AMMONIA DETECTED ON MARS

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"If it is not similar at all to Earth life then a Martian microbe <b>can do virtually nothing to affect us</b> (at least not like bacteria or viruses, its chemistry may make it toxic). "</font><br /><br />It doesn't have to be toxic *or* like Earth life to 'affect us'. <br /><br />-- A microbe might find the warm, damp conditions of human lungs a perfect place to multiply. It might well breed to the point of one suffocated human. This requires *no* similarity to DNA-based life.<br /><br />-- A non-DNA-based life might not be interested at all in the <b>arrangment</b> of the atoms which make up human life, but the elements itself to be quite tasty. The human body contains lots of minerals that another lifeform might find tasty if it has the capacity to break them down.<br /><br />-- The microbe need not attack humans at all to be dangerous. Picture a microbe that attacks (or reacts with) a vital element in the equipment sent to mars. For example -- perhaps a microbe exists that finds aluminum (or any of a dozen other elements) to be very tasty. It converts any aluminum-based equipment into a sludge. This would likely kill any astronauts sent to mars. Even if they managed to survive -- it would likely prevent us from allowing them to return. Something like that couldn't be allowed a chance of returning to Earth.<br /><br />I say again: I'm not trying to propose likely scenarios. However, to think that we know everything, or almost everything, or actually much of anything <b>at all</b> about the possibilities of non-Terrestrial-based life is sheer arrogance.

 

[nacnud]

They mentioned the detection of Ammonia on 'the sky at night' (a long running BBC astronomy program) last night. This is not a sensationalist primetime program and goes out late at night and is aimed at amateur astronomers rather that the wider public. The presenters were quite excited by the reported ammonia but were careful to mention that life was only one possible explanation. I doubt that they would have presented the findings in this way if the reports had not been investigated to verify the source.

 

[marslauncher]

Just when I was about to give up hope! WOOHOO! Well I guess we will see where this takes us and hopefully follow up with more measurements maybe from Earth as well.<br /><br />

 

[silylene old]

There are reasonable abiotic explanations for the presence of trace amounts of NH3, just as there are for CH4 in an atmosphere.<br /><br />I don't see this as particularly exciting until photoreduction mechanisms are eliminated as a possibility (photoreduction really is not very exciting).<br /><br />Abiotic mechanisms such as geysers, volcanoes, or gas trapped in icecaps or subterranean icefields are exciting (well at least volcanoes and geysers are!). <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>

 

[thalion]

Re mrmorris:<br />Good points, all. As a skeptic of the whole "Mars quarantine" hoopla, I hadn't thought of those possibilities.

 

[blairf]

no reason to get excited?<br /><br />http://www-mpl.sri.com/decadal/email/1024a.html<br /><br />"no known abiotic processes that would result in ammonia being present in the atmosphere without the existence of life"<br /><br />ESA really are turning this into a soap opera<br /><br />It has been/it hasn't been/it has been/it hasn't been/it has been discovered.<br /><br />My take is it (NH3 & so life) has been detected, but ESA are so **** scared of being called sensationalist that they are not keen to publish until all counter-factuals have been covered off. <br /><br />The Sagan bullsh1t about extraordinary claims really is a negative drain on creative science. It quashes genuine breakthroughs and creative thinking.

 

[silylene old]

<i>"no known abiotic processes that would result in ammonia being present in the atmosphere without the existence of life" </i><br /><b>sorry, not</b><br /><br />I suggest you read from the beginning of this thread, and also the similar thread on Space Science and Technology: http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=5980&page=4&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1&vc=1 <br /><br /><i>The Sagan bullsh1t about extraordinary claims really is a negative drain on creative science. It quashes genuine breakthroughs and creative thinking. </i><br /><br />No, the Sagan threshhold is what differentiates pseudoscience from real science. Otherwise we would be giving serious consideration to the ideas of Velikosvky, hollow planets, canals on Mars and astrology. All of these ideas certainly are creative, but also, and unfortunately, they are wrong. <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>

 

[marslauncher]

Well just to throw Dr Levin's hat into the ring, front page of SDC ... http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_microorganisms_040803.html <br /><br />The debate shall be discussed forever until we actually grab a sample and bring it home<br />

 

[blairf]

"sorry not... etc"<br /><br />I don't want to turn this personal but...<br /><br />the quote I used came from Mark Allen; one of the, if not the, biggest shots in the world of Martian atmospheric chemistry. He was the PI on the Marvel <br /> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002_219.cfm <br />mission which missed out on the final cut of the 2007 scout class mission opportunity.<br /><br />I don't know if your ideas on Ammonia production stand up or not, on the other thread you simply quoted some abstracts. I have also seen it argued that Martian lightning could also produce Ammonia. Again I don't know if that is valid. <br /><br />In the meantime I'm going to take a flyer and place more weight on the Mars atmospheric chemistry guy's view than on yours.

 

[marslauncher]

Ouch

 

[silylene old]

The information in the quote you posted is incorrect. I don't care whether the quote came from Mark Allen, or Levin or Harry Houdini.<br /><br />I found 30+ chemistry papers on abiotic production of NH3 via photoreductive atmospheric processes since 1980.<br /><br />Thus when your source said "no known abiotic processes that would result in ammonia being present in the atmosphere without the existence of life"....he was wrong. <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>

 

[blairf]

silyvene<br /><br />IANAC but it is not difficult to reconcile the abiotic production of NH3 with Allen's quote. The heart of the issue is that NH3 lasts a matter of hours in Mars's atmoshpere. NH3 reacts in very very short order due to nasty peroxides and plain sunlight.<br /><br />In any case it is nice to know that someone with a better understanding of Martian atmoshperic chemistry than Mark Allen posts to these boards.<br /><br />

 

[exoscientist]

Your refs. seem reasonable for abiotic creation of ammonia.<br /> Here's Mark Allen's contact info if you want to discuss it with him:<br /><br />Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:00:51 -0700<br />From: Mark Allen <Mark.Allen@jpl.nasa.gov /><br />Subject: Re: Mars atmosphere<br />http://www-mpl.sri.com/decadal/email/1024a.html<br /><br /> Bob Clark <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<i>"The debate shall be discussed forever until we actually grab a sample and bring it home."</i><br /><br />Barring the finding of living organisms that are obviously not contaminates, even that may not end the debate soon. Finding nothing in a sample will only mean the lack of widespread life. Finding apparent fossil evidence will be long debated, as with the martian meteor ALH84001. <br /><br />By the way, a very interesting, provacative article. I found it a little disturbing to see the pictures with captions that could have been written by some of the most speculative posters here. Is Dr. Levin on to something, or just on something? Is there really no way that the rovers can see water right under their noses with the instuments they have available to them? A stunning omission for a mission purported to be 'following the water'! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mah_fl]

Just wanted to add this to the melting pot of discussion.<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3535498.stm<br /><br />

 

[dtb99]

Well, at least they have finally posted actually spectral data from the PFS. The ESA webpage linked to a few posts ago contains a big flash animation with a detailed spectrum, with known, possible, and unkown lines identified.<br /><br />The NH3 lines are very, very weak, that's for sure. And, there is also this caveat:<br /><br /> />The solar spectrum is essentially unknown in <br /> />half of the PFS region - these are the first space<br /> />measurements at medium spectral resolution of the<br /> />solar spectrum.<br /> />To determine if a line is of solar, or martian origin <br /> />is a challenging task. There are many regions <br /> />with features detected that are not yet <br /> />identified <br /><br />So, there is still the chance that we are seeing previously unknown absorption lines in the SOLAR IR spectrum, rather than atmospheric absorption on Mars.<br /><br />Anyway, hopefully this will be enough data for some other atmospheric chemists to weigh in on the debate.<br />