escaping from the atmosphere. Water molecules with only regular hydrogen would escape the easiest. Ones with both hydrogen atoms being deuterium would be very slightly less likely to escape. Ones with one regular and one deuterium atom would fall in between. The differences would be very slight, but over the eons it took to almost completely elliminate the atmosphere, it would add up to a measurable surplus of deuterium on the planet.

 

[A314InTheSky]

About two weeks ago, one of its scientists told NPR the rover had made a discovery that would be "one for the history books."

Phew! For a moment I thought that they were about to report that a member of the Kennedy, Bush or Clinton dynasties would be the first President of the United States of Mars

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

How does one "hald" samples?

I find the explanation of greater frequency of heavier water on Mars interesting. I wonder if it can be explained to a lay person? I get the idea that the "heavier" water would be less likely to leave the planet, but I find it more reasonable that some kind of nuclear effect from increased solar activity reaching the surface might explain the increased frequency of heavier water.

I think the mass difference could be all that's needed. After all, heavy water sinks in regular water even when it's in the form of ice (which is otherwise positively buoyant).

 

[masterbinky]

This Rover is Freakin' Sweet

/Peter Griffin Voice

 

[Quiet Desperation]

Whoever broke out the "one for the history books" line ought to be ashamed. It's hard enough to drum up good PR for NASA without some yahoo over-hyping a discovery.

He was right. It was just "History Of Martian Soil Chemistry, Volume 1" and not "Human History Volume 157"

 

[g0m3r619]

High quantities of deuterium? Could be useful. If (and I stress that is a pretty big "if") we ever figure out nuclear fusion power, deuterium is likely to be pretty key to fueling fusion reactors. It might not be worth mining Mars for them (although if we could get such cheap power, maybe), but it would certainly help establishing a Mars base. Just speculating here. The rest of the findings seem pretty mundane to me.

I really don't think we need to go to Mars for deuterium. There's more than an ample supply on Earth. I think the estimate is that there's enough deuterium in the oceans to provide fusion fuel for about a billion years.

Furthermore, even in the medium to long term it's very unlikely we'd end up with fusion power on Mars. The fuel would be the least of our problems. You'd have to get all the other material for a reactor up there.

Like what exactly? Do you know for a fact that the raw materials don't already exist on Mars to set up mining and manufacturing locally? You are making some baseless assumptions.

 

[Devin]

Whoever broke out the "one for the history books" line ought to be ashamed. It's hard enough to drum up good PR for NASA without some yahoo over-hyping a discovery.

He was right. It was just "History Of Martian Soil Chemistry, Volume 1" and not "Human History Volume 157"

Now there is some exquisite space drama all right: calibrating instruments.

It's chilling.

 

[Chuckstar]

High quantities of deuterium? Could be useful. If (and I stress that is a pretty big "if") we ever figure out nuclear fusion power, deuterium is likely to be pretty key to fueling fusion reactors. It might not be worth mining Mars for them (although if we could get such cheap power, maybe), but it would certainly help establishing a Mars base. Just speculating here. The rest of the findings seem pretty mundane to me.

I really don't think we need to go to Mars for deuterium. There's more than an ample supply on Earth. I think the estimate is that there's enough deuterium in the oceans to provide fusion fuel for about a billion years.

Furthermore, even in the medium to long term it's very unlikely we'd end up with fusion power on Mars. The fuel would be the least of our problems. You'd have to get all the other material for a reactor up there.

Like what exactly? Do you know for a fact that the raw materials don't already exist on Mars to set up mining and manufacturing locally? You are making some baseless assumptions.

Are you kidding me? Mining and manufacturing in situ? In any kind of time frame that makes sense to even contemplate?

 

[krokodil]

Does anyone know why there are chlorates on Mars? Is it unique to Martian geochemistry? They are not abundant on Earth and are made industrially by electrolysis.

 

[EdwardRox]

Damn! I was hoping for ruins!!! ha!

 

[doppio]

a variety of methane (CH4) derivatives, with chlorine replacing a variable number of hydrogens

The combination of space exploration and chloromethane reminded me of "The UFO Menace" from Woody Allen's "Side Effects".

Reportedly, it's best with either a twist of lemon or a small onion.

 

[monkey314159]

Whoever broke out the "one for the history books" line ought to be ashamed. It's hard enough to drum up good PR for NASA without some yahoo over-hyping a discovery.

It was Grotzinger. And it is correct in the sense that Curiosity will be "one for the history books". (Though I suspect he was exulting over the quality of the results, see the article. Those will be in the scientific books, and they will certainly help making Curiosity's mission a memorable one, but they won't be noticed in any lay books I'm sure.)

Then why say, "this is one for history books" months after it landed? If you're simply gonna say, "well everything they do on mars is one for the history books" then that's pretty damn lame.

 

[Curly4]

What is the big deal? It would be more surprising if these and other elements are not found. The material that made up Mars ( and other bodies in space) came from a single source which would have to have all the elements that we know and maybe more than that. They may not be in equal proportions nor all of the elements may not be in the same body but they will be out there some where and will be found if searched for long enough.

 

[SeismoJones]

Damn! I was hoping for ruins!!! ha!

That's what these NASA eggheads don't seem to get. If they say they've found something "earth shaking," the 99.9% of us that don't have a background in astrophysics are going to be sorely disappointed by anything less than some news about life, past life, or a very good potential of life.

 

[bengtj]

Hey j_timmer, I think you misinterpreted the error bars. Ralf Gellert said they were there on the MER data, with no indication that there were error bars on the SAM data from Curiosity. He very clearly said that the error bars clearly represent the variation over many runs of the MER hardware, and since there is only one measurement from Curiosity, there are no error bars.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Whoever broke out the "one for the history books" line ought to be ashamed. It's hard enough to drum up good PR for NASA without some yahoo over-hyping a discovery.

I'd like to think everything NASA does is "one for the history books", but indeed that statement seemed premature and overstated given the typical reaction of the rumor mill.

 

[wally626]

If you are looking for fusion fuel off earth, the Moon has significant amounts of tritium. May not be cost effective to mine it.

 

[wyrmhole]

I find the explanation of greater frequency of heavier water on Mars interesting. I wonder if it can be explained to a lay person? I get the idea that the "heavier" water would be less likely to leave the planet, but I find it more reasonable that some kind of nuclear effect from increased solar activity reaching the surface might explain the increased frequency of heavier water.

Sure, it shouldn't be that hard to explain. Cosmic rays, solar radiation, and solar wind hit the upper atmosphere of mars with a certain amount of energy. That energy is imparted to particles in the atmosphere. E=mv^2, so the lighter the particle the greater the velocity, and thus the greater chance that the energy imparted will be enough to accelerate it to escape velocity from Mars. This preferential loss of lighter particles over billions of years results in significantly skewed isotope ratios.

There is no known 'nuclear effect' which would create significant amounts of deuterium as a result of solar radiation. Deuterium is created by nuclear processes inside the sun, but that deuterium would also be consumed at a faster rate than it is produced, which is why it is believed that all the deuterium we see is from gas that was never fused inside a star.

I think a straightforward application of kinetic energy is more reasonable than an unknown transmutation mechanism contra-indicated by well-working nuclear theory. Why do you disagree?

 

[wyrmhole]

That's what these NASA eggheads don't seem to get. If they say they've found something "earth shaking," the 99.9% of us that don't have a background in astrophysics are going to be sorely disappointed by anything less than some news about life, past life, or a very good potential of life.

He didn't say that, he said "one for the history books", but sure, it sounds as if over-hyped.

John Grotzinger's mistake was forgetting that something that he says from his perspective as a scientist is going to be interpreted and paraphrased from the perspective news-hungry journalists, which is then going to be re-interpreted from the perspective of lay-people who don't much care about regular history books, much less science ones, and wouldn't find anything less than bug-eyed monsters interesting enough to write down for posterity and on that basis assume that's what he must be talking about because otherwise why would they care?

He made it clear he's aware of his mistake in the press conference.

Maybe you could do him a favor and meet him halfway, by keeping in mind that this is a scientific mission and what's scientifically historic is not what you personally would find historic.

Personally I get my Curiosity information from the MSL mission website (I'm always looking for new photos of Mars rocks with laser blast marks on them ) and responsible science journalists like Emily Lakdawalla and I was taken completely by surprise that there was apparently "hype" that these results failed to live up to.

 

[Raging Canuck]

Nothing to see here folks. The samples taken were fully exposed to the sun and other environmental conditions and have been sterilized over time. The concentrations are not significant and nothing to get your panties all in a knot about. Now, if samples were taken deep below the surface or at the bottom of a cliff protected from the elements or from within a cave...

 

[darcher]

A few corrections:

SAM heated the samples up to ~900 C (not 500) and the preliminary thought is that the O2 is from *per*chlorate salts, not chlorates. The O2 release looks most consistent with Ca-perchlorate, not Ca-chlorite.

 

[Evolution]

What is the big deal? It would be more surprising if these and other elements are not found. The material that made up Mars ( and other bodies in space) came from a single source which would have to have all the elements that we know and maybe more than that. They may not be in equal proportions nor all of the elements may not be in the same body but they will be out there some where and will be found if searched for long enough.

You are absolutely correct and I agree, but don't you think NASA is thinking the same thing you're thinking? And the big deal is that chances are there are gold on Earth there must be gold on Mars, and we the U.S. government want them. It's good on the $Dollar you know. And how about Titanium and other precious metals, and also the raw materials that we don't have here in the U.S.? We want them too.

I would be more interested to know where is this "single source" at.

 

[doppio]

... there must be gold on Mars, and we the U.S. government want them. It's good on the $Dollar you know. And how about Titanium and other precious metals, and also the raw materials that we don't have here in the U.S.? We want them too...

I would be curious to see your breakdown on the economy of mining precious materials on Mars. I'm sure you have it all figured out with a decent profit margin.

 

[Evolution]

I know it's not going to be a cat walk setting up mining sites on Mars that I know of. It's a hard job doing anything on a weightless environment. But if there are golds found on Mars we'll figure out a economical way of getting them back here on Earth.

But like you said lets look at the profit margin first if it's profitable to do so ..


The current price of gold per ounce is around USD$1,800

$1800 x 16 oz = $28,800 per pound.

Take 1 US ton = 2,000 US pounds

$28,800 x 2,000 lbs = USD$57,600,000 ($57.6 million dollars).

I read about there is this private owned commerical space program is charging somewhere around $50 million per person for anyone who is interested in a 7 day tour around the Earth.

If this private owned space program makes money out of $50 million per person. I am sure mining gold on Mars should be profitable for the US government.

A cargo spacecraft operated by 2 to 4 crew members shipping gold back and forth from Mars shouldn't costed that much to operated when we are talking about $57.6 million per ton of gold.

And the price of gold is going up.

Hey.. How many tons we can loaded in a single shipping?