Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Unmanned Spaceflight.com _ Phoenix _ The MECA story

Posted by: Stu Jul 31 2008, 10:22 PM

Seriously, hasn't anyone else got any thoughts (dismissive or otherwise) on the "Have you briefed the President's Science Advisor?" (re MECA) question by C Covault? I am NOT going all woo-woo here, don't worry, I just thought it was an odd thing to ask... To my ears it sounded like C C was suggesting, subtly, to the panel that he had heard "something" about the MECA analysis and wanted them to comment. The question was brushed aside - rather uncomfortably I thought - and the discussion quickly moved on, but it seemed like a bit of a Moment to me. He actually began, if I remember correctly, by asking where the "MECA guys" were, asking if they had "been hidden under the table"... cue uncomfortable laughs from the panel...

Again, I have to stress, in case anyone thinks I'm 'suggesting' anything, I'm not getting all Muldur here, I was just struck by how out of the blue the question was, and wondered if anyone has any thoughts on it...

Posted by: elakdawalla Jul 31 2008, 10:31 PM

I've heard some very vague rumor to the effect that the MECA guys have found something interesting -- but that's all I know. The answer to Couvault's question (given by Michael Meyer -- the Headquarters guy, which was interesting in itself) was basically that the results so far have been "unexpected" and they are waiting for more TEGA results to say more. I'd sure like to know what it is they think they see -- but I am glad they are managing to keep their mouths shut until they get a confirmation of whatever it is from another instrument, or until they've done another measurement that tells them that whatever sensational idea they had in their heads was some kind of hiccup.

--Emily

Posted by: dmg Jul 31 2008, 10:34 PM

A) My take on Craig Covault's question about MECA, and informing the President's Science advisor was that there may have been rumors of a major find in the MECA data that warranted notification to the top, but that the science team was playing very cool about it. This means that either i) there was no such find and the rumors were just that; or ii) there might have been a major find, but they are doing many checks, tests, and consideration of alternative explanations, and they weren't going to talk about it TODAY. I will be curious to see what CC puts in print in the next week or so. It was certainly a provocative question.

cool.gif What I didn't hear asked or answered very well was what steps they plan to take to deal with the problem of soils with a high ice content (up to near pure ice) not wanting to exit the scoop. Among the many subquestions of this would be what kind of testing in near-martian environmental conditions (not counting 1/3g) was run in the development of the spacecraft. And, what kinds of approaches are they testing now both on Earth and on Mars to try to allow delivery of ice-rich soils to TEGA.

Perhaps those with contacts in the program can find out more about these issues??

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Jul 31 2008, 10:36 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ Jul 31 2008, 02:22 PM) *
He actually began, if I remember correctly, by asking where the "MECA guys" were, asking if they had "been hidden under the table"... cue uncomfortable laughs from the panel...


I think that was more a reference to the difficult time the MECA team has been having and the bad rap they are getting publicly.

Posted by: Stu Jul 31 2008, 10:39 PM

Thanks Emily, that's very interesting. I can't help thinking that once this "gets out" all sorts of wild theories will start floating about.

Something to keep an eye on, definitely.

cool.gif

Posted by: Stu Jul 31 2008, 10:40 PM

QUOTE (ElkGroveDan @ Jul 31 2008, 11:36 PM) *
I think that was more a reference to the difficult time the MECA team has been having and the bad rap they are getting publicly.


Ah, I hadn't thought of that. Good answer.

Posted by: Sunspot Jul 31 2008, 11:16 PM

Presidential advisor's eh??? All very mysterious !!

Posted by: jmjawors Jul 31 2008, 11:31 PM

Alright... stupid question time. What difficulties have the MECA teams had? Only thing I remember reading was problems focusing the AFM.

As far as the mysterious question goes, all I can think of is that "Beagle 2" reference in the Transformers movie. cool.gif

Posted by: nprev Aug 1 2008, 12:09 AM

QUOTE (jmjawors @ Jul 31 2008, 02:04 PM) *
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4207&Itemid=2


Thanks VERY much, Matt; I am now spun up! smile.gif

Re Mr. Covault's enigmatic reply: My best guess still is a probable organic compound detection, which was a prime mission objective (that is, to determine whether they found any or not). Based on what little I know, doubt that TEGA is capable of more startling revelations.

To put it in perspective: Nobody's ever found organics on Mars, and conventional wisdom says that they are destroyed upon exposure to the surface UV and/or possible hyperoxides. On the other hand, organics are exceedingly common in the outer Solar System due to a lack of antagonistic environmental influences, but nobody makes a big deal about that fact.

So, detection of organic compounds on Mars would certainly be interesting (and amply fulfill a prime mission objective), but not completely unexpected at all, and not necessarily indicative of any need for any further extrapolations from anyone. Could well be carbonaceous meteoritic al a Allende material for all we know.

(Am I a buzzkill, or what? tongue.gif )

Posted by: mars loon Aug 1 2008, 12:15 AM

QUOTE (ElkGroveDan @ Jul 31 2008, 10:36 PM) *
I think that was more a reference to the difficult time the MECA team has been having and the bad rap they are getting publicly.


there haven't been any difficult times for MECA or bad raps. you may be thinking of TEGA. criticism of TEGA has been excessive in the popular press and some others. the science being attempted is not easy or straight forward. it will take time.

Posted by: fredk Aug 1 2008, 12:40 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 1 2008, 12:09 AM) *
Re Mr. Covault's enigmatic reply: My best guess still is a probable organic compound detection... Based on what little I know, doubt that TEGA is capable of more startling revelations.

As I recall, the "question" by Covault was in reference to MECA, not TEGA. Also, Smith actually made a blunt statement that "no organic compounds have been detected yet", or words to that effect.

As far as the reference to the science advisor, I'd say that was clearly facetious, not at all meant to be serious.

Posted by: belleraphon1 Aug 1 2008, 01:37 AM

Agree the MECA team has not had serious problems.

Craig Covault's comment took me completely by surprise. It came totally outta left field. He had to have some kind of basis for that weird question. (And the basis could be a totally false rumor). Or maybe it was an inside reporter-scientist joke. But jokes like that can make you lose credentials (respect from the team to take your questions seriously).

Craig



Posted by: 1101001 Aug 1 2008, 08:34 PM

I put a notice of this in the MECA topic, but Covault's intriguing question in the briefing is prominent here:

Covault's article:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/WH08018.xml&headline=White%20House%20Briefed%20On%20Potential%20For%20Mars%20Life

QUOTE
The White House has been alerted by NASA about plans to make an announcement soon on major new Phoenix lander discoveries concerning the "potential for life" on Mars, scientists tell Aviation Week & Space Technology.

Sources say the new data do not indicate the discovery of existing or past life on Mars. Rather the data relate to habitability--the "potential" for Mars to support life--at the Phoenix arctic landing site, sources say.


What could make the second sample more interesting on the issue of habitability than the first?

QUOTE
The MECA instrument, in its first of four wet chemistry runs a month ago, found soil chemistry that is "Earth-like" and capable of supporting life, researchers said then.

It is intriguing that MECA could have found anything more positive than that, but NASA and the University of Arizona are taking steps to prevent word from leaking out on the nature of the discovery made during MECA's second soil test, in which water from Earth was automatically stirred with Martian soil.



Posted by: Stu Aug 1 2008, 09:26 PM

Thanks 01 (is it ok if I call you "01"? wink.gif ) that's a very interesting read indeed. Sheds a little more light on that "huh? what?" question at last night's media conference.

There's an elephant right in the middle of the room now, isn't there..? smile.gif

Posted by: TheChemist Aug 1 2008, 09:33 PM

Hmm, the plot thickens...

Did they found indications some polar organic molecules from the soil dissolved in the water ?
They have to be polar to be water soluble, i.e. have -OH, -COOH, -NH2 functionalities.

However ... This begs the question what happened to the superoxides supposedly eating up the organics ?
I mentioned in the http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=5260&view=findpost&p=120571 that some scientists from the team claimed the alkaline pH is compatible with the presence of superoxides.

It sure will be a hot August this year rolleyes.gif


Posted by: nprev Aug 1 2008, 09:35 PM

Can I call you by your decimal equivalent, "105"? tongue.gif (Cool username, BTW!)

One possibility that just occurred to me is that MECA may have found carbonates in abundance, though obviously they've been mixed rather well into the soil given that they haven't been detected from orbit.


Posted by: fredk Aug 1 2008, 09:54 PM

QUOTE (fredk @ Aug 1 2008, 01:40 AM) *
As far as the reference to the science advisor, I'd say that was clearly facetious, not at all meant to be serious.

Sometimes real life is sillier than what you can make up huh.gif

Can any Americans out there give the rest of us some context here - what is the significance of briefing the Presidential Science Advisor's office? Does this happen often? Is the team obligated to do this under certain circumstances? Why do you think they would do this before going public? Etc etc...

Posted by: nprev Aug 1 2008, 09:57 PM

Fred, to answer your question...no, it's not common (at least it's not common for such activity to be publicly announced). This accounts for most of the buzz.

AFAIK, there are no protocols for this per se. However, it would seem prudent for any Federal agency to brief the Executive Branch prior to making any potentially headline-grabbing or controversial announcements.

Posted by: 1101001 Aug 1 2008, 10:01 PM

QUOTE (fredk @ Aug 1 2008, 02:54 PM) *
Can any Americans out there give the rest of us some context here - what is the significance of briefing the Presidential Science Advisor's office? Does this happen often? Is the team obligated to do this under certain circumstances? Why do you think they would do this before going public? Etc etc...


http://www.ostp.gov/

QUOTE
The Office of Science and Technology Policy advises the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The office serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans and programs of the Federal Government. OSTP leads an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets. The office works with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in science and technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national security.


I guess if you were a government scientist or contractor, and were on the way toward making an announcement that might cause reporters to ask opinions of the current White House resident, you'd probably want to give the OSTP a heads-up in advance, so they could get some answers ready.


Posted by: djellison Aug 1 2008, 10:42 PM

Lots of speculative posts in various threads. A bit of restraint is almost certainly called for - keep it sensible - and keep one eye on the forum rules ( especially regarding Politics )

Posted by: Oersted Aug 1 2008, 11:23 PM

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!

Oops, sorry... rolleyes.gif - Yes, restraint is certainly called for!

In the meantime, I suggest that MSL brings along plant seeds. We might as well start the terraforming asap.

Posted by: nprev Aug 1 2008, 11:34 PM

Well, as I just mentioned to a noted forum member, I am fully prepared to be underwhelmed. Suggest that this might be a productive attitude to adopt.

Posted by: PDP8E Aug 1 2008, 11:37 PM

my best guess

** methane **

the natural output of bacteria





Posted by: jmknapp Aug 1 2008, 11:44 PM

Here's an MP3 clip of Craig Covault's question:

http://cboh.org/~jmk/covault.mp3

Doesn't seem to be much in the answer to justify the hype or the subsequent article. Drs. Smith and Meyer answered dispassionately that the analysis will take one or two months, that the two MECA samples are similar, that they've found the soil to be alkaline & contain salts, etc. The only possibly cryptic thing was some reference by Smith to some "signatures" that require further analysis before they can say anything, but isn't that always the case?

Posted by: JRehling Aug 2 2008, 12:06 AM

Don't get really worried until there's a press conference announced with representatives of the TEGA team, the MECA team, and the US Strategic Air Command.

Posted by: nprev Aug 2 2008, 12:13 AM

QUOTE (JRehling @ Aug 1 2008, 05:06 PM) *
Don't get really worried until there's a press conference announced with representatives of the TEGA team, the MECA team, and the US Strategic Air Command.


We're clear, then. The Strategic Air Command (SAC) has been gone for more than a decade. Air Combat Command (ACC) is its successor. tongue.gif

EDIT: Oh, hell, now, wait a minute, stop this train! I just listened to Jim's excellent & very clear audio clip of the conference, and I think I get it now. Did not realize until now that Mr. Covault is a reporter for AW&ST, did not realize that he was the one who suggested briefing the White House Science Advisor, not any member of the Phoenix team!

The response to his question regarded ambigious signatures from the wet chem cells, which are not designed to detect organics or anything else controversial, really.

Move along, folks...nothing to see here. Dammit. sad.gif

Posted by: 1101001 Aug 2 2008, 12:43 AM

QUOTE (jmknapp @ Aug 1 2008, 04:44 PM) *
Doesn't seem to be much in the answer to justify the hype or the subsequent article.


You don't get the feeling from the article (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/WH08018.xml&headline=White%20House%20Briefed%20On%20Potential%20For%20Mars%20Life) that Covault is in contact with others (purported to be) on the team, the "sources", that are indicating provocative results, habitability results, briefing of the science adviser, and saying the key is water/soil behavior?

I don't think this speculation, nor the article, is only about what happened at the briefing: what Covault asked and what the response was.

Posted by: nprev Aug 2 2008, 01:00 AM

I would be extremely cautious about reading more into this than what actually was said at the press conference, though.

Let me put it this way: The Planetary Protection Protocols (PPP) allow a minimal amount of organic contamination even at the highest level (IIRC, something like 300 spores and/or bacteria per sq cm, and please somebody correct me if I'm wrong) because it is literally impossible to avoid it. So, in the worst (or best!)-case scenario, if somebody saw something 'swimming' in front of the optical microscope, it's still not possible to distinguish it from possible, even probable, terrestrial contamination.

Bottom line is that we're not gonna hear a positive announcement of what we'd all like to hear very much.

Gotta quote my high-school biology teacher again, who was passionately interested in the Vikings back in the day: "There is certainly life on Mars--now." (And actually well beforehand with booster impacts & the early Soviet probes.)

Posted by: 1101001 Aug 2 2008, 01:17 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 1 2008, 06:00 PM) *
Bottom line is that we're not gonna hear a positive announcement of what we'd all like to hear very much.


If you're referring to evidence of past or current life on Mars, the article says as much: that it's not about that.

Covault's article is about habitability. It's about provocative habitability results. Maybe his sources are wrong. Maybe not. Let's focus on what he wrote and what others know or think they know. But, I see no virtue in arbitrarily limiting it to the interaction at the press conference. Emily Lakdawalla spoke of hearing rumors about interesting MECA results. Maybe it's all rumor and no substance. Or not.

Posted by: nprev Aug 2 2008, 01:28 AM

QUOTE (1101001 @ Aug 1 2008, 06:17 PM) *
Maybe it's all rumor and no substance. Or not.


Gotta bet on the former, really. MECA's "habitability" detection abilities would seem to be confined to the wet chem experiment, so maybe they're just talking about finding carbon, phosphorus, etc.

I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop, for the general media to grab this story & go crazy. This concerns me, because the build-up & subsequent let-down sure don't help the scientific credibilty of UMSF, nor does it foster public support.

Posted by: ilbasso Aug 2 2008, 02:19 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 1 2008, 05:35 PM) *
Can I call you by your decimal equivalent, "105"? tongue.gif (Cool username, BTW!)


I think you should think in hexadecimal for the solution to the nickname. His avatar then makes sense too.

Edit: Sorry, I was slow on the uptake that you already got it. It has been a long week and I'm tired!!

Posted by: vjkane Aug 2 2008, 02:35 AM

Check out http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1297

"The White House has been alerted by NASA about plans to make an announcement soon on major new Phoenix lander discoveries concerning the "potential for life" on Mars, scientists tell Aviation Week & Space Technology...."

Posted by: Aussie Aug 2 2008, 02:43 AM

QUOTE (ilbasso @ Aug 2 2008, 03:19 AM) *
His avatar then makes sense too.


Hey, I had missed that. laugh.gif

Trouble is that this smart alec technique by Covault has already stirred up some expectations (and led to some some startling revelations on some of the more speculative forums). Dissatisfaction exists where outcomes don't meet expectations and I don't think Covault has done anyone any favours, particularly not the mission team.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 2 2008, 03:32 AM

Covault is a real professional who has earned some very deep connections. He has a rep. He's not going to throw it away on some silly speculation.

I also know he is really keen on Mars and loved his time "embedded" with the MER team. I suspect his perhaps mischievous question at the press conference might have been a little tweak, but how should one ask that question knowing now what Craig was preparing for publication? (Personally, I thought Smith slapped him down a bit during one of the earlier conferences - and it sure didn't look like he enjoyed this question.)

As for the White House - of course NASA doesn't want them to read about really great discoveries in the newspapers. I thought, in government, your masters are >always< in the loop. Griffin should know what's coming down the pike, no? He'd need to tell his boss, just like he got told by his subordinates. Naiveté?? Ho, Ho! (yes)

I'm betting the news will be better than expected from this mission. Maybe the best news from any Mars mission so far. I'll say a 4 on a scale from 0 (ruddy dead moonlike) to 10 (there is a fossil). Water is a 3, actual real life: 500. Make your own scale!

EDIT: and by 4 I mean Mars can support Earth life at a chemical level. Still thinking about 5-9...

Posted by: nprev Aug 2 2008, 03:46 AM

Mmm...seems like a pretty good analysis from here, Paul. Didn't know how tight Mr. C. was with the JPL/Mars exploration community--but I'm gonna bet that those relations are a bit strained right now.

Gotta remember (which I didn't know near the beginning of this thread; thought we were talking TEGA) that MECA isn't designed for anything but physical and inorganic chemical studies. I am frankly confounded by the idea of any major discoveries that might have been made by this instrument suite with respect to (as stated) "habitability". Just can't see anything world-shaking. Did they find some compounds suitable for use by terrestrial plants? If so, interesting, but not worth the buzz.

Posted by: Pavel Aug 2 2008, 03:56 AM

I guess it's a nitrogen compound. Ammonia perhaps, which would explain why the soil is so basic. Nitrogen is one of the basic blocks of life. And ammonia is a fertilizer.

Posted by: nprev Aug 2 2008, 04:11 AM


That sure sounds like a good guess, Pavel. AFAIK, we've never identified a nitrogen compound on Mars before, so scientifically and to the members of this community that would be big news indeed!

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 2 2008, 04:14 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 1 2008, 11:46 PM) *
Didn't know how tight Mr. C. was with the JPL/Mars exploration community--but I'm gonna bet that those relations are a bit strained right now.

Very interesting point. I don't know how Av Week can be both bête noir and bible to the same community, but they seem to be.
QUOTE
Just can't see anything world-shaking. Did they find some compounds suitable for use by terrestrial plants? If so, interesting, but not worth the buzz.

So that's a 1 on your scale? For this mission, not finding any water would have been news, I think. Don't know what else but the chemistry is worth the buzz. (Of course they are doing science. This is knowledge. Just maybe not news.)

Posted by: bcory Aug 2 2008, 04:20 AM

maybe they found an amino acid..

Or just an amine for you ammonia/nitrogen fans

just saying

Posted by: nprev Aug 2 2008, 04:26 AM

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 1 2008, 09:14 PM) *
So that's a 1 on your scale?


Yeah, I'll sign off on that. My bet is that they found some interesting inorganic compounds (we always, always find something unexpected, after all...that's why we go!).

But...it's just another piece of the puzzle...not an epiphany. (Not to denigrate puzzle pieces at all; we need them badly.)

Of course, always happy to be proven wrong! smile.gif Let's wait & see what they say.

Posted by: jmjawors Aug 2 2008, 04:28 AM

Nitrogen was my thought as well. They specifically "called it out" as something that was missing from their first WCL analysis... though I also believe they said it would be really hard to detect if it were there.

Methane (as someone suggested) would really be provocative, wouldn't it?

After these two, my next best guess is they found the elusive chupacabra. Hey... it's gotta be somewhere! wacko.gif

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 2 2008, 04:41 AM

One other point re: the press conference. Personally, I don't like being manipulated, and if the MECA guys had the real >potential< news, they should have been there and said we >think< there is Holy X! BUT we need to confirm it. Now that flies in the face of the saving your stuff for the big reveal and being risk averse, but at that press conference, that would have been honest (assuming of course that there is some big thing they know about and would warn the White House about). Save great news for later so it doesn't step on the toes of good news? That may very well be smart current practice, but it is PR.

EDIT: removed last gratuitous bit about NASA PR.

Posted by: nprev Aug 2 2008, 04:47 AM

Hmm. Your comment kicked my brain, Jim.

How do N compounds form in our terrestrial experience? I am shamefully ignorant, but what I know is that nitrogen oxides are generated during high-energy events like lightning. The only other mechanism I personally know of is the "nitrogen fixing" process employed by symbiotic bacteria for legumes.

I know that there have to be many other pathways, but I just expended all the knowledge I have right there. If they've found N compounds, that certainly would be of major interest.

Posted by: Stu Aug 2 2008, 05:57 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 2 2008, 02:28 AM) *
This concerns me, because the build-up & subsequent let-down sure don't help the scientific credibilty of UMSF, nor does it foster public support.


I think that's the wrong way to look at this story, to be honest. I actually think this is a perfect and excellent example of what UMSF does - i.e. takes a story into a bare room, locks the door, sits it in a hard chair, shines a lamp in its face and interrogates it until the truth comes out. It's taken just three pages to sift some nuggets of truth out of this story, thanks to great input from some very knowledgeable members, and now we're all a lot clearer about what's possibly going on. So I think this kind of thing - as was the case with that "pools of water found in Endurance Crater" story - actually enhances UMSF's scientific credibility. It shows we think for ourselves here, are open to debate and discussion, and let the science, not the spooks, do the talking.

As for fostering public support, this isn't that big a story "Out There" yet, but when it becomes one, as it will as rumours spread, we're all better placed now to put it into perspective.

So don't feel too concerned Nick, these are all good things, I think. smile.gif



Posted by: Reed Aug 2 2008, 07:02 AM

QUOTE (Pavel @ Aug 1 2008, 08:56 PM) *
I guess it's a nitrogen compound. Ammonia perhaps, which would explain why the soil is so basic.

Ammonia was expected as a byproduct of the thruster plumes. IIRC it was not found (at least not in significant quantities in the initial analysis) in the first MECA WCL run. I'm pretty sure that was discussed in the press conference for the first WCL sample, but I can't seem to find the transcript. Of course that was very preliminary, but I'd expect them to be very cautious about claiming to have found native ammonia.

As to what the story is, I don't even have a guess.

Posted by: djellison Aug 2 2008, 08:26 AM

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 2 2008, 05:41 AM) *
if the MECA guys had the real >potential< news, they should have been there and said we >think< there is Holy X! BUT we need to confirm it.


No. No no no no no no no no no.

If it's in any way 'big' news - you have to sit your scientists down and make sure they've got it DAMN right before you tell anyone. Make sure the story is totaly solid, the data is checked, and rechecked, and that there's no chance of this being wrong.

You can't go 'We think we've found something amazing' and then 10 days later ' oops - sorry - calibration problem'. That's a massive embarassment for the team, and for NASA.



Posted by: djellison Aug 2 2008, 08:34 AM

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 2 2008, 04:32 AM) *
. I suspect his perhaps mischievous question at the press conference might have been a little tweak, but how should one ask that question knowing now what Craig was preparing for publication?


In private, after the press conf or by telephone. Not by raising a nightmare of almost certainly inappropriate speculation and hyperbole by being quite so smug and veiled. I like Craig, I like his articles, and I like the fact he'll take creations by people here and publish them. But I really don't like the way he's handled this. If nothing else, he's given us an admin headache.

Posted by: Stu Aug 2 2008, 09:29 AM

I may be in a minority here (no change there then! smile.gif ), but I think it was more mischevious and oportunistic than eevil. I mean, he's a journalist, he had a bit of juicy insider info, and he had a chance to personally ask mission scientists - at the first media Q&A for ages - about a story he was on to. He was kind of obliged to do that, cos that's his job, isn't it, to ask questions? He also gave the scientists a chance to comment on the story before publishing it, which is quite courteous isn't it?

And again, I think this is quite healthy for us here because it's allowed people - like me - who aren't fully up to speed on the hard science a chance to be educated about it by people who are, which is one of the reasons I love it here so much. I learn new things every day from people waaay more intelligent and experienced than myself, who I wouldn't have a hope in hell of communicating with any other way.




Posted by: jmknapp Aug 2 2008, 11:19 AM

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 1 2008, 11:41 PM) *
Now that flies in the face of the saving your stuff for the big reveal and being risk averse, but at that press conference, that would have been honest (assuming of course that there is some big thing they know about...


I agree. the way the question played out at the press conference, the way Smith and Meyer deadpanned and downplayed any results, would be a bit dishonest in retrospect if indeed it turns out they were sitting on some news that they even briefed the Office of Science and Technology (Marburger) about. So that casts doubt on the substance.

Posted by: nprev Aug 2 2008, 12:54 PM

Stu, when I used the term UMSF before I wasn't talking about our forum, and your observations were right on; the folks here are absolute bloodhounds with PhDs when it comes to separating fact from fancy in all respects during times like this! I was actually referring to the planetary science community itself, which as we all know struggles for support & funding at all times.

Thus far at least, the wider media doesn't seem to have picked up on the story-to-be, which IMHO is good news. Speculation's run wild even within our little community, and I shudder to think of what might happen if the speculation goes wideband. As an example, here's a headline from the New Jersey Trentonian shortly after the ALH84001 announcement, verbatim:

"Mars Poop No Cause For Alarm"

(Nope; that's not a joke. Wish it was. sad.gif )

Posted by: Stu Aug 2 2008, 01:32 PM


QUOTE
Stu, when I used the term UMSF before I wasn't talking about our forum... I was actually referring to the planetary science community itself, which as we all know struggles for support & funding at all times.


Ah, gotcha! Makes sense now.

QUOTE
Thus far at least, the wider media doesn't seem to have picked up on the story-to-be...and I shudder to think of what might happen if the speculation goes wideband.


Shudder away. The story is on NASAWATCH, and that usually feeds other big sites, so start your engines... ohmy.gif

No, seriously, c'mon guys, everyone, lighten up smile.gif This isn't necessarily a bad thing, you know? I mean, so far everyone has done everything right: NASA hasn't announced anything too early, or dumbed anything down; people here have been analytical and restrained; CNN and the BBC aren't scrolling bright red, flashing "Breaking News! Life Found On Mars!!!" tickers and we're talking seriously here about a scenario where very, very important results come back from a Mars mission, and even if those results don't come back from this mission then one day - hopefully - we'll be here discussing a confirmed detection of Something Interesting.

Try to think of this as a test of the system, and the test worked. No forum frenzy, no premature announcements on White House lawns, no sensationalist tabloid coverage, and everyone here is now a lot more savvy with MECA and Phoenix hard science.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 2 2008, 03:02 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Aug 2 2008, 03:26 AM) *
You can't go 'We think we've found something amazing' and then 10 days later ' oops - sorry - calibration problem'. That's a massive embarassment for the team, and for NASA.

I really do see your point and the realist in me agrees. But why would they have informed the White House if they weren't more confident? Also, they had a press conference to talk about the progress of the mission. They speculate and get stuff wrong and we don't hold it against them - we get to bird-dog this essential human process because we paid for it and it is exciting. When the papers come out and there is a calibration problem, then they can be embarrassed.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 2 2008, 03:16 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Aug 2 2008, 03:26 AM) *
If it's in any way 'big' news - you have to sit your scientists down and make sure they've got it DAMN right before you tell anyone. Make sure the story is totaly solid, the data is checked, and rechecked, and that there's no chance of this being wrong.

I guess this is what I'm whining about. It is science. There is always that little (or big) corner of doubt and, although they should know in this small instance what they've got exactly, they should be talking as if to a broad community that understands that all scientific announcements are contingent. I wonder if trying to manage the message doesn't contribute to the misunderstanding about science in society. And then there is the problem of reporters who take their job seriously and find out stuff they're maybe not >supposed< to know...

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 2 2008, 03:21 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ Aug 2 2008, 04:29 AM) *
And again, I think this is quite healthy for us here because it's allowed people - like me - who aren't fully up to speed on the hard science a chance to be educated about it by people who are, which is one of the reasons I love it here so much. I learn new things every day from people waaay more intelligent and experienced than myself, who I wouldn't have a hope in hell of communicating with any other way.

I profoundly agree with this, and your whole attitude about the situation Stu. This is a great site and all you smart guys have made this a lot of fun.

Posted by: fredk Aug 2 2008, 03:53 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Aug 2 2008, 09:26 AM) *
If it's in any way 'big' news - you have to sit your scientists down and make sure they've got it DAMN right before you tell anyone.

Agreed. But I have to say I don't think we can blame Covault here for publishing his story. It's the responsibility of the science team to keep the results quiet in these situations, and somebody leaked this (Covault should've heard corroboration from more than one actually).

I agree completely with others that this could become a nightmare if it gets out widely. Loved your "sit it down on a hard chair" analogy, Stu! It's not us I'm worried about, though - we can take care of ourselves. It's the public out there, and the potential black eye on the team if expectations are raised way up and then dashed because the calibration was wrong, or because the result is just "underwhelming", in nprev's words.

I also must stress a point Paul just touched on. Can some blame also be put on the people at the top of the Phoenix program for briefing the presidential advisor well before they were certain enough to go public (which Covault claims could even be September)? Shouldn't it have seemed likely that, with a team of this size, that fact might be leaked and cause a great headache?

Posted by: imipak Aug 2 2008, 04:18 PM

Talk about admin headaches - it can't be much fun to be a PI and discover that someone on the team's said something that they shouldn't have to a journalist. I suspect more of that annoyance will be directed towards the team than the journalist.

What puzzles me is that, given the pretty feeble press coverage of the mission so far (only one front page article on the sensationally superb EDL, for instance), what could be likely to get significant MSM coverage? Methane? Well, maybe. I can't see carbonates or nitrogen compounds making the front page, though. Believe it or not, the public are really pretty disinterested in the chemical make-up of Martian regolith, until it gets so complex it falls into a different discipline altogether; and as we know, MECA can't really do that.

As I was about to post this, I noticed it's hit Slashdot... just in time to make the tabloids on Sunday here in the UK. That's not as bad as it sounds, though, IMO -- it'll be wrapping fish and chips* by Tuesday, I suspect.

*metaphorical fish and chips, that is... >nostalgic sigh for the days when it came wrapped in real newspaper<

Posted by: nprev Aug 2 2008, 04:41 PM

Good post, Fred. No, I don't blame Covault (though I still think he hung his a** out on the line with respect to future access to insider info this time); he's a reporter, he reported, that's what they do. Was a little ticked off at him from a social responsibility viewpoint before, but I've had time to read & think. (Thanks, Stu! smile.gif )

What I lately find most intriguing is that it will apparently take at least a month to release this finding, and presumably this is due to the need to confirm, confirm, confirm. The MECA sampling schedule might be something interesting to watch; wonder if there will be any changes.


Posted by: Stu Aug 2 2008, 05:21 PM

Coverage of this story on http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/02/the-white-house-is-briefed-phoenix-about-to-announce-potential-for-life-on-mars/#comments...

Posted by: mcaplinger Aug 2 2008, 06:05 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ Aug 2 2008, 06:32 AM) *
The story is on NASAWATCH...

Where, according to Cowing, we are in "smug elitist mode" rolleyes.gif

I honestly don't understand that guy sometimes.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 2 2008, 06:06 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ Aug 2 2008, 08:32 AM) *
Shudder away. The story is on NASAWATCH, and that usually feeds other big sites, so start your engines... ohmy.gif

Not only is the story there but Doug got http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/breaking_mars_s.html! This "smug elitist" (hahaha) "BBS" got criticized with Cowings' renowned side-dish of bile. Badge of Honour, Doug!

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 2 2008, 06:07 PM

QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Aug 2 2008, 01:05 PM) *
I honestly don't understand that guy sometimes.

He has some good things to say, but he just doesn't know how to play with the other kids...

Posted by: nprev Aug 2 2008, 06:31 PM

Er....let's not add to the admin's headaches here, guys. Starting a pie fight with this bunch does not seem productive; unlike grade-school bullies, it really is best to ignore this with dignity.

Worst comes to worst, I'll just call Chuck Norris. smile.gif

Posted by: Stu Aug 2 2008, 06:47 PM

That's a great shame, because I find NASAWATCH very informative and quite a treasure trove of stuff-you-can't-find-anywhere-else...

The NASAWATCH website's banner declares: This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. Well, anyone coming here from that story will learn something; they'll read no diatribes, only a lot of informed debate and discussion, which will help them make sense of the story just like it has helped all of us. So in a way KC has done his curious readers a favour by pointing them in our direction. And ironically, any NASA readers who come here will find only support for them and their work, so I think his attack on us, and Doug in particular, is kind of wasted. NASA readers will find only friends here.

smile.gif

Posted by: djellison Aug 2 2008, 07:00 PM

QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Aug 2 2008, 07:05 PM) *
I honestly don't understand that guy sometimes.


You're not alone. Somehow, the fact that I don't think Craig picked the best time or place to ask Pete what the story was, and the fact that we are now talking about the story now it has broken, are contradictory.

But hey - getting flamed by Cowing twice - that's got to be something worth feeling smug about. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 2 2008, 07:12 PM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 2 2008, 02:31 PM) *
Starting a pie fight with this bunch does not seem productive; unlike grade-school bullies, it really is best to ignore this with dignity.

Right! Sorry. (But I have so much pie...)

Posted by: stevesliva Aug 2 2008, 07:15 PM

I was enjoying both the speculation and the meta conversation until I read the NASA watch post. I agree with the point, but there's no reason to be ad hominem.

The speculation's been interesting, just because it gets folk's thoughts out there on what some really cool results would be. And we know it's just speculation.

The meta-conversation about Aviation Leak has been interesting as well. Can't really get ticked at anyone doing their job. And the non-photo instruments could actually hold their cards less closely it might help the public understand that there's a scientific method before these scientific pronouncements. Far too many people think that scientists shake up their facts like a boggle game and find only exactly what they're looking for. Global warming denialists especially. For the team to flat out say "We aren't sure yet, but we're excited," just rams home the skeptical nature of science. On the other hand, announcing that NASA scientists have some exciting results but they're unsure might be fodder for conspiracy theorists--AWST always has been--but they're lost souls anyways.

Posted by: centsworth_II Aug 2 2008, 08:08 PM

Scientists face increasing pressure from interested outsiders (often invoking the chant: "My tax dollars payed for this.") demanding to look over their shoulders as they undergo the difficult task of reading and interpreting their data.

Perhaps they should hang a sign similar to that used by some car mechanics:


Posted by: djellison Aug 2 2008, 08:25 PM

One thing's for sure - it's going to be an exciting month!

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 2 2008, 09:07 PM

QUOTE (centsworth_II @ Aug 2 2008, 04:08 PM) *
Scientists face increasing pressure from interested outsiders (often invoking the chant: "My tax dollars payed for this.") demanding to look over their shoulders as they undergo the difficult task of reading and interpreting their data.

I think that misses the point. I don't want to look over their shoulder while they do the work (well I do really, but I get it). However, when they have a press conference I want them to be able to describe the state of their work with the appropriate caveats. Your mechanic analogy is more like hearing an explosion from the garage and asking, what was that? "I'll tell you when I know exactly what happened" is not as useful as "your car blew up, but I don't know why yet."

Posted by: dvandorn Aug 2 2008, 09:21 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Aug 2 2008, 02:00 PM) *
But hey - getting flamed by Cowing twice - that's got to be something worth feeling smug about. rolleyes.gif

I was going to say -- I *am* a smug elitist. Don't know about the rest of y'all... rolleyes.gif

-the other Doug

Posted by: PFK Aug 2 2008, 09:26 PM

One minute it was all about ice delivery to ovens, and now this crops up! In a matter of hours we've gone from the sublimed to the ridiculous laugh.gif

Posted by: Stu Aug 2 2008, 09:34 PM

QUOTE (PFK @ Aug 2 2008, 10:26 PM) *
One minute it was all about ice delivery to ovens, and now this crops up! In a matter of hours we've gone from the sublimed to the ridiculous laugh.gif


Genius sir, absolute genius.

( I am SO going to use that on my blog and in my talks!! laugh.gif )

Posted by: nprev Aug 2 2008, 09:34 PM

laugh.gif ...good one, PFK!

In a way, I'm honored...never been accused of being elite and/or association with same in ANY way, shape or form before!

Well...<stretches>...time to go outside, fire up a stogie, crack a beer, and watch the neighborhood crackheads panhandle while the kids paint graffiti on my apartment building...just another day for us LA elitists here...

Posted by: gpurcell Aug 2 2008, 09:39 PM

Just saw a post on this on the general political discussion board I frequent, so it is definitely beginning a break out into the wider media.

How long before the Drudge Report link, ya think?

Posted by: nprev Aug 2 2008, 09:41 PM

Oh, crap. Probably not long at all; propogation times are short absent major international news of other types.

Fasten your seat belts.

Posted by: Stu Aug 2 2008, 09:51 PM

Well, it's no huge surprise is it? Once the media bloodhounds get a whiff of a story-scented scrap of cloth that's it...

You can't keep things like this under wraps, not in this modern world when there's pseudo-glory to be gained by gathering and then revealing info before everyone else.

Whatever will be, will be. Steady on chaps. Don't panic. Remember you're UMSF... smile.gif

Posted by: centsworth_II Aug 2 2008, 09:52 PM

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 2 2008, 05:07 PM) *
...when they have a press conference I want them to be able to describe the state of their work with the appropriate caveats...

If the MECA results merit their own press conference, great. Then that is what they should have... in due course.

PS: I do feel your pain. smile.gif

Posted by: belleraphon1 Aug 3 2008, 01:14 AM

For myself, I was just surprised by Craig Covault's question. The more so because man is a professional. Been doing this space reporting for a long time. I respect him. But I have to agree with our esteemed smug elitist Doug. You do not embarrass your sources in public.

DO look forward to whatever MECA has found..... more grist for the mill.

Craig ....Proud to be a UMSF contributor






Posted by: jmknapp Aug 3 2008, 01:39 AM

QUOTE (Stu @ Aug 2 2008, 05:51 PM) *
Well, it's no huge surprise is it? Once the media bloodhounds get a whiff of a story-scented scrap of cloth that's it...


Doing a quick check, the search terms "mars" and "science advisor" only bring up two relevant articles on Google News, one the AW&ST article, and one regurgitation of same on worldnetdaily. Searching for "mars" and "white house" picks up the slashdot post. That's about it for Google News.

In the general blogosphere, technorati shows only a few references. Searching on "mars" and "covault" brings up the "Breaking Mars Story: Noise From The BBS Crowd" snark from nasawatch--also a http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2008/08/02/phoenix-on-mars-life-message-from-meca/ with no comments.

In short, fears of the unwashed masses appear to be greatly exaggerated--rather, the problem is that most people aren't even aware what Phoenix is, other than the city, & could only be enlightened by exposure to the fact that intriguing chemical analyses are being done by a spacecraft of that name on Mars.

Posted by: dvandorn Aug 3 2008, 01:49 AM

I dunno... a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I got a journalism degree in college, and actually worked in newspapers for a couple of years (until I discovered I could make *tons* more money in technical writing).

I have something of a clue of how these things work. And I'd bet y'all any money the sequence went something like this:

Craig Covault is sitting around his office and gets a call from a friend who monitors the White House beat (likely for some other news organization). Let's face it, Covault isn't a White House correspondent.

Covault's friend says, "Hey, I just got word that your Mars lander guys came and gave a special presentation to the President. What the <bleep> is happening over on your side of the street, Craig?"

Covault guardedly replies, "Nothing they've told *me*."

Whereupon friend correspondent says, "Well, they have to have *something* hot, or they wouldn't be briefing the White House."

Now, if you're Craig Covault at that moment, maybe having nursed some private concerns over the very, very little information that has been released from the first TEGA run and from the WCL runs, just how are you going to feel? Maybe just a little, well... blindsided?

I can't blame the man for reacting the way he did. If the above scenario is correct, Covault got his skinny from a political reporter, while his own contacts in the Phoenix team and in the space industry in general had not only not given him any hints of this, it might just feel to him like his contacts have been deliberately withholding information from him. (Please note, I am *not* particularly suggesting that is the case, or that it would be un-called-for even if true -- I'm only suggesting that this scenario may have made Covault *feel* like that.)

If it were me, and especially if private questions along the same lines had been stonewalled, then heck, yes, I'll ask the question at a press conference. If I'm feeling like my contacts don't respect me, then I'm more motivated to remind them that respect is a two-way street.

Again, speaking from the point of view of someone who has worked the reporter's side of the street, and knows a little bit about the somewhat lunatic dynamic between a beat reporter and his/her contacts.

-the other Doug

Posted by: andrea Aug 3 2008, 06:16 AM

Nasawatch.com comments on the phoenix twitter: "Heard about the recent news reports implying I may have found Martian life. Those reports are incorrect".

While I disagree about his comment re: this forum, I think that Keith Cowing is right that NASA PAO is sleeping on this. The confusion between finding life and "potential for life" will be lost to the public IMHO unless cleared up by NASA.

Posted by: CosmicRocker Aug 3 2008, 07:19 AM

Hehe! It's so much fun to speculate about things like this. IMmostHO, interested members here should bite their tongues, and refrain from further public comments until the "official news" is released by the relevant scientists. To be honest, we have no idea with regard to what they may have discovered, unless someone of us is a very lucky insider.

"lost to the public..." I wouldn't discount the public as lost.

Posted by: Sunspot Aug 3 2008, 10:17 AM

Well the twitter page seem to refute ALL of this story. No Whitehouse briefing has ever taken place. huh.gif

Posted by: djellison Aug 3 2008, 10:48 AM

QUOTE
Reports claiming there was a White House briefing are also untrue and incorrect.

Heard about the recent news reports implying I may have found Martian life. Those reports are incorrect


Curiouser and curiouser.

Posted by: marsbug Aug 3 2008, 11:57 AM

I go away for one week to move house and everyone thinks they've discovered life on mars.. tut tut tut rolleyes.gif
Seriously, I'm going to wait for an official announcement before I let myself think anything.

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 01:29 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Aug 3 2008, 03:48 AM) *
Curiouser and curiouser.


I'm tellin' ya...it's all hype, and not hype constructed or clearly wanted by the Phoenix team or NASA. There's a bad odor about. unsure.gif

Posted by: Stu Aug 3 2008, 02:01 PM

Oh, definitely hype, but hype of a mysterious, shiny new-found nugget of Interesting Science. There is a story here. Almost certainly not anything that's going to force a paradigm-shift, or going to prompt a White House lawn press announcement, but hopefully something that will confidently tap another piece of the 1 million piece jigsaw of martian history into place. smile.gif

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 02:24 PM

I completely agree. smile.gif It's going to be interesting, regardless.

Posted by: jmjawors Aug 3 2008, 02:36 PM

Has anyone seen any of these news reports implying the discovery of Martian life that "Phoenix" is talking about? It's irrelevant, I know, but I'm just curious about what she's talking about. I haven't seen anything like that.

Posted by: Stu Aug 3 2008, 02:59 PM

I think it's just the same story but spun a little wilder, that's all. Some commentators are adding 2 and 2 and getting 5, others are rounding it up to 10 and moving at Warp Factor Whacko towards the announcement of Phoenix having found critters on Mars. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 03:04 PM

Of course there's life on Mars. Chuck Norris is everywhere, all the time...watching!

Posted by: jmjawors Aug 3 2008, 03:17 PM

Actually, Chuck Norris has already been to Mars; that's why there are no signs of life there. wink.gif

For what it's worth (which is admittedly not much), my take on all this is that it's sort of a "lose/lose" situation. Though I think that Mr. Covault's approach to his question at the briefing was odd and mildly uncomfortable (definite hints of conspiracy in his tone), he certainly has every right and reason to publish his article. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. However, the scientists need to do what they need to do in verifying this potentially "provocative" data before releasing it. At the same time, I honestly don't blame the 'lay person' out there who might read too much into this story because, let's face it, what else are they supposed to read into it?

*sigh*

As someone else said, this will be an interesting month. I find it funny that it has truly turned into a "he said/she said" story (Covault and Phoenix). laugh.gif

Posted by: tasp Aug 3 2008, 03:20 PM

{Let me point out I have no inside information, and don't know in great detail how the MECA instrument works}

Can the MECA instrument image a particular sample more than once, and/or at regular intervals ??

And if it did, and something 'got bigger', 'changed color', disappeared, multiplied, or spelled out "all these worlds are yours, except Europa", we might speculate something is indeed "up".

But I hasten to add, scientists would have to rule out vibration in the lander from shaking things around in the sample, or weird (inorganic) chemicals are etching the sample holder or crystallizing, or maybe volatiles are migrating around the sample, etc.

There could be something going on, that while extremely interesting to scientist, might nevertheless be dull and boring to the public at large.

Things like color changes, shifting of granules, and volatiles condensing, might at first glance be one of those "OMG!" moments, but then good old prosaictivity rears it's head, and for the public at least, it's all a big yawn.





Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 03:22 PM

I just read this on Keith's site:

"Of course, the denizens of that BBS will soon enage in attacks on me and NASA Watch in response - things that Mr. Ellison loftily claims to forbid on his website - but allows to persist when he sees fit. Oh well, Doug, so much (again) for consistency ..."

...and looking at the thread, I think I am mostly to blame for opening the NASA Watch door and am the one who wrote insulting things about Keith. So, I'm sorry. I'll get the hang of the tone you all maintain here - which I really enjoy.

As for Keith, I should apologize also. I actually think he does a very great service and many of his critiques are right on. I just think he would be more effective if he wasn't so obnoxious when he delivers his shots. He is completely wrong about this "BBS" however, and, if he really read the back and forth here, would see this isn't a UMSF "nation" of sycophants.

And now I will concentrate on adding to the signal, not the noise...

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 03:30 PM

QUOTE (jmjawors @ Aug 3 2008, 11:17 AM) *
my take on all this is that it's sort of a "lose/lose" situation.

I agree somebody will lose and that makes me sad. It'll be either "get your facts straight" or "never, ever, play the press." My hope is that the team will "lose," but no one will care because the news will be "Come to Mars - just bring your seeds, air and radiation protection." The Phoenix team has done a great job, regardless.

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 03:33 PM

Well...let's just put it in perspective: Is any of this worth it? We all know & very much value this forum, wouldn't be here if we didn't.

One of the best things about getting older is that you just don't give a damn what people think or say about you anymore because you have nothing left to prove. I think that UMSF in Internet years has certainly reached the same level of maturity, and the richness of the dialogue & contributions by our extremely talented & knowledgable membership (me excluded!) certainly stand on their own merits, as has been proven by numerous publications & citations in print and elsewhere on the Web. UMSF has nothing left to prove by any standard.

---

Tasp, regarding MECA microscopy: Certainly a possibility, one I have considered, but I'd have to rule it out given the unequivocal denial from the Phoenix Twitter. Think that detection of carbon and/or nitrogen compounds is the front-runner by far.

Posted by: Greg Hullender Aug 3 2008, 03:51 PM

Does anyone have a feel for how significant it is for a team to "brief" the President's Science Advisor on preliminary results? Maybe my own getting-older experience is just making me dense, but I'm failing to see why there's a story here.

--Greg

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 04:14 PM

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 3 2008, 10:30 AM) *
"Come to Mars - just bring your seeds, air and radiation protection."

Correction: I guess if there is nitrogen and water and diggable dirt it could really just be "bring your seeds!"

Posted by: imipak Aug 3 2008, 04:46 PM

Well, who knows. If there's anything more to this than silly season hype, it'll be interesting to read/ogle when it's released. Meanwhile, I'm just casting around for an excuse to say: "Ahead, Warp Factor: Wacko!" -- great phrase, Stu! biggrin.gif Though perhaps I should prefer "Speed: Standard by Fruit Loop", per the "Dr Who" thread...

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 05:04 PM

QUOTE (Greg Hullender @ Aug 3 2008, 08:51 AM) *
Does anyone have a feel for how significant it is for a team to "brief" the President's Science Advisor on preliminary results?


Well, for a planetary mission it would be pretty significant indeed...mostly, the Presidential Science Advisor is concerned with developments that might have a direct economic, military, or social impact that would require rapid position and/or policy formation, so it's not done lightly. However, this apparently has not occurred.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 05:17 PM

QUOTE
However, this apparently has not occurred.

You mean from Phoenix twittering from Mars? Bizarre, bizarre PAO response! Could very well be the right one.

imipak, aren't we s'posed to speculate? Like the thread says? I almost want to start a bingo card half populated with "nothing here" and half with >plausible<, non-wacko possibilities. Have a bit of fun with a really weird situation.

Posted by: aggieastronaut Aug 3 2008, 05:24 PM

I maintain the Phoenix Facebook profile, and I've been getting quite a few messages and wall posts about it. I got an interesting one saying the goverment was full of ignorant people and only the "true" fans of Phoenix should know what was discussed...

*headdesk commences*

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 05:30 PM

I think that they shut down the most controversial speculation amongst those of us that follow the mission closely rather effectively, but you've got a point. Hopefully there will be a press release soon that will at least set constraints on the possible finding in order to prevent widespread speculation that might lead to unrealistic expectations.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 05:37 PM

QUOTE (aggieastronaut @ Aug 3 2008, 01:24 PM) *
I maintain the Phoenix Facebook profile

Ah! I take it back. Brilliant non-PAO response!

Posted by: Stu Aug 3 2008, 05:49 PM

Hi aggie! Heck of a time for a first post, welcome aboard! laugh.gif Don't bang your head on that desk too hard and knock yourself out, got a sneaking suspicion you're going to be rather busy the next few weeks... wink.gif

Posted by: aggieastronaut Aug 3 2008, 05:57 PM

Indeed! I had made one for MER awhile ago as more a joke than anything, but then I was asked to make one for Phoenix, and now just about every mission has one! Kepler, Hubble, LRO, LCROSS, Aura, Glory, Webb, GLAST... the list goes on! It's a pretty good way to educate people in an informal way.

And I promise I won't hit too hard, I do go back to Tucson on Friday. smile.gif

Posted by: glennwsmith Aug 3 2008, 06:05 PM

Here are a few thoughts that have percolated up for me in the hours since this story broke:

1. IF Covault is correct about the White House Science Office getting into the act, the news involves something [way] more important than discovering, say, nitrogen or carbon compounds.

2. Somebody needs to create a transcript of the the brief press conference segment involving Covault, in the absence of which, and based on several listenings, I would note that the Phoenix team had the opportunity to put the damper on Covault's speculation, and did not do so.

3. One could interpret the and demeanor of the Phoenix team at the press conference as that of a group of people sitting on something really big. The NASA chief (Meyers?) was literally stumbling out of the gate; Peter Smith acted like a robot scanning slowly left to right; and Boynton -- well, he blurted out what in theory was his big news right at the beginning, and then acted like a maniac for the rest of his segment -- yeah, I know these guys need to unwind and have their fun, but the witch hat was a bit over the top -- not even really that relevant or clever. So one interpretation would be that there is something really big going on just off stage.

Posted by: tasp Aug 3 2008, 06:08 PM


Biggest discovery they could make on Mars would be petroleum . . .


blink.gif



Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 06:15 PM

QUOTE (glennwsmith @ Aug 3 2008, 02:05 PM) *
I would note that the Phoenix team had the opportunity to put the damper on Covault's speculation, and did not do so.

There >will< have to be a more formal response to him than Phoenix twittering from Mars. He is a Senior Editor at a major publication with a strong hint of a blockbuster story. I just don't know what it should be in either case, if he's wrong or right.

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 06:18 PM

Okay, you guys, c'mon!!!! rolleyes.gif

Tasp, unless petroleum reaches US $100,000 a barrel (at least!), it ain't gonna be worth it. Glenn, body language interpretation isn't the most reliable way to discern facts, and if they were squirming it's at least as likely that the explanation is that they were uncomfortable with the public attention. (The witch's hat was pretty funny, though; one thing that happens to people working hard & intensively for long hours is that everything can give you a case of the giggles--good to keep that in mind!)

Jeez. If they drank any tea during the presser, we'd be demanding the cups to read the leaves! Patience, patience...

Posted by: glennwsmith Aug 3 2008, 06:18 PM

Tasp, you're thinking alone the same lines as myself. With everything going on in the world, the discovery of nitrogen compounds on Mars would not, and should not, be on the President's radar. If we take at face value that this is about habitability and not life itself, here is another possibiliity: a much elevated level of detuerium or tritium isotoopes . . . I'm not saying I believe this, but it is the type of discovery -- along with hydrocarbons -- that WOULD merit the President's attention.

Posted by: jmjawors Aug 3 2008, 06:20 PM

If (if if if if if) Covault got the story right, NASA/JPL/UA can maintain course by acknowledging that yes, they got some interesting readings and are going through the proper channels but no, they can't release them right now because they have to be re-checked and re-checked and undergo peer review. It can be a short but sweet news release.

If, in fact, none of this is happening then they should simply say that. Either way, it doesn't have to be a big production.

There is another aspect to this unfortunately crossed my mind, but it is a no-no on this board so I'll refrain. But when you think of 'science advisor to the president,' *some* people (not saying that I'm one of them) will take note of that for other reasons, so that's yet another reason why I think NASA should respond promptly.

Edit : Poor wording. I originally wrote "unfortunately is a no-no on this board," which is not what I meant. I agree with the policy.

Posted by: glennwsmith Aug 3 2008, 06:25 PM

Although Covault did seem to be directing his question to the absent MECA guys, and deuterium would be more a TEGA detectable . . . Still, I think the point is, what would be a really dynamite discovery in terms of habitability?

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 06:30 PM

<ahem>...carbon and/or nitrogen compounds?

Really...Please consider the capabilities of the MECA suite, and the categorical denial that life has been detected.

Posted by: tim cassidy Aug 3 2008, 06:31 PM

We've talked about pH and compounds, but what about those superoxides that are supposed to destroy anything organic?

Can MECA detect the oxidation state of the soil?

Someone mentioned earlier that the alkaline soil is "consistent" with superoxides, but suppose they find that the soil doesn't have any. They would need to take another look at the Viking results.

Posted by: Stu Aug 3 2008, 06:39 PM

Quick reminder of what the AWST piece actually says... this is, literally, all we have to go on for now...

Sources say the new data do not indicate the discovery of existing
or past life on Mars. Rather the data relate to habitability--the
"potential" for Mars to support life--at the Phoenix arctic landing
site, sources say.


Phoenix scientists have said from the start that neither the TEGA
organic chemistry lab nor the MECA wet chemistry system could detect
current or past life. MECA's two microscopes do, however, have the resolution to detect
bacteria--which would be life. Sources, however, say the microscopes
have not detected bacteria.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 06:48 PM

QUOTE (jmjawors @ Aug 3 2008, 02:20 PM) *
It can be a short but sweet news release.

Your take makes sense.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 06:55 PM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 3 2008, 02:18 PM) *
The witch's hat was pretty funny, though; one thing that happens to people working hard & intensively for long hours...

When I worked on the government side at a space agency with scientists they often didn't have a clue how to behave in this suddenly bright spotlight. I think the witch's hat was, I don't want to say adorable or dorky in an adorable way (I have too much respect for him), but maybe "pure." They're all folks at base anyway, and not polished on the stage which might make it easy to misread body language.

Posted by: centsworth_II Aug 3 2008, 06:59 PM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 3 2008, 10:33 AM) *
Think that detection of carbon and/or nitrogen compounds is the front-runner by far.

Can MECA detect carbon and/or nitrogen compounds or would the TEGA mass spectrometer be necessary for this?
MECA may be much better suited for detecting carbonates. That would also be a big deal.

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 07:07 PM

Oh, it's easy to get weird when you're totally beat. One time in Korea while trying to fix an F-4 for about 16 hours straight me & a co-worker saw a millipede trying desperately to traverse a puddle. We rescued it of course & sent it on its way, but laughed like hell about it for the next few hours till we were finally relieved, went home, slept, and came back the next day.

Probably doesn't make sense upon reading, and I can't even tell you what was funny. Anybody who's ever worked hours like this knows what I'm talking about, though.

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 07:19 PM

QUOTE (centsworth_II @ Aug 3 2008, 11:59 AM) *
Can MECA detect carbon and/or nitrogen compounds{?}


AFAIK...yes. I am not an umimpeachable authority by any means, though.

Posted by: Stu Aug 3 2008, 07:20 PM

I LOVED the hat thing, made the team seem much more human and approachable. I get sooo sick of seeing scientists being all dour and dry, just reciting facts and figures, it was really refreshing to see one of the team basically making a complete prat of himself and not caring! smile.gif

Posted by: fredk Aug 3 2008, 07:27 PM

Isn't speculation fun? And it's so easy, in the absence of information! laugh.gif

I'm tempted to start a list of possibilities, and see in a couple months if any are close to the truth...

1. Covault got it all wrong. Subdivides into (a) honest misunderstandings and [b] (bizzarely) intentional deception by someone on one side or the other.

2. Covault got the part about the presidential advisor wrong, but there appears to be an important potential discovery regarding habitability, apparently with MECA. Same subdivisions as 1 for the advisor part, but now there are also many more sub-subdivisions for the discovery possibilities. For example,
(i) a discovery that decreases the habitability, past or present
(ii) a discovery that increases the habitability, past or present
Obviously many sub-sub-subdivisions are possible here, a few of which have been discussed already, such as carbonates and nitrogen...

3. Covault got it all right. Same possibilities (i) and (ii).

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 07:42 PM

Leonard David talks about a Phoenix paper for AAS/Science currently in peer review.. and more in "poop from the scoop" on his http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2008/08/02/phoenix-on-mars-life-message-from-meca/

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 07:52 PM

Thanks, Paul...but it didn't say much, really, just more "what the hell?", and some possibly (in the future) unfortunate comparisons to the handling of the ALH84001 story.

C'mon, people. We know better than this. Gotta keep it tempered, is all.

Posted by: JRehling Aug 3 2008, 07:53 PM

I think Murphy's Law tends to apply with regard to spectacular discoveries regarding astrobiology, and I strongly suspect one or both of these to underlie the buzz:

1) The claim that the Executive Branch of the US Government has been contacted is somehow erroneous or misleading. Eg, if two individuals who happened to know each other communicated in their capacity as acquaintances rather than representing their official positions. Or it simply never took place at all.

2) "Habitability" may have NOTHING to do even with the potential for native martian life but instead pertain to "habitability" by future human crews. This is of more potential interest to the Administration, which has pushed for a program leading eventually to crews going to Mars. Eg, it could be as simple as the conclusion that this ice, melted, is easily made drinkable rather than toxic.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 08:03 PM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 3 2008, 02:52 PM) *
...but it didn't say much, really, just more "what the hell?"

Well I thought the reference to a peer-reviewed AAAS/Science paper was a big deal...

Posted by: Stu Aug 3 2008, 08:11 PM

QUOTE (JRehling @ Aug 3 2008, 08:53 PM) *
2) "Habitability" may have NOTHING to do even with the potential for native martian life but instead pertain to "habitability" by future human crews. This is of more potential interest to the Administration, which has pushed for a program leading eventually to crews going to Mars. Eg, it could be as simple as the conclusion that this ice, melted, is easily made drinkable rather than toxic.


You know, that's a good point... a really good point... I hadn't looked at it from that angle at all. If you read this...

Sources say the new data do not indicate the discovery of existing
or past life on Mars. Rather the data relate to habitability--the
"potential" for Mars to support life--at the Phoenix arctic landing
site, sources say.


...then the "Life" Mars has the potential to support could well be us, in the future.

dry.gif

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 08:16 PM

Well...let's see if it makes it through review, and what it has to say.

"Habitability" is one thing, "Inhabited" is quite another. If this area of Mars could foster terrestrial bacterial growth, that would be an interesting finding. It's a long way from announcing life on Mars, though, and I personally think that perception management of this issue is job #1 for those of us interested & engaged enough to express informed opinions (which, actually, should be every single person registered here; ain't seen no dummies on UMSF, ever!)

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 08:19 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ Aug 3 2008, 04:11 PM) *
...then the "Life" Mars has the potential to support could well be us, in the future.

Exactly! Go Martians! (wait a minute... that's manned spaceflight... nprev... what are you doing with that wrench... nooooo!!)

Posted by: Stu Aug 3 2008, 08:27 PM

"Habitability" is one thing, "Inhabited" is quite another.

That's it. Right there. The bottom line. Nick, you just summed up the whole thing in 8 words. CC is very precise with language in his writing, no sloppiness. He's used that word very deliberately, I think.

Let's all take a deep breath now... been a busy day of speculat'n...

Seriously tho, what amazing events and adventures we're all witness to in these early years of the 21st century...!

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 08:29 PM

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 3 2008, 01:19 PM) *
Exactly! Go Martians! (wait a minute... that's manned spaceflight... nprev... what are you doing with that wrench... nooooo!!)


...merely relocating it to a strategically advantageous location...why do you ask? tongue.gif

(Fear the Eltists!!!)

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 08:40 PM

What's a "gulp" emoticon look like?...

Posted by: Oersted Aug 3 2008, 08:48 PM

If any mainstream media well-endowed with financial resources would like an informed comment from a UMSF member of long standing, I would certainly look favourably at any offer that might be forthcoming... *cue X-Files theme*...

J/k... wink.gif

Posted by: Stu Aug 3 2008, 09:16 PM

You didn't just plug yourself there because we've been Wired, did you? wink.gif

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 09:22 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ Aug 3 2008, 01:27 PM) *
"Habitability" is one thing, "Inhabited" is quite another.

That's it. Right there. The bottom line. Nick, you just summed up the whole thing in 8 words.


High praise, sir, and I thank you very much!!!

The key finding implicit is if we find a habitable environment with no critters...why? Arguably, that would be as stunning, if not as exciting, as finding a menagerie. We don't know very much about the origins of life, much less its persistence over time. We are addressing core scientific issues when examining such findings, and the data is of fundamental importance.

Posted by: glennwsmith Aug 3 2008, 09:37 PM

Re Stu's post, this is from the Wired web site; check out the last paragraph . . .

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/rumors-abound-a.html

Rumors Abound About 'Potential for Life' on Mars
By Alexis Madrigal EmailAugust 03, 2008 | 12:12:11 PMCategories: Space

Soil_scoop Rumors are flying this weekend that Mars Phoenix has made a major discovery relating to the potential for life on Mars.

Wired.com reached Sam Kounaves, the mission's wet chemistry lab lead, by cell phone this morning. He quickly directed us to speak with NASA's PR representatives, but not before he said, simply, "Rumors are rumors."

They stem from an article in Aviation Week and subsequent pickup on Slashdot and elsewhere indicating that the White House had been briefed on the potential for life on the planet.

"The White House has been alerted by NASA about plans to make an announcement soon on major new Phoenix lander discoveries concerning the "potential for life" on Mars," wrote Craig Covault, citing anonymous sources on the Phoenix Lander's wet chemistry lab team.

Covault's article showed some restraint, though, and made sure to note that "sources say the new data do not indicate the discovery of existing or past life on Mars."

The subtleties, however, were quickly lost in the blogosphere, where excitement began to build that simple extraterrestrial life, or something suggesting its presence, had been found on Mars.

Late last night, @MarsPhoenix (aka Veronica McGregor, a NASA employee) responded to the story, via the mission's Twitter account.

"Heard about the recent news reports implying I may have found Martian life. Those reports are incorrect," she Tweeted. "Reports claiming there was a White House briefing are also untrue and incorrect."

Covault implies that a test in which Earth water was mixed with Martian soil is the cause of the excitement. Mars Phoenix scientists have repeatedly stated that the lander doesn't have the tools to directly detect life.

Over at LiveScience, David Leonard hints, without sourcing or attribution, that a paper on the work is going to come out in the journal Science.

"The reason that all this seems so hush-hush is due to a future paper and press release that appears likely to pop out of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and its Science magazine," Leonard writes. "Whatever the poop is from the scoop that’s been studied by Phoenix, that information is purportedly going through peer-review."

We're still trying to get to the bottom of this story and will keep you updated with any new developments.

UPDATE 12:10pm: Check out the forum discussion taking place on unmannedspaceflight.com. There is a lot of commentary about how Covault did his reporting and what kinds of discoveries the Phoenix Lander's various instruments are capable of making. (Hat tip to NASA Watch's Keith Cowing for pointing them out.)

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 3 2008, 09:46 PM

QUOTE (glennwsmith @ Aug 3 2008, 05:37 PM) *
(Hat tip to NASA Watch's Keith Cowing for pointing them out.)

What kind of irony is that? Thanks Keith! Good on ya Mate.

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Aug 3 2008, 11:25 PM

QUOTE (glennwsmith @ Aug 3 2008, 01:37 PM) *
Late last night, @MarsPhoenix (aka Veronica McGregor, a NASA employee) responded to the story, via the mission's Twitter account.


What?? Are they suggesting that the twitter updates haven't been coming to us directly from Phoenix?? sad.gif

Posted by: nprev Aug 3 2008, 11:59 PM

Hate to be the one to break it to ya, Big Guy, but...(Santa Claus & Easter Bunny revelations also omitted for bandwidth conservation, and hopefully Dan will still talk to me after such an ostentatious display of smartass-ism... rolleyes.gif )

Posted by: elakdawalla Aug 4 2008, 01:24 AM

http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2008/08/02/phoenix-on-mars-life-message-from-meca/, the hush-hush is because they're trying to get whatever it is published by Science.

On the other hand, the http://twitter.com/MarsPhoenix says no White House briefing has happened.

--Emily

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 4 2008, 01:49 AM

Could that be a technicality? Like Marburger visited NASA HQ?

Posted by: dvandorn Aug 4 2008, 03:22 AM

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 3 2008, 04:46 PM) *
What kind of irony is that? Thanks Keith! Good on ya Mate.

Well, all of this is certainly having an effect. I just took a peek at the current stats, and there are three members and 112 guests visiting the site right now. At 10:15pm CDT on a Sunday night.

-the other Doug

Posted by: climber Aug 4 2008, 11:14 AM

Peter Smith said on the conference that the Atomic Force Microscope is now ready to take measurements. The AFM is part of MECA.
I'd be interested to know how they tested the instrument, I mean, did they take actual photos or not?
I do not know when AFM was supposed to be working but I feel it's quite "late" into a 90 days mission.
If the "scoop" come from AFM, it'll be BIG news. smile.gif

Posted by: Aussie Aug 4 2008, 11:23 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 3 2008, 09:22 PM) *
The key finding implicit is if we find a habitable environment with no critters....why? Arguably, that would be as stunning, if not as exciting, as finding a menagerie.


Indeed. And if the environment really is habitable (well benign) should it not be awash with organics from all those impactors?

Posted by: nprev Aug 4 2008, 11:23 AM

The AFM has some sort of test surface, and I remember seeing the results of that. IIRC, there's been some difficulty with finding samples that are physically stable enough (i.e., not prone to movement during the examination) for it to examine.

I'm personally confident that the big whatever-it-is does not relate to the AFM.

Posted by: jmknapp Aug 4 2008, 01:27 PM

A French website, Mars Actualité, has picked up the story - http://orbitmars.futura-sciences.com/mars-actu-suite.php?id_news=313:

QUOTE
Depuis trois jours, des rumeurs circulent... Tout a commencé lorsque Craig Covault, journaliste au magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology, a pris la parole lors de la conférence de presse organisée par la NASA le 31 juillet 2008 et a sous-entendu que des découvertes importantes auraient été faites au point que les responsables de la NASA seraient prêts à rentrer en contact avec le conseiller scientifique de la Maison Blanche…


Looks like a good article, if only I knew French. Here's a link to the Babelfish translation:

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Forbitmars.futura-sciences.com%2Fmars-actu-suite.php%3Fid_news%3D313&lp=fr_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

QUOTE
Prudence is however of setting, several sources confirm rumours of interesting results concerning instrument MECA, but nothing is confirmed officially for the moment. Thus, according to Emily Lakdawalla, of Planetary Society, L ’ team of the MECA would have been confronted with “unexpected” results which would require fuller investigations, in particular with L ’ assistance of L ’ instrument TEGA, to be really confirmed.

According to the sources contacted by Craig Covault, it would be about a discovery having attracted to the “potential of habitability of Mars”: discovered of carbonate? of organic matter? nitrogenized compounds? … Let us wait to know!

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 4 2008, 02:28 PM

It's a good article. Nice survey of the situation. Very weird in babblefish but it's close. Poch's sources are Av Week, UMSF,Leonard David and Emily so it's gloss - but good gloss.

Posted by: Discuz Aug 4 2008, 02:54 PM

It seems that http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001584/ emphasis on "past habitability" is reflected in a new http://twitter.com/MarsPhoenix message:

QUOTE
My goal is to determine if Mars may have been habitable. There's lots of data to analyze on that, and no clear answer yet.

This is slightly more specific than Covault's article. Or am I reading too much into this?

Posted by: ahecht Aug 4 2008, 03:00 PM

QUOTE (climber @ Aug 4 2008, 07:14 AM) *
Peter Smith said on the conference that the Atomic Force Microscope is now ready to take measurements. The AFM is part of MECA.
I'd be interested to know how they tested the instrument, I mean, did they take actual photos or not?


The AFM doesn't take photos per se. It uses microscopic needles to probe the target and then produces a 3D model of the surface. More than you'd ever care to know about the AFM is in the paper at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/polar2006/pdf/8047.pdf

Posted by: 1101001 Aug 4 2008, 03:27 PM

QUOTE (climber @ Aug 4 2008, 03:14 AM) *
If the "scoop" come from AFM, it'll be BIG news. smile.gif


Big, yes, as well as being completely missed by what's been reported by Covault, re the provocative results being wet-chemistry ones, and the key being how water and soil behave, and it not being a discovery of past life on Mars, and it being about habitability.

I don't see a fit.

QUOTE (climber @ Aug 4 2008, 03:14 AM) *
I'd be interested to know how they tested the instrument, I mean, did they take actual photos or not?


The preliminary image I recall was of some silicon substrate, a set of parallel micro-grooves. Here's the press image: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/press/First_AFM_on_MARS.html. AFM results can be rendered as an image, but I wouldn't call them photos.

Posted by: Stu Aug 4 2008, 03:34 PM

... and the views from http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/nasas-next-small-step-may-be-into-martian-manure/2008/08/04/1217701947632.html... and http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/04-08-2008/105985-mars-0...

And we think OUR media's nuts here in the UK...! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: jmjawors Aug 4 2008, 03:54 PM

'NASA Hides Truth About Mars' --- *groan*

This just is going to get more and more widespread. NASA really needs to address this. Just a short little blurb is all they would need. (Just my opinion, of course).

Posted by: djellison Aug 4 2008, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (jmjawors @ Aug 4 2008, 04:54 PM) *
'Just a short little blurb...



QUOTE (PHX Twitter)
Reports claiming there was a White House briefing are also untrue and incorrect.

Heard about the recent news reports implying I may have found Martian life. Those reports are incorrect.


I'd say they've covered it in the most appropriate way to be honest.

Posted by: Sunspot Aug 4 2008, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ Aug 4 2008, 04:34 PM) *
... and the views from http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/nasas-next-small-step-may-be-into-martian-manure/2008/08/04/1217701947632.html... and http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/04-08-2008/105985-mars-0...

And we think OUR media's nuts here in the UK...! rolleyes.gif


And that Australian piece is supposed to be a serious piece of journalism? Typical attitude to anything scientific - frivolous.

Posted by: Stu Aug 4 2008, 04:02 PM

QUOTE (jmjawors @ Aug 4 2008, 04:54 PM) *
'NASA Hides Truth About Mars' --- *groan*
This just is going to get more and more widespread.


I don't think anyone with two brain cells to rub together is going to take that coverage seriously; apart from the fact it's very poorly written and full of mistakes, it's clearly for domestic consumption only, maybe even a clumsy way of building up interest in and support for Phobos-Grunt... I only linked to it as a way of illustrating how restrained and sensible we're being here.

Posted by: jmjawors Aug 4 2008, 04:20 PM

I think my posts make me sound more frustrated than I actually am. cool.gif Whatever the Phoenix teams do I'll happily roll with. After all, it doesn't change any of the science results one way or the other.

But for the record, I don't think that Twitter suffices as a news release.

Posted by: DavidChandler Aug 4 2008, 04:54 PM

I'd like to point out that there is actually no contradiction between what Craig Covault wrote and the "denial" from the Phoenix Twitter feed.
Craig wrote that the White House had been "alerted." The Twitter post said there had been no White House briefing. Craig wrote that there was an important announcement coming regarding habitability, Twitter said life had not been found.
It all fits together, and I suspect all those statements are correct.
At this stage, it would be premature to have an actual WH briefing. "Alerted" probably just means a phone call or an email saying something big might be coming.
As far as I know, the last time there was any kind of direct communication about a planetary science matter to the White House was just before the NASA press conference on the Mars meteorite ALH84001. So yes, any kind of contact at all signals that this is something very significant.
Both Covault and Leonard David are very seasoned reporters with very good sources, and I've known them both for a long time. I'd be astonished if they were wrong about any of the details that they have reported.

Posted by: PDP8E Aug 4 2008, 04:58 PM

I have been down here on Cape Cod since Friday on a little vacation with no modern conveniences save the Ocean and the beer chest (and no computers! wife's edict). So this morning we go into town for more supplies, and I find this little Internet Cafe in the back of coffee shop. And lo! Anon! No news on 'the find'. After reading all the posts in this thread, and knowing I can do nothing else, I have decided to go back to fishing for a week.

Please NASA....Please surprise me when I get back!

We sure do live in interesting times!

cheers UMSFers!

<Doug, my condolences on the admin overtime!..take care>

Posted by: TheChemist Aug 4 2008, 04:59 PM

QUOTE (Sunspot @ Aug 4 2008, 07:01 PM) *
And that Australian piece is supposed to be a serious piece of journalism? Typical attitude to anything scientific - frivolous.


The aussie article wasn't that bad, it clearly mentions it contains speculations, which is exactly what this thread also offers.
Now, the russian one ........ I better not say anything smile.gif

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 4 2008, 05:17 PM

QUOTE (DavidChandler @ Aug 4 2008, 12:54 PM) *
Both Covault and Leonard David are very seasoned reporters with very good sources, and I've known them both for a long time. I'd be astonished if they were wrong about any of the details that they have reported.

I agree completely with that. I'd be shocked too. I think your analysis is also right.

It'd be a small hiccup for the Phoenix team to get their Public Affairs a little off - they're scientists and engineers doing a great job. Craig and Leonard report. That's their job so it's a much bigger deal for >them< to be caught out here. C'mon NASA, give us a proper press release.

Posted by: alexismadrigal Aug 4 2008, 05:27 PM

Alexis Madrigal here from Wired.com. I'd just like to report that the White House science advisor's spokesperson denied any briefing and seemed genuinely surprised. She's checking into whether any lower-down NASA policy analysts spoke with anyone from the Phoenix team.

QUOTE (DavidChandler @ Aug 4 2008, 05:54 PM) *
I'd like to point out that there is actually no contradiction between what Craig Covault wrote and the "denial" from the Phoenix Twitter feed.
Craig wrote that the White House had been "alerted." The Twitter post said there had been no White House briefing. Craig wrote that there was an important announcement coming regarding habitability, Twitter said life had not been found.
It all fits together, and I suspect all those statements are correct.
At this stage, it would be premature to have an actual WH briefing. "Alerted" probably just means a phone call or an email saying something big might be coming.
As far as I know, the last time there was any kind of direct communication about a planetary science matter to the White House was just before the NASA press conference on the Mars meteorite ALH84001. So yes, any kind of contact at all signals that this is something very significant.
Both Covault and Leonard David are very seasoned reporters with very good sources, and I've known them both for a long time. I'd be astonished if they were wrong about any of the details that they have reported.


Posted by: fredk Aug 4 2008, 05:34 PM

QUOTE (DavidChandler @ Aug 4 2008, 05:54 PM) *
Craig wrote that the White House had been "alerted." The Twitter post said there had been no White House briefing....At this stage, it would be premature to have an actual WH briefing. "Alerted" probably just means a phone call or an email saying something big might be coming.

Actually, the Covault article also says "The Bush Administration's Presidential Science Advisor's office, however, has been briefed on the new information". Is the Science Advisor's office not part of the white house?

I agree with jmjawors that Twitter seems like a fairly trivial means for nasa to release information. Perhaps this is a signal of the significance that nasa attaches to the speculation that's spanning the internet on this story.

Posted by: alexismadrigal Aug 4 2008, 05:42 PM

Seems to me that NASA has been using Twitter quite strategically and not as a throwaway add-on to their PR.

It's a perfect rumor-tamping tool, actually, especially if you don't have the time or resources to put together a full release and the ensuing onslaught of questions, etc. 30K plus people get the denial all at once.

Posted by: Sunspot Aug 4 2008, 05:59 PM

space.com quoting Peter Smith now: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080804-phoenix-meca.html

QUOTE
Not so, says Phoenix principal investigator Peter Smith, of the University of Arizona, who denied that any details of the MECA findings had been shared and called the reports "bogus and damaging information."



Doesn't sound happy to me lol.

Posted by: DavidChandler Aug 4 2008, 06:36 PM

Well, yes, but the parsing of these statements remains very interesting:

Today's space.com story says:

(Covault wrote that) "The Bush Administration's Presidential Science Advisor's office, however, has been briefed on the new information that NASA hopes to release as early as mid August."

But Smith told SPACE.com that this was "not true, MECA results have not been discussed at the White House."


I assume he's being careful about his language. So if it wasn't discussed "at the White House", that still allows for a phone call or email discussion, as I mentioned. And Covault's story didn't say the Science Advisor had been briefed, just someone in that office.

Covault is sticking by his story, the report says. Smith says there are different points of view among the science team. No surprise there, that's as it should be. So, it looks to me like the story is real, but the meaning of the findings still being hotly debated.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 4 2008, 06:40 PM

Okay UMSFers, a question:

- what class of discovery requires normal care, super care or can be blithely uttered without any care?

When they landed Peter was quite happy to speculate about the polygons and that, for sure, they'd find ice. Holy Cow looked like a skating rink and they said so. Sublimating ice? Boom. The pH news came right away as did the taste of ice last week.

They've discussed all the troubles they've had with the delivery of samples to TEGA and have been forthright about the performance of the craft.

I don't quite understand the nature of the "news" from Phoenix that could be different than the above? In other words, the best case discovery scenario possible is what? Why would whatever it could be, be outside their established process? Why would they need extra special procedures for any discovery possible?

So now Peter says that the July 7th MECA sample is being analyzed and they won't go forward with only half a story. But they were happy to go with preliminary data one day (check me) after their first sample which had the great news about growing asparagus in Martian soil.

I am sure I am missing the big picture here, unless Craig's story is completely bogus which he now categorically denies.

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Aug 4 2008, 06:40 PM

QUOTE (DavidChandler @ Aug 4 2008, 10:36 AM) *
I assume he's being careful about his language. So if it wasn't discussed "at the White House", that still allows for a phone call or email discussion, as I mentioned. And Covault's story didn't say the Science Advisor had been briefed, just someone in that office.


I think you are reading too much into the verbal semantics. Let's take Peter at his word OK? This is getting a bit nutty. He said no such discussion took place as did Veronica to the Twitter list. So I believe we need to drop it.

Posted by: Discuz Aug 4 2008, 07:06 PM

Well, all the principal actors in this seem to have shot down the story. Including Covault, who doesn't get it quite right in his response when he says his report was misrepresented. Only a handful of sources talked about life, the majority did qoute him correctly.

More damaging than Covault's report perhaps, is Peter Smith talking about the conflicting points of view within the team. If they have a hard time interpreting their findings and agreeing on one story, it doesn't bode well for the peer review their conclusions are going to get. But I suppose that's what science is all about.

Posted by: centsworth_II Aug 4 2008, 07:08 PM

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 4 2008, 01:40 PM) *
Okay UMSFers, a question:
- what class of discovery requires normal care, super care or can be blithely uttered without any care?

I'd say the story that you want to publish in Science requires whatever care that publication demands i.e. embargo.
Unambiguous detection of nitrogen compounds, organic compounds or carbonates would merit a quick publication, I think. I also (in total ignorance) am guessing that carbonates would give the quickest unambiguous signal in MECA while the others might require more teasing of the data or help from TEGA.

I don't know what other big story there could be.

Posted by: NGC3314 Aug 4 2008, 07:11 PM

QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Aug 3 2008, 07:24 PM) *
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2008/08/02/phoenix-on-mars-life-message-from-meca/, the hush-hush is because they're trying to get whatever it is published by Science.


For those who haven't bumped into this - Science and Nature both have histories of being rather snitty, up to and including at least the threat of pulling papers out of production, if the results find their way into the media before being printed. An enterprising reporter for Science with a camera at a meeting once got us into warm water with a Nature editor, as if there's anything a poor investigator can do short of jumping in front of the poster presentation if something starts to flash.

Regarding some of the other speculation - I can see where habitability for humans seems very important at some levels where policy might eventually be affected, while being much more of an abstract piece of random information to many of the investigators.

Posted by: tasp Aug 4 2008, 07:12 PM

Just curious, as temp drops and CO2 starts to "snow" out, would Martian atmosphere dynamics allow for the formation of '"snow devils"? (Equivalent of dust devils, but made of CO2 'foofies' instead of dirty dust)

Not earthshaking in it's import, (and not what CC is onto apparently) but still a fun thing if it might exist.



Posted by: alan Aug 4 2008, 07:13 PM

What effect does leaking the results from MECA or the implications of the results have on getting a paper published in a journal?
Would having too many details being discussed publicly interfere with the process?

Edit: Never mind, I see my question has already been answered.

Posted by: djellison Aug 4 2008, 07:30 PM

QUOTE (ElkGroveDan @ Aug 4 2008, 07:40 PM) *
Let's take Peter at his word OK? This is getting a bit nutty. He said no such discussion took place as did Veronica to the Twitter list. So I believe we need to drop it.


I agree with Dan here.

We have two, independent rebuttals of this story. One via JPL, Veronica and the Twitter page, the second by Peter, in an interview with Space.com

For whatever reason, Craig has heard something that appears to not be entirely true. Anyone claiming there is something more, something being hidden, is stepping into the realm of conspiracy and thus is in breach of forum rules. This thread can continue, but that line of discussion is not up for debate.



Posted by: elakdawalla Aug 4 2008, 07:30 PM

I'm told a NASA release is coming out some time today, so it might be a good time to reserve further speculation and wait for the official story.

--Emily

Posted by: nprev Aug 4 2008, 07:36 PM

Hear, hear. The fat lady's gonna sing sooner or later; think we've explored every reasonable possibility beyond exhaustively.

Posted by: jmjawors Aug 4 2008, 07:36 PM

Just wanted to chime in to thank Alexis (last page) for the info (which is pretty conclusive I think) and some good points about the strategic use of Twitter. Oh, and welcome! smile.gif

This is kind of a tangent but I keep wondering this: has anyone seen a news report about Martian life? That's one of the things that Phoenix's tweet and also Peter Smith said, that the reports of Martian life are false. Leaving aside the White House business for a moment (nothing really much to say anyway), is the "discovery of life" being reported somewhere or are they just referring to blogs and message boards?

Posted by: nprev Aug 4 2008, 07:44 PM

Agh...just search Google News & there are all kinds of hits for this. I didn't see anything too tin-hat, but didn't look hard, either. Certain that there are some out there, though.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 4 2008, 07:54 PM

So it seems like a basic story of the conflict between scientific publication and the needs of the news media with a "White House" grenade thrown in the middle of it. Lots of fallout somewhere but not for discussing here anymore...

Posted by: climber Aug 4 2008, 07:55 PM

QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Aug 4 2008, 09:30 PM) *
I'm told a NASA release is coming out some time today, so it might be a good time to reserve further speculation and wait for the official story.
--Emily

A question here : could it be a release that basicaly will say there's nothing to report ?
I mean, do we have exemple(s) of Nasa needing to make a statement to stop a rumor ?
Thanks

Posted by: elakdawalla Aug 4 2008, 07:59 PM

Be patient, you'll see soon enough!

Emily

Posted by: remcook Aug 4 2008, 08:08 PM

QUOTE (Discuz @ Aug 4 2008, 08:06 PM) *
More damaging than Covault's report perhaps, is Peter Smith talking about the conflicting points of view within the team. If they have a hard time interpreting their findings and agreeing on one story, it doesn't bode well for the peer review their conclusions are going to get. But I suppose that's what science is all about.

Not at all damaging I would say! If the answers were always straightforward, you don't need any scientists at all smile.gif The more different ideas the better. Then you try and figure out which idea fits best.

It will be interesting what NASA has to say, but I assume it will be along the lines of 'please move on, there's nothing to see here', which might actually be the truth (!).

Posted by: climber Aug 4 2008, 08:34 PM

QUOTE (remcook @ Aug 4 2008, 10:08 PM) *
It will be interesting what NASA has to say, but I assume it will be along the lines of 'please move on, there's nothing to see here', which might actually be the truth (!).

You may be right: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/NOT08048.xml&headline=Phoenix%20Data%20More%20Negative%20On%20Potential%20For%20Life&channel=space

Posted by: nprev Aug 4 2008, 08:38 PM

Hmm. Definitely a ratchet-down of expectations...not too surprised, actually.

Posted by: TheChemist Aug 4 2008, 08:50 PM

Is this a complete U turn by CC or what ?

Posted by: fredk Aug 4 2008, 09:17 PM

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/aug/HQ_08199_Phoenix_Results.html

The discussion is about perchlorate.

Posted by: jmjawors Aug 4 2008, 09:25 PM

Nice. That's a very well-written release, reinforcing the notion that science results take time and that no, they've not discovered life.

I'm not chemist enough (or at all, really) to know that they are talking about. Thank goodness for wikipedia! tongue.gif

Posted by: nprev Aug 4 2008, 09:27 PM

Oh, my. Well, perhaps they've found the fabled superoxidant; perchlorates are nasty.

Emily, on top of it as always, has posted an excellent http://planetary.org/blog on the subject.

Posted by: climber Aug 4 2008, 09:43 PM

Congratulations to Emily, I second what you says Nick, this is an excellent blog entry.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 4 2008, 10:20 PM

Excellent post Emily! EXCELLENT press release by NASA! Who says you can't reveal the process.

So even the AAAS/Science thing was not right?

Posted by: Sunspot Aug 4 2008, 10:31 PM

A Superoxidant that destroys organic material?? So Mars is and always has been lifeless then?

Posted by: nprev Aug 4 2008, 10:38 PM

Wouldn't go that far yet. A strong oxidant is also a strong energy source...and Mars ain't Earth.

The L word is gonna be an open issue for a long, long time IMHO.

Posted by: 1101001 Aug 4 2008, 10:46 PM

http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=5&article=naturalsolutions

QUOTE
To their surprise, they found that these [perchlorate-utilizing] microbes were not rare, but were ubiquitous in the environment. “We found these bacteria in every site, even in Antarctica,” Coates says. He eventually isolated about 40 different species of the microorganism, all belonging to the phylum Proteobacteria.
[...]
Unlike many bacteria previously used for bioremediation, these proteobacteria eat away at the perchlorate in an anaerobic environment. In fact, they require an anaerobic environment before they will start processing the chemical.

Posted by: glennwsmith Aug 4 2008, 11:19 PM

Actually, the possible detection of perchlorate well explains what has been going on here:

1.The evident agitation of the Phoenix team during what should have been a positive press conference can be attributed to the fact that, having suggested the benign nature of the soil underneath Phoenix just a few days ago, they may now have to report that it is actually toxic (some bacteria excepted).

2. IF (note the capitalization) the possibility has arisen that perchlorate is widespread on Mars, especially in association with the available moisture, this would be quite consistent with the White house having been notified in some way -- because suddenly the props have been kicked out from underneath our manned space program as presently constituted.


Posted by: Stu Aug 4 2008, 11:20 PM

Just catching up on the news after being out all evening, and I have to agree with what others have said: Emily, that's one of the best blog entries you've ever written, clear and concise and leaving no room for misinterpretation or myth. Textbook stuff.

I'm going to have to do some catch-up reading here - and then probably some additional checking up elsewhere - on the science behind this "Perchlorate" stuff, but it sounds nasty. But congrats to the Phoenix team on their latest discovery, and for maintaining a dignified silence throughout this 'interesting' few days too. And also to everyone here who participated in our weekend discussion in such a respectful and constructive way. I think we showed more than a few people out there how a Forum should behave.

Science beats conspiracy again. Result! smile.gif

Posted by: Holder of the Two Leashes Aug 4 2008, 11:20 PM

So... if anaerobic, perchlorate eating microbes are "ubiquitous" right here on earth...

Maybe they are reporting positive information about the life bearing properties of the soil! unsure.gif

Posted by: nprev Aug 4 2008, 11:29 PM

Surely that's one way to frame it. Chemosynthetic processes are frequently the preferred methods for terrestrial extremophiles, so if this is a genuine detection (and I'm betting that if it's there, it's NaClO4), this might just be good news.

As far as kicking the props from underneath the focus for US manned space flight...nah. All this might do is reveal Mars to be even more alien than we thought. (Well, maybe not so alien; more and more, Mars' soil seems to resemble terrestrial mine tailings! Things still live in such places, though.)

Posted by: Holder of the Two Leashes Aug 4 2008, 11:31 PM

QUOTE (glennwsmith @ Aug 4 2008, 05:19 PM) *
2. IF (note the capitalization) the possibility has arisen that perchlorate is widespread on Mars, especially in association with the available moisture, this would be quite consistent with the White house having been notified in some way -- because suddenly the props have been kicked out from underneath our manned space program as presently constituted.

Why would you think that? True, perchlorates are not to be taken lightly, but I have over thirty pounds of high grade potassium perchlorate sitting around my house (it is used in pyrotechnics). I'm still alive and healthy.

In fact, I have some ammonium perchlorate too. Makes great rocket fuel. Note that hundreds of thousands of pounds are used in the shuttle solid boosters. Maybe astronauts on mars could use it to refuel (just kidding).

The idea that there was probably some kind of strongly oxidizing component in martian soil has long been held, and yet plans for manned flights there have gone forward without much concern up to this point.

Posted by: TheChemist Aug 4 2008, 11:36 PM

1) The WCL has a special sensor for perchlorate : http://planetary.chem.tufts.edu/Phoenix/WetChemLab.html
It will be very interesting to see in future releases from the Phoenix team what is the cause of uncertainty or interference in their soil measurements.

2) The Atacama desert in Chile is full of perchlorates. Why do we even bother sending probes to Mars ? laugh.gif

3) Two relevant conference abstracts regarding oxidants on Mars :

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/09253/EGU06-J-09253.pdf

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/1778.pdf

4) I would expect experienced journalists (or their inside sources) to be able to differentiate between habitability enhancing/decreasing data. smile.gif

Posted by: nprev Aug 4 2008, 11:41 PM

I just can't figure a lot of this whole brouhaha out, but I'm sure that in the days & weeks ahead we'll be illuminated.

Posted by: jmjawors Aug 4 2008, 11:47 PM

The hubbub merely had to do with the notion of presenting science info with the White House and not also releasing it publicly. That's it. Many people will take many things from that, and voila... bona fide brouhaha. tongue.gif

Speaking for myself, it was an exciting story. But I'm glad the truth is coming out now and we can get back to learning about Mars.

Posted by: belleraphon1 Aug 4 2008, 11:51 PM


I find this all very interesting.... at what location and depth were the two MECA samples taken? It may be that the TEGA sample was deeper and something deeper down neutralizes the perchlorates.

A major goal of this mission is to characterize the differences in the soil chemistries as different layers are sampled.
This is really cool.

Too bad the science has to be worked under a carnival atmosphere. But then these missions and the science attract that.

Kudos to the Phoenix team for holding up with dignity under what has to be intense pressure all around.

And I just love this forum... you folks are great!!!

Craig

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 5 2008, 12:10 AM

QUOTE (belleraphon1 @ Aug 4 2008, 06:51 PM) *
Too bad the science has to be worked under a carnival atmosphere. But then these missions and the science attract that.

I think it is fun to engage in speculations - it forces you to engage in what the science is about. It is silly to pick a horse in what is not a horserace (I had "4", "-1" came in - so I guess I'm back to "3") so I'm bummed a bit. Guess it's like hoping the acceleration at the earth's surface was 30 ft/sec/sec and getting depressed 'cause it's 32. Aussie, Doug, nprev and others called it!

I think all the White House business was needlessly provocative. I'm glad the Phoenix team stepped up and told us what was going on.

Posted by: jmknapp Aug 5 2008, 12:14 AM

Was perchlorate used as an oxidizer in the Delta II rocket motors that launched Phoenix? I.e., what are the chances of contamination?

Posted by: Del Palmer Aug 5 2008, 12:17 AM

QUOTE (Discuz @ Aug 4 2008, 08:06 PM) *
If they have a hard time interpreting their findings and agreeing on one story, it doesn't bode well for the peer review their conclusions are going to get.


It isn't necessary for a science team to get their story straight before publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, it is quite common for authors to speculate on the wide range of possibilities presented by the data. For example, in a paper that I recently read on extrasolar planets, the authors described their observations, and then went on to speculate (educated guesses based on the observed phenomena) as to whether the planet has an intrinsic or induced magnetic field (or perhaps none at all!) in order to explain the data. After 16 pages, they essentially said they weren't sure what the heck was going on and needed more data... smile.gif


Posted by: nprev Aug 5 2008, 12:22 AM

Nope; no perchlorate propellants on the Delta II as far as I can tell from Google searching.

Posted by: fredk Aug 5 2008, 12:26 AM

QUOTE (Stu @ Aug 5 2008, 12:20 AM) *
congrats to the Phoenix team on their latest discovery... Result! smile.gif

Stu, you've got the wrong end of the stick here. The whole point of what has happened here is that the science isn't done yet - that's why they didn't say anything Thursday. They want confirmation from TEGA. As far as I can tell, they have no relevant new results since Thursday, and today's press release was only done to quell the rumours.

Today's release was not an announcement that perchlorates have been found on Mars!

I sympathize with the science team here. There's no need for their process to be put under such scrutiny, though perhaps it's not surprizing in the internet age and given the public's interest in the L word. Science does not always move straight forward, even if it may appear that way when results are coming in fast, like in the early days of the mission. Science often veers left or right, screeches to a halt, breaks down and sits still for several weeks, starts backing up, before finally turning around and slowly making progress, if it's lucky. (Sounds a bit like Oppy trying to drive in Victoria crater!)

Posted by: jmknapp Aug 5 2008, 12:28 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 4 2008, 07:22 PM) *
Nope; no perchlorate propellants on the Delta II as far as I can tell from Google searching.


Just found this, from the http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/pdf/phoenix_launch_presskit.pdf:

QUOTE
The Delta’s second stage is powered by a restartable Aerojet AJ10-118K engine. The engine uses a fuel called Aerozine 50, which is a mixture of hydrazine and dimethyl hydrazine, reacted with nitrogen tetroxide as an oxidizer.

A Star-48B solid-fuel rocket made by Thiokol powers the third stage. Its propellant is made primarily of ammonium perchlorate and aluminum. During launch and ascent through the atmosphere, the Phoenix spacecraft and the third stage are shielded from aerodynamic forces by a payload fairing, or nose cone, that is 2.9 meters (9.5 feet) in diameter.


Posted by: Holder of the Two Leashes Aug 5 2008, 12:34 AM

Phoenix was sealed up very tight during the launch, and for several months thereafter. I think the chances of perchlorate contamination are very, very slim.

Posted by: nprev Aug 5 2008, 12:36 AM

Aha! You did a mo' better search then me!

Hell, sure, for all we know. The only stage that could have conceivably contaminated Phoenix would have been the 3rd, and hopefully they're considering the possibility.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 5 2008, 12:37 AM

The thruster "plates" are exposed through the aeroshell and there is a bevelled edge to them, I guess so they don't hang up when the lander is released. I wonder if there has to be even a small gap there. But then the Delta exhaust would have to work its way up the rocket and through the fairing seals. And then once you're moving, the early part of the slipstream should keep that at bay. I think the solids are jettisoned within the sensible part of the atmosphere.

Posted by: nprev Aug 5 2008, 12:39 AM

But the Star 48 is used post-main stack separation, and physically closest to the vehicle itself. I think it's sensible to consider the possibility of contamination. Not saying that it's likely, just saying that it is possible.

Posted by: jmknapp Aug 5 2008, 12:46 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 4 2008, 07:39 PM) *
I think it's sensible to consider the possibility of contamination.


They're definitely considering it, per http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001586/:

QUOTE
The Phoenix team is currently working -- but is not yet done with the process -- to rule out the possibility that the perchlorate detection by MECA could have resulted from contamination brought from Earth.


Just wondering what the potential source is.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 5 2008, 01:01 AM

QUOTE (jmknapp @ Aug 4 2008, 07:46 PM) *
Just wondering what the potential source is.

I just read the press kit and the solids were kicked off well within the atmosphere, before fairing jett.

Posted by: jmknapp Aug 5 2008, 02:07 AM

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 4 2008, 09:01 PM) *
I just read the press kit and the solids were kicked off well within the atmosphere, before fairing jett.


So the idea is that any stray perchlorate would be driven away by the air?

How about contamination beforehand--like when the spacecraft was mated to the third stage:




Or maybe the stage isn't even fueled at that point?

EDIT: Are you sure about the launch sequence? Here's a frame from the launch animation that seems to show the fairing coming off while the 3rd stage is still burning, and apparently above the atmosphere:


Posted by: Holder of the Two Leashes Aug 5 2008, 02:36 AM

The stage is fueled at this point, and while I still think contamination from the propellant is only a remote possibility, if it did happen, then it probably happened here. Not at this exact moment, but at some point while the spacecraft and third stage were being processed in close proximity.

Please note too that very little, if any, perchlorate gets out of rocket exhaust intact.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 5 2008, 02:49 AM

QUOTE (jmknapp @ Aug 4 2008, 10:07 PM) *
So the idea is that any stray perchlorate would be driven away by the air?

Okay I'm an idiot - I was thinking about the Delta Solids not the PAM.

Well now it is interesting: there has to be a tiny bit of the plume that goes >backwards< in vacuum so perhaps the thruster plate "gaps" (if there are any - I don't know how you seal perfectly something that separates like it seems to) could be the culprit?

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 5 2008, 02:53 AM

QUOTE (Holder of the Two Leashes @ Aug 4 2008, 10:36 PM) *
The stage is fueled at this point, and while I still think contamination from the propellant is only a remote possibility, if it did happen, then it probably happened here.

Isn't the solid fuel bound into the case at the factory, then cleaned and sealed?

QUOTE
Please note too that very little, if any, perchlorate gets out of rocket exhaust intact.

But it doesn't burn perfectly and towards the end of the burn I wonder how ragged it gets through the grain.

EDIT: but it is a long daisy chain of improbables to get the bits that get out, then that tiny fraction that goes backwards, then sneaks through a gap (if there are any)...

Posted by: moon2mars Aug 5 2008, 02:57 AM

Below is a very relevant excerpt from the Viking Lander 1 mission in August of 1976. This is all documented in the NASA SP-4212 "On Mars" and I would highly recommend it regarding all the clammer lately:

Data returned by the pyrolytic-release experiment and reported by Norman Horowitz on 7 August were equally confounding. Once again, the specialists had detected a reaction, but they did not know what it meant. "There's a possibility that this is biological," Horowitz said, but "there are many other possibilities that have to be excluded." The results obtained the night before were interesting but he emphasized that they were not ready to say that they had discovered life on Mars. "The data point we have is conceivably of biological origin, but the biological explanation is only one of a number of alternative explanations." He told the press: We hope by the end of this mission to have excluded all but one of the explanations, whichever that may be. I want to emphasize that if this were normal science, we wouldn't even be here-we'd be working in our laboratories for three more months-you wouldn't even know what was going on and at the end of that time we would come out and tell you the answer. Having to work in a fishbowl like this is an experience that none of us is used to.

He also cautioned the reporters that they were being included in the analysis phase of the experiments. They were "looking over the shoulder of a group of people who are trying to work in a normal way in an abnormal environment." The scientist's caution was prompted by his knowledge that "we well might be wrong in anything we say. Anyone who has carried out a scientific investigation knows that the pathway of science is paved not only with brilliant insights and great discoveries, but also with false leads and bitter disappointments. And nobody wanted to be wrong in public on a question as important as that of life on Mars."

Posted by: tasp Aug 5 2008, 03:09 AM

blink.gif


Perchance a person somewhat unfamiliar with chemistry, but still cognizant of the plentiful chlorides in the Martian soil revealed by the wonderful rover teams, and also aware of plentiful energetic UV on the Martian surface, might ponder some interesting chemistry and innocently characterize the results as a 'chlorine analog to ozone', but it does sorta, kinda look like that is pretty much what might be going on with the perchlorate.

Yeah, maybe 'some' perchlorate tagged along from the Star 48, but we have UV and chemy precursors in abundance, so do we give a nod to the plausibility of perchlorates naturally occurring on Mars?

How hard would it be to dust off the old Viking surface chemistry experiment and dump some perchlorate in it and 'see what happens' ??





Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 5 2008, 03:11 AM

QUOTE (moon2mars @ Aug 4 2008, 09:57 PM) *
Below is a very relevant excerpt from the Viking Lander 1 mission in August of 1976. This is all documented in the NASA SP-4212 "On Mars" and I would highly recommend it regarding all the clammer lately:

Great quote! But I think we all get the caveats and don't hold it against any of the science team. It's a privilege to get to watch them work (and a privilege (hard earned I'm sure) for them to work on our nation's space program).

EDIT: tasp got in my way smile.gif

Posted by: Holder of the Two Leashes Aug 5 2008, 03:15 AM

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 4 2008, 08:53 PM) *
Isn't the solid fuel bound into the case at the factory, then cleaned and sealed?

You're right, but at some point you have to put in the igniter, and I'm not sure exactly when this is. Also, some surface contamination is a remote possibility if they didn't clean the stage thoroughly.

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 4 2008, 08:53 PM) *
But it doesn't burn perfectly and towards the end of the burn I wonder how ragged it gets through the grain.

Here is what wikipedia has to offer up on ammonium perchlorate (NH4ClO4) ...
"Like most ammonium salts, it decomposes before melting. Mild heating results in chlorine, nitrogen, oxygen and water, while strong heating may lead to explosions." Emphasis added by me. I just have a hard time seeing intact particles of propellant surviving the enviroment of a combustion chamber, no matter how fast they come out.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 5 2008, 03:31 AM

But the AP is still within the binder until it is exposed to the "burn front" (I made that up) no? so it doesn't melt until it is ignited. I'm just wondering if there is some physical process like ragged shocks that could dislodge unburned bits, especially just before shutdown. I'm REALLY reaching here.

Posted by: Reed Aug 5 2008, 03:35 AM

QUOTE (nprev @ Aug 4 2008, 04:36 PM) *
The only stage that could have conceivably contaminated Phoenix would have been the 3rd, and hopefully they're considering the possibility.

Idle speculation: What about pyros ? There had to be a bunch going off in the EDL sequence when phoenix was out in the open ?
QUOTE (tasp)
How hard would it be to dust off the old Viking surface chemistry experiment and dump some perchlorate in it and 'see what happens' ??

First go bring it back, then you can worry about dusting it off laugh.gif (I know you mean a ground spare / or reconstruction)

Posted by: Holder of the Two Leashes Aug 5 2008, 03:40 AM

QUOTE (Paul Fjeld @ Aug 4 2008, 09:31 PM) *
I'm just wondering if there is some physical process like ragged shocks that could dislodge unburned bits, especially just before shutdown.

It does happen, and if the chunks get too big, well, the end result is like what happened to CONTOUR.

My instincts are still that perchlorate contamination from exhaust is a near impossiblity, especially with the exacting grade of fuel used in these kinds of rockets. But we'll see soon enough. I'm sure NASA and the Phoenix team will publically address all possible sources of contamination in a timely fashion.

QUOTE (Reed @ Aug 4 2008, 09:35 PM) *
What about pyros ?
No perchlorates. These use explosives.

Edit: I was mistaken here. NASA often times does use a zirconium/potassium perchlorate mix as an initiator in their pyros. I have no idea if they used such in Phoenix.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 5 2008, 03:46 AM

QUOTE (tasp @ Aug 4 2008, 11:09 PM) *
Yeah, maybe 'some' perchlorate tagged along from the Star 48, but we have UV and chemy precursors in abundance, so do we give a nod to the plausibility of perchlorates naturally occurring on Mars?

Seems like an easier path than sneakin' it in via the rocket motors. Prelaunch contamination seems unlikely to me because of the nature of the mission. Are there special clean room rules when you're worried about contamination spreading to your mission objective?

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 5 2008, 03:49 AM

QUOTE (Holder of the Two Leashes @ Aug 4 2008, 11:40 PM) *
But we'll see soon enough. I'm sure NASA and the Phoenix team will publically address all possible sources of contamination in a timely fashion.

Of course! Just speculatin'. Good night.

Posted by: Holder of the Two Leashes Aug 5 2008, 04:00 AM

And a pleasant evening to you, too. smile.gif

Posted by: dvandorn Aug 5 2008, 04:41 AM

I'm no chemist, so let me ask the chemists here... what happens when you take the boundary layer of ice, dust and small rocks (which may be rich in chlorine salts) and *melt* into it with hydrazine/nitrazine rocket exhaust?

Can the process produce small amounts of perchlorates? What all would you have to have in the mix in order for that type of event to produce perchlorates?

Let us not forget that Phoenix's rockets cleared off relatively large patches of ice and seemingly melted down into the ice at various points. I'm sure most of it exited the vicinity as rapidly sublimating steam. However, the MRO images clearly show that the entire area around Phoenix is covered with material ejected by the rocket exhaust at landing, and that material is *significantly* darker than the natural surface surrounding it.

Is it not possible that some of that color change is due to chemical alteration, and not solely from albedo effects in re stirred-up vs. eons-deposited soils?

Just putting it out there...

-the other Doug

Posted by: martianmonkey Aug 5 2008, 04:48 AM

I don't know if everyone here is so damned smart that they just didn't bother to comment on this, but ...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_perchlorate :
"Lithium perchlorate is used as a source of oxygen in some chemical oxygen generators. It decomposes at about 400 °C, yielding lithium chloride and oxygen. It has both the highest oxygen to weight and oxygen to volume ratio of all perchlorates, which makes it especially advantageous in aerospace applications."

blink.gif

So, essentially the Martian surface is a repository of breathable oxygen? Pretty good diggin', Phoenix. (Yeah, yeah, all preliminary, I know - but one is allowed to dream.)

Posted by: tasp Aug 5 2008, 04:57 AM

I note rocks precisely like that allowed the astronaut in "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" to survive in that sixties sci-fi movie . .

LOL, we are all catching up with 40 year old Hollywood Saturday afternoon movies now1



Posted by: dvandorn Aug 5 2008, 05:01 AM

QUOTE (martianmonkey @ Aug 4 2008, 11:48 PM) *
I don't know if everyone here is so damned smart that they just didn't bother to comment on this, but ...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_perchlorate :
"Lithium perchlorate is used as a source of oxygen in some chemical oxygen generators. It decomposes at about 400 °C, yielding lithium chloride and oxygen. It has both the highest oxygen to weight and oxygen to volume ratio of all perchlorates, which makes it especially advantageous in aerospace applications."

Yes sir -- and these chemical oxygen generators are both used in manned spaceflight, and have been involved in a couple of disasters.

The Mir fire occurred when an "oxygen candle" of the type described here started to release oxygen too fast, started burning too hot, and lit off a serious fire. Since the source of the fire was creating more oxygen than the fire was taking from the cabin air, it was an extremely difficult fire to put out.

Also, a jetliner (I think it was Air Blue, but I could be wrong) was lost, with all passegers and crew, when lithium perchlorate oxygen generators caught fire in the plane's cargo hold just after takeoff, and nearly burned the plane in half before it could turn around and land.

Sorry about the side-trip, here. But even though I know that these chemical oxygen generators can be very useful, every time I hear about them I shudder and think thoughts about nasty, hard-to-control technologies.

-the other Doug

Posted by: Stu Aug 5 2008, 05:30 AM

QUOTE (fredk @ Aug 5 2008, 01:26 AM) *
Stu, you've got the wrong end of the stick here. The whole point of what has happened here is that the science isn't done yet - that's why they didn't say anything Thursday. They want confirmation from TEGA. As far as I can tell, they have no relevant new results since Thursday, and today's press release was only done to quell the rumours.


I know, I get that. I didn't say confirmed discovery, I meant they've discovered/detected/sniffed something that's worth checking and has to be confirmed, that's all. This has been a good example of science-in-progress so that's still a result in my book, so well done guys, if you're reading.

Posted by: HughFromAlice Aug 5 2008, 07:07 AM

QUOTE (moon2mars @ Aug 5 2008, 12:27 PM) *
Having to work in a fishbowl like this is an experience that none of us is used to.

He also cautioned the reporters that they were being included in the analysis phase of the experiments. They were "looking over the shoulder of a group of people who are trying to work in a normal way in an abnormal environment." The scientist's caution was prompted by his knowledge that "we well might be wrong in anything we say. Anyone who has carried out a scientific investigation knows that the pathway of science is paved not only with brilliant insights and great discoveries, but also with false leads and bitter disappointments. And nobody wanted to be wrong in public on a question as important as that of life on Mars."


Just squeezing this in after a late lunch break. In my opinion great credit to the Phoenix team - they have had the nerve to hold a delicate balance. They are leaders in open science but are also keeping their feet on the ground. More and more people (non scientists) are going to be close to cutting edge science in fields of key interest as we enter the information age proper. (Well beyond 1976!!!!). A significant number of scientists are going to have to develop new skill sets in the communications area! We are just in the middle of a particularly fascinating lesson in the basics! New ground is always unsettling! ....Especially watching the social and political implications of all this playing out.... and the funding implications! Openness has its costs. Yet imagine a general trend of widespread openness leading to a significant proportion (5-10%) of the general population being positively stimulated to move to a broader view beyond the generally held myth that science is pretty well cut and dried etc. etc. to the fact it hinges on empirical/intellectual exploration. Passive acceptance could become active interest. Interest become active support.

The Viking Labelled Release experiment is an interesting example of this sort of thing.....As I'm sure many UMSFers are aware, its echoes are still with us 30+ years later!!!

Interesting overview
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/viking_labeledrelease_010905-1.html

Majority view - No life - interesting article on head of Viking Biology Team - Harold Klein, in terms of the subject we are talking about
http://history.arc.nasa.gov/hist_pdfs/bio_klein.pdf

Minority view - Life a strong possibility - by another of the key players in the Viking mission - Gilbert Levin (his company main designer of the LR instrument). See papers on his site.
http://gillevin.com/mars.htm

Speculative minority position on unusual life forms - by people like Jan Houtkooper
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2535

So...... I'm looking forward to 'our'(!) Phoenix Team uncovering more of the unknown in real time and so more surprises on Mars and Earth! When Peter Smith loses his beaming smile...well, in that unlikely event, we might have to start worrying!!!!





Posted by: martianmonkey Aug 5 2008, 08:23 AM

QUOTE (HughFromAlice @ Aug 5 2008, 09:07 AM) *
A significant number of scientists are going to have to develop new skill sets in the communications area! We are just in the middle of a particularly fascinating lesson in the basics! New ground is always unsettling! ....Especially watching the social and political implications of all this playing out.... and the funding implications! Openness has its costs. Yet imagine a general trend of widespread openness leading to a significant proportion (5-10%) of the general population being positively stimulated to move to a broader view beyond the generally held myth that science is pretty well cut and dried etc. etc. to the fact it hinges on empirical/intellectual exploration. Passive acceptance could become active interest. Interest become active support.


That's an inspiring opinion. I think that not only the scientists has to develop new skills, but also the public at large. We have to get used to the fact that when NASA says "these results may or may not be accurate" they mean it and give them time to complete the analysis and not overreact. If we can do this, NASA will have a much easier time involving the public in the scientific process, to the benefit of both parties.

As for the Labeled Release experiment, I never understood why NASA didn't make a follow-up experiment on one of their later lander missions?

Posted by: Zvezdichko Aug 5 2008, 08:38 AM

I think this means nothing yet. We explore the surface and the near surface region... That's where oxidants form.

I really hope they will fund the Deep Drill lander someday.

Posted by: TheChemist Aug 5 2008, 09:36 AM

The origin of the perchlorate (synthetic or natural) on earth can be asserted by δ 37Cl and δ 18O isotopic abundances. (See Fig. 1 in this http://jplwater.nasa.gov/NMOWeb/AdminRecord/docs/NAS710443.pdf).

TEGA in principle might be able to measure these isotopic abundances with its MS spectrometer, and see whether it is a fuel contamination (which I doubt). We might also get to know what the deltas δ are for natural perchlorate on Mars in the process. However, since the perchlorate will be just one component in a composite mixture of soil salts, some possibly also containing oxygen and chlorine, it might not be experimentally feasible.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/~b26/Book-ClO4.htm also has a chapter on perchlorate deltas, δ.

QUOTE
Chapter 5. Stable Isotopic Composition of Chlorine and Oxygen in Synthetic and Natural Perchlorate

Neil C. Sturchio , J. K. Böhlke, Baohua Gu, Juske Horita, Gilbert M. Brown, Abelardo D. Beloso, Jr., Leslie J. Patterson,
Paul B. Hatzinger, W. Andrew Jackson, and Jacimaria Batista

The pdf is http://www.springerlink.com/index/q7520677401k34x4.pdf (access to Springer needed, I think).

We have an excellent example of interesting live science evolving here guys, let's enjoy it ! Go Phoenix mars.gif


Edit to add postscript : After further reading, I think I was wrong about TEGA's ability to determine the perchlorate deltas. It seems to me now that it can't be done, at least directly.

Posted by: Floyd Aug 5 2008, 10:40 AM

As I understand, the first measurement got a borderline positive perchlorate measurement and the second negative. To do isotope ratios you need a strong signal--the water so far has not been enough to get O δ. The perchlorate story will get more interesting if the get a strong signal at some point.

Posted by: Oersted Aug 5 2008, 11:21 AM

Rumours have found their way even to Danish mainstream media...

http://politiken.dk/videnskab/article547315.ece

(Serious approach, talking about an "escalation in the blogosphere" compared to the original scanty information...)

Posted by: jmknapp Aug 5 2008, 11:55 AM

Confusing press release I guess. Check out this from the http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/05/MN0G1253QT.DTL:

QUOTE
Scientists analyzing two soil samples their Phoenix spacecraft dug from the surface of Mars announced they have discovered what may be the highly oxidizing chemical called perchlorate, a common component of rocket fuels, explosives and some medicines, they reported Monday.

The surprising discovery in the Martian soil seems contradictory, because if it really is confirmed as a perchlorate compound it suggests that the planet's soil may be very much like Earth's, said Peter Smith, the University of Arizona scientist who heads the Phoenix mission.

However, Smith said in his announcement, "further analysis has revealed un-Earthlike aspects of the soil chemistry."


Perchlorate in the soil makes it Earthlike? In the words of Jose Jimenez: "Gee, I hope not."

Confusion may not be all the fault of the press. After all, perchlorate was detected in the same analysis as 8.0 pH and trace nutrients, the latter touted some weeks back as evidence of asparagus prosperity. Where was the scientific reserve there? Granted, perchlorate doesn't fit the narrative.

Posted by: marsbug Aug 5 2008, 01:41 PM

Does anyone know the freezing points of perchlorate solutions? If they are within the range of temperatures at the phoenix site wouldn't we expect that perchlorate in the soil would form small quantities of liquid and wick downwards? If so that would point to an active source, which adds evidence to the 'oxidisers fall out of the martian sky' arguments.

Posted by: ahecht Aug 5 2008, 01:49 PM

QUOTE (dvandorn @ Aug 5 2008, 01:01 AM) *
Also, a jetliner (I think it was Air Blue, but I could be wrong) was lost, with all passegers and crew, when lithium perchlorate oxygen generators caught fire in the plane's cargo hold just after takeoff, and nearly burned the plane in half before it could turn around and land.


That was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet, which shortly afterwards did a reverse-merger to become AirTran (since the old ValueJet name was associated with a plane-shaped hole in a Florida swamp).

QUOTE (marsbug @ Aug 5 2008, 09:41 AM) *
Does anyone know the freezing points of perchlorate solutions? If they are within the range of temperatures at the phoenix site wouldn't we expect that perchlorate in the soil would form small quantities of liquid and wick downwards? If so that would point to an active source, which adds evidence to the 'oxidisers fall out of the martian sky' arguments.


Methoxylamine perchlorate can be mixed with hydrazine to drop its freezing point from about +1°C down to -55°C according to http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3941626.html

Posted by: marsbug Aug 5 2008, 02:05 PM

Thanks, I suppose it's the old more data needed scenario again.

Posted by: Oersted Aug 5 2008, 05:24 PM

Tuesday, Aug. 5, at 11 a.m. PDT .... - NASA teleconference on the subject.... 40 minutes from now.

Can one listen in to it anywhere?

Posted by: elakdawalla Aug 5 2008, 05:45 PM

No, this one is a special call-in for reporters. However, I'm sure they'll archive it online as they've done in the past, so you should hopefully be able to listen to it, possibly today.

--Emily

Posted by: centsworth_II Aug 5 2008, 05:47 PM

Hopefully those interested will be able to listen in:

NASA News Audio Live Streaming


COMING UP:

2 p.m. EDT, Tuesday, Aug. 5:
Phoenix Mars Lander

NASA will hold a media teleconference on Tuesday, Aug. 5, at 2 p.m. EDT to provide an update on the Phoenix Mars Lander Mission.

* A link to the streaming audio will appear here before the event.
http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/newsaudio/index.html

Posted by: fredk Aug 5 2008, 06:02 PM

Streaming audio link is now up at that address, and working fine...

Posted by: MahFL Aug 5 2008, 06:04 PM

What a news conference ? !!!!!!

Posted by: elakdawalla Aug 5 2008, 06:06 PM

Keep your pants on, I'm sure they're just working out audio stuff or making sure the visuals (if any) are online and ready for journalists. I LOVE that NASA is willing to start a few minutes late in order to make sure that everything is working right. ESA will plunge right into a press conference even if people calling in from overseas can't hear a d*** thing or can't find the visuals.

--Emily

Posted by: Oersted Aug 5 2008, 06:10 PM

...soothing classical music?...

Edit: ok, it started now... - Thx for the link!

Posted by: Stu Aug 5 2008, 06:16 PM

"Extreme interest..."?!?! laugh.gif

Posted by: just-nick Aug 5 2008, 06:26 PM

I'm stuck on the far side of a picky firewall and am dealing with blown up databases in any case...anyone able to update or summarize? Gracias!

--N

Posted by: Stu Aug 5 2008, 06:31 PM

First question from Craig Covault... nice sign there are no hard feelings?

Posted by: hendric Aug 5 2008, 06:35 PM

Oh, I don't know about that, those comments right before the Q&A had me going "Snap!"

Posted by: Stu Aug 5 2008, 06:40 PM

I think it was very generous... I was half expecting a "Craig - " bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt... "Sorry, we appear to have lost that caller. Next, please..?" wink.gif

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 5 2008, 06:45 PM

I think they were VERY generous to Craig. No "Thanks for setting off that stink-bomb at our party" or nothin'. This is a beautiful experience listening to these guys and the questions. I'm verklempt...

Posted by: hendric Aug 5 2008, 06:50 PM

OMG, they found chocolate covered strawberries on Mars! smile.gif

Edit: This will now be my standard answer whenever I hear a Mars rumor... laugh.gif

Posted by: centsworth_II Aug 5 2008, 06:52 PM

QUOTE (hendric @ Aug 5 2008, 02:50 PM) *
OMG, they found chocolate covered strawberries on Mars! smile.gif

Now on slashdot! laugh.gif

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 5 2008, 06:54 PM

Cowing asked why NASA is always surprised by the Internet and can't keep up after all these years dealing with the speed of things today. How could NASA have done this better? They go from Friday through the weekend to Tuesday with a full-blown presser with backups and everything! The crazy stuff happened on Sunday? Two days. Pretty good!

Posted by: martianmonkey Aug 5 2008, 07:03 PM

The teleconference was a little hard for me to follow. What were the most interesting points, in your opinion?

Posted by: Stu Aug 5 2008, 07:05 PM

Just found this on the Phoenix site... they were there all along...



tongue.gif

Posted by: jmknapp Aug 5 2008, 07:09 PM

Maybe some organisms coexist with or even eat perchlorate, but they are extremophiles. One could as well say the presence of sulphuric acid has no bearing on habitability, as some extremophile organism in some cave thrives on it.

Posted by: elakdawalla Aug 5 2008, 07:10 PM

Dang it...I evidently was too far down the line to get my questions onto the call mad.gif

--Emily

Posted by: Skyrunner Aug 5 2008, 07:11 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ Aug 5 2008, 09:05 PM) *
Just found this on the Phoenix site... they were there all along...

That's odd; I was under the impressing the soil was alkaline. Strawberries grow in Ph 5-6.5 so is this a new species of strawberries?

Nice quick reaction Stu laugh.gif

Posted by: ugordan Aug 5 2008, 07:12 PM

@jmknapp: Yes, but how do you proceed from no life whatsoever in that extreme environment to extremophiles that feed on it? The fact we find all kinds of extremophiles on Earth doesn't say much as life probably didn't evolve in such harsh conditions in the first place. That fact seems to be neglected all too often I think.

Posted by: Paul Fjeld Aug 5 2008, 07:12 PM

Should somebody start a new thread? Something like "Post - the great press conference of 2008"? I'm being silly because I can't think for being so happy about it.

Posted by: centsworth_II Aug 5 2008, 07:14 PM

QUOTE (jmknapp @ Aug 5 2008, 03:09 PM) *
Maybe some organisms coexist with or even eat perchlorate, but they are extremophiles.

On Earth they are extremophiles. On Mars (IF there were organisms on Mars) they might be considered run-of-the-mill. (Actually, on Earth organisms that are called extremophiles are looking more and more to be run-of-the-mill.)

Posted by: centsworth_II Aug 5 2008, 07:18 PM

QUOTE (ugordan @ Aug 5 2008, 03:12 PM) *
... life probably didn't evolve in such harsh conditions in the first place.

I don't know about that. It's possible that nothing living today could survive in whatever conditions life originated in. We don't know what those conditions were in any case.

Posted by: CosmicRocker Aug 5 2008, 07:20 PM

It was a very interesting briefing, but I was having some software issues at the start, and didn't hear the first 10 minutes or so. One of the things I really wanted to learn was the concentration of the ClO4-. Did anyone mention the concentration, or did anyone even ask what it was?

Posted by: belleraphon1 Aug 5 2008, 07:21 PM

QUOTE (ugordan @ Aug 5 2008, 03:12 PM) *
@jmknapp: Yes, but how do you proceed from no life whatsoever in that extreme environment to extremophiles that feed on it? The fact we find all kinds of extremophiles on Earth doesn't say much as life probably didn't evolve in such harsh conditions in the first place. That fact seems to be neglected all too often I think.


Actually it could have been the other way around. Anaerobic extremophiles were king and queen for half of Earth history until us nasty oxygen breathers poisoned them all into niche environments near the surface. Most of Earths biomass is under ground and considered extrmophiles.

Craig

Posted by: Floyd Aug 5 2008, 07:21 PM

QUOTE (ugordan @ Aug 5 2008, 03:12 PM) *
The fact we find all kinds of extremophiles on Earth doesn't say much as life probably didn't evolve in such harsh conditions in the first place.

I think there is still a lot of discussion about what conditions were like when live evolved (or came in on a rock) here on earth. Many evolutionary biologists think conditions were fairly extreme (near 100 C) and extremophiles were the early norm.

Posted by: centsworth_II Aug 5 2008, 07:22 PM

QUOTE (CosmicRocker @ Aug 5 2008, 03:20 PM) *
I really wanted to learn was the concentration of the ClO4-. Did anyone mention the concentration, or did anyone even ask what it was?

It was asked a couple times.... no answer yet. More data and/or analysis required.


Posted by: volcanopele Aug 5 2008, 07:31 PM

QUOTE (Floyd @ Aug 5 2008, 12:21 PM) *
I think there is still a lot of discussion about what conditions were like when live evolved (or came in on a rock) here on earth. Many evolutionary biologists think conditions were fairly extreme (near 100 C) and extremophiles were the early norm.

True, but the sentiments of ugordan's post ring true. We should be cautious about using the range of conditions that life exists on Earth today to predict whether there is life in the extreme environments seen elsewhere in the solar system. Evolution is a powerful process.

Posted by: jmknapp Aug 5 2008, 07:32 PM

In case someone wants to hear the telecon before the audio is posted on the JPL website, here's an MP3 I made (thx Audacity):

http://cboh.org/~jmk/jpl0805.mp3

Posted by: ChrisC Aug 5 2008, 07:42 PM

Outstanding, thank you!

Posted by: martianmonkey Aug 5 2008, 07:42 PM

QUOTE (volcanopele @ Aug 5 2008, 09:31 PM) *
True, but the sentiments of ugordan's post ring true. We should be cautious about using the range of conditions that life exists on Earth today to predict whether there is life in the extreme environments seen elsewhere in the solar system. Evolution is a powerful process.


The Earth is our only source of comparison - we're grasping at straws in exobiology, so we may as well as well grasp at the most familiar straws.


QUOTE (jmknapp @ Aug 5 2008, 09:32 PM) *
In case someone wants to hear the telecon before the audio is posted on the JPL website, here's an MP3 I made (thx Audacity):

http://cboh.org/~jmk/jpl0805.mp3


Very useful, thank you.

Posted by: elakdawalla Aug 5 2008, 07:44 PM

@jmknapp: you are awesome. My voice recorder's batteries died about 10 minutes in to the conference.

Here's one of my two questions that I didn't get to ask, responded to very very quickly via email (thanks Sara!) -- I thought this would be of interest to you all.

QUOTE
> For Bill Boynton: I was surprised to hear that TEGA needed to be
> programmed to look for chlorine. My (admittedly very rudimentary)
> understanding of mass spectrometers is that you were reading a
> continuous spectrum of masses of species driven off during your
> heating cycles. Are you actually reading a discontinuous spectrum, or
> even just looking at discrete masses along the spectrum?

We can operate TEGA in two different modes. In one mode we can scan all the masses, in which case we would see chlorine had it been there. But it takes about 5 minutes to complete a full scan at a good sensitivity level. The way we operate TEGA when we are heating the sample, we select several (generally 10 to 20) masses of interest and continuously jump back and forth between them so we don't waste time on masses that we don't think will be of interest. We do occasionally run a full mass scan, but normally during heating, it is just the mass hopping mode.


--Emily

Posted by: Sunspot Aug 5 2008, 07:52 PM

I wonder what would happen to NASA's Mars exploration program if a test on a current or future mission definitively and positively ruled out life ever having existed there.

Posted by: belleraphon1 Aug 5 2008, 08:00 PM

QUOTE (Sunspot @ Aug 5 2008, 03:52 PM) *
I wonder what would happen to NASA's Mars exploration program if a test on a current or future mission definitively and positively ruled out life ever having existed there.


Don't think there is any single test that could say that. We are talking an entire world here, as much land area as Earth and all that underground territory.

Craig

Posted by: Stu Aug 5 2008, 08:05 PM

I don't think that scenario could ever develop, to be honest. Mars is a huge place, with many, many different environments to check for forms of life. It wouldn't be possible to ever declare "No life here!" unless they'd looked under or inside every rock, checked beneath all the ice layers, searched every low-lying valley, etc. Life could exist in aquifers deep underground, or inside volcanic vents, or countless other places, in theory.

But if Mars was ever declared officially dead then maybe it would actually spur on exploration and exploitation; with no native life to protect, it would be a case of unload the bulldozers and get digging guys..! smile.gif

Posted by: ustrax Aug 5 2008, 08:07 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ Aug 5 2008, 09:05 PM) *
But if Mars was ever declared officially dead then maybe it would actually spur on exploration and exploitation; with no native life to protect, it would be a case of unload the bulldozers and get digging guys..! smile.gif


I actually have a shovel...

Posted by: Stu Aug 5 2008, 08:12 PM

... yeah, and you'd just dig and dig and dig with it until you'd finally MADE an abyss...! laugh.gif

Posted by: ustrax Aug 5 2008, 08:13 PM

A perchlorate-free abyss I presume... wink.gif

Posted by: centsworth_II Aug 5 2008, 08:24 PM

QUOTE (volcanopele @ Aug 5 2008, 03:31 PM) *
We should be cautious about using the range of conditions that life exists on Earth today to predict whether there is life in the extreme environments seen elsewhere in the solar system. Evolution is a powerful process.

Yes, evolution would be a powerful process anywhere, and if life had ever existed on Mars it could well have evolved to keep pace with changing conditions.

Posted by: nprev Aug 5 2008, 08:40 PM

QUOTE (centsworth_II @ Aug 5 2008, 12:24 PM) *
Yes, evolution would be a powerful process anywhere, and if life had ever existed on Mars it could well have evolved to keep pace with changing conditions.


...or the conditions were radically different chemically at the start even from Earth's primordial environment in the first place, and anything that still might be living on Mars would find the current environment just peachy-keen. It's a complete data hole. We have no idea whatsoever even what the grossest constraints on the origin of life might be, except for the fact that it does seem that liquid water is needed for a time. Any other general assumption just doesn't seem supportable; there are too many possibilities.

Stu is right. It'll take 1000 years or more of detailed exploration to answer the very basic question of yes or no to life on Mars if we don't get exceedingly lucky. We haven't gotten exceedingly lucky in this regard yet. Carl Sagan's famous principle "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has never been more true then it is for this issue.

Posted by: ugordan Aug 5 2008, 08:48 PM

QUOTE (centsworth_II @ Aug 5 2008, 10:24 PM) *
evolution would be a powerful process anywhere

Yes, but evolution needs time to adapt. If Mars had conditions that were marginally sufficient for life to arise (whether extremophiles for our standards or Something Completely Different ™ ), but never achieve a firm foothold, changing environment might have "extinguished" it.

Consider a wildfire analogy if you'd like - a small flame is easy to put out, but once it spreads out all hell breaks loose. Some terrains are suitable for wildfires - you can surely expect one in densely forested areas, but not rocky terrain. I'm suggesting Earth might have always had more of the "forest" factor than Mars ever did. This is why falling back to extremophiles on Mars always seemed like grasping at straws. To me at least.

Posted by: jmknapp Aug 5 2008, 09:03 PM

QUOTE (Sunspot @ Aug 5 2008, 02:52 PM) *
I wonder what would happen to NASA's Mars exploration program if a test on a current or future mission definitively and positively ruled out life ever having existed there.


Based on the current narrative (warmer, wetter, wilder), seems like it would be a game changer. As in, something to brief the science advisor about.

Interesting that Covault's story is verified in several important respects. I.e., the MECA team was working with an extremely important, undisclosed result directly related to habitability--contrary to speculation, tending towards less habitability than more, but whatever.

Regarding contamination, a very important point made several times during the press conference is that perchlorate was seen in both MECA samples, but not in the calibration step where they measure the water prior to stirring in the soil. That would seem to rule out contamination. So yes, the big news is that they have Martian perchlorate, and enough to give them a very strong signal. They didn't quantify it, but made the observation that the particular sensor was strongly specific for perchlorate but weakly specific for nitrate. So if they had a weak signal they wouldn't know if it was due to a little perchlorate or a lot of nitrate. But they had a strong enough signal to rule out nitrate.

Posted by: ustrax Aug 5 2008, 09:08 PM

Well...looks like there's motive for MECA to party...
But...hey!...I have just returned to town... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: ahecht Aug 5 2008, 09:09 PM

QUOTE (jmknapp @ Aug 5 2008, 05:03 PM) *
... the MECA team was working with an extremely important, undisclosed result directly related to habitability--contrary to speculation, tending towards less habitability than more, but whatever.


I didn't hear that in the press conference -- the consensus seemed to be no impact on habitability, with Peter Smith saying that in some ways it slightly increases the possibility of Martian life since we know of microbes on Earth that feed on perchlorates.

Posted by: nprev Aug 5 2008, 09:09 PM

Thing is, "extremophiles" is a very broad term indeed which encompasses a huge range of potential habitats. Heck, you could probably even call dinosaurs extremophiles by one standard since the Earth's atmosphere was much richer in oxygen during their time than it is now (something on the order of 30% vs. today's 21% in some eras IIRC). The poor dinosaurs in Jurrasic Park would have probably been gasping for breath.

Goofy example, but illustrative of the basic principle. Our standard, consciously or not, is what we think of as the normal terrestrial environment: the surface of the Earth and, to some degree, the oceans. We tend to regard environments different from these as hostile because our type of life & those that we are familiar with can't survive there. I don't think we know enough yet to rule almost anything out in terms of conditions for "habitability", really, and that word may ultimately have a true definition just as broad as that of "extremophile".

Posted by: Mongo Aug 5 2008, 09:28 PM

QUOTE (ugordan @ Aug 5 2008, 07:12 PM) *
@jmknapp: Yes, but how do you proceed from no life whatsoever in that extreme environment to extremophiles that feed on it? The fact we find all kinds of extremophiles on Earth doesn't say much as life probably didn't evolve in such harsh conditions in the first place. That fact seems to be neglected all too often I think.


I thought it was the other way around. The most fundamental metabolic pathways (measured by how widespread they are in all branches of Bacterial and Archeaobacterial life) seem to indicate the the earliest forms of life were indeed extremophiles. Indeed, the current oxygen-breathing life-forms are in many ways the most extremophile. (Which is most difficult to survive and grow in: strong acids, high salt concentrations, high temperatures or high oxygen levels? They are all challenging, but I would vote for high oxygen levels.)

Posted by: Mongo Aug 5 2008, 09:37 PM

QUOTE
We can operate TEGA in two different modes. In one mode we can scan all the masses, in which case we would see chlorine had it been there. But it takes about 5 minutes to complete a full scan at a good sensitivity level. The way we operate TEGA when we are heating the sample, we select several (generally 10 to 20) masses of interest and continuously jump back and forth between them so we don't waste time on masses that we don't think will be of interest. We do occasionally run a full mass scan, but normally during heating, it is just the mass hopping mode.


Am I the only person who is not altogether happy about this? I am sure that the team has considered the pros and cons, but systematically ignoring potential data in favour of looking only for what you expect to find seems risky. If during most of the sample heating process, they are only looking at the masses that were decided beforehand are of interest, who knows what surprises are being missed?

Posted by: belleraphon1 Aug 5 2008, 09:42 PM

QUOTE (Mongo @ Aug 5 2008, 04:28 PM) *
I thought it was the other way around. The most fundamental metabolic pathways (measured by how widespread they are in all branches of Bacterial and Archeaobacterial life) seem to indicate the the earliest forms of life were indeed extremophiles.


Have to agree with Mongo here... interesting perpsective on what aerobes did to the anaerobes, read Larry Niven's short story "The Green Marauder" (part of his Draco Tavern collection). Food for thought.

This is what makes planetary exploration so fascinating.... partial answers to some of the big questions may come in our lifetimes.... and the universe is big enough to never run out of adventure and questions.

Craig

Posted by: nprev Aug 5 2008, 09:43 PM

I had very similar thoughts, Bill. The rationale for not examining broad-spectrum data doesn't seem sufficient if you're thinking in terms of a comprehensive chemical survey of a sample.

On the other hand, if you're looking for specific compounds (carbon & nitrogen species, for example), this might make sense. It would declutter the data considerably.

Posted by: belleraphon1 Aug 5 2008, 09:44 PM

QUOTE (Mongo @ Aug 5 2008, 04:37 PM) *
Am I the only person who is not altogether happy about this? I am sure that the team has considered the pros and cons, but systematically ignoring potential data in favour of looking only for what you expect to find seems risky. If during most of the sample heating process, they are only looking at the masses that were decided beforehand are of interest, who knows what surprises are being missed?


I agree Mongo..... how can you find the unexpected when you only look for the expected. Perhaps we are both misunderstanding the explanation. Does not seem right.

Craig

Posted by: slinted Aug 5 2008, 09:44 PM

QUOTE (Mongo @ Aug 5 2008, 02:28 PM) *
The most fundamental metabolic pathways (measured by how widespread they are in all branches of Bacterial and Archeaobacterial life) seem to indicate the the earliest forms of life were indeed extremophiles.


Each branch of extremephiles have evolved and specialized to their specific environment over time. It's easy to forget that even though we (humans) used our 3.4 billion years of evolution away from the common ancestor to become 'complicated', bacteria and archaea have been evolving for 3.4 billion years too! We may have more complexity, but are no more or less 'evolved' than anything else that is currently extant.

Posted by: nprev Aug 5 2008, 09:50 PM

Good point. Physiological complexity does not equate to evolutionary advancement at the core level. Bacteria are remarkably adept at adaptation to changing environmental conditions, arguably much more so then so-called higher forms of life. (Producing a new generation from survivors of a change every 15 minutes or so helps a lot...)

Posted by: Mongo Aug 5 2008, 09:52 PM

QUOTE (belleraphon1 @ Aug 5 2008, 10:44 PM) *
I agree Mongo..... how can you find the unexpected when you only look for the expected. Perhaps we are both misunderstanding the explanation. Does not seem right.


I hope that we are misunderstanding what the plan is. I have read on many occasions how some groundbreaking discovery could have been made so-and-so many years earlier than it eventually was, but the data that could have pointed the way was discarded before analysis, or never recorded despite being within reach. The chances are that nothing of huge importance is being missed, but you never know.

Posted by: Mongo Aug 5 2008, 09:56 PM

QUOTE (slinted @ Aug 5 2008, 10:44 PM) *
Each branch of extremephiles have evolved and specialized to their specific environment over time. It's easy to forget that even though we (humans) used our 3.4 billion years of evolution away from the common ancestor to become 'complicated', bacteria and archaea have been evolving for 3.4 billion years too! We may have more complexity, but are no more or less 'evolved' than anything else that is currently extant.


This is very true. However, if a given metabolic pathway is present in groups of organisms that are widely divergent, it is likely to have been present in their last common ancestor -- although "lateral evolution" does happen, where genetic information is passed between unrelated organisms.

Posted by: nprev Aug 5 2008, 11:18 PM

Best take on this whole mess yet http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080805-nasa-shoots-down-mars-rumors-were-not-sure-what-weve-got.html. Part of the headline reads "we're not sure what we've got."

Probably the best postscript for this conceivable.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)