

Big News From Mars? Rover Scientists Mum For Now - whyenot
http://www.npr.org/2012/11/20/165513016/big-news-from-mars-rover-scientists-mum-for-now

======
apo
Organic Chemist here engaging in some speculation.

My best guess: Curiosity's SAM module has discovered significant levels of
small organic molecules in the Martian soil. Not just any organic molecules,
but either byproducts of life - or more exciting, the actual building blocks
of life.

This would be strong evidence for present or past life, but would be far from
an observation of life itself.

Some commenters have made the point that 'something for the history books'
(the quote from the missions's PI) means different things for scientists and
the public.

I'm pretty sure the discovery falls into the category of exciting for
scientists, not exciting for the general public.

The data in question are coming from SAM, Curiosity's sample analysis tool.
It's equipped with six gas chromatography (GC) columns. The output of these
columns can be fed into either a mass detector (QMS) or spectrometer (TLS).
IMO, none of these tools can detect life itself:

<http://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/sam/samiam.html>

SAM's purpose is specifically to find evidence for organic molecules -
molecules based on carbon. The announcement will have something to do with
discovery of organic molecules of some kind:

<http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20110118.html>

So direct observation of microbes or any other life form will not be the
announcement. I'm pretty sure that's the only discovery that would be
'earthshaking' for the public.

What would be earthshaking for me as an organic chemist?

One possibility would be that SAM has discovered known byproducts of life,
such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), as was found in the Martian
Meteorite studied by the Zare group:

[http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/97/4.3.97/Mars_rock.ht...](http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/97/4.3.97/Mars_rock.html)

PAHs can be made through a variety of inanimate processes, so I'd view this
discovery as more ho-hum.

Still, it should be remembered that Viking failed to detect the presence of
any organic molecules at all. Finding any organic molecules would be a big
change in how we view Mars - but not in my view 'one for the history books'.

However, if familiar building blocks of life such as amino acids or
carbohydrates were detected, that would indeed fall into the earthshaking
category.

Life on Earth uses a selection of about 20 different amino acids. I would
consider observation of a similar assortment of amino acids as strong evidence
pointing to past or present life on Mars.

Observation of five- and six-carbon carbohydrates, which are generally much
more difficult to synthesize than amino acids, would be even stronger evidence
for life. It's hard to overestimate how important that discovery would be.

Observation of peptides - amino acids strung together as is done by all known
life would probably be the most mind-blowing thing I could imagine SAM
discovering. Depending on what specifically was found, it could remove any
doubt - Mars has or had life. Very long peptide chains can be synthesized
without life, but it's not easy. The exact composition of amino acids in the
peptide chain would be critical for the interpretation and would be more time
consuming than just, for example, observing a PAH.

The fact that amino acids, peptides, or carbohydrates themselves were
detectable today, given that they do degrade over time, could point in the
direction of life having been present recently.

~~~
duaneb
I feel like the detection of e.g. amino acids on mars is just wishful
thinking. That either points to panspermia (either mars->earth or earth->mars
or, uhh, alien-> both?) or concurrent development of extremely similar forms
of life. Both scenarios strike me (irrationally) as extremely unlikely.

I'm guessing it will discover a biproduct of biological processes, e.g. high
levels of methane.

~~~
jlgreco
It seems to me that the probability of life independently developing along
similar routes is hard to really peg a probability on. We only have one
example of abiogenesis to study right now, but evolution of earth-life could
give us some basis to reason about independent instances of abiogenesis.

Certain "features" just make sense for life on Earth, and have evolved
numerous times independently. Flight is a classic example, having evolved four
completely separate times (bugs, (extinct) pterosaurs, birds, and bats).
Complex eyes also seem to have independently developed many times.

Similarly, it seems fairly reasonable that certain "life chemistries" "make
more sense" than others. The extent to which that may be the case could also
be up in the air I think. Maybe 'carbon with a water solvent' is particularly
common, but amino acid based is less so. Or maybe amino acid based life tends
to naturally follow from an also likely carbon based chemistry.

It will be exciting to see what we uncover in the future. I think either two
cases of abiogenesis or a solid case of panspermia would be pretty wild, for
their own reasons.

------
arrrg
Can I just for a moment question their PR strategy here?

Them saying they have found something big leads to speculation, speculation
that might paint the image of an discovery much bigger than what was actually
discovered. Scientists are understandably enthusiastic about this, but they
also have to keep in mind that when they just use words to describe the
importance of the discovery without naming the discovery itself, it’s easy for
them to get it very, very wrong. Something for the history books for them
might well be something most people really couldn’t care less about.

I think the adult thing of saying that it is possible you discovered x but you
still need confirmation may well work, if you know how to frame it correctly.
But whatever you do, don’t say anything about history books, not before you
are really sure.

Alternatively you shut up and say nothing to the public until you are sure.

This whole “We have discovered something huge but we can’t tell you what until
we are really sure!” seems very misguided to me.

I think this is just a case of bad PR, not bad science reporting or anything
like that.

~~~
andrewheins
This kind of thing happens often, where you've got "news", but can't disclose
until it's final.

In these situations it can be helpful to use some kind of scale or domain
reference.

"We've got some pretty exciting news coming up, and we think it could change
the world"

vs

"We've got some pretty exciting news coming up, that should really fire up
geologists"

vs

"We've got some pretty exciting news coming up, that gets us closer to
understanding the history of Mars"

Set a level of expectation.

~~~
zacharypinter
From the article:

"This data is gonna be one for the history books. It's looking really good..."

~~~
arrrg
The existence of any kind of life (past or present) would be something for the
history books. Only Curiosity pretty much cannot find life, only hints that
life exists or existed. Maybe this is about something else, but if this is
only about hints that life exists or existed, then it isn’t really something
for the history books. Most people would be bored by news like that. (I
personally would find it very exciting, but I’m far from typical.)

~~~
rymith
re: Only Curiosity pretty much cannot find life

What? A martian running in front of the camera would work. A rover not sent by
earth. A little house on the... sand. Big ol skeleton of a unicorn...
Seriously, you have no imagination.

~~~
arrrg
It cannot find any kind of life we can realistically expect to find (given
past data).

You hurt me. Don’t be so mean.

------
CoffeeDregs
<RANT>

I find this very frustrating. As someone steeped in engineering and the
sciences, I am used to working with unusual, unexpected and/or exciting
results and I am used to those results being confirmed, revised, denied, etc.

My frustration is not with the scientists; I'm sure I'd do the same thing
given a possibly groundbreaking discovery and an inability to discuss much
about it. My frustration is with us, the public, and with the fact that we
can't be trusted as part of the broader team in this exploration. And I guess
I'm frustrated with the media for feeding us with hyped-up-everything, since,
even though we seem to demand it, it keeps us from being able to be involved
in these conversations/discoveries.

</RANT>

edit: added tags...

~~~
crayola
I agree with your conclusion.

As an example of early disclosure of unconfirmed results, I am fairly
confident many members of the public still think we have evidence that
neutrinos travel faster than light..

~~~
quux
I think in that case the scientists involved did everything they could think
of to explain their data before going public. So I wouldn't call it an early
disclosure of an unconfirmed result, more like "Hey everyone, this is really
weird, and we we can't explain it"

Historically, this is where one of 2 things would happen, either it would have
some mundane explanation that the original investigator missed, or it's one of
those anomalies that leads to new scientific discoveries.

So I think they handled it correctly, and got the right kind o f attention.

~~~
politician
Wait, didn't the principal scientist resign as a result of the media hype
storm?

Yes... [http://news.discovery.com/space/opera-leaders-resign-
after-n...](http://news.discovery.com/space/opera-leaders-resign-after-no-
confidence-vote-120404.html)

~~~
quux
Yes he was sacked, but here's the important quote from that article:

 _Even Ereditato never claimed that their work had overturned Einstein. "I
would never say that," he told Science last September. "We are forced to say
something. We could not sweep it under the carpet, because that would be
dishonest."_

------
petercooper
_Grotzinger says they recently put a soil sample in SAM, and the analysis
shows something earthshaking. "This data is gonna be one for the history
books. It's looking really good," he says._

Pretty exciting language from a lead investigator at NASA. Cross all those
fingers..

~~~
indiecore
It's either a lot of water or some sign of life or both. _crosses fingers_

~~~
InclinedPlane
We already know that Mars is lousy with water. For most of the surface all you
have to do is dig down maybe a meter or so and you'll find permafrost
everywhere.

I suspect it's some sort of sign of complex organics, which would be a strong
sign of past life.

~~~
diminish
Maybe the Higgs Boson? (Ok; jokes belong to Reddit.)

Big news for scientists may end up being unnoticeable small developments to
the general public. Earthshaking may be key here, like an organic compound
unexpected there.

~~~
freehunter
The question here is, is "earthshaking" something NPR is describing it as, or
is it actually how the NASA scientist is describing it? The quote says it's
something for the history books, the "earthshaking" remark is made outside of
the quote.

------
vietor
The audio version gives a bit more context. It sounded like the reporter was
there already doing another story, and the NASA folks were very distracted by
this but wouldn't yet say more than what's quoted in the story.

Could be that it wasn't much of a calculated PR stunt by either side, but
rather just human nature at work. If you're the NASA people, and you're
getting exciting data, you're going to be excited about it. If you're a
reporter, and everyone's excited, you're going to write about it even if you
have no good details.

------
yumraj
There is "scientist" exciting, and there is "general public" exciting.
"General public" exciting is sign of life. "Scientist" exciting can be a bunch
of other things. I'm hoping for "general public" exciting, but am afraid I'll
be disappointed. _fingers crossed_

------
alx
Current thread on reddit:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/curiosityrover/comments/13i2z4/it_is...](http://www.reddit.com/r/curiosityrover/comments/13i2z4/it_is_possible_that_curiosity_found_something/)

------
jsmcgd
Wikipedia has two videos explaining what SAM is for
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_Analysis_at_Mars>

It seems that it is related to the question of is/was there life on Mars. It
can detect organic products that are most likely produced by life, and if it
has, it means we will be able to follow these products to something more
conclusive.

------
pdx
During the Viking program in the 70's, Levin's Labeled Release experiments
seemed to show life in the martian soil. Two other experiments, also on
Viking, failed to collaborate this finding, although there were issues with
both of them which made their negative findings less meaningful.

Ever since Viking, there have been no biological experiments sent to Mars. The
issue has been tabled for 30 years.

I'm hoping Dr. Levin finally gets his confirmation. If that's the case, it
would explain why they're double and triple checking things.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_program#Biological_exper...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_program#Biological_experiments)

~~~
dhughes
That would suck if they scooped up fried the last (or first!) living organism
on Mars.

~~~
kalms
Very Douglas Adams.

------
jameshart
Heard this report on NPR this morning, and the impression I got was of a
reporter managing to successfully salvage an interesting piece about the
nature of scientific caution, the pressures on scientists to take care in
announcing their results and even the restrictions placed on them by journals,
from a visit to JPL where he learned about nothing specific, but did happen to
be in the office with a scientist who got quite excited about an email he was
reading, but then wasn't prepared to divulge any more details. I wouldn't read
too much into it.

------
jdavid
To SUM it up I hope we found evidence of one of the following.

    
    
      - Evidence of Oceans on Mars
      - Nitrogen in the soil, needed for plants to grow on mars
      - Amino Acids
      - Fossils
    

It could be something that is a play on words, 'Earth Shattering' could mean
volcanic activity

I also wonder if they are finding rare minerals or metals.

It could also have to do with Isotope ratios, as much of our history currently
depends on Carbon Dating and other Radioactive Isotope decay rates. Different
Atmospheric conditions could have different isotope ratios, this would be a
pretty big shake up and it does not necessarily require the rover to find a
specific chemical or a complex thing like DNA or organism remnants.

My mind would be blown, if NASA found one of the following.

    
    
      - living plants
      - living microbes
      - manufactured materials not of human/ earth origin.
      - tons of precious metals.

~~~
jdavid
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_rover#Goals_and_objec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_rover#Goals_and_objectives)

Curiosity has 8 core objectives, it's probably related to one or two of
theses:

    
    
      Biological
        (1) Determine the nature and inventory of organic
            carbon compounds
    
        (2) Investigate the chemical building blocks of life
            (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen,
            phosphorus, and sulfur)
    
        (3) Identify features that may represent the effects
            of biological processes (biosignatures)
    
      Geological and geochemical
        (4) Investigate the chemical, isotopic, and 
            mineralogical composition of the Martian surface
            and near-surface geological materials
    
        (5) Interpret the processes that have formed and
            modified rocks and soils
    
      Planetary process
        (6) Assess long-timescale (i.e., 4-billion-year) 
            Martian atmospheric evolution processes
    
        (7) Determine present state, distribution, and
            cycling of water and carbon dioxide
    
      Surface radiation
        (8) Characterize the broad spectrum of surface 
            radiation, including galactic radiation, cosmic
            radiation, solar proton events and 
            secondary neutrons
    

We have heard some reports on (8), but other objectives seem like they might
take a while. Plus the rover is not in the richest part of the ... theoretical
river delta so I would suspect that NASA would hold their tongue on confirming
(2) and or (3) until they are deeper into the mission, but (4) still seems
likely, unless (2) and (3) are plentiful at this point.

------
pothibo
A few things that would get me excited:

A geological proof that earth and Mars was the same body x million years ago.

High concentration of oxygen or water in the soil.

Fertile soil?

I guess anything that would make human's visit to Mars less hostile would be a
big story.

------
46Bit
NPR are probably just being sensationalist. Give a reporter a line like that
about anything from earthquakes to organics in the soil and you'll find the
reporter files about Martians.

I'll wait for an actual announcement before getting excited...

~~~
MartinCron
_NPR are probably just being sensationalist_

NPR is one of the least sensationalist news outlets out there. It's not like
they're in a mad dash for ratings during sweeps week or something.

~~~
jlarocco
"Least sensationalist" can still be sensationalist. And they do need to keep
the donations rolling in...

That said, I have no opinion on whether they're sensationalizing this story or
not.

~~~
MartinCron
Absolutely, but they do tread a fine line. Many public radio fans (of which I
am one) would be turned-off by the sort of rampant sensationalism and would
stop listening and/or donating.

Humorous Example of the non-sensational image NPR has managed to cultivate:
[http://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/162075221/jack-white-
disappoin...](http://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/162075221/jack-white-disappointed-
in-fans-energy-level)

------
tharris0101
We're announcing that we can't announce what we've found.

Seriously, though, I hope the results of whatever are confirmed. Not just for
science but for justification for more funding to flow into space exploration.

------
tomrod
How exciting! Can't wait to find out what it is.

On a side note, what are y'all's thoughts on the finding that radiation levels
are livable? I'd love to live on Mars.

~~~
freehunter
From what I understood, the radiation levels were survivable, not necessarily
livable. I think I remember them saying a 6 month exposure would be pushing
career limits for an astronaut, which is a two-fold improvement over
unprotected space. Still bodes well for the chances of having a sealed base on
Mars that allows people to travel outside occasionally.

~~~
mkr-hn
This could make more frequent trips outside possible:
[http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/stp/niac/2012_phaseII_fellow...](http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/stp/niac/2012_phaseII_fellows_westover.html)

And you could do it with a smaller system on a Mars buggy.

------
capkutay
I'm so tired of reading ambiguous news about mars and space in general. Not
once have I been able to read a headline from a space-exploration article and
say "Wow!". I always find myself scanning through the article, trying to see
what progress they've made and why it's significant.

------
mladenkovacevic
Whatever it is I hope it's significant enough to initiate a human mission to
Mars

------
kfcm
Since Congress is working on deals to avoid the January 1st "fiscal cliff",
are the Rover guys just trying to prevent any cuts to their budget?

------
lucasdailey
As long as they didn't find oil.

------
njharman
Probably worried the Italians will throw them in jail if not 100% accurate.

------
andys627
what do sam instructments do?

------
drizzo4shizzo
Found: one discarded fixed-gear warp drive. Damn. Hipster. Jedis.

------
botolo
I am very very curious to see what they will announce. Maybe they found the
birth certificate of Obama or the tax returns of Romney...Mars seems to be the
perfect place to hide such things ;-)

~~~
tomrod
I think you forgot to include "trolololo" in your comment.

~~~
tomrod
Because he is clearly a troll?

EDIT: too much internet for the day, I've now started responding to myself.

~~~
highpass
The article is interesting, but how you managed to do this even more so.

