Big NASA news conference happening now:Dr. James Garvin, lead scientist for Mars and lunar exploration at NASA Headquarters, Washington, said, "NASA launched the Mars Exploration Rover mission specifically to check whether at least one part of Mars ever had a persistently wet environment that could possibly have been hospitable to life. Today we have strong evidence for an exciting answer: Yes." So now we just have to get some of the sedimentary rocks back to earth (not part of these missions) and look for the fossils. I wonder if finding proof of "life as we know it" on another planet will be a big story or not.
As you know, I'm a skeptic on this issue. Finding any evidence of microbial life would be a big story. But it's the only story. Do you think anyone would want to fund future Mars missions if they said all the rocks were volcanic?
Here's the NY Times description of the evidence. It sounds qualified as all get-out to me:
One intriguing feature of Opportunity's crater is small pebbles, many almost perfectly round, scattered over the surface.
The statement from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory said that the key to the scientists' findings announced today lay in the analysis of these pebbles, though the conclusions were not final.
"Round particles the size of BB's are embedded in the outcrop," the statement said. "From shape alone, these spherules might be formed from volcanic eruptions, from lofting of molten droplets by a meteor impact, or from accumulation of minerals coming out of solution inside a porous, water-soaked rock.
"Opportunity's observations that the spherules are not concentrated at particular layers in the outcrop weigh against a volcanic or impact origin, but do not completely rule out those origins."
As you say, the next step is to get a rock back and look at it. I would expect that rock will get the same 10-gun salute whatever they find.
I'm not so sure we need to get a rock back. Shipping lots of instruments one-way to Mars is a lot cheaper than shipping a self-addressed-stamped-envelope. Besides, if there is Martian bacteria, do we want it in our biosphere? Maybe I've seen too many 1950's scifi flix.
Although the study of Martian geology is very cool and a worthy project, Martian biology is what's going to get the banner headlines.
Granted, I just think it's silly. We're such a needy species.
How long before we leave a coke can up there?
|
- jim 3-02-2004 10:31 pm
As you know, I'm a skeptic on this issue. Finding any evidence of microbial life would be a big story. But it's the only story. Do you think anyone would want to fund future Mars missions if they said all the rocks were volcanic? Here's the NY Times description of the evidence. It sounds qualified as all get-out to me:
As you say, the next step is to get a rock back and look at it. I would expect that rock will get the same 10-gun salute whatever they find.- tom moody 3-02-2004 11:50 pm
I'm not so sure we need to get a rock back. Shipping lots of instruments one-way to Mars is a lot cheaper than shipping a self-addressed-stamped-envelope. Besides, if there is Martian bacteria, do we want it in our biosphere? Maybe I've seen too many 1950's scifi flix.
Although the study of Martian geology is very cool and a worthy project, Martian biology is what's going to get the banner headlines.
- mark 3-03-2004 4:11 am
Granted, I just think it's silly. We're such a needy species.
- tom moody 3-03-2004 4:15 am
How long before we leave a coke can up there?
- sally mckay 3-03-2004 6:56 am