Mars Methane Mention at ESA Mars Express Press Conference

[centsworth_II]

At the end of the 11/30/05 webcast conference, a question was asked about what further could be learned about methane on Mars during an extended Mars Express mission. The ESA scientist's answer limited the possibilities to life vs. vulcanic activity as potential sources of the methane. <b>If I heard correctly</b>, he further said that vulcanism, even at the rate found on Earth, could not acount for all the methane and pointed out that no active vulcanism has been detected on Mars.<br /><br />This would seem to tip the argument in favor of life on Mars but one thing really bothers me. Why no mention of abiological, photochemical reactions as a possible source? Through reading many posts on the subject on SDC (mainly by silylene), I have come to the believe that photogenesis should be mentioned in the same breath as geothermal and biogenesis as possible sources.<br /><br />Is this omission a conscious desision to "keep it simple", and exciting, for the public? Is it ignorance of the possiblity on the part of the mission scientists? Have they thought of it and discounted it? What is going on? If photochemistry is a real possibility that is not being seriously addressed, it shakes my confidence in the team.<br /><br />I know this has been discussed in the past on SDC but my concern flared anew when I saw this latest example of a Mars Express team scientist speaking to the press and leaving what I think is a glaring omission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Post deleted by telfrow - wrong links. <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

Interesting stuff on MARSIS(water) and OMEGA(hydrated minerals/clays) in the press releases, but the only mention (unless I missed it) of the methane was in the Q&A after the webcast press briefing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Remember that the PFS has been down for quite a bit of time, although it is not on line again. Previous repeats of the initial observations did not confirm the high levels either, so maybe there just isn't anything new to report. <br /><br />I wish that people would NOT keep jumping onto incompetence as the first explanation for something. Although it is marginally preferable to conspiracy <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.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>

 

[telfrow]

Post deleted: Quote from wrong article. <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"I wish that people would NOT keep jumping onto incompetence as the first explanation for something."</font><br /><br />So do I. (And I'm shocked and hurt that you would put me in that group.)<img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />I'm simply expessing the same frustration that silylene has expressed over the months that what he considers a likely source of the methane is not publicly addressed by the Mars Express scientists.<br /><br />I have no expertise that would allow me to judge the merits of the case, but silylene seems to. I'm sure you've seen his arguments for photogenesis of methane. Don't you think they have merit? If so, aren't you frustrated by the lack of comment on the subject -- or even a simple aknowlegement that it exists? Do you think that there is enough substance to the theory that whenever possible sources of methane on Mars are mentioned, they should include biology, vulcanism, AND photogenisis?<br /><br />I realize that one answer at one press conference can contain an inadvetent ommission, but I have read many articles and interviews and over and over again two and only two possible sources of methane are mentioned: biology and vulcanism. If there is a third source which is at least as likely as the other two, is it not a disservice to the interested public NOT* to put it out there along with the others? <br /><br />*edit <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I presume that is Titan, not Mars! Five percent methane on Mars would be something! We probably, given the dual planet nature of this conference need to specify which planet we are on.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <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>

 

[telfrow]

Oops...it is <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> I'll delete the links. That's what I get for trying to post and work at the same time... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

The press conference and press releases covered both Mars Express and Huygens. Methane seen by Huygens on Titan was covered. I saw no discussion on the methane seen by Mars Express. But nontheless a question was asked about it in the Q&A session. The answer was interesting in that it seems further measurements will allow possible correlation between methane concentrations on Mars and possible souces. <br /><br />I now recall that it was also mentioned that the methane concentration was higher in the morning and reduced later in the day. An interesting clue? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">I'm simply expessing the same frustration that silylene has expressed over the months that what he considers a likely source of the methane is not publicly addressed by the Mars Express scientists. </font><br /><br />The only reason that the photoreduction mechanims for producing methane no Mars has not been proposed is simply that I have not published a paper on it. Apparently, relatively few photochemists are considering the Martian atmosphere.<br /><br />I will publish a paper on this, some day. It is no longer easy for me to do research, as this January at our company I was promoted from being a Research Fellow to the Director of R&D. As I am no longer doing research directly, I no longer have a lab. (this would've had to be a stealth research project anyways)<br /><br />I would be eager to collaborate with a fellow scientist, however! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br /><Don't forget there is also the olivine decomposition to produce CH4 mechanism 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>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"The only reason that the photoreduction mechanims for producing methane no Mars has not been proposed is simply that I have not published a paper on it. Apparently, relatively few photochemists are considering the Martian atmosphere."</font><br /><br />I understand that science is compartmentalized, but I'm just modestly scientifically literate and I see the importance of ruling a photogenic mechanism in or out as part of the overall strategy of solving the methane mystery. I would hope the scientists studying the Mars methane are at least as informed as me! <br /><br />If the possible sources of Mars methane are life and volcanism, and, vulcanism is ruled out... well, the implication is exciting. But I'm just ticked off. Is photogenesis a real possibility? I want to see a discussion going on among those who have been discussing life and vulcanism. I want to see a thorough evaluation and concensus on the matter. Otherwise I have no idea how exited I really should be about the possibility of methane as evidence of life.<br /><br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Re vulcanic methane, it was already reported earlier this month to be unlikely and essentially ruled out."</font><br /><br />So what's left? Bio or volcanic. Volcanic or bio. That's all I've heard when the scientists talk to the press. If there's a third possibility they better start talking about it before people start drawing conclusions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

then it's olivine or bio.<br />

 

[JonClarke]

My apologies if uneccessary offence was given.<br /><br />But you did write "If photochemistry is a real possibility that is not being seriously addressed, it shakes my confidence in the team."<br /><br />Why should your confidence be shaken unless you were assuming that the team did not mention photochemical methane out of incompentence? There are half a dozen ligitimate reasons why they would not mention it, these should be considered first.<br /><br />But I WAS testy. My frustration also comes out of the fact that there seems to be a lot of hostility towards ESA on space fora, and I have no idea why. On one in the last few days there was a succession of facile posts about this press conference, each one trying to think of a more stupidly obvious announcement that would be forthcoming. The attitude to me was clearly that the ME team were a bunch of incompetants who hadn't discovered anything you and would not be discovering anything and who covered this up behind a facade of impressive but vacuous press releases and conferences. On another forum some who should know better actually decribed the entire Huygens SSP experiment package as "silly".<br /><br />ESA have a fantastic series of missions with amazing results and people whinge about them and made rude comments about their legitimacy and competence. Why?<br /><br />Jon<br /> <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]

Photocehmistry has been considered before for methane and other organics. There were several references to it the the Viking GCMS literature.<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>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Why should your confidence be shaken unless you were assuming that the team did not mention photochemical methane out of incompentence?"</font><br />My level of confidence in scientists running the various space missions is very high. This includes Mars Express. My confidence remains high -- but shaken. I don't read the scientific papers. I get my news from the science press and, preferably, from the scientists themselves when they provide briefings. I understand that scientific findings and theories need to be simplified in those venus. But if photogenesis of methane is a real possibility, on a par with or even above biogenesis or vulcanism, omitting it from the general discussion is over simplification. <br /><br />I'm disturbed by the situation that is developing. If, over and over in the science press, the two -- and apparently only two -- possible sources of Mars methane mentioned are life and vulcanism, and then vulcanism is shot down, where does that leave us? It will look to the conspiracy nuts that rile you so as if the scientists are desperately grasping for straws when photogenesis steps up to take the place of vulcanism as an apparent last minute alternative to life as the methane source. Rather than seeming to come from nowhere at the last minute, I would like to see photogenesis brought to the table now for evaluation in the pubic eye along with the other two. If photogenesis is a real possibility, missions should be planned that contain experiments specifically designed to help rule it in or out. Is this planning taking place? Is photogenesis of methane credible enough to make such missions necessary? I want to be assured that this is being given thought. I want to see it as part of the general Mars methane discussion, or I want to see it publicly discredited as a viable theory. In which case I'll have to start getting my hopes up about the possibility of life on Mars. That's what its really all about. I don't want to be <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"then it's olivine or bio."</font><br /><br />Then I want to see olivine in the race. Right now it looks like a two horse race between life and vulcanism for the cause of methane on Mars. And the odds against vulcanism may be going up. If there's another horse in the race, get it on the racing form along with its bona fides so people can place their bets. <br /><br />The longer they wait before slipping other possibilities into the public conciousness, the more suspicious it will look to the conspiracy nuts. "The race was fixed!" will be the cry if vulcanism loses and life is not ruled the winner. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

My bet is Life on Mars, and the sooner we come to terms with that the better.

 

[JonClarke]

A belated congratulations on your promotion! I hope you can keep researching as a hobby.<br /><br />Cheers<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]

First, we must distinguish between the scientists and the science press. The first is not always accurately presented by the second. The literature, such as it exists, has reviewed a range of possibilities, not just two.<br /><br />Second, this press conference was about specific results from OMEGA and MARSIS. You don't talk about everything going on at a press conference, only the most significant findings. PFS has not even been operational for a fair slice of time. You would not expect anything from it at the moment.<br /><br />Third, not everyone is convinced the methane is real. Until more information on its abundance is obtained from the PFS team won't be making press releases. The media are not interested in negative results.<br /><br />So I just don't understand why you would expect this conference to mention methane or why its absence is such a big deal.<br /><br />If you don't want to be included with the naysayers don't let your confidence be shaken so easily.<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>

 

[bonzelite]

i read an interview a few weeks back with a guy who is on the methane research bandwagon. and he made a very convincing assessment of an abiotic process when water containing dissolved carbon dioxide comes in contact with olivine, it produces hydrogen --which then combines with carbon dioxide to produce methane. <br /><br />thus, olivine is a highly probable culprit --provided that there is an aqueous subsurface/regolith interaction. a huge source for this was mentioned as outgassing at cliff walls, such as at vallis marineris. evidently, such a thing happens on the earth. breaks in the crust at sheer cliff walls allow for greater outflow of subsurface gases to the atmospehre. <br /><br />is olivine the culprit? i have no idea. the argument for it would entail a rather active subsurface hydration cycle. so if you buy into the olivine argument, then you must buy the "copius liquid water beneath mars argument," as well! and if you buy that, then that brings us right back to life on mars as a possibility because we have our water. <br /><br />and, yes, i KNOW that water does not necessarily mean life ever existed there, but because there is methane, then, well ---this is a very seductive pairing off of key elements: water, methane, --what next? <br /><br />to me, vulcanism is actually the more far-fetching idea.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"So I just don't understand why you would expect this conference to mention methane or why its absence is such a big deal."</font><br />I wasn't expecting it, in fact I was surprised when a question came up about it. Its just that when it did come up, the 'life or volcanism' refrain pushed a button. I was, and am, enjoying with relish the main topics of the briefing, particularly the first MARSIS results. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">"If you don't want to be included with the naysayers don't let your confidence be shaken so easily."</font><br />OK, I'll give them another chance.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

I would just like to see other abiotic processes, like the olivine one, mentioned along with life and volcanism on a more regular basis. I don't like seeing the whole methane question reduced to either/or, life or volcanism. <br /><br />I should say that I do have confidence in the Mars Express PFS team to do their job, which is to gather data on the distribution and abundance of various molecules in the Mars atmosphere. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

cents, you got to consider that many people deny any methane at all is present on Mars. and those professionals who do believe in methane keep a low profile about it because it is tantamount to automatic career-assassination --the clerics, haters, and naysayers all pull large purse and political strings. you go tooting this "methane" horn around too much, and they will call the men in white coats on you, scientifically speaking. <br /><br />you might as well lump yourself into the "life on mars" whacko blacklist if you toot the "methane" horn --EVEN IF IT IS REALLY ABIOTIC IN ORGIN! this is why you will see reports of methane typically in the context of "abiotic processess," and papers abound on that subject. but you so as mention possible life in a professionals luncheon or lab room --you are blacklisted, scarlet lettered, otherwise PERMANENTLY marked FOREVER as a lunatic pseudo-scientist/alchemist. <br /><br />you go doing a pro-mars-life paper or conference --you're like Art Bell or George Noorey, coast to coast AM, UFO, illuminati, satanists, etc... you are considered a fool. even if it is actually biogenesis. <br /><br />you see what i mean? you must at least PORTRAY the imagination of a breakfast cereal box only. and stick to hard facts EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE IN BIOGENESIS. <br /><br />pretend we're in Orwell's book "1984."

 

[centsworth_II]

I think the data showing methane on Mars is being taken seriously and being presented in papers by the scientists involved in its collection without fear of ridicule. It seems that with independent observations of methane by Mars Express and Earth-based telescopes, its the no-methane holdouts that are dwindling in number.<br /><br />The source of the methane is another question and there I think those proposing life as the source are going out on a limb.<br /><br />An interesting story. It will be fun to follow its development over the years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>