...analysis of the Martian atmosphere that raises the possibility of life or geologic activity...

rlb2 · Jan 15, 2009

They also said early spring 2006 - no methane detected... So it appears that late winter early spring no methane, summer methane, to me this in favor of biological more than geological. The further below the surface you go the less amount of solar radiation will change the subterranean temperature...So whatever is causing this must be close to the surface, within meters of the surface not as deep as they sugested. Note It was also pointed out that this favor water below the surface because both geological or biological methane production scenarios water must be present although they noted that it could also be from trapped methane seepage in sublimating water ice and volcanism is not entirely ruled out.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

silylene old · Jan 15, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They also said early spring 2006 - no methane detected... So it appears that late winter early spring no methane, summer methane, to me this in favor of biological more than geological. The further below the surface you go the less amount of solar radiation will change the subterranean temperature...So whatever is causing this must be close to the surface, within meters of the surface....Note It was also pointed out that this favor water below the surface because both geological or biological methane production scenarios water must be present although they noted that it could also be from trapped methane seepage in sublimating water ice.     Posted by rlb2</DIV> Hello rlb2.  Please correlate the seasonal variation lifting or exposure of exposure of dusts which may serve as catalysts.  And/or the seasonal variation in the concentration of H2O in the atmosphere may be inportant too, as this is the source of H2 for the photreduction of CO2 to methane. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

robnissen · Jan 15, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you MW.Did they have data that photolysis takes 'centuries' or is this a conjecture?  Actually it would need to be a steady state effect:  methane is both being produced and being lost.  Posted by silylene</DIV> Its not a steady state because there was no methane in the spring measurements.  Whatever is "chewing up" the methane is doing it very quickly.

MeteorWayne · Jan 15, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They also said early spring 2006 - no methane detected... So it appears that late winter early spring no methane, summer methane, to me this in favor of biological more than geological. The further below the surface you go the less amount of solar radiation will change the subterranean temperature...So whatever is causing this must be close to the surface, within meters of the surface not as deep as they sugested. Note It was also pointed out that this favor water below the surface because both geological or biological methane production scenarios water must be present although they noted that it could also be from trapped methane seepage in sublimating water ice and volcanism is not entirely ruled out.    Posted by rlb2</DIV> That's not the only intepretation. If you think about it the thermal environment is quite different as well, despite your wishes. It's warmer in summer.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

rlb2 · Jan 15, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hello rlb2.  Please correlate the seasonal variation lifting or exposure of exposure of dusts which may serve as catalysts.  And/or the seasonal variation in the concentration of H2O in the atmosphere may be inportant too, as this is the source of H2 for the photreduction of CO2 to methane. Posted by silylene</DIV>Hi silene I agree nothing logical should be ruled out. Another idea that may not of been thought of is production of CO2 to methane in the atmosphere by Hydrogen ions occuring in the event of a solar flare, Coronal Mass Ejections, from a solar storm hitting Mars.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

centsworth_II · Jan 15, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no data supporting that the methane is genertaed below the martian surface, at least from the press release. Posted by silylene</DIV>They seemed to stick with the vented release of underground methane interpretation throughout the briefing, but at the end, Mumma said there could be a more gradual release over an area as large as 800 kilometers.  I don't know how good the time resolution of the data is, but how rapidly the methane appears could be a clue.  There must be a way to estimate how quickly methane could be formed through photochemistry as opposed to preexisting methane being released. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 15, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They seemed to stick with the vented release of underground methane interpretation throughout the briefing, but at the end, Mumma said there could be a more gradual release over an area as large as 800 kilometers.  I don't know how good the time resolution of the data is, but how rapidly the methane appears could be a clue.  There must be a way to estimate how quickly methane could be formed through photochemistry as opposed to preexisting methane being released. Posted by centsworth_II</DIV> Hopefully those answers will be in the article. Even though I can't afford it, it is why I am still an AAAS member so I get my weekly Science

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

rlb2 · Jan 15, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's not the only intepretation. If you think about it the thermal environment is quite different as well, despite your wishes. It's warmer in summer.... Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>The subterranean temperature, kilometers down wouldn't seasonably change much unless it is exposed to the solar radiation from the sides of gullies, deep craters etc. That’s how our ancestors stayed alive by keeping warm during the ice age by going into caves and underground where the temperature stays relatively constant from summer to wintertime.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 15, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The subterranean temperature, kilometers down wouldn't change much unless it is exposed to the solar radiation from the sides of gullies, deep craters etc. That’s how our ancestors kept warm during the ice age by going into caves and underground where the temperature stays relatively constant from summer to wintertime.   Posted by rlb2</DIV> That's not what they suggested (km down) though. They indicated the possibility that when near vertical scarps (of rock, or rock/ice) were exposed to the sun, it weakened enough for the pressurized methane to be released.You should have watched the press conference. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

rlb2 · Jan 15, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's not what they suggested (km down) though. They indicated the possibility that when near vertical scarps (of rock, or rock/ice) were exposed to the sun, it weakened enough for the pressurized methane to be released.You should have watched the press conference. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>I did see and listened to it. That’s one of the ways they expressed their opinion on how it could be geological. The methane came up from far below and was trapped by a sheet of ice near the surface during the winter time as you said then vented through vertical scarps. That, in my opinion, sounds plausible but a little unrealistic that that mentioned geological process could completely seasonably stop the seepage of the trap methane near the equatorial region???    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

tanstaafl76 · Jan 15, 2009

The life question aside, if they can determine that this event happens every year on a regular basis, and if the emission points are relatively confined (as opposed to slow, broad emission from vast amounts of top soil), this could potentially be a source of fuel for a future Martian expedition or colony.  Once this methane is being emitted, Mars doesn't seem to be using it for much and it is just lost to space, so if we were able to harvest it that potentially could be a much easier solution than more conventional mining.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

centsworth_II · Jan 15, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....one of the ways they expressed their opinion on how it could be geological. The methane came up from far below and was trapped by a sheet of ice near the surface during the winter time as you said then vented through vertical scarps. Posted by rlb2</DIV> This release mechanism has nothing to do with how the methane is produced.  However it was produced, it would build up beneath the surface until it was released.  Methane coming up from far below could be biological or geological in origin.  And as far as life is concerned, even if the methane is geological in origin, it does not rule out life.  There could be organisms present that use that geologically produced methane as food.Whether hypothetical organisms on Mars are producing methane, or using geologically produced methane for food, we need to detect a non-ambiguous compound that could only be produce by life (as we know it) to declare solid evidence for life.  This has not yet been done.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rlb2 · Jan 15, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Whether hypothetical organisms on Mars are producing methane, or using geologically produced methane for food, we need to detect a non-ambiguous compound that could only be produce by life (as we know it) to declare solid evidence for life.  This has not yet been done.    Posted by centsworth_II</DIV>They said that the MSL can detect methane and biomarkers for life, so there you go, we have 2 years to pinpoint the locations, if it is coming from the surface and figure out how much of a seasonal cycle there is. One of the three red zones, highest concentrations, was a original site (M Fossae) that they were considering sending the MSL. Once the MSL sniffs out a good spot start digging, or move down a sloped area and sniff next to a vertical scarp.  According to Lisa Pratt if it is biological then it may be 3 meters or more beneath the surface, out of reach from the MSL. I believe that it must be much closer to the surface to be seasonable if the methane is from a biological source. It was also asked by a caller if the location could be pinpointed then it may be a good candidate for a sample return... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

nimbus · Jan 16, 2009

Thank you Wayne. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Jan 16, 2009

Since I am still waiting for a friend to send me the paper from Science Express, and did not see the press conference, can any one tell me the suggested source regions?ThanksJon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Jan 16, 2009

The immense publicty this story has received shows (once again) how nutty the woo-woo claim is that NASA (or anyone else) would (or is) cover up evidence of life on Mars (or elsewhere) actually is.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

rlb2 · Jan 16, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since I am still waiting for a friend to send me the paper from Science Express, and did not see the press conference, can any one tell me the suggested source regions?ThanksJon Posted by jonclarke</DIV>Hi JonYou might want to check with NASA TV I would think they may replay it later.Arabia Terra, Nili Fossae and Syrtis Major regions of Mars. http://blog.wired.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2009/01/15/marsmethane.jpg <img style="width:330px;height:255px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/9/b15fba72-435c-41cd-a995-6de94e39380e.Medium.jpg" alt="" width="332" height="239" /> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/on_demand_video.html?param=http://anon.nasa-global.edgesuite.net/anon.nasa-global/ccvideos/GSFC_20090115a_marsmeth.asx&_id=181018&_title=Methane%20on%20Mars&_tnimage=303135_main_1_303135mainenus_marsmethvid_100.jpg# http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.htmlWhat amazes me is if it geological how can permafrost in the area mentioned be completely covered  most of the year unless it originates in a much smaller area. The seasonal change is important in helping extrapolate out if the methane cloud favors more chance of geological or biological seepage. At present with the given information that needs to go through more peer reviews and the need to pinpoint the exact locations I say it favors much more chance of being of biological origin. The methane clouds are centered at the equator and they extend for hundreds of Kilometers north latitude and south latitude. Permafrost wouldn’t cover that entire range in a north polar winter or a south polar winter, in other words while the northern part of the cloud is in the winter time the southern part of the cloud would be in the summer cycle. Therefore in my opinion it seems highly unlikely for permafrost to cover such a large change of latitudinal area, 32 degrees north to 20 degrees south and trap all the methane gas seepage for part of the year if the methane seeped out from below the surface over most of the red area…. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

JonClarke · Jan 17, 2009

Thanks Ron Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>amazes me is if it geological how can permafrost in the area mentioned be completely covered  most of the year unless it originates in a much smaller area. The seasonal change is important in helping extrapolate out if the methane cloud favors more chance of geological or biological seepage. At present with the given information that needs to go through more peer reviews and the need to pinpoint the exact locations I say it favors much more chance of being of biological origin. The methane clouds are centered at the equator and they extend for hundreds of Kilometers north latitude and south latitude. Permafrost wouldn’t cover that entire range in a north polar winter or a south polar winter, in other words while the northern part of the cloud is in the winter time the southern part of the cloud would be in the summer cycle. Therefore in my opinion it seems highly unlikely for permafrost to cover such a large change of latitudinal area, 32 degrees north to 20 degrees south and trap all the methane gas seepage for part of the year if the methane seeped out from below the surface over most of the red area…. Posted by rlb2 </DIV>Remember that this is based on ground raised IR observations.  The pixel size is probably at least 100 km  The actual areas of activity may be much smaller.If the methane is occuring in clathrates it would suggest that they are relict deposits from a previous period of high obliquity when ices were being deposited at the equator.  Regardless of whether the methane was forming biologicvally or seeping from the interior, if you had ice about you would expect the methaner to be trapped in a clathrate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

rlb2 · Jan 17, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks RonRemember that this is based on ground raised IR observations.  The pixel size is probably at least 100 km  The actual areas of activity may be much smaller.If the methane is occuring in clathrates it would suggest that they are relict deposits from a previous period of high obliquity when ices were being deposited at the equator.  Regardless of whether the methane was forming biologicvally or seeping from the interior, if you had ice about you would expect the methaner to be trapped in a clathrate. Posted by jonclarke</DIV>Thanks JonThere is the unknown. Future observation pointing more towards the localized areas and a reoccurring time of year that it vents with some instrument that can discern biomarkers on future orbiting spacecraft will help tell us where to look if it is life. However until then if the seepage does prove out to vent (seasonably) from such a wide area Latitudinally as shown then I would think it would favor more towards biological for the reason as given.  At the news briefing they claimed that they have 7 years of data they haven’t fully analyzed yet and are not ready to release their findings on those datasets, so watch out for more hotspots.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 17, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since I am still waiting for a friend to send me the paper from Science Express, and did not see the press conference, can any one tell me the suggested source regions?ThanksJon Posted by jonclarke</DIV> From my scribblnotes (Please excuse my spelling, they are scribblenotes after all

Terra Sabae, Nila Fossae, Syrtis Major <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

robnissen · Jan 17, 2009

At the risk of showing my ignorance, do any of the current orbiters have the ability to measure methane concentrations?  And if so, is there any plan for them to do so.  IMHO these high methane concentrations, as much as 3PPM at some locations, should be a top priority for further investigation.  For one thing, as the earth based observations are limited to about 100 km per pixel (according to Jon's post), it would sure be nice if they could be measured more accurately, in terms of locating the source, from one of the orbiters.BTW Jon, I agree with you that this should put the nail in the coffin of NASA hiding evidence of ET life.  But alas, as some still persist in claiming the moon landings were fake, I'm afraid it won't.

JonClarke · Jan 17, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At the risk of showing my ignorance, do any of the current orbiters have the ability to measure methane concentrations?  And if so, is there any plan for them to do so.  IMHO these high methane concentrations, as much as 3PPM at some locations, should be a top priority for further investigation.  For one thing, as the earth based observations are limited to about 100 km per pixel (according to Jon's post), it would sure be nice if they could be measured more accurately, in terms of locating the source, from one of the orbiters.Posted by robnissen</DIV>Mars Express does, and elevated methane was reported by the PFS team lead by Formisano back in 2004.  It was enormously contraversial and widely ridiculed at the time because of the failure of most others to repeat it. Mumma reported methane at the same time using the Keck telescope, this too was not widely accepted.A satellite image gives higher spatial resolution but can only measure a small area.  A ground based telescope can measure over the entire visible face, but at very low resolution.  So the techniques are complementary.Great Escape was one of the latest Mars Scout Mission finalists that included methane detection.  It lost out to MAVEN, which does not.  It shows, I think, the low regard with which previous work on methane detection on Mars was held.  It also shows how hard it is to pick the best future missions based on current knowledge.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Jan 17, 2009

So the three regions are Arabia, Syrtis, and Nili Fossae.  I thought I would tabulate the main characteristics of these regions CHARACTERISTIC...ARABIA..........................SYRTIS....................NILI FOSSAEAltitude.................Above datum..................Above datum...........Above datumLatitude.................Equitorial.......................Equitorial.................EquitorialAge.......................Noachian.......................Hesperian................NoachianSubstrate...............Volcanic & sedimentary....Volcanic .................Volcanic & sedimentaryDeep plumbing.......No.................................Yes.......................YesSo as far as these gross characteristics goes, the greatest commonalities are altitude (all above datum, so no liquid water at any time at the surface, even ephemerally) and latitude (all equitorial).  All areas contain some volcanic rocks too, but any area on Mars as large as these are likely to do so, so it may not be particularly relevant.  Also no areas are Amazonian, the youngest epoch of Mars history.Two areas are of similar age, Noachian, the oldest epoch on Mars.  Deep plumbing is also present in two areas.  Sytris is a large Hesperian volcanco, Nili Patera, and Nili Fossae, as its name shows, has deep cracks and trenches.The latitude and altitude support the photochemical model.The absence of young substrate and the presence deep plumbing in two cases supports geological origins.The high altitude and the age restriction argues against surface life as a cause, but the association with deep plumbing would be consistent with a deep biosphere.  The absence of methane with younger deep plumbing systems does argue against deep life however.Methane feeders could however occur in all sites in the sub surface.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 17, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At the risk of showing my ignorance, do any of the current orbiters have the ability to measure methane concentrations?  And if so, is there any plan for them to do so.  IMHO these high methane concentrations, as much as 3PPM at some locations, should be a top priority for further investigation.  For one thing, as the earth based observations are limited to about 100 km per pixel (according to Jon's post), it would sure be nice if they could be measured more accurately, in terms of locating the source, from one of the orbiters.BTW Jon, I agree with you that this should put the nail in the coffin of NASA hiding evidence of ET life.  But alas, as some still persist in claiming the moon landings were fake, I'm afraid it won't. Posted by robnissen</DIV> You really should read my scribblenotes, after all it is why I write them:"Currently, no orbiting Mars assets can help resolve the issue (if you recall Mars express can sample, and has detected methane, but that is full disk, while these observations pinpoint emissions from specific areas, mostly in equatorial regions). There is a map showing the locations, one is Nila Fossae (sp?) which had been eliminated from the MSL landing sites due to it's altitude, but may now get back into the mix, especially considering the 2 year MSL delay."<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

JonClarke · Jan 17, 2009

I am fairly sure it is the other way round, , it is Keck that can detect the full disk. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

...analysis of the Martian atmosphere that raises the possibility of life or geologic activity...

rlb2

Guest

silylene old

Guest

robnissen

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

rlb2

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

rlb2

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

rlb2

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

rlb2

Guest

nimbus

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

rlb2

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

rlb2

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

robnissen

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page