AMMONIA DETECTED ON MARS

[silylene old]

<i>1 - It's the gases stupid <br />my limited understanding is that the atmosspheric chemistry of Mars is highly unfavourable to this explanation </i><br /><br />Actually, since the hard UV light is not filtered out of the Martian atmosphere, abiotic photogeneration of ammonia, methane etc is much more likely to occur than it would on Earth. (I repost the abstract below, apparently you must have missed it) <br /><br /><i>Nitrogen photoreduction on desert sands under sterile conditions. Schrauzer, Gerhard N.; Strampach, Norman; Hui, Liu Nan; Palmer, Miles R.; Salehi, Jahanshah. Revelle Coll., Univ. California, La Jolla, CA, USA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (1983), 80(12), 3873-6. CODEN: PNASA6 ISSN: 0027-8424. Journal written in English. CAN 99:41399 AN 1983:441399 CAPLUS <br /><br />Abstract <br /><br />Sands from various geog. locations reduce N2 from the air to NH3 and traces of N2H4 on exposure to sunlight. This N2 photofixation occurs under sterile conditions on the surface of finely dispersed minerals such as rutile [1317-80-2], utilizing reducing equivs. generated through the photolysis of chemisorbed H2O. Abiol. N2 photofixation is suggested to be part of the N cycle in arid and semiarid regions. About 10 x 106 tons/yr of N2 is photoreduced on the total surface of the Earth's deserts. </i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Love your paraphrase!<br /><br />For astrobiologists a lifeless mars is just as interesting as one that has (or had) life. With a lifeless mars we have a planet with all the chemical ingredients for life, that has had extensive liquid water for periods of its history, and abundant energy sources (sunlight, geothermal, radiation, chemical), but life did appear. This is a very important result for the abundance of life elsewhere in the universe. It suggests that life may not be as abundant in the universe as some think. Lots of interesting questions come out of this. If there is no life, why did it not arise? How to we differentiate between the presence of disequilibrium gases formed biogenically and abiogenically? How are biologically interesting elements (C, O, P, N, S, H, Zn, Fe, Mn, etc.) cycled in the absence of life?<br /><br />There will be less wriggly stuff for the crap merchants to study though! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

That is very interesting silylene. Were other minerals apart from rutile implicated? Viking and Pathfinder soils contained between 0.9 and 5% titanium, rutile might be one species it could occur as, the other is ilmenite<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Jon, I ordered that paper (about deserts and photoreduction of N2)...only a paper copy was available. I should get it in about 2-3 weeks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

That would be great. Sphene (AKA titanite) is another possibility.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[rlb2]

Good news, however CO2 lasers operate at that wavelength, 10 microns, could be a false reading from atmospheric disturbances? I would like to believe it but there will always be doubt until we find real solid evidence.<br /><br />I didn't read all the threads, there are some bright people on this thread, this may have been discussed. I'm not against the findings, if it holds up in court -- it will be a good thing and will help my case. <br /><br />I can't wait to say the "F" word again without ridicule. I'm not talking about what V.P. Chaney said. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<i>"For astrobiologists a lifeless mars is just as interesting as one that has (or had) life."</i> -- JonClarke<br /><br />Sure, all the areas of study that you mention are of interest to the astrobiologist. But without a doubt, the item at the top of every astrobiologist's wish list <i>must be</i> the discovery and analysis of a life form which has emerged independently of that on Earth.<br /><br />Can you imagine a survey conducted where astrobiologists are asked if they would find a Mars with life as interesting as one without? I think the results would be far from an even split of opinion!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Perhaps a better way to put it would be to substitute "important" for interesting. Of course if there was life on Mars one of the first questions to investigate is whether or not it did originate independently. the answre either way would be very important.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[thalion]

I'm surprised at how quickly the scientists are jumping on the possibility of life, especially considering that there's a lot we don't know about the chemstry of the Martian surface, its interactions with the atmosphere and solar/cosmic radiation, and so on. Just because ammonia can be clincher for life on Earth, doesn't mean it necessarily is on Mars.

 

[yurkin]

<font color="yellow">”scientists are jumping on the possibility of life”</font><br /><br />I wouldn’t say that. The media is jumping on that possibility, its what they do best.<br />

 

[silylene old]

<i>Just because ammonia can be clincher for life on Earth....</i><br /><br />Not true. As I posted, there are significant abiotic sources of NH3 on the Earth also. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[bushuser]

Earth life evolved from the abundant elements of N, C, O, and H. The assembly of amines into proteins and nucleic acids is a constant from viruses to mammals.<br /><br />Are we arrogant to presume that Martian life would evolve the same way? One big difference on Mars is the scarcity of N. It seems a stretch to think that life would evolve from something in such short supply. Ammonia is part of amine chemistry...which means either<br />1] it is unrelated to Martian life or<br />2] Martian life is very scarce because there's so little N available to construct proteins.

 

[lowendfreq]

if scientists found WMD's on mars - how quick would the US get there?<br /><br />Couldn't resist - sorry. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[halman]

Marslauncher,<br /><br />Some people have attached inifinite significance to finding signs of life on Mars. They justify immediate manned expeditions to Mars to look for life. They hold the premise that if life exists on two planets in the Solar System, than it must be prevasive in the Cosmos. I, for one, find these attitudes to be very difficult to understand.<br /><br />If any kind of life does exist on Mars, we had better think twice about landing humans there, at least until we have found and captured a represenative sample. The presence of humans is highly likely to result in all traces of indiginous life disappearing, destroyed by microbes transfered on space suits, landing craft, soil samplers, or any of the equipment humans would haul to Mars to analyze this life.<br /><br />To think that humans represent the only life in the Cosmos is incredibly vain. Every indication is that life arises whenever energy is present Witness the sulphur based lifeforms found around the 'black smoker' volcanic vents in the deep oceans.<br /><br />Life on planet Earth is in danger of self-extermination. Assuring that we will survive means establishing ourselves as a space faring species, capable of surviving anywhere. The Earth's Moon offers the first laboratory to develop that skill. While we are doing so, we can investigate Mars with probes of ever-increasing complexity, because probes can be sterilized. Humans cannot and continue to live.<br /><br />It seems to me that there is a large chance that life existed on Mars at some time in the past. Organic material can be preserved by the same processes which have preserved ancient organic material on Earth, resulting in hydrocarbons buried deep beneath the surface. Geologic forces on occaison have brought these materials to the surface, which is how they were discovered on Earth originally. The same may be true on Mars.<br /><br />Mars offers us an oppurtunity to study an environment which has not been affected by humans. As su <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[najab]

><i>The presence of humans is highly likely to result in all traces of indiginous life disappearing, destroyed by microbes transfered on space suits, landing craft, soil samplers, or any of the equipment humans would haul to Mars to analyze this life.</i><p>In the same way that Martian microbes would likely not be hazardous to Humans, Terrestrial microbes would probably not be hazardous to Martian life. Separate evolution paths would mean that Martian microbes would be optimized for the Martian environment, while Terrestrial ones would be at a severe disadvantage.</p>

 

[remcook]

"To think that humans represent the only life in the Cosmos is incredibly vain. Every indication is that life arises whenever energy is present Witness the sulphur based lifeforms found around the 'black smoker' volcanic vents in the deep oceans. "<br /><br />That doesn't show that life can form around black smokers. And this is still an example of life on Earth (because life on Earth is the only example of life we have). There is no indication at all that life was formed outside the Earth (yet!), and we know very little about the conditions needed for life to arise.<br /><br />I left out ALH84001, because that debate isn't closed by far. <br /><br />I would be very surprised (pleasantly) if we find life on Mars, but I have many doubts. Even when these finds of methane and ammonia are correct.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Separate evolution paths would mean that Martian microbes would be optimized for the Martian environment, while Terrestrial ones would be at a severe disadvantage. "</font><br /><br />Actually it can be argued either way. No one has enough information to really say anything for sure so you could state (assuming that Martian microbes exist):<br /><br />Terrestrial microbes have been in a more competitive environment for millions of years and would therefore be much more highly evolved than Martian ones. Any competition between the two life forms would therefore result in Terrestrial forms dominating.<br /><br />Martian microbes have evolved in a much more difficult environment for millions of years with a higher incidence of mutation due to the higher radiation levels from the lack of a magnetosphere. When exposed to Terran environmental conditions (more heat, water, nitrogen, oxygen), they will multiple exponentially and dominate any terrestrial-based life.<br /><br />Both arguments are equally valid (or invalid) at the level of informaiton we have. The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know for sure.

 

[blairf]

At COSPAR Formisano is lead author/speaker for only 2 of the 22 PFS papers. <br /><br />The first on Thursday is a general PFS highlights sesssion (this would be where any ammonia announcement would be made I guess)<br /><br />The second paper will be presented on Friday. This paper is titled<br /><br />"A study of C and O isotopes in the Martian atmosphere with PFS data".<br /><br />If you want to know a bit about why this may be important google for some or any of these key words <br />isotope fractionation biogenic carbon mars atmosphere carbon oxygen

 

[robotical]

<i>Martian microbes have evolved in a much more difficult environment for millions of years with a higher incidence of mutation due to the higher radiation levels from the lack of a magnetosphere. When exposed to Terran environmental conditions (more heat, water, nitrogen, oxygen), they will multiple exponentially and dominate any terrestrial-based life.</i><br /><br />This is somewhat unlikely, organisms that are evolved for one extreme are likely to die if put in an environment significantly different. This is especially true for heat, catalysts necessary for life generally have a fairly specific temperature range. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"This is somewhat unlikely..."</font><br /><br />If the unlikely were never to occur, it would be called the impossible. It's <b>unlikely</b> that Martian life exists (by which I mean most people would put the odds at less than 50% -- generally *well* under 50%). <br /><br />If, however, it <b>does</b> exist, then all bets are off. At the very least, it will almost assuredly be a very hardy form of life. It's true -- oxygen might suffocate it; water might poison it; 2 degrees Celcius heat might fry it. But we don't know. My post wasn't intended to propose likely scenarios for a Martian vs. Terran grudge match. It was simply put forth to illustrate that assumptions are all we have to go on right now, and we have almost nothing to base them on. The only type of life we've ever encountered is Terrestrial-based. In the year 4026 when the Darwin 784 is sending back information from the planet it just descended to -- we'll be able to make educated guesses about the life forms we might expect to see based on our experience with 126 similar planets where lifeforms have been found. Right now, though, it's all at the level of coin tosses and lucky guesses.

 

[blairf]

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040719.wstrauss0720/BNStory/Front/<br /><br />Above article has a very good summary of what went on,<br />oh well, looks like I was getting excited over a 'hoax' after all!<br /><br />

 

[alokmohan]

Darwin 784 .Whois sending?NASA and esa died in 2010.Sinc then Jaxa is leading upto 3000.4026 is only one decade away,eh?

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040719.wstrauss0720/BNStory/Front/<br /><br />Above article has a very good summary of what went on,<br />oh well, looks like I was getting excited over a 'hoax' after all!</i><br /><br />Yes, this was what I was referring to last week when I alluded to the fact that many in the science community, including some members of the PFS team, thought Whitehouse's BBC story was pure rubbish and that some had even used the word "hoax." According to Strauss, the BBC stated that Whitehouse relied on, among other things, Formisano's abstract for the COSPAR 2004 conference. As anyone who can read can see, Formisano only reported that it might be possible to detect ammonia. He certainly never stated, or even hinted, that ammonia had been detected on Mars.<br /><br />This is a cautionary tale, in my opinion, about sloppy journalism and the over-reliance on abstracts, which are not peer-reviewed, and which are usually submitted <i>months</i> ahead of time. These abstracts are usually very speculative and often present very preliminary views that are then subjected to the filter of peer review.

 

[silylene old]

*sigh*<br /><br />I was just sharpening my knives too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[robotical]

I'm simply stating some basic biological problems. The probability that life exists or not has no effect on what limitations its makeup is going to place on it if it exists. It is true that the only life we know is Earth based, but that still gives us some pointers on what to expect. If it is not similar at all to Earth life then a Martian microbe can do virtually nothing to affect us (at least not like bacteria or viruses, its chemistry may make it toxic). If it is similar, then we know some about it already <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>