I read on Toms’ Astronomy Blog that NASA put out a short video with Mars specialist Michael Mumma discussing the methane recently found on Mars:
As I pointed out earlier, it could be biology, or it could be non-living chemistry. We need to equip our landers with sniffers to find out more. This could be a huge discovery, leading to a huger one. Or it could just be a really incredible discovery that will help us better understand our dead neighboring world.
Either way is a win.
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
January 19th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Phil,
I understand that it isn’t conclusive, but wouldn’t the seasonal nature of these methane releases be more consistent with biology than chemistry? I would think that it is at least another nail in the coffin of the volcanic theory.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I know that biology is not high up your list of favorite topics, but a biological explanation would be a bigger win. Although I doubt a biological cause.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Since there is the possiblity this is life, shouldn’t we leave this planet alone, instead of contaminating it with our filth and diseases?
January 19th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Lots of things change on Mars due to seasonal temperature variations. Chemistry changes as the CO2 freezes and sublimates.
As far as contaminating Mars, the spacecraft go through a cleaning process to reduce the chance of infection. But your use of the words “filth and disease”, plus your name, strike me that you may have an agenda here. Care to elaborate?
January 19th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
It’s highly unlikely to be biological. It’s just that people want it to be that. CO2 mixing with water underground is the most likely scenario.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
@Bill:
If the source is chemical, changes in temperature with the seasons could easily change the rate of reaction. Temperature could even have an effect on vulcanism as well, as warmer ground may be more porous (or at least lest frozen), allowing more gases to escape. I am not holding my breath, but a biological origin for the methane would be more cool than a geological one.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Methane and carbon dioxide?
There is only one logical conclusion: MARTIAN COW FARTS!
January 19th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Actually, BA, I can understand some of where KeepMarsGreen is coming from. There are large “wilderness” swaths of this world which are torn up with ATV and tracked vehicle tracks. We can’t even keep this planet looking pretty, when damage like that lasts decades on our biologically and geologically active surface. I don’t like the thought of our vehicles going willy-nilly over the pristine lunar surface, or of contaminants possibly damaging Mars or other places.
Prevention and mitigation are legitimate concerns; we’ve already made a hash of one big ball of rock perched on top of a stack of turtles…
January 19th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Sniffers on Mars?
I know! Instead of writing a book about kicking puppies, why don’t we send them all to Mars instead?!
January 19th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Honestly, who cares if we mine or track up another world that has, at most, microbes on it. Isn’t that taking environmentalism a wee bit too far?
January 19th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
@WJM
Our big ball of rock will be fine – its ability to support us is whats in jeopardy. The earth has shrugged off myriads of species without so much as a blink. It’s not going to miss us or anything. We aren’t capable of destroying earth, let alone mars with the current payload limitations.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
How about you next book “kicking martian puppies”.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I mostly agree with Metre. As far as we know, there is nothing on Mars to ruin. I do not believe that a few tonnes of scrap metal and carbon composite (e.g. Viking, Pathfinder, Beagle, Polar Lander etc.) laying on the surface of Mars is going to hurt anything. There is no comparison between the havoc we have imposed on Earth, vs the small amount of ‘litter’ we are leaving on mars. Mars is a big, dry rock with no surface ecosystems. That stated, I definately think we should take every precaution to avoid sub-surface biological contamination (i.e. introducing Earth microbes) but would not worry a nit about space junk or even radioactive materials etc.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I think the methane is due to Arnold Schwarzeneggar setting off an ancient precursor artifact on an underground glacier – he thought it was going to product oxygen though, not methane. Silly precursor aliens.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
No-one seems top be commenting on the possibility that the isotope ratios (presumably C) will help decide between biological and non-biological sources. I understand that the researchers involved have isotope ratio data which hasn’t yet been analysed. If that is the case then perhaps we will hear something a bit more definitive well before another lander arrives on Mars.
Has anyone heard anything mo4re about the isotope ratio data?
January 19th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
The ill-fated Beagle 2 probe was carrying a spectrometer that would have sniffed out the methane and pulled it apart into its various constituents. Colin Pillinger believes it would have answered the question as the the methane’s source. Is it too late to add this experiment to Mars Science Laboratory?
January 19th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
@Ken: You cannot measure the isotope ratio from Earth reliably. The 13-C signature is too weak. You need to go to Mars and collect a sample and do sensitive mass spectrometry. I think MSL will be able to do that.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
@ PG:
And then again, perhaps not:
January 19th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
@Torbjörn Larsson, OM
Thank You for digging up that information. That’s very information.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Remember that Presidential briefing given by NASA back in September?
I’ve always wondered what the protocol would be if life were discovered by a NASA planetary probe.
I think the president himself (or her one day) would have to break the news, as it were. I’m sure I’ve read this suggestion before.
What better place than at the inauguration, when everyone’s watching anyway? Especially if the recent discoveries have shown more than they let on.
Let’s watch and see!
January 19th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Barsoom!
That’s the sound of Martian farts.
-Edgar Rice Burroughs
January 20th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Can they determine the chirality of the methane?
January 21st, 2009 at 8:30 am
And this is nothing compared with the things will happen if a martian probe discovers oil deposits…….
January 21st, 2009 at 9:17 am
We need to expand. A few alien microbes won’t stop us. We are the superior life form.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Maybe we have designed our spacecraft intelligently by cleaning them but only abstinence will guarantee we do not destroy this planet until we know more about it. We should abort all missionary crusades to this heavenly body. We are destroying one planet lets not destroy others. When Europeans discovered new lands on our own planet like the Americas and Polynesia we brought ecological disaster with vermin and disease. We need to learn from our past. Those new lands were on our own planet just think what we would do to Gaia’s great grandson Mars. OMG choose life!
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:41 am
[...] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/19/more-martian-methane-michael-mumma-movie/ [...]
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
The coincidence with water is too much. I don’t believe that the methane signal being an artifact can be ruled out.
December 6th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
[...] año pasado, utilizando los telescopios situados en tierra, un equipo liderado por Michael Mumma del NASA Goddard Space Flight Center informó que el metano de Marte se concentra en determinadas [...]