Source of methane detected in Meridiani.

[alexblackwell]

<i>I will be still standing on [my soapbox]...</i><br /><br />Of that I have no doubt. By the way, I guess I should have prefaced it as such but my question was rhetorical.

 

[centsworth_II]

Source of Methane: Vulcanism or Life?<br /><br />It's not an either/or question. On Earth, A prevaling theory for the origin of life is that it began in association with volcanic vents. Whether that's true or not, it is true that today, in many locations on Earth, volcanic vents and life seem to go hand in hand.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

How about a cosmic source? Perhaps a comet strike in recent times giving the appearance the gas is regened?<br /><br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Some people (not you) should remember the days of Soviet Junk Science. It was all about headlines with massive assumptions and dubious experiments at its core. Cast a shadow of disrepute on the good science being done by the Soviets. NASA went way out on the proverbial limb with the Martian meteorite, but they didn't go beyond their facts. If they ever do go beyond their facts we might as well read about our science in the National Enquirer.<br />

 

[dtb99]

<br />This is certainly interesting, but in terms of abiotic, non-volcanic explanations, one might also note that Meridiani has unusual surface composition for Mars -- that's why Opportunity was sent there. It's certainly conceivable that some sort of methane-generating reaction is happening on the surface there, that is not observed (or much less so) elsewhere due to Meridiani's unusual surface chemistry.<br /><br />I'm much better with physics or geology than chemistry, so I have no guesses to hazzard. But before assuming life it's also worth checking for all the weird reactions that might happen with when you put hematite, hydrated iron-sulfur compounds, sulfates, and some basaltic dust under a CO2 atmosphere and add lots of UV. <br /><br />If confirmed, this also would make it pretty near certain that Meridiani would be the prime target for Mars Science Rover -- evaporites, methane, and very benign terrain.

 

[JonClarke]

Care to provide examples of "Soviet junk science" Buck?<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>

 

[rogers_buck]

Most junk science was in biology, agriculture, and psychology/pshchiatry. Biologists were purged early on. These fields were turned inot tools of the state. All sorts of para-psychology centers flourished and published. Physics and engineering was spared out of necessity. Otherwise, these fields would have been corrupted to serve the party as well.<br /><br />

 

[spacehappy]

Thank goodness for junk science. <br /><br />Most great discoveries were made through what scientist were claiming in there time as junk science. History is littered with them. One persons junk science is another persons breakthrough. Is junk science spending billions of dollars on theories that have no merit because of wrong assumptions? Is junk science spending up to 70 billion on the ISS only to see it crash down to earth in a short time? Don’t get me wrong I am for good science, but there should be a place for the box cutting out of the box thinker too, there the ones that keep the real junk scientist on there toes.

 

[JonClarke]

To taint all Soviet era science as "junk" is misleading. The vast majority of it was of high quality and world leading. The record is very impressive in the physical sciences, mathematics, geology, geophysics, astronomy, space sciences, metallurgy, engineering, oceanography<br /><br />When we talk about "junk science" we really need to restrict it issues of methodology, quality, and ideological influence. These are all highly qualitative isues, because every scientist and institution does variable research. Furthermore we all operate under differing idelologies, these can be neutral, harmful, or even helpful, depending on the circumstances. we can't help them.<br /><br />The problem with perceptions of Soviet era science in th west is that it is hampered by a language barrier and cold war era mentality that denigrated (or conversely blew up into a giant threat) almost everything that was done. It is also very easy to see the ideological influences in another culture, while those in your own are invisible or accepted.<br /><br />With the notable exception of Lysenko's genetics, the impact of which indeed spilled over into aspects of biology and agriculture, and psychiatry (about which I know little) it is my understanding that there was little ideological overtones in other science which, as I have said was very impressive. Even in biology and agriculture, the soviet era saw massive innovation and researches, for example in soil biology where they were world leaders. The main problem with psychiatry as I understand it, was its prostitution in the service of state oppression, rather than the science it self. Rather like medical research in nazi Germany. Even Lysenko was most dominant between 1948 and 1968, although influential before then.<br /><br />Not that the western world is immune to junk science. The success of the tobacco industry in supressing or guiding research into the link between smoking and cancer for decades, thereby leading to the death of hundred <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]

Good post Jon.<br /><br />Should also mention nearly all the good microgravity research was done by the Russians. <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>

 

[rogers_buck]

Hello Jon,<br /><br />You didn't quote the subsequent sentences of my post in your original response. Here they are:<br /><br />I wrote:<br />"... remember the days of Soviet Junk Science. It was all about headlines with massive assumptions and dubious experiments at its core. Cast a shadow of disrepute on the good science being done by the Soviets."<br /><br />I put the last sentence in there specifically not to cast dispersions of discredit on science overall in the former Soviet Union. A couple of my friends were scientists in the former Soviet Union before imigrating and I have profound respect for what was accomplished scientifically.<br /><br />The whacked out political science claims in Pravda that were widely reproduced in the western press did leave a negative impression about Soviet Science. Often times from people who should know better. For example, Aerojet was doubtfull of the thrust claims on the N2 engine until they lit the fuse on one. The myths of Concordsky, and Buran as a Shuttle clone persist to this day - the reality being that similar requirements produce similar looking designs. Dismissive comments about the anit-gravity research funded by NASA and Boeing because the researcher was an controversial ex-Soviet scientist as if that were more an issue than the outrageous claim itself. For a time junk-science claims came to represent Soviet science in the public mind.<br /><br />My original point was merely that NASA is a monolithic entity like the Soviet Union. Any episodes of junk science or half-cocked conclusions will be devestating to the reputation of the agency. Therefore, NASA has no choice but to do good peer reviewed science.<br /><br />Let me expand on that still further, given the excessive risks MASA must do conservative science. The Viking missions were a perfect example of being technically succesfull, yet taking too big a step and not meeting public expectations. If NASA had said MERs were off to find fossils and prove there is life

 

[spacehappy]

<font color="orange">[“The myths of Concordsky, and Buran as a Shuttle clone persist to this day - the reality being that similar requirements produce similar looking designs. Dismissive comments about the anit-gravity research funded by NASA and Boeing because the researcher was an controversial ex-Soviet scientist as if that were more an issue than the outrageous claim itself. For a time junk-science claims came to represent Soviet science in the public mind.”]<font color="white"><br /><br />What does the X33 mean to you. Mc.Donald Douglas had a working model then of the MDX, flew it several times yet NASA like the looks of a scale model, the size of a shoe for there replacement of the space Shuttle. I called that junk science then and I repeat it now. NASA survived the junk science didn’t they. <br /><br /><font color="orange">["Any episodes of junk science or half-cocked conclusions will be devestating to the reputation of the agency. Therefore, NASA has no choice but to do good peer reviewed science."]<font color="white"><br /><br />NASA survived the junk science with peer pressure review on the X33 didn’t they when any aeronautic engineer coming out of college could easily tell them they couldn’t get it off the ground as they designed it. This was a classic case of “its not how good you are its how good you look.” Having a couple of back slapping buddies on the inside helps out.<br /><br /><font color="orange">["If NASA had said MERs were off to find fossils and prove there is life on Mars they would be considered a failure at this point.]"<font color="white"><br /><br />At one of JPLs first 2004 rover news conference one of the scientist said, “it would be nice to find some fossils.” Now that we have displace most of the no, never, have been any water on Mars theories, the next Rovers sent to Mars will be loaded with instruments to find life and or fossils. Viking looked back thirty years ago. They were looking for life. Since they looked for life back during the Viking mission,</font></font></font></font></font></font>

 

[rogers_buck]

The X-33 was a bad call. The Li H2 tank to be fabbed by the Russians had problems, the plugged nozzles had problems, the composite oxidizer tank had problems, lots of problems. The design was not a small increment over the DOD model it was too big of a leap. In the end, it would be too heavy once all the small problems were solved using more conventional techniques.<br /><br />There were rather a lot of people that predicted the demise of the program because of its far reach and they were correct. There were rather a lot of engineers working for LockMart who tried to make it all work and failed. There was not, however, an anti-gravity engine, a warp drive, a vacuum energy quantum interference generator, a worm hole, or a forced singularity ever in the design. Just a lot of things that were innovative and one step beyond current nohow and Murphy's law held sway.<br /><br />NASA has political task masters that hold the reigns. Some times the engineers and scientists have been asked to do things with resources that are not adequate or are based on untested assumptions. In the worst of cases astronauts die in groups of seven. Most of the time projects are simply late.<br /><br />NASA has a credibility problem when it comes to budgetary issues and contractor management. NASA appears to be taking measures to fix this short coming.<br /><br />Small steps are much safer. Yours is a good example of this simple fact.<br /><br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

Hi buck<br /><br />Sorry for misunderstanding what you said. I would agree with that you say. Especially the last point about the MERs.<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>

 

[yurkin]

Perhaps I’m being a little too cynical in the wake of the ammonia detection story. It appears Mumma did announce a tentative discovery of methane prior to Formisano and his team. Also I’ve read that Keck is actually more sensitive then PFS, plus they’ve been studying Mars for longer. In that case it’s certainly possible that they’ve been able to determine a localized source.<br /><br />Assuming this is true it only removes glacial sublimation as a possible source. Not anyone of the other hypothesizes brought up. But following the methane might be a more direct route then following the water.<br /><br />Does anyone know when Nasa might actually announce and present its findings?<br /><br />http://www.planetary.org/news/2004/methane-on-mars_04-04-02.html

 

[silylene old]

Alex Blackwell pointed out a very recent paper, in <i>Icarus</i>. These authors are proposing a photoreduction of carbon monoxide. Their proposal is similar to a concept I proposed in this thread in July 2004.<br /><br />Ah, if I only had the time to research this area !<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Methane on Mars: A product of H2O photolysis in the presence of CO </b><br /><br />Akiva Bar-Nun, and Vasili Dimitrov <br /><br />Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel <br /><br />Received 21 April 2005; revised 3 November 2005. Available online 25 January 2006. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Abstract<br />We suggest that the methane observed on Mars can be formed by photolysis of water vapor in the presence of CO, in addition to possible geological sources, rather than biologically. <br /></p></blockquote> <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>