I saw this headline on Yahoo this morning"Ancient Mars Had Component Key to Life, Meteorite Reveals"and it make me wonder how much of current efforts to sent humans to Mars hinges on the hope of finding life there. So what happens to space travel if it is conclusively proven that life never existed on Mars. Will people continue to be interested in space, manned space travel or visiting other planets? Or the majority of people say that since there is nothing there, there is no reason to ever go there?
You can't prove the negative.But if the probabilities start to get "vanishingly small" I will feel better about eventual terraforming.I confess, though, to me, this all is a side issue... just like exoplanets. There is in-space infrastructure to build and launch costs to be reduced. Much more important stuff to work on.Life is for sensationalists.
Looking for life is one of the primary reasons for people involving themselves in space & astronomy I suspect. You can bet if asked the ordinary person on the street why we should explore space is far more likely to give the answer looking for other life than not caring a fig for stuff such as in-space infrastructure & reducing launch costs. Such a hyper-practical approach motivates very few.
Quote from: Lar on 06/12/2013 02:44 pmYou can't prove the negative.But if the probabilities start to get "vanishingly small" I will feel better about eventual terraforming.I confess, though, to me, this all is a side issue... just like exoplanets. There is in-space infrastructure to build and launch costs to be reduced. Much more important stuff to work on.Life is for sensationalists. Looking for life is one of the primary reasons for people involving themselves in space & astronomy I suspect. You can bet if asked the ordinary person on the street why we should explore space is far more likely to give the answer looking for other life than not caring a fig for stuff such as in-space infrastructure & reducing launch costs. Such a hyper-practical approach motivates very few.
If it could be conclusively shown that the likelyhood of life ever existing on Mars is vanishingly small, it would get planetary protectionists out of the way, and we could get on with development, industrialization and eventually colonization of the place.
Though I think the survey as a whole pretty fraught with bias.....
Will funding for space exploration disappear, like a popped soap bubble, when people conclude that there is no life out there to discover?
Didn't the NASA / world scientific community go crazy on Felisa Wolfe-Simon (who actually performed experiments) for suggesting that Arsenic was a precursor to life!!!!??
Quote from: RigelFive on 06/13/2013 05:42 amDidn't the NASA / world scientific community go crazy on Felisa Wolfe-Simon (who actually performed experiments) for suggesting that Arsenic was a precursor to life!!!!??Whoah there, kemosabe.The kerfluffle was that she and NASA claimed that it was alien life, when actually it was weird terrestrial life that was found. Nobody complains about weird life.
So now we've added Boron to the list of needed precursors to produce life (and this was determined by a couple of "cosmochemists" over a beer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?)
NASAs effort to find microbial life on Mars has turned into the equivalent of the experts on Ancient Aliens running around doing field research to prove aliens/UFOs really exist.
Apparently I wasn't as clear as I thought I was in my introduction to this thread. *sigh* It seems to me that all news coming from mars, and also Jupiter and Saturn, is framed by the search for life. Will funding for space exploration disappear, like a popped soap bubble, when people conclude that there is no life out there to discover?
Boron has been known as an essential trace element for plant growth for many decades. Equating them with ancient astronaut nutters is slanders.Maybe you should read the paper before posting. It's available for free online.http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0064624
Quote from: Dalhousie on 06/14/2013 01:30 amBoron has been known as an essential trace element for plant growth for many decades. Equating them with ancient astronaut nutters is slanders.Maybe you should read the paper before posting. It's available for free online.http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0064624Ok. Read the paper. Hey.... sorry guy. Boron is a toxin just like Arsenic is a toxin.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22114689/
Saying that their paper was peer reviewed doesn't seem completely unbiased.
They simply found crystals of borates, not RNA with a dab of boron that is performing life's mechanisms on Mars.
Please provide evidence of bias.
James D. Stephenson, Lydia J. Hallis, Stephen J. Freeland NASA Astrobiology Institute, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of AmericaLydia J. Hallis, Kazuhide Nagashima Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America
Yes. The scanning electron microscope only registers elements from the samples. Not a mineral composition. When you look at the grain microstructure- that is not boron atom kicking an RNA molecule around. It looks like a grain of a mineral.
Neither [Wolfe-Simon] nor NASA claimed it was alien life.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/13/2013 09:19 pmNeither [Wolfe-Simon] nor NASA claimed it was alien life. That would be a googolnope.Take a googol with the terms "Felisa_Wolfe-Simon + alien life + NASA". The number of responses is greater than zero.
So you scanned the first few google responses. Upthread you cite wikipedia as a source. Upon this foundation you stand by your assertions? Gotta love the interweb
Question:When Curiosity's work is done, will it be established one way or another that life does, did, or never existed on Mars?Answer:Probably not.
The finding, which was extensively promoted by NASA (whose Astrobiology Institute funded the research), jolted the scientific community, since it contradicted long-accepted rules of biochemistry. Within days of the announcement researchers began to question Wolfe-Simon's methodology and conclusions. Bypassing peer-reviewed periodicals, many voiced their criticisms directly on blogs and Twitter.
R.S. Oremland, C.W. Saltikov, F. Wolfe-Simon, and J.F. Stolz (2009). Arsenic in the evolution of Earth and extraterrestrial ecosystems. Geomicrobiology Journal. 26: 522-536. [pdf]"A case can be made to focus on arsenic as a font for Martian life. Mars had a clear volcanic history, and associated hydrother-mal fluids may have entrained dissolved arsenic minerals in their circulation, eventually emptying into depressions (i.e., lakes) on the Noachian to Hesperian age surface. Over time, these lakes would have been exposed to decreasing temperatures and atmospheric pressures as Mars lost its volatiles, and the remaining fluids eventually reached saturation as dense rem-nant brines underlying a salt/ice crust. Under such conditions, key brine components like arsenate would reach high concen-trations. Anaerobes that employ low potential electron accep-tors like methanogens (CO 2 ) or sulfate reducers would be en-ergetically disadvantaged under such a regimen of high salinity compared with arsenate-respirers (Oren 1999; Newman et al. 1997a). Indeed, salt-saturated Searles Lake (Fig. 1) has an ac-tive full microbiological arsenic cycle (Oremland et al. 2005) but lacks any capacity for sulfate-reduction (Kulp et al. 2006, 2007). The strict anaerobe Halarsenatibacter silvermani grows optimally on As(V) at salt-saturation (Oremland et al. 2005;Switzer Blum et al. 2009). A similar analogy can be supposed for ancient Mars, or perhaps concentrated brines believed to be lying in deep within buried aquifers. If anoxygenic photosynthe-sis also occurred on early Mars, then As(III) of volcanic origin deposited on its surface could have been converted to As(V) and the full As-cycle initiated. The current surface of Mars has become highly oxidized over time by physical/chemical pro-cesses, which also would have left residual deposits of As(V). It would certainly be of interest in future Martian surface robotic missions to look for the presence of arsenic minerals, a capacity that current surface Rovers and other robotic missions lack."
But the reason there was a kerfuffle at all was that it was shoddy research and it turned out on closer examination that what Wolfe-Simon had claimed had never actually happened. NASA rushed to trumpet results to the popular media before they had been properly peer reviewed.
The scientific consensus is now that Wolfe-Simon's microbes never used arsenic in place of phosphorus to build DNA.
And well-established principals of chemistry say it's not physically possible, as the bonds arsenic would form are orders of magnitude too weak to fill the role of phosphorus in DNA.
QuotePlease provide evidence of bias.Yes. On the link for the paper.. click the link for "About the Authors". It is thusly written:QuoteJames D. Stephenson, Lydia J. Hallis, Stephen J. Freeland NASA Astrobiology Institute, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of AmericaLydia J. Hallis, Kazuhide Nagashima Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America
The NASA Astrobiology Institute has had a few calls recently that just were not spot on.
What is the peer review process at the NASA Astrobiology Institute ?
I think that is likely one of the few ultimate questions remaining. Certainly Wolfe-Simon's articles were not well received once published. It is clear NASA is attempting to gain some improvement in credibility by collaborating with University of Hawaii.
At least they are making it all look easy to figure out. You just imagine a conversation over beer and up comes the topic of boron in some clay from Mars.
The scanning electron microscope only registers elements from the samples. Not a mineral composition. When you look at the grain microstructure- that is not boron atom kicking an RNA molecule around. It looks like a grain of a mineral.
I think Wolfe-Simon just used the wrong words about a multi billion dollar nuclear powered NASA MSL mission not having the full capabilities needed to find all types of life on Mars. For that, she was blitzed negatively by the blogs/media.
The arsenic story was published when Wolfe-Simon was at Harvard University (a.k.a. H.U.). Now the Boron story is being published by University of Hawaii (a.k.a. U.H.). There are no quips from hawaii about the MSL lander, so this boron research appears to have been written on John F's "whole cloth".
Both arsenic and boron studies are/were funded by the NASA Astrobiology Institute.
I'd put money down ($5) that both of these studies (boron and arsenic) are actually on the right track.
However, I still think Ancient Aliens show is on the right track too and we don't need NASA spend money to research this. Rationale is that the Drake equation implies that it will take nearly an infinite amount of resources to really conclude there is intelligent (or microbial) life elsewhere in the galaxy.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 06:07 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/13/2013 09:19 pmNeither [Wolfe-Simon] nor NASA claimed it was alien life. That would be a googolnope.Take a googol with the terms "Felisa_Wolfe-Simon + alien life + NASA". The number of responses is greater than zero.Of course the number of Google results for that set of search terms is not zero. But I scanned the first few of them and confirmed that none of them seems to ever say that Wolfe-Simon or NASA claimed what Wolfe found was alien life.So, I stand by my assertion. If you want to show it's wrong, that should be easy for you: provide a specific URL, and a quote from that URL that says that either NASA or Wolfe-Simon claimed the microbes she found were alien life.
Felisa Wolfe-Simon is a biochemist at the US Geological Survey and a fellow of the NASA Astrobiology Institute. Her research focuses on evolutionary microbiology and exotic metabolic pathways. Her recent work includes the possibility that some microorganisms can use arsenate (AsO3−4) as a substitute for phosphate (PO3−4), including examples cultured from Mono Lake, California.[1]
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 06:07 pmQuestion:When Curiosity's work is done, will it be established one way or another that life does, did, or never existed on Mars?Answer:Probably not.2-megapixel screensavers are getting lame though, so we'll need a new rover.
It won't take "nearly an infinite amount of resources" to falsify the proposition that there is or was life on Mars, although it will certainly take a lot.
Anyhow, back to the OP.Question:When Curiosity's work is done, will it be established one way or another that life does, did, or never existed on Mars?Answer:Probably not.
Seeing as how web pages can change and do change and are known to change and that this "change" is part an parcel of the internets, you may stand by your assertion of the current fleeting moment.
she and NASA claimed that it was alien life
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/15/2013 04:07 amSeeing as how web pages can change and do change and are known to change and that this "change" is part an parcel of the internets, you may stand by your assertion of the current fleeting moment.Oh come on... The original paper was quite clear that GFAJ-1 was a member of a known family of earth microbes. The press release and video of the press conference from the original announcement Pare also not hard to find. If you are suggesting they have all been retroactively changed to remove references to alien life, that's conspiracy incorrect which has no place in this forum.The original announcement made reference to what implications the supposed arsenic life might have for astrobiology (hence, "alien life" showing up in your google results ) There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made over whole hoopla, but your statementQuoteshe and NASA claimed that it was alien lifeis simply 100% flat out wrong.
Quote from: hop on 06/15/2013 06:43 amQuote from: JohnFornaro on 06/15/2013 04:07 amshe and NASA claimed that it was alien lifeis simply 100% flat out wrong.The title of the news story from December 2010 on FOX news is"NASA Conference: Alien Life on Earth"
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/15/2013 04:07 amshe and NASA claimed that it was alien lifeis simply 100% flat out wrong.
Definition of ALIEN1: a person of another family, race, or nation2: a foreign-born resident who has not been naturalized and is still a subject or citizen of a foreign country; broadly : a foreign-born citizen3: extraterrestrial4: exotic 1
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/13/2013 09:19 pmNeither [Wolfe-Simon] nor NASA claimed it was alien life. Take a googol with the terms "Felisa_Wolfe-Simon + alien life + NASA". The number of responses is greater than zero.
I call it insane troll logic.
[You] simply 100% flat out wrong.
This... is worst argument for something that I seen in long, long time.
There are 5 professionals named John Fornaro, who use LinkedIn ...
On the subject of this thread...
In short, life on Mars was once rather likely; current surface life is quite unlikely; and chemistry is the way to find the evidence, not the hand lens.
According to your argument, I just made it truth.
Ok so. Why hasn't the presence of boron or arsenic been reported on Mars from the MSL rover?Is this the news before the news?
Teams flimmng thru MSL data together you say. Hmmmm. Sounds like an excercise where you have group interpretation of a Rohrschach diagram. For some reason, everyone is told they have to agree on what the shape looks like. Of course, there won't be any agreement in the end.
Both As and B would have to be abundant to be detected, several hundreds of ppm at least in whole rock samples, I suspect.
Quote from: Mader Levap on 06/15/2013 10:51 amAccording to your argument, I just made it truth.Ok so. You tellin me that:
Huh? What?
troll in that inkblot
1) We should not believe everything NASA says ...2) Any NEWS channel can take any amorphous NASA press conference and mischaracterize the message ...3) We need to spend (billions?) aimlessly looking around for trace amounts of boron in clay on Mars or other places in order to send a manned mission there?
Quote from: RigelFive on 06/16/2013 06:12 amTeams flimmng thru MSL data together you say. Hmmmm. Sounds like an excercise where you have group interpretation of a Rohrschach diagram. For some reason, everyone is told they have to agree on what the shape looks like. Of course, there won't be any agreement in the end.All spacecraft instruments are operated by large teams who all contribute to the results. You can call this group think if you like, others call it collaboration.There is a lot of data and they have to be very sure that it's correct and the interpretations stand up to peer review. You can call this flimming, I call it professional integrity and commitment to quality science.
For the past three decades, the scientific community has consistently advocated the return of geologic samples from Mars.
PS comparing the work of MSL science team to Rorschach testing makes me see a troll in that inkblot
True, R5 gave a harsh interpretation to the team collaboration. Dalhousie objects, and attempts to reframe the discussion from a discussion of higher purpose to a discussion of the educational criteria of the collaborative team.
The NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI) is a virtual organization consisting of fourteen teams seated at universities and institutions across the US which conduct interdisciplinary research in astrobiology. These teams are actively engaged in training graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. The typical pathway for a student interested in pursuing astrobiology graduate studies is to specialize in a single scientific discipline, but within the broader intellectual spectrum encompassed by astrobiology as described above. Investigators on NAI teams are typically situated within a single department, such as astronomy, or geology, or biological sciences, and graduate students of those investigators typically take on the same departmental affiliation. Currently, PhD’s are not awarded solely in astrobiology.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 06/16/2013 12:18 amBoth As and B would have to be abundant to be detected, several hundreds of ppm at least in whole rock samples, I suspect.Can APXS detect 5B at all, or with adequate sensitivity? Various sources (example) state it can detect abundance of elements from 11Na to 38Sr.
The "group interpretation" of the unmanned planetary science group is: We need a sample return from Mars as the very next, highest of high priorities, no matter the cost. They have been insisting upon this since Viking.The evidence pointing to this group interpretation is from the first location from where they intended to get a sample; a location where the flimmed data at the time was thought to be very "lifelike": a volcanic site.The common man assumed all along that the search for life would follow the water, but the group of scientists at that time disagreed. Now the group says, "fer shure, follow the water. This time we already know where that sample should be taken".They don't. Because they don't, they shouldn't be placing MSR at the highest priority.Really, the group wants the technical challenge of returning a sample, and will say pretty much anything to get policymakers to foot the bill. It's a consistent, thirty year effort:Quote from: Decadal Survey 2013For the past three decades, the scientific community has consistently advocated the return of geologic samples from Mars.Sample return in due course. Finish looking for life. Make the final determination about whether is now lifeless and if it ever had life. Do it robotically at first, then as understanding grows, put a manned lab in orbit around the planet and make the final call on life.
If the planet is alive today, determine what the preservation standards should be. Otherwise, start selling plots.
The group interpretation will always be: The data are inconclusive. We need more money.
Geochemical data is not a Rohrschach diagram.
QuoteGeochemical data is not a Rohrschach diagram.How does this picture make you feel?
XRD diffraction pattern. Rich in meaning to cryallographers and mineralogists, the most precise means available for determining mineralogy and classifying any crystalline material.
How does this picture make you feel?
Quote from: Dalhousie on 06/17/2013 03:49 amXRD diffraction pattern. Rich in meaning to cryallographers and mineralogists, the most precise means available for determining mineralogy and classifying any crystalline material.But the XRD technique cannot reveal individual elements to low ppm concentrations. This is due to a combination of crystalline as well as amorphous materials existing in the samples.
Perhaps if boron carbide is in a mineral as a crystal, this could be detected. News ive read from MSL is that boron carbide is not even in the top 10 minerals.
The latest U Hawaii paper used Xray dispersive spectroscopy XRDS with an SEM that is used to make counts of individual elements rather than compounds. This technique can measure low concentrations of boron.
There is no likely chance that trace ppm amounts of boron can/will be detected using XRD.
MSL needed an SEM that could do XRDS, which is likely why we need an MSRM.
You are not making sense here. What "higher purpose" do you mean?
Geochemical data is not an Rohrschach diagram.
Attempt to drail the discussion onto your anti-MSR hobby horse noted.
Here is an example of an the abstract from a recent multi-author publication from MSL. [which does not conclude 'we need more money'.]
The great difficulty of doing sophisticated investigations such as SEM-EDX, also plain SEM, SEM-BSE, and a host of other methods not possible to miniaturise and automate, is precisely while MSR is a priority. But that is another topic.
Since there are already multiple samples of Mars rocks/meteorites on Earth - I really see no point to a MSR mission.
Is there really any significant difference to what MSL is seeing vs what has been seen with the Mars based meteors???
So with Mars, I'd say the best option is to wrap it ALL up. We stopped going to the moon as all the science was gained that was worth gaining.
Now gathering samples from other objects (asteroids and moons out to Saturn) would likely bring more gains to science.
Right, no one is studying the moon any more. There have been no lunar science missions since Apollo, and no one studies the Apollo samples.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 06/16/2013 11:40 pmYou are not making sense here. What "higher purpose" do you mean?Are you a proponent of unmannned robotic science only, or do you see a possible future where people live on Mars, and the work done today suits that higher purpose?The former group specifically excludes the latter group.
Quote from: DalhousieGeochemical data is not an Rohrschach diagram.You are not willing to discuss any similarities in those two topics; how they might relate to a higher purpose of HSF and a martian base; whether group interpretations can be subject to group think; whether group thinking can lead to incorrect mission prioritization; how these issue could be applied to the topic of a barren Mars and what to do next; and several other things besides.
Quote from: DalhousieAttempt to drail the discussion onto your anti-MSR hobby horse noted.Note that I can draw false conclusions based on opinions which I do not care for: I note that you are quite in favor of top priority for MSR without any scientific justification.
"...that such an endeavor may be essential technically and programmatically for the success of both near-term and long-term human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit."
But here's where, if I had a goat, you would have gotten it:The OP:What happens to space travel if it is proven that there never was life on Mars? I answered this question quite succinctly:Quote from: JFIf the planet is alive today, determine what the preservation standards should be. Otherwise, start selling plots.But you think such a response is "off topic".
If the planet is alive today, determine what the preservation standards should be. Otherwise, start selling plots.But you think such a response is "off topic".
Because the OP has already assumed this, therefore you should be discussing under than assumption, not using it as a platform to rant about your usual bugbears.
QuoteThe great difficulty of doing sophisticated investigations such as SEM-EDX, also plain SEM, SEM-BSE, and a host of other methods not possible to miniaturise and automate, is precisely while MSR is a priority. But that is another topic.Perhaps this was Wolfe-Simons point. MSL cant do it all.
The difference in a mars sample return mission is that full scale lab equipment on Earth can be brought to bear on a Mars specimen. Since there are already multiple samples of Mars rocks/meteorites on Earth - I really see no point to a MSR mission. Is there really any significant difference to what MSL is seeing vs what has been seen with the Mars based meteors???
That would be a disappointment on a great many levels. The most important level is that "science" is not the most important activity of the human race. "Living" is.***************************************As an aside, I love the English language. Only language I ever bothered to get fluent in. Even so, mine is a continued struggle.So you allege that "We can't get enough plants to effectively grow on the ISS to make one side salad on Mars."Just as a point of clarification, did you mean that we couldn't make one complete side salad any where in the ISS, or that on one side or another of the ISS, we could not make a salad, whether complete or incomplete, or that we could not make a salad of undetermined completeness which would satisfy one side of the HSF/robotic argument that might very well be taking place on the ISS? Somehow you tied Mars into all those salad variants.Just askin'.
I gotta say, R5, that NASA could reduce its costs by hiring me as staff artist. And you as staff poet. And I mean that in the most way that you can imagine. Bretheren and Sisteren: Lettuce spray.
Perhaps this could be defined as the new era of cybernautics?
Quote from: RigelFive on 06/19/2013 05:05 amPerhaps this could be defined as the new era of cybernautics? Uhhhh.... Stick with the poetry there, yungsta. Ya prose gittin' dense. Again, I mean that in the most way possible (TM).First, I didn't catch your new acronym, NAI.Second, would the following be a fair interpretation of your rant outline?Accepting the notion that government agencies grow from small committees to large bureaucracies; acknowledging that the original functions of those agencies evolve over time; noting that the evolution can result in agency mission creep resulting in a culture of non-accomplishment; what then would be a good strategy of directing the nation's aeronautic and HSF goals?You suggest four areas of possible government endeavor. All of them depend only upon robotic methodologies. Therefore, it sounds like you are positing the tentative premise to remove the "H" from HSF and replace it with an "R".Is this a fair paraphrase?
Well alrighty then. Did I fairly paraphrase you above?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/20/2013 01:11 pmWell alrighty then. Did I fairly paraphrase you above?Yes.
To the OP:Nothing much will happen to space travel if it is proven that there never was life on Mars. The reason that nothing will happen is that the "not-life fact" will not reduce any future costs whatsoever.Should the cost issue be alleviated by an honest government program to build a new privately operated and publicly available economic infrastructure in the cis-lunar arena, then a dead planet in a heavy gravity well will have a greater chance of having a colonization attempt.
Quote from: RigelFive on 06/20/2013 01:53 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 06/20/2013 01:11 pmWell alrighty then. Did I fairly paraphrase you above?Yes.Good. I thought I got it. Thanks for the clarification. Therefore, do you agree with my synopsis of the OP?Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/15/2013 02:42 pmTo the OP:Nothing much will happen to space travel if it is proven that there never was life on Mars. The reason that nothing will happen is that the "not-life fact" will not reduce any future costs whatsoever.Should the cost issue be alleviated by an honest government program to build a new privately operated and publicly available economic infrastructure in the cis-lunar arena, then a dead planet in a heavy gravity well will have a greater chance of having a colonization attempt.