Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

Antius · 2016-12-15 14:09:58

I am not sure what 'covered' actually means in this context. None the less, if true, this is a hugely significant find. In addition to increasing the prospects of extant Martian life, carbon based materials are chemical feedstock and could serve as reducing agents for metal production. If abundant hydrocarbons are found on Mars it has huge implications for the prosperity of future colonists.

http://www.space.com/35012-curiosity-fi … rials.html

SpaceNut · 2016-12-15 19:47:51

Very interesting to see that some scientists are will to admit life even at a cellular level did exist and that we may see multicelled fossil as well at so point in the nitch search that the rover is now tasked to do.....

Void · 2016-12-15 22:13:37

I wonder. We think that Titan represents a fossil similarity to what the Earth was thought to be like in it's youth.

Why wouldn't Mars have such childhood?

My current speculation is that Mars when wet was somewhat like Titan, but with much more sunlight, therefore warmer. Carbon in the rocks? Why not, if tholins are raining down.

After that during the collapse of the atmosphere might have come an Oxidative phase where it actually had an Oxygen dominated atmosphere, so long as sufficient moisture was present in the atmosphere.

And finally when the atmosphere was thin dry and cold, the outbursts of volcano's to supply CO2, and perhaps some Nitrogen from cooked rock? What we have now it might seem.

So the questions that come to mind are:
-With Venus, Earth, and Mars, and maybe even some asteroids habitable, and in physical communication through meteor tossing / spit swapping, where did it begin.

-If Mars had life, why did it give in? Shouldn't the "Gia" notion have made it possible for life on Mars to keep it habitable?

That's a lot. Good enough for now.

Last edited by Void (2016-12-15 22:21:53)

Oldfart1939 · 2016-12-15 22:49:59

The announcement really didn't have much in it, and seemed awfully vague to me. Organic chemistry covers an awful lot of compounds--millions to date. I'd be more excited if they had identified something--other than alkanes and alkenes. This is why we need a human presence there, complete with an excellent suite of instrumentation: HPLC, mass spectrometer, maybe even an NMR, and most importantly for me an FTIR. Throw in a polarimeter, and we can make some real headway w/r to determine life past or present. The first organic chemist on Mars is going to have a field lifetime (was gonna say field day, but that isn't close!). Ah, to be 30 years younger; I'd go in a heartbeat.

GW Johnson · 2016-12-16 13:45:16

I agree with oldfart1939. It's about time someone found the "organics", but that term covers an awful lot of ground, much of it quite toxic to life as we know it here.

Robots can only find what they are equipped and programmed to find. Ground truth has historically been quite different than what was predicted. That's been true since Mariner 5.

The only way to find out is to go there in person, stay a long while, and take the science equipment and labs with you.

It would help if those who attempt this were not trussed-up in the Michelin-Man semi-rigid balloons we use as spacesuits. Can't crawl into a cave looking for fossils wearing one of those.

GW

Void · 2016-12-16 14:18:25

http://oilonmars.blogspot.no/
Under the circumstances I will not claim abiotic origination of hydrocarbons on Mars. We don't know, but the information in this topic seems to support the idea that there might be an observed oil spill on Mars, from a salt dome. And of course there have been rare cases of Methane emissions.

I am not surprised if the emissions are rare, as the Mars crust is colder than Earth's and perhaps in many locations emissions are blocked by ice permafrost, and of course the planet we think does not shake with quakes as much as Earth does.

Hopeful for Hydrocarbons of use for settlers.

Last edited by Void (2016-12-16 14:20:04)

Oldfart1939 · 2016-12-16 18:57:51

What should we be looking for, once we have the ability to dig in out of the way and more interesting places than rocky plains where the rovers can operate? I would be looking for amino acids and carbohydrates, and then determine whether or not they possessed any optical activity. On Earth, (almost) all naturally occurring AAs have an L configuration and rotate the plane of polarized light passing through a solution of them in an appropriate solvent in a levorotatory direction. All naturally occurring carbohydrates are of the D configuration. To the non chemists here, these are the building blocks of life as we know it. Having a polarimeter along is absolutely essential, since the Miller-Urey experiment has demonstrated the abiotic synthesis of 23 different AAs, but all are a 50-50 mixture of the D and L isomers. Another set of compounds frequently thought to be evidence of life through biotic synthesis of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons; i.e. Naphthalene, Anthracene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, etc. The original biotically synthesized compounds are not PAHs, but precursors that lead to them via pyrolysis. These are compounds found in tobacco smoke that render it carcinogenic. We would need a means of separating mixtures, so the requirement I placed on the laboratory on Mars needs a High Performance Liquid Chromatograph (HPLC). When only very small portions of sample are available, an FTIR, Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrophotometer is the name of the game. As you might be beginning to realize, this type of analysis of a multiplicity of samples is far beyond the robots we can currently send there.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2016-12-16 19:00:22)

elderflower · 2016-12-17 17:56:31

I quite agree, Oldfart. Only human missions with sufficient equipment and expertise will answer the questions we have about Mars. Analytical equipment on Mars will obviate the difficulty of sample returns so avoiding potential contamination by earth stuff.

Oldfart1939 · 2016-12-17 20:35:34

Real science proceeds in a logical and stepwise manner. As now, all the sample collection is limited by the rover's abilities in terrain encountered. What really should happen, is an interesting sample is found, which subsequently provides more clues as to where to look, and in which areas are a waste of valuable time. The instruments on board any robotic vehicle are strictly limited as to capability. So...we've found evidence that the surface of the planet is "covered with organics," doesn't really lend much insight into the presence of life, past or present.

louis · 2016-12-18 11:19:01

We are being artificially restricted to an age of robot missions, when we should already have humans on Mars. Getting humans to Mars will mean an exponential explosion in knowledge about Mars, Earth and the solar system in just a few years. I also believe that the early missions can largely be paid for through sponsorship, sale of TV rights, involvement of non-US space agencies, sale of regolith (or even better - Mars fossils if they exist) and payments by Earth universities for experiments to be conducted.

Antius · 2016-12-18 18:39:27

louis wrote:

We are being artificially restricted to an age of robot missions, when we should already have humans on Mars. Getting humans to Mars will mean an exponential explosion in knowledge about Mars, Earth and the solar system in just a few years. I also believe that the early missions can largely be paid for through sponsorship, sale of TV rights, involvement of non-US space agencies, sale of regolith (or even better - Mars fossils if they exist) and payments by Earth universities for experiments to be conducted.

There is a halfway house, in the form of a Phobos or Deimos mission. That allows robot craft to be teleoperated in real time and sample returns only need go as far as Mars orbit. From Phobos, SSTOs can access the entire planet. A manned mission to Phobos landing in Stickney crater would be shielded from two-thirds of galactic cosmic radiation by the body of the moon, its crater walls and Mars itself. This has been discussed before as an intermediate mission concept, with a Phobos base serving as a staging post for accessing Mars itself.

GW Johnson · 2016-12-19 13:39:19

Phobos should be explored and utilized while we are there at Mars. As much trouble as it is to get men all the way there and back alive, it seems insane to go at to all that trouble, and not land on the first trip.

If you think about doing Phobos while there, an orbit-based mission makes much more sense. The delta-vee to go two-ways to Phobos from LMO is about the same as LMO to the surface and back, even with a retro-propulsive landing.

That suggests building an orbit-to-orbit transport, and a suitable two-way lander/ascent vehicle. If you make that lander reusable (and you can), visiting multiple sites on Mars becomes easily feasible. Now your mission can accomplish objectives that more resemble the exploration of the New World from the Old. The successful ones always made more than one stop. None ever just looked over the rail and sailed on.

THAT is why I keep returning to a mission assembled in LEO, and based out of LMO while at Mars, especially with time available on the order of year before coming home. It also makes sense to build the orbit-to-orbit transport to be recoverable and reusable, as well. That craft serves at all the inner solar system destinations beyond the moon, not just Mars. Why build a new one one and throw it away, for every such trip? That's also insane.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-12-19 13:43:50)

Oldfart1939 · 2016-12-19 17:47:08

What I would argue for is we build a first class, well equipped chemical and biology laboratory on Mars' surface; then fly Mars-Phobos-Mars trips for samples. Why haul all the swag back to Earth for analysis? Mars needs be a permanent base, with capabilities far beyond those of any robotics. The prolonged exposure to microgravity on Phobos would be a negative.

RobertDyck · 2016-12-19 22:16:29

I have to respectfully disagree with GW on this one. There are too many politicians and others who want to send a mission to Mars orbit only, and never land on anything. That's actually harder and more dangerous than landing on Mars surface. In reality, the surface of Mars is the safest place in the solar system next to Earth itself. Mars orbit has twice the radiation of ISS, micrometeoroids, and worst of all zero gravity. Mars orbit has no resources, just empty space. But the orbits of Earth and Mars around the Sun mean you can't abort back to Earth early. You have to wait for the planets to align. Imagine spending 26 months in space, and never setting foot on any surface. That's what they want to do. Mars has an atmosphere for aerocapture and direct entry. The atmosphere blocks radiation so on average the surface has half the radiation of ISS, or 1/4 that of Mars orbit. But the types of radiation are most important; on a high plateau such as Meridiani Planum the atmosphere blocks 90% of heavy ion galactic cosmic radiation. At a low altitude location such as Elysium Planetia or Utopia Planetia, it blocks 98% to 99% of heavy ion GCR. Proton radiation gets through, only a tiny fraction blocked, but regolith is effective shielding against that. So you can use Mars soil as radiation shielding. And micrometeoroids burn up about 30km above the Mars surface. They burn up about 100km above Earth's surface, so they get further in Mars atmosphere, but that still means they can't get anywhere near the surface.

I would argue Mars moons are an advanced phase of exploration, after a permanent Mars base is established on the surface. As Oldfart1939 said, Mars-Phobos-Mars trips.

kbd512 · 2016-12-20 01:46:21

I have to agree with Rob on this one. All orbital environments are distinctly more hazardous to human health than terrestrial environments. ISS operates in a shooting gallery and has the scars to prove it. As empty as space typically is, chance encounters with space debris typically don't end very well.

We have robots that can fly around and take pictures of whatever interests us or fetch space rocks without risking human lives. Spacecraft are supposed to be a means to get from Point A to Point B, ASAP. It's time to start using some of them that way. If we spend the money and risk the human lives trying to go to Mars, then our astronauts need to land on Mars and get busy trying to answer the questions we have about the origin and nature of life within our solar system.

We don't need to devote any more of NASA's precious time and funding observing the health effects of microgravity and radiation poisoning. We have enough experimentation and data on both to fill an entire library. I'll never understand the fascination scientists have with watching people die and by having humans circling planets, that's effectively what we're doing. If I ask someone to do something that may result in their death, then I want it to be for something decidedly more substantive than observing the health effects associated with my request. The purpose of NASA is exploration and NASA's robots have already told us pretty much everything they can about Mars. If we want to know more, then we have to go there ourselves to get more answers to our questions.

elderflower · 2016-12-20 04:25:27

I don't think you would be able to sell a boots and flag trip to Mars in the present climate. A rerun of Apollo will not do enough to justify the costs. I think there needs to be the prospect of major scientific advances and of eventual colonisation. This means Oldfart's laboratory and crew mobility and local resource exploitation all need to be developed and used over the first two or three missions.
If people lose interest the politicians will cut off the money and the enterprise of Mars exploration will be abandoned by the West.

Oldfart1939 · 2016-12-20 10:12:22

kbd512 wrote:

We have robots that can fly around and take pictures of whatever interests us or fetch space rocks without risking human lives. Spacecraft are supposed to be a means to get from Point A to Point B, ASAP. It's time to start using some of them that way. If we spend the money and risk the human lives trying to go to Mars, then our astronauts need to land on Mars and get busy trying to answer the questions we have about the origin and nature of life within our solar system.
We don't need to devote any more of NASA's precious time and funding observing the health effects of microgravity and radiation poisoning. We have enough experimentation and data on both to fill an entire library. I'll never understand the fascination scientists have with watching people die and by having humans circling planets, that's effectively what we're doing. If I ask someone to do something that may result in their death, then I want it to be for something decidedly more substantive than observing the health effects associated with my request. The purpose of NASA is exploration and NASA's robots have already told us pretty much everything they can about Mars. If we want to know more, then we have to go there ourselves to get more answers to our questions.

I have to agree about the futility of continued ISS research on the effects of microgravity and radiation dosages. The ultimate goal should be establishment of at least a permanent research outpost on Mars, then let the results of this noble experiment guide going forward.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-12-15 14:09:58

Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#2 2016-12-15 19:47:51

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#3 2016-12-15 22:13:37

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#4 2016-12-15 22:49:59

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#5 2016-12-16 13:45:16

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#6 2016-12-16 14:18:25

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#7 2016-12-16 18:57:51

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#8 2016-12-17 17:56:31

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#9 2016-12-17 20:35:34

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#10 2016-12-18 11:19:01

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#11 2016-12-18 18:39:27

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#12 2016-12-19 13:39:19

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#13 2016-12-19 17:47:08

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#14 2016-12-19 22:16:29

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#15 2016-12-20 01:46:21

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#16 2016-12-20 04:25:27

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

#17 2016-12-20 10:12:22

Re: Curiosity Finds Mars May Be Covered in Organic Materials

Board footer