Mars site may hold 'buried life'

[wautd]

BBC

Researchers have identified rocks that they say could contain the fossilised remains of life on early Mars.

The team made their discovery in the ancient rocks of Nili Fossae.

Their work has revealed that this trench on Mars is a "dead ringer" for a region in Australia where some of the earliest evidence of life on Earth has been buried and preserved in mineral form.

They report the findings in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

The team, led by a scientist from the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute (Seti) in California, believes that the same "hydrothermal" processes that preserved these markers of life on Earth could have taken place on Mars at Nili Fossae.

The rocks there are up to four billion years old, which means they have been around for three-quarters of the history of Mars.

When, in 2008, scientists first discovered carbonate in those rocks the Mars science community reacted with great excitement; carbonate had long been sought as definitive evidence that the Red planet was habitable - that life could have existed there.Carbonate is what life - or at least the mineral portion of a living organism - turns into, in many cases, when it is buried. The white cliffs of Dover, for example, are white because they contain limestone, or calcium carbonate.

The mineral comes from the fossilised remains shells and bones and provides a way to investigate the ancient life that existed on early Earth.

In this new research, scientists have taken the identification of carbonate on Mars a step further.

Adrian Brown from the Seti Institute, who led the research, used an instrument aboard Nasa's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter called Crism to study the Nilae Fossae rocks with infrared light.

Then he and his team used exactly the same technique to study rocks in an area in north-west Australia called the Pilbara.

"The Pilbara is very cool," Dr Brown told BBC News. "It's part of the Earth that has managed to stay at the surface for around 3.5 billion years - so about three quarters of the history of the Earth."

"It allows us a little window into what was happening on the Earth at its very early stages."And all those billions of years ago, scientists believe that microbes formed some distinctive features in the Pilbara rocks - features called "stromatolites" that can be seen and studied today.

"Life made these features. We can tell that by the fact that only life could make those shapes; no geological process could."

This latest study has revealed that the rocks at Nili Fossae are very similar to the Pilbara rocks - in terms of the minerals they contain.

And Dr Brown and his colleagues believe that this shows that the remnants of life on early Mars could be buried at this site.

"If there was enough life to make layers, to make corals or some sort of microbial homes, and if it was buried on Mars, the same physics that took place on Earth could have happened there," he said. That, he suggests, is why the two sites are such a close match.
'Geological olympics'

Dr Brown and many other scientists had hoped that they would soon have the opportunity to get much closer to these rocks. Nili Fossae was put forward as a potential landing site for Nasa'a ambitious new rover, the Mars Science Laboratory, which will be launched in 2011.

The site was championed by other geologists, including John Mustard from Brown University in Rhode Island, whose team made the case to Nasa to have it included in the landing site shortlist for MSL.

But Nilae Fossae was eventually deemed too dangerous a landing site and it was finally removed from the list in June of this year."The rover is being landed remotely - so there's no human pilot involved; it's all up to the robot. And [that's] a very dangerous thing," said Dr Brown. "You need 20km of smooth terrain and unfortunately at this site it is pretty rocky - those ancient rocks are pretty weathered and the surface is rocky and uneven."

"It will be visiting another interesting site when it lands, but this is the place that we should be checking out for life on early Mars."

John Grant, a scientist from the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, and a member of the planetary sciences panel that advises Nasa on the MSL mission, spoke to BBC News earlier this year about the choice of landing site.

He said that the objective of mission was a search for "habitability". It was not, he said, a life detection mission.

"[It] entails looking at geologic environments that may not only have been habitable but where signals associated with that habitability have been preserved," he told BBC News in February.

But that does not alleviate the disappointment that many feel over having Nili Fossae and all its secrets taken off the table for the mission.

And what makes Mars Science Laboratory even more of a crucial mission for scientists is the fact that it will be the last rover to explore the surface of Mars until 2018 - partly because funding the mission has been so extraordinarily expensive.

Dr Brown described the experience of having his favoured landing site removed from the shortlist as the geological equivalent of having "your city's Olympic bid rejected".
Advertisement

MSL will be lowered onto Mars with a landing system called a sky crane

"I also see a race happening here," he said. "It might take us a couple of decades to build our capability to land [unmanned] rovers somewhere geologically interesting on Mars.

"And in those decades, human space flight capabilities are going to develop and we could have the capability to send humans to Mars."

So in this race of the human versus the robots, which will win?

"It's my personal belief," said Dr Brown, "that by the time real human geologists get to go to Mars, the question of whether there is life on Mars will still be open."

[LionElJonson]

Cool. Not particularly useful, but still pretty cool like most palaeontology is to the layman.

[PeZook]

Cool. Not particularly useful, but still pretty cool like most palaeontology is to the layman.

One step at a time...one step at a time...six months ago, it was water...now it's possibly life...there's water ice on the Moon...it's a glorious age of space discovery!

[LionElJonson]

Cool. Not particularly useful, but still pretty cool like most palaeontology is to the layman.

One step at a time...one step at a time...six months ago, it was water...now it's possibly life...there's water ice on the Moon...it's a glorious age of space discovery!

Now, water ice, on the other hand, is useful. You can do stuff with it. Like drink it, use it as spaceship fuel or for industrial processes, or various other uses a space colony could use it for.

All you can do with Martian fossils is palaeontology and selling them to tourists (or wealthy collectors on Earth), once we properly colonise it. I suppose that it might give information on the origins of life and whatnot, though much of that probably wouldn't be of much use until we can start interstellar colonization, or if life's a lot more common than we currently think it is and we find it on Mars, Europa, and Titan.

[Sarevok]

The article summarized

-Some vogue information is taken from a satelite far high in the sky.
A satelite not built for geology and operating on a planet not Earth.

- using such vogue information (probably visualised as fancy false color images) taken from so far away to deduce presence of something as tiny as ancient life

- then complaining when his pet project got rejected from MSL mission.

- irrational claim human geologists like him will get to Mars before a rover lands at his pet site.

- yes thats right a human crew can land at a site deemed so difficult Nasa wont even risk a probe.

Some of the search for life on Mars people are funny like string theorists. Always making grandiose predictions that cant be tested at present.

[LionElJonson]

The article summarized

-Some vogue information is taken from a satelite far high in the sky.
A satelite not built for geology and operating on a planet not Earth.

- using such vogue information (probably visualised as fancy false color images) taken from so far away to deduce presence of something as tiny as ancient life

- then complaining when his pet project got rejected from MSL mission.

- irrational claim human geologists like him will get to Mars before a rover lands at his pet site.

- yes thats right a human crew can land at a site deemed so difficult Nasa wont even risk a probe.

Some of the search for life on Mars people are funny like string theorists. Always making grandiose predictions that cant be tested at present.

They don't need to land at the site directly. They could just as easily land at a spaceport somewhere else and then drive there with Martian ATVs or SUVs or something.

[Sarevok]

You dont think a probe will drive or eventually land on this rugged site long before you have space ports and Halo style dune buggys on Mars ?

[LionElJonson]

You dont think a probe will drive or eventually land on this rugged site long before you have space ports and Halo style dune buggys on Mars ?

Probably not, no. Mars is a big place, and it sounds like this place is probably fairly far down the list. Besides, I'm planning on starting a company to build nuclear-pulse rockets; self-sustaining colonies shouldn't be too difficult when you're shipping over 6000+ tons at a time, though not be an engineer it's entirely possible I'm underestimating that.

[Sarevok]

You dont think a probe will drive or eventually land on this rugged site long before you have space ports and Halo style dune buggys on Mars ?

Probably not, no. Mars is a big place, and it sounds like this place is probably fairly far down the list. Besides, I'm planning on starting a company to build nuclear-pulse rockets; self-sustaining colonies shouldn't be too difficult when you're shipping over 6000+ tons at a time, though not be an engineer it's entirely possible I'm underestimating that.

You sound like nicknumbers from spacebattles. As has been shown over there starting a company to promote orion is nothing but fantasy.

[LionElJonson]

You dont think a probe will drive or eventually land on this rugged site long before you have space ports and Halo style dune buggys on Mars ?

Probably not, no. Mars is a big place, and it sounds like this place is probably fairly far down the list. Besides, I'm planning on starting a company to build nuclear-pulse rockets; self-sustaining colonies shouldn't be too difficult when you're shipping over 6000+ tons at a time, though not be an engineer it's entirely possible I'm underestimating that.

You sound like nicknumbers from spacebattles. As has been shown over there starting a company to promote orion is nothing but fantasy.

Oh? Care to explain? The mechanics of the design are quite sound, and I've looked at the regulatory statutes on the website of the Indian regulatory agency, and it looks like as long as my organization gets a license, the operation of the nuclear devices is safe and nuclear materials are handled by properly trained technicians, it should be entirely possible.

[Shroom Man 777]

That is a nice sounding organization. I would like to know more details so I can better help your nuclear capitalism.

[Sarevok]

[
Oh? Care to explain? The mechanics of the design are quite sound, and I've looked at the regulatory statutes on the website of the Indian regulatory agency, and it looks like as long as my organization gets a license, the operation of the nuclear devices is safe and nuclear materials are handled by properly trained technicians, it should be entirely possible.

Cost.

I would like to see number of nuclear devices required to lift your 6000 ton payload to low Earth orbit. And their proposed price per nuclear device.

Besides that there is a fact Orion proponents ignore about pusher plate design. Nothing on that scale exists. We have nothing base the design on.

[Shroom Man 777]

I would also like to be able to get my company, namely myself as I am self-employed, authorization to use nuclear explosives for... propulsion purposes. What is the procedure in doing so?

[Sarevok]

I would also like to be able to get my company, namely myself as I am self-employed, authorization to use nuclear explosives for... propulsion purposes. What is the procedure in doing so?

Sell the golden gate bridge and Eifel tower first to qualify yourself for the job.

No really. Nicknumbers thought he could convince governments to give him nuclear weapons for his hare brained schemes posted first on the internet.

[LionElJonson]

[
Oh? Care to explain? The mechanics of the design are quite sound, and I've looked at the regulatory statutes on the website of the Indian regulatory agency, and it looks like as long as my organization gets a license, the operation of the nuclear devices is safe and nuclear materials are handled by properly trained technicians, it should be entirely possible.

Cost.

I would like to see number of nuclear devices required to lift your 6000 ton payload to low Earth orbit. And their proposed price per nuclear device.

IIRC, an Orion was estimated at about $250/lb to launch things into orbit; that's about 3 billion per launch, but considering that it'll be carrying a vastly larger amount of cargo (about 6000 tons vs 30 for the space shuttle) for vastly less per pound means that there shouldn't be too much difficulty filling one up, since it's not like we don't have commercial satellites already. Also, probably a lot more space tourists when tickets only cost $50,000 instead of several million.

Besides that there is a fact Orion proponents ignore about pusher plate design. Nothing on that scale exists. We have nothing base the design on.

This is true, but smaller designs have been successfully tested; the difference in scale is merely an engineering problem, and those can be solved much more easily now than in the 60s, thanks to the proliferation of powerful computers and the ready availability of highly functional CAD and discrete element analysis packages.

Shroom Man: Looks like their site explains it here. Also, you might need to become an Indian citizen, since foreign trade is covered by this, and that means you need to sign a contract that you won't build any sort of nuclear explosive, ruling out NPP drives.

[PeZook]

Dude, that site talks about radiation sources and experimental reactors, not fucking nuclear bombs in huge quantities

Here's a million dollar question: How many devices would be necessary per launch of such a 6000 tonne to LEO starship, and how much fallout would be produced as a result?

[Sarevok]

Here's a million dollar question: How many devices would be necessary per launch of such a 6000 tonne to LEO starship, and how much fallout would be produced as a result?

That is the crux of the matter. A couple of Sea Dragon launches could put 6000 tons to orbit. With payload costs perhaps as low as 500 USD / KG. If nuclear devices don't deliver same amount of cost savings then they are no go for obvious reasons.

[PeZook]

Uh...Sea Dragon as envisioned would've a payload of 550 tonnes to LEO, and I doubt the estimate would be possible to reach in reality. Of course, that still translates to things like ~80 tonnes on lunar surface, which would've easily been enough to build a pretty bitchin' base.

[Sarevok]

Uh...Sea Dragon as envisioned would've a payload of 550 tonnes to LEO, and I doubt the estimate would be possible to reach in reality. Of course, that still translates to things like ~80 tonnes on lunar surface, which would've easily been enough to build a pretty bitchin' base.

Sea Dragon design may be enormous but the shipyard involved in the program did confirm they could build it. Now it is possible Sea Dragon would have just exploded due to being made of crude and cheap materials. But the point is conventional rockets can be made lot larger, You do not require Orion to lift enormous payloads. Conventional rockets are not obsolete.

[LionElJonson]

Dude, that site talks about radiation sources and experimental reactors, not fucking nuclear bombs in huge quantities

Here's a million dollar question: How many devices would be necessary per launch of such a 6000 tonne to LEO starship, and how much fallout would be produced as a result?

The fallout would be negligible; it's produced when objects or dust is sucked into the fireball and vaporized, so as long as you don't set them off too low to the ground unless you're on a properly designed launch pad, you'd be okay. What I was thinking was to have the ship designed as a sort of glider, and that it'd receive assistance from the ground to get a few thousand feet of altitude before it starts pulsing. The in-atmosphere pulse units are only .35 kilotons, so the blast radius would only be a few hundred meters. Single person gliders can get a few thousand feet from a relatively small winch; something larger like a maglev launch car attached by spooled cable(s), a towing aircraft, or something similar might also be doable. Alternately, a parabolic design might be used for the pusher plate, which would allow launching from a more typical rocket position, but would require a more expensive launch pad (since you'd have to make a giant armored plate, and coat it with graphite before each launch). The decision of which route to take would ultimately be up to the engineers I'd hire.

As for how many pulse units, Wikipedia's usually pretty accurate about these things; it says 800 bomb units, for 6000 tons to LEO, and 5300 to Mars and back.

[Simon_Jester]

The fallout would be negligible; it's produced when objects or dust is sucked into the fireball and vaporized, so as long as you don't set them off too low to the ground unless you're on a properly designed launch pad, you'd be okay. What I was thinking was to have the ship designed as a sort of glider, and that it'd receive assistance from the ground to get a few thousand feet of altitude before it starts pulsing. The in-atmosphere pulse units are only .35 kilotons, so the blast radius would only be a few hundred meters.

So you're talking about third of a kiloton nuclear bombs. Where the hell do you expect to find those for sale, or a government willing to give you control of them?

[LionElJonson]

The fallout would be negligible; it's produced when objects or dust is sucked into the fireball and vaporized, so as long as you don't set them off too low to the ground unless you're on a properly designed launch pad, you'd be okay. What I was thinking was to have the ship designed as a sort of glider, and that it'd receive assistance from the ground to get a few thousand feet of altitude before it starts pulsing. The in-atmosphere pulse units are only .35 kilotons, so the blast radius would only be a few hundred meters.

So you're talking about third of a kiloton nuclear bombs. Where the hell do you expect to find those for sale, or a government willing to give you control of them?

Government contractors. Reading the laws in question, it doesn't look like it's illegal for Indian nationals to build nuclear explosives; it's just illegal to use them in an unsafe fashion and to give them to foreign nationals, and you'd need a good enough reason to want them to get past their consent-granting procedure.

[Anguirus]

Wow. I read the first few posts and was going to cluck my tongue at the perverse lack of wonder at the possibility of extrasolar life not to mention an almost farcically critical reading of the passage by Sarevok. But now this thread has turned off on some cuckoo tangent about a startup company launching a nuclear rocket in a few years. Man, whatever the fuck. Have fun guys.

[Simon_Jester]

Government contractors. Reading the laws in question, it doesn't look like it's illegal for Indian nationals to build nuclear explosives; it's just illegal to use them in an unsafe fashion and to give them to foreign nationals, and you'd need a good enough reason to want them to get past their consent-granting procedure.

Have you approached real human beings in the Indian nuclear agency? Or have you just read some laws online that you may not understand the subtleties or practical implementation of?

[LionElJonson]

Government contractors. Reading the laws in question, it doesn't look like it's illegal for Indian nationals to build nuclear explosives; it's just illegal to use them in an unsafe fashion and to give them to foreign nationals, and you'd need a good enough reason to want them to get past their consent-granting procedure.

Have you approached real human beings in the Indian nuclear agency? Or have you just read some laws online that you may not understand the subtleties or practical implementation of?

Not yet, no. I'm going to do that once I've finished getting all my ducks in a row, so to speak, and I've thoroughly read everything I can find on the subject. To pester them before I've done so would be unprofessional.