Mars had wet and habitable environment?

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
News Release: 2004-280 December 2, 2004



Reports Detail Rover Discoveries of Wet Martian History



The most dramatic findings so far from NASA's twin Mars rovers -- telltale evidence for a wet and possibly habitable environment in the arid planet's past -- passed rigorous scientific scrutiny for publication in a major research journal.



Eleven reports by 122 authors in Friday's issue of the journal Science present results from Opportunity's three-month prime mission, fleshing out headline discoveries revealed earlier.



Opportunity bounced to an airbag-cushioned landing on Jan. 24. It is exploring a region called Meridiani Planum, halfway around Mars from where its twin, Spirit, landed three weeks earlier. Sedimentary rocks Opportunity examined, "clearly preserve a record of environmental conditions different from any on Mars today," report 50 rover-team scientists led by Dr. Steve Squyres of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. and Dr. Ray Arvidson of Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.



"Liquid water was once intermittently present at the martian surface at Meridiani, and at times it saturated the subsurface. Because liquid water is a key prerequisite for life, we infer conditions at Meridiani may have been habitable for some period of time in martian history," according to Squyres, Arvidson and other co-authors.



"Formal review and publication this week of these amazing discoveries further strengthens the need for continued exploration by orbiters, surface robots, sample-return missions and human explorers. There are more exciting discoveries awaiting us on the red planet," said Dr. Michael Meyer, chief scientist for Mars exploration at NASA Headquarters, Washington.



Opportunity and Spirit have driven a combined 5.75 kilometers (3.57 miles), nearly five times their mission-success goal. They continue in good health after operating more than three times as long as the three-month prime missions for which they were designed.



NASA's rover team makes the resulting scientific discoveries available quickly to the public and the science community. One type of evidence that Meridiani was wet is the composition of rocks there.



The rocks have a high and variable ratio of bromine to chlorine; indicating "the past presence of large amounts of water," write Dr. Rudi Rieder and Dr. Ralf Gellert of Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany, and co-authors. Their paper and another by Dr. Phil Christensen of Arizona State University, Tempe, and collaborators report an abundance of sulfur-rich minerals in the rocks, another clue to a watery past. Clinching the case is identification of a hydrated iron-sulfate salt called jarosite in the rocks, as reported by Dr. Goestar Klingelhoefer of the University of Mainz, and Dr. Richard Morris of NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, and co-authors.



Structures within the rocks add more evidence according to Dr. Ken Herkenhoff of the U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., and co-authors. Plentiful cavities, about the size of shirt buttons, indicate crystals formed inside the rocks then dissolved. Minerals carried by water formed peppercorn-size gray spheres, nicknamed "blueberries," that are embedded in the rocks. Certain angled patterns of fine layers in some rocks tell experts a flowing body of surface water shaped the sediments that became the rocks.



Several characteristics of the rocks suggest water came and went repeatedly, as it does in some shallow lakes in desert environments on Earth. That fluctuation, plus the water's possible high acidity and saltiness, would have posed challenges to life, but not necessarily insurmountable ones, according to researchers. If life ever did exist at Meridiani, the type of rocks found there could be good preservers of fossils, according to Squyres, Dr. John Grotzinger of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, and co-authors.



NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., has managed the Mars Exploration Rover project since it began in 2000. Images and additional information about the rovers and their discoveries are available on the Internet at http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mer_main.html and at http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov . Information about NASA and agency programs is available on the Web at http://www.nasa.gov .
 
"Reports Detail Rover Discoveries of Wet Martian History"

Mars has no history.

They are trying to secure funding for another mission. I'll get excited when they find a trilobite or something suitable for placement on the mantle.
 
Skeptic.

I think the little green men are just toying with our rovers. You know, putting stuff in front of them and then running away, giggling madly!

;)

Seriously, all of this fascinates me. Perhaps because The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury is one of my all-time favorite books. I wasn't real pleased about the Rock Hudson movie ;) but I still read the book about once a year.
 
quick dog said:
"Reports Detail Rover Discoveries of Wet Martian History"

Mars has no history.

They are trying to secure funding for another mission. I'll get excited when they find a trilobite or something suitable for placement on the mantle.
Hihgly unlikely life there would have ever made it to the trilobite era. That took hundreds of millions of years even here. Always possible microbes could have evolved, but too harsh & cold I would think for life to get very large or advanced.

Obviously though even a microbe would be perhaps the single most important scientific discovery in history. Would mean that even if there was no mega-fauna on Mars, that life was not a unique 1 in 100 billion accident on Earth, but something that could result anyplace with liquid H20 and an atmosphere. Tough to find fossils of creatures that size though. Probably won;t know for sure until we've gone up there with manned missions and set up a signifciant scientific mission.
 
HndsmCelt said:
as long as they don't use this to drum up funding for a manned mission.
We need to get up there sooner or later. Just a question of whether the tech is ready or not. Might actually excite a littel imagination if we could pull it off. Would obviously have profound implications if we found anything.
 
I'd like to see Mark Cuban, Bill Gates and a few other bagillionaires get together and decide to do something like that WITHOUT government funding. Of course, the ramifications of a Mars run by Microsoft with cheesy uniforms for all the personnel doesn't sound too appealing.

;)
 
Egregiously expensive, inherntly risky and to date amned missions have yeileded little or no information beyond what robotic missions have acomplished.
 
I truly am waiting for fossils, assuming of course that fossils on Mars would be recognizable. One of the biggest issues in life-science is the "beginning". What was the first living thing on earth, and more importantly, how did it "fire up". Can life initiate spontaneously?

I believe that life originated in deep space through the random fixation of hydrogen and carbon atoms. I think molecules of methane and other primary hydrocarbon compounds form naturally. Maybe even simple viruses. I think these things might "fire up" in a suitable aqueous environment. It's a stretch, but nobody really knows.

If fossils are found on Mars, a lot of questions will be answered. As with all scientific questions and answers, many more questions will appear.

If fossils are discovered, they will be calcareous skeletons or siliceous replacements of softer organisms. I am assuming that the first things to be found will be fossilized algae blooms or some other soft colonial organisms.

I'll bet that the aquatic fossils on Mars, if they are found, will be recognizable and familiar, at least the micro-fossils. I think if any big things are found, they will be much different than what we have seen here.
 
HndsmCelt said:
Egregiously expensive, inherntly risky and to date amned missions have yeileded little or no information beyond what robotic missions have acomplished.
The only thing we've ever set foot on was the moon, which is both close enough to study from Earth or Earht orbit, and which is just a rock. Not much to find. We also haven't been there in 30 years -- technoology has moved a bit since then.

Mars would likely be a different animal. Doubt we'd send a manned mission out there to take a quick stroll around on the planet just to say we did it. When the time comes, and in particualr to study a planet which may once have been alive, we'll need to be thinking about a longer term presence.
 
Last edited:
I don't see any purpose in sending humans to Mars just to hit a golf ball and babble about the beautiful earth-rise. Robots and remote sensing devices are far more efficient and cost-effective. There are better ways to spend precious research dollars than fancy showmanship.

I think the USA initiated the Moon program mostly to provide the Pentagon with lots of money for ICBM and computer research. Sending guys to the Moon was more of a publicity stunt and an engineering feat, than a scientific experiment. It was cool, but really just an expensive stunt.

NASA has learned a lot more from the Hubble and Viking programs than the Moon landings of the 1960s.
 
quick dog said:
I don't see any purpose in sending humans to Mars just to hit a golf ball and babble about the beautiful earth-rise. Robots and remote sensing devices are far more efficient and cost-effective. There are better ways to spend precious research dollars than fancy showmanship.

I think the USA initiated the Moon program mostly to provide the Pentagon with lots of money for ICBM and computer research. Sending guys to the Moon was more of a publicity stunt and an engineering feat, than a scientific experiment. It was cool, but really just an expensive stunt.

NASA has learned a lot more from the Hubble and Viking programs than the Moon landings of the 1960s.
Again, no comparison to actually sending up a team to Mars with the capability to actually look at and analyze the soil and rocks from the surface itself over a period of several days or weeks (or longer). That would have to be the goal on Mars. Little unmanned robots restricted to crawling across the surface on flat terrain are extremely limited. Even one person could have collected all of the information that all of our robots have in all of the Mars missions in a couple of days time, and probably considerably more. Its not about hitting a golf ball -- its about humans being by FAR the best/most efficient information collecting/analyzing robots we have at this point.

If the evidence seems to suggest we might find there's something important up there, I'd much rather scrap the unmanned robots for a while and uset he money to try to put together a manned mission capable of 1000x more.
 
Last edited:
quick dog said:
They are trying to secure funding for another mission. I'll get excited when they find a trilobite or something suitable for placement on the mantle.
I must be getting sleepy, because I first read this as:

...I'll get excited when they find a tribble or something...

And, man, that would be friggin' AWESOME!!
 
It wouldn't matter who you sent up there, nobody can simply examine soil and rocks and make detailed and meaningful observations. The things that scientists need to know about Martian soils can only be determined with multi-million-dollar pieces of laboratory equipment. All a human would be able to do is observe and collect. The samples would have to be analyzed on Mars, or sent back to earth for more complete testing. So the key is remote sensing and various field processes for determining physical parameters of the specimens. With robots, these data are radioed back to earth for decoding and analysis. A human on Mars would simply be an expensive and vulnerable digging machine.
 
quick dog said:
It wouldn't matter who you sent up there, nobody can simply examine soil and rocks and make detailed and meaningful observations. The things that scientists need to know about Martian soils can only be determined with multi-million-dollar pieces of laboratory equipment. All a human would be able to do is observe and collect. The samples would have to be analyzed on Mars, or sent back to earth for more complete testing. So the key is remote sensing and various field processes for determining physical parameters of the specimens. With robots, these data are radioed back to earth for decoding and analysis. A human on Mars would simply be an expensive and vulnerable digging machine.
Or the only digging machine we currently have available. Or rather someone who could operate digging machines.

There is no way in the forseeable future we can get a fully assembled machine of any size up there. And certainly not ones with any brains or significant movement ability.

Human beings on the other hand, can guide, construct, and operate machinery at a level far beyond anything that is remotely possible with tiny solar-powered robots sent up by rockets. They can also make decisions about what and where to dig at a level far beyond anything that a remote hookup between an extremely limited robot and a roomful o men millions of miles away can dream of.

Obviously I think if you were going to put together a mission like this you would include a lab capable of some level of onsite anlaysis, and excess payload capacity capable of bringing back a number of interesting samples (perhaps the extra weight coming from leaving the lab behind on the surface).
 
Last edited:
Given the potential enormous cost of human space travel, I think that limited research funds would be better spent developing safe breeder reactors, which is obviously more an engineering problem than a scientific one. There needs to be sufficient funding for fusion energy research. That concept may be properly funded now. I don't know. Clearly fusion power funding has become a weak political issue initiated by academia. The world badly needs an alternative to fossil fuels, or the machine of civilization as we know and appreciate it will likely falter and stall. Few people, other than radical Muslims, would benefit from a return to 18th Century European lifestyles.

The world has a limited window of opportunity to perfect nuclear power before energy prices become untenable. Industrial nations will have to extend limited fossil fuel resources to gain sufficient time to develop the next phase of nuclear power generation. The United States pissed away 30 years of that window by avoiding the staged research and development of nuclear power. The American public will someday rue energy (non) policies promoted by Jimmy Carter, Jerry Brown, and other politicians blinded by fear and challenged leadership. The Nation has squandered an entire generation of skilled nuclear scientists and engineers. Where are their replacements?

America needs to get busy with advanced science and engineering, but not on Mars.
 
My man QD has the low down on cost Vs. benifit down! Of course there is also the human cost. NASA reports roughly a 2% failure rate for all launches which means taht about every 98 or so launches there will be a major malfunction resulting in death... Other scientist (M. Kaku) place the failuer rate for MANED launhes much higer whick means that at best we must EXPECT a Challanger or Columbia type failure evey 98 launches.
 
This will sound really bad, but the money wasted in manned space flight would probably more important than the lives of astronauts. The lives of dozens of potentially lost astronauts pales in comparison to Americans killed on the streets or dying of treatable diseases and malnutrition.

Whether people like it or not, money equates to time and lives. Money wasted on political publicity stunts is money that could have been used to grow businesses, feed the economy, create jobs, rebuild infrastructure, advance science, perfect engineering, and extend and enhance the lives of thousands of American citizens.

I think space exploration is probably worth the expense, but the expenditures must be prudent, efficient, and effective. Some of the programs that NASA has undertaken in the past 20 years have generated an enormous amount of astronomic and physical information. None of it involved human space travel.
 
Last edited:
Some of it depends on priorities. Some on perspective. As mentioned, we effectively have NEVER had manned space exploration to any significant body beyond our own moon. That barely counts -- but even so was an absolutely ENORMOUS moment in history just for having done it.

Mars is different. You don't go to Mars to hit a golf ball or just say that you have gone. But you absolutely DO go to Mars if there is something as absolutely staggering as the possibility of life having evolved there separately, and left behind traces of its existence. Man does not live by practicality alone. In fact a significant part of what we do/spend our time on is inherently impractical. Finding out answers to questions of who we are and what our place is in the greater scheme of things is easily one of the most important missions imaginable, an it leaves something behind for future generations that a new TV does not.

As an aside, most recent estimates for a manned mission to Mars stand at about $40 to $80 billion. We've blown far more than that fighting in Iraq.

P.S. Regarding the "human cost", that's a bit of a straw man. The astronauts know the risk and are willing to take it. I daresay if we decided to go to Mars there would be literally millions of people eager to take that risk just to say they were the first to step foot on another planet.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top