backtop


Print 79 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Aug 8 at 2:59 PM

The existence of a toxic chemical discovered in the Martian soil could reduce the chances of life being found on the planet

Even though there appears to be traces of water on the Red Planet of Mars, a toxic chemical found in the soil located near the Martian north pole has put a damper on the possibility of life on the planet.

The perchlorate chemical, often times used in solid rocket fuel, is an odd discovery, forcing researchers to try and check to ensure the chemical didn't get taken to Mars from Earth.  Several more soil tests in the area will be conducted by researchers, although they are not sure how the chemical develops or the exact amount of it in the soil.

"While we have not completed our process on these soil samples, we have very interesting intermediate results," said Peter Smith, principal investigator from the project.

The Microscopy, Electrochemistry and Conductivity Analyzer aboard the Phoenix recently tested two different soil samples collected at the north pole.  MECA previously painted a rather optimistic picture about the possibility of life on the Red Planet, which became more believable after evidence of ice crumbs found on the planet.

NASA decided to use MECA on Mars because it is able to test the acidity and presence of certain chemicals, salts and minerals in all collected soil samples.

Researchers believe it's still possible that life has existed on the planet, and believe it's possible life could be found in underground aquifers that are able to help reduce exposure to the toxic soil.  

Alongside MECA, NASA also is using the Thermal and Evolved-Gas Analyzer (TEGA) to help try and find evidence of organic chemicals and the possibility of life on the Mars' surface.

Brown University researcher John Mustard, who doesn't have a hand in the project, said that all researchers should reserve judgment regarding the possibility of life on the Red Planet because of the existence of perchlorate.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

We presume too much
By maximo5 on 8/5/2008 8:44:19 AM , Rating: 5
We humans presume just because something is toxic to us that it must be toxic to all life. Scientists claim that at the bottom of our own oceans, near magma vents, the most toxic environment on earth exists. Yet marine life congregates around these toxic vents. Just because its toxic to humans doesn't necessarily mean its toxic to all life, present or past... Just my 2 cents..




RE: We presume too much
By nvalhalla on 8/5/2008 10:13:02 AM , Rating: 1
That's what I was thinking. Who's to say there isn't an organism that can feed off of this chemical, or is immune to it. It's toxic to organisms here because we don't have it in our environment, but if it was we would have found a way to adapt.


RE: We presume too much
By masher2 (blog) on 8/5/2008 10:23:34 AM , Rating: 5
There's a substantial difference between an organic toxin like, say, botulinum that is highly specific to life here on Earth, and a strong oxidizing agent such as this perchlorate they've found on Mars. The latter isn't deadly to life because its "poisonous", but because it tends to break down complex molecular structures.

A large degree of such oxidizers would create a very harsh environment for life of any sort, due simply to basic chemistry.


RE: We presume too much
By Mojo the Monkey on 8/5/2008 1:22:48 PM , Rating: 5
It's the residue left behind from when the Martians blasted off in their rockets and evacuated the planet. duh.


RE: We presume too much
By 306maxi on 8/5/2008 1:24:43 PM , Rating: 5
Thing is we only know what we know from Earth and a few rocks from the moon. There may be forms of life composed of compounds which are beyond our wildest dreams with properties we couldn't even dream of which may find the martian landscape a perfect place to live.


RE: We presume too much
By Steve Guilliot on 8/5/2008 1:35:04 PM , Rating: 5
Perchlorate is an oxidizer, but so are oxygen and chlorine, yet you breathe air and drink treated water. As you say, it's all about concentration.

We also have to consider when life evolved and the atmospheric chemistry at the time. Speaking from an evolutionist's point of view, life on Earth started in a reducing atmosphere. The atmosphere transitioned from reducing to oxidizing after life was sufficiently complex to adapt. There are simply too many questions about Mars to conclude anything at this point.

Granted, news about reducing agents would have been more favorable to those hoping for life, but we can't pick and choose data.


RE: We presume too much
By masher2 (blog) on 8/5/2008 2:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
Good post. I agree, the evidence is a long way from conclusive, but its certainly a strike against the possibility of life.


RE: We presume too much
By mindless1 on 8/5/2008 7:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
If you believe in evolution, a life form which develops would survive within the conditions present. We hope we know one way life evolved here, but we don't know it is the only way it could happen. You can build a house entirely out of brick or straw and fire is deadly to only one of them.


RE: We presume too much
By TheLiberalTruth on 8/5/2008 11:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
its certainly a strike against the possibility of life


Not really. There are bacteria here on Earth which are resistant to Chlorine at the levels we use in our pools. Evolution at work.


RE: We presume too much
By JediJeb on 8/5/2008 4:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
If the presence of perchlorate compounds negates the possibility of life on Mars, then most cities on earth right now should be lifeless because if you test the drinking water there you will find traces of perchlorate. It is one of the compounds the EPA has us test for in drinking water supplies and comes from the chlorination process used to purify water. So in small concentrations it would not be toxic, and as the article said they weren't able to measure the concentration, only the presence.

Mercury is also considered toxic, but it can easily be found in drinking water at parts per trillion concentrations. So if you actually drink 1 trillion liters of water you will have about 1 gram of mercury accumulated in your body.


RE: We presume too much
By mindless1 on 8/5/2008 7:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
Even if they can't quantitatively measure the concentration there is still a good chance the test can resolve at least a certain minimum level was detected. IOW, if you put a cup of water through the same test, it might not have detected the low level.


RE: We presume too much
By SteelyKen on 8/5/2008 5:10:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Perchlorate's chemical formula is ClO4-, and is found naturally on earth, typically as part of a salt with a positive ion. It was once thought to be such a strong oxidizing agent that it was considered incompatible with organic compounds, leading to some of the rumors that circulated about findings of a chemical that could kill. Since then, however, it has not only been found in deposits with organic compounds, but microbes have been discovered that actually use it as the primary oxidizing agent in their metabolism.


RE: We presume too much
RE: We presume too much
By marsbound2024 on 8/5/2008 8:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory begs to differ. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008...

Perchlorate is an oxidant, but not powerful.


RE: We presume too much
By JediJeb on 8/6/2008 2:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
After reading the two articles above, there is still no evidence that there is a perchlorate that would perclude life. With the fact that oxygen was released, but not chlorine upon heating to 1000 C It would appear the chlorine(if present) is tightly bound to the cations of the salts. The chlorine is the part that would kill off living organisms, so if it is tightly bound it may still be safe. Plus the oxygen that is available from these salts could provide oxygen for life possibly.

Another thing to consider here is if by heating these salts you can generate oxygen, and there is a large abundance of these salts, then there might be an ample supply of oxygen stored there for use in a manned mission. One of the biggest hurdles of a manned mission is the ability to carry enough oxygen for breathing and fuel, maybe we just need to send an automated oxygen refinery ahead to make our supply.


RE: We presume too much
By Motoman on 8/5/2008 10:22:52 AM , Rating: 2
Word. There's ridiculously alkaline ponds in the desert teeming with life...and the aforementioned "black smokers" at the bottom of the sea floor with life flourishing devoid of any light, etc. etc. We've got bacteria that eat oil, and someplace I even read about some kind of bacterium that can speed the cleanup of nuclear waste!

To quote the scientifically craptacular Jurassic Park, "life finds a way."


RE: We presume too much
By jerschae on 8/5/2008 11:40:27 AM , Rating: 2
Something that is necessary to include in any calculation of the possibility of life anywhere in the universe is the elemental truth that the basic laws of science (all fields) are the same everywhere throughout the universe. For instance, 2+2=4 is a very basic mathematical truth that never changes regardless of one's position or location in the known universe. This same concept applies to , (and is accepted by the scientific community), the factors necessary for life . In other words, the factors that are necessary for life here are necessary for life anywhere else. The shear complexity of the "simplest" bacteria or of the compounds necessary for life give strong support to this "elemental truth." That being said, the existence of a chemical such as perchlorate (and it's effects on organic compounds) in the Martian soil could help show that life cannot have existed on Mars.


RE: We presume too much
By retrospooty on 8/5/2008 12:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree entirely...

#1 - Life as we know it is limited to tests and observations on one out of 100's of trillions (actually its a much higher # than even that!) of planets that exist in the universe.

#2 - Just because there is certain chems in the soil in one location, doesnt mean its in every region of the planet. Go check soil samples in Antarctica, Africa, Australia, and North America... You will find differences in each.


RE: We presume too much
By rudy on 8/5/2008 1:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that but there are many toxic chemicals and terrible conditions on earth in which bacteria grow, from radio active, to high salt, high temperature, low temperature it simply does not matter the bacteria have evolved ways to deal with it. Either buy converting harmfull substance to inert ones or keeping them out or any number of things. One thing is true though on earth where ever there is energy to be had we can find life that has figured out how to exploit it.


RE: We presume too much
By Oregonian2 on 8/5/2008 1:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For instance, 2+2=4 is a very basic mathematical truth that never changes regardless of one's position or location in the known universe.


Has this been proven, or is it just assumed or theorized?


RE: We presume too much
By 3dWings on 8/5/2008 2:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
2 + 2 = 11, base 3......


RE: We presume too much
By FITCamaro on 8/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: We presume too much
By radializer on 8/5/2008 9:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2

:-)


RE: We presume too much
By badmoodguy on 8/7/2008 3:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely every bit of observations fit the model that the universe is the same here as elsewhere. The 2+2=4 is actually a results of symmetries of the universe which also give us conservation of energy, momentum, and other fun stuff. All of which has been tested and no counter example has been seen. It might not be so, but you might turn to stone by reading this also. 'Might happen' is usually indistinguishable from impossible even though it isn't impossible.

The 2+2=4 example also assumes a basic common working standard. Kind of like the idea the letters I'm using to say something mean to you what it does to me.

But hey, people believe that an invisible zombie in the sky wants them to eat his flesh, so observation only goes so far these days.


RE: We presume too much
By Oregonian2 on 8/8/2008 2:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Absolutely every bit of observations fit the model that the universe is the same here as elsewhere.


Uh... what percentage of the universe's volume have these theories been observed from and tested in? What's earth's volume (or to be generous, our solar system's)?


RE: We presume too much
By Steve Guilliot on 8/5/2008 1:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike arriving at your "elemental truth", we don't have to be omniscient to know that 2+2=4.

Conditions favorable for life are dependent on chemistry and temperature, which are determined by each planet's environment. We (and this includes you) only have experience with life here on Earth.


RE: We presume too much
By foolsgambit11 on 8/5/2008 5:15:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
For instance, 2+2=4 is a very basic mathematical truth that never changes regardless of one's position or location in the known universe.

"You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

The truth of 2+2=4 depends greatly upon your interpretation of the symbols used. The first step to agreeing that 2+2=4 is agreeing on the meaning of the symbols '2', '4', '+', and '='. More importantly, realizing that "II et II est IV" is an equally valid manner of arriving at the same conclusion, or "..&..->....".

When people assume that we are alive (I know, that's a self-defeating statement, making an assumption is an act of life), it is like ascribing only one meaning to '+', and refusing to acknowledge that it is also the symbol of the Red Cross, or the Swiss, or 'x' turned 45 degrees. Under another interpretation of our basic molecular actions, perhaps we should not be seen as alive.

When people assume that life is only life if it follows a certain established pattern, it is like refusing to acknowledge that you can represent "The combination of a pair of pairs is a quartet" any way other than "2+2=4"


RE: We presume too much
By RandallMoore on 8/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: We presume too much
By HeelyJoe on 8/5/2008 5:26:18 PM , Rating: 5
Some humans also presume that life "is just a divine gift" from an omniscient deity 6,000 years ago... Too many people take every word out of the bible's pages and count them as absolute indisputable fact.


RE: We presume too much
By nismotigerwvu on 8/5/2008 2:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't have said it any better myself. Oxygen gas, in and of itself, is a highly toxic compound and becuase Earth is full of it, no life can exist here right? :)
Perhaps there are obligate perchlorobes on Mars, how could we know...it's freakin' Mars!


RE: We presume too much
By rudolphna on 8/5/2008 6:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
exactly. Did you know that oxygen is actually a corrosive, metabolic poison? Hundreds of millions of years ago, certain plants started converting the planets CO2 atmosphere into oxygen, eventually reaching 30% saturation. The earth had a completely toxic atmosphere. But creatures evolved to use oxygen. Now, oxygen is necessary for life. Thats how rust forms, oxygen is corrosive. There may be creatures that would thrive on this material- or even be necessary for its survival.


RE: We presume too much
By Skypassion on 8/5/2008 6:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a link to a Congressional hearing about three Mars crashes at that time they had the hearing.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=115

There is a good source for the perchlorate. There's probably unused stuff in the tanks of craft that crashed.

I believe they had at least one more crash since. Bad luck seems to finally have lifted.


This explains everything!
By Misty Dingos on 8/5/2008 7:54:02 AM , Rating: 5
The reason there is no life on Mars. They poisoned their own planet with rocket fuel. Why did they need all that rocket fuel? To conquer Earth. But in their blind technological arrogance they set their invasion fleet up on one side of Mars. Then for some reason it blew up and the entire fleet was destroyed. The explosion was so violent that it ripped away Mars's atmosphere and killed all the Martians.

Or did it?.......




RE: This explains everything!
By killerroach on 8/5/2008 8:11:19 AM , Rating: 4
Dude, decaf is your friend...


RE: This explains everything!
By Silver2k7 on 8/5/2008 8:16:31 AM , Rating: 3
hmm ok.. right..

It might not be fit for life forms from this planet, but that does not mean that life won't find a way.

There is life forms on this planet in caves without light, near hot vents on the bottom of the ocean where its too hot and too toxic for most other things.

Its a bit premature to say for sure without flying a team of experts over there.


RE: This explains everything!
By FITCamaro on 8/5/08, Rating: 0
By judasmachine on 8/5/2008 8:50:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think you have a basis for a cool 50s sci fi short. Run with it.


RE: This explains everything!
By MrBungle123 on 8/5/2008 11:20:36 AM , Rating: 3
The evil lord Xenu strikes again!


By djkrypplephite on 8/6/2008 5:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
I bet Tom Cruise could tell us that if you die from toxic chemicals, it's because you are wrong and not a scientologist.


RE: This explains everything!
By BadAcid on 8/5/2008 11:32:42 AM , Rating: 2
Wasn't that an MST3K?


RE: This explains everything!
By TSS on 8/5/2008 6:27:22 PM , Rating: 2
well actually when i read the title i thought "geez i thought the reason there's no life on mars is because there's no atmosphere there".

if ya take a look at past life, i'd figure you're not gonna find any life in the spot there in now anyway. i mean it's the north pole. if our atmosphere was lost, and aliens came looking what used to live here on the northpole in a few billion years, what could they possibly find? 12 fossilized reindeer?

after humans have gone to mars, dug a mine about 2 miles down and examined the various layers of ground i'm not willing to belive anything about life on mars, past or present.


Retro-rockets
By oab on 8/5/2008 8:18:29 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the lander did use retro-rockets to help land itself, so I could see some soil contamination being possible from burned exhaust. I don't know how likely it is, and according to the article, NASA didn't say how likely it was either.




RE: Retro-rockets
By FITCamaro on 8/5/2008 8:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
Phoenix used hydrazine as the fuel for its landing rockets. Fox News has an article on this as well where they say that.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,397522,00.html


RE: Retro-rockets
By Lord 666 on 8/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Retro-rockets
By FITCamaro on 8/5/2008 9:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
STS-114 was 3 years ago. Why are you even mentioning it?


RE: Retro-rockets
By Lord 666 on 8/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Retro-rockets
By erple2 on 8/5/2008 10:13:01 AM , Rating: 2
Who cares if the NSA was looking at Mars?

If the NSA is doing something, then there must be credible evidence that there must be aliens there. After all, our intelligence community is infallible, right?

Is this a Cargo Cult springing up now? If so, where can I sign up?

:)


RE: Retro-rockets
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 8/5/2008 10:28:56 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe it was NaSA? I think you read a typo. The NSA doesn't exist.


RE: Retro-rockets
By JustTom on 8/5/2008 11:11:36 AM , Rating: 2
Um, NSA would be NationalSecurity Agency.....

Although, I think you are still right about the typo...


RE: Retro-rockets
By Mojo the Monkey on 8/5/2008 1:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
No, the NSA doesnt exist....


RE: Retro-rockets
By radializer on 8/5/2008 9:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
or as they say ... No Such Agency


RE: Retro-rockets
By Lord 666 on 8/5/2008 9:13:04 AM , Rating: 2
But I think this better explains it all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFvUdt9BQhU

How many probes were lost on the planet already, its just from one of them.


Its a dead planet...has been probably all along.
By jabber on 8/5/2008 9:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
Its core stalled, went solid and doesnt spin like ours, its been blasted with radiation for billions of years and yet folks still think they'll find something.

Its a very very dead planet and always will be.

I'm all for pushing the frontiers of science and understanding but we really are flogging a huge dead horse here.

Can we move on now please?




By Motoman on 8/5/2008 10:26:47 AM , Rating: 2
No. Because all that "common sense" you just barfed up would've kept people from bothering to check for life in hot springs, or alakaline desert pools, or the lightless bottom of the ocean, or any number of truly ludicrous places where life has been found thriving.

So stop. The exploration of Mars is amazing and a crucial step in furthering the ability of man to extend his reach from one measly planet. Even if Mars turns out to be dead...it will be of enormous value to determine why it's dead.


By jabber on 8/5/2008 10:45:15 AM , Rating: 2
Not really cos those places are a little closer to home and whilst still very hostile are somewhat easier and cheaper to get to.

By all means learn all we can about this wonderful living world first cos we might find something really useful.

Then take a look at that big dead lump of dust/iron.

Plenty to be looked at here at home that needs more attention.


By mindless1 on 8/5/2008 7:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
That's a bit like saying if we extensively study a baseball it will certainly help us play basketball. Sometimes you can gather all the data possible about something but ultimately you didn't learn a thing that was useful towards a particular goal you had when you started gathering the data. IOW, we don't necessarily need to know 1000 ways something won't work, only enough ways it will.


By Motoman on 8/6/2008 12:40:41 AM , Rating: 2
Our in-depth info on dead worlds stands at...zero. So if Mars is dead, it's our first point of data. If it isn't, or wasn't, then it's even more important.


By jabber on 8/6/2008 4:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
Lets see what the past and future will bring us in Mars. Here are somw headlines -

1975 - Mars Viking - Its probably dead!
1988 - Mars Probe - Still looks dead!
2004 - Mars - Still no sign of life...kind of dead!
2008 - Mars - Bit icy but...well still dead!
2018 - Mars Manned Mission - NASA kinda dissapointed its dead!
2023 - Mars - Even more extensive and expensive test show still no sign of life - Its dead!
etc.
etc.
etc.


By Motoman on 8/6/2008 1:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
...pretty sure we'd stop at the 2018 mission...once you've put people on the ground and they can't find anything, I'd say stick a fork in it - it's done.

Which isn't to say at that point that there may not be good reason to keep working on Mars...maybe to set up a permanently manned station for various research, which at that point may have absolutely squat to do with Mars at that point.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/6/2008 3:50:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So stop. The exploration of Mars is amazing and a crucial step in furthering the ability of man to extend his reach from one measly planet.


No its really not. Its just another planet. So what ?

quote:
Even if Mars turns out to be dead...it will be of enormous value to determine why it's dead.


You make it sound like all planets are lush with life, and we MUST desperately discover what " went wrong " on Mars. You couldn't get further from the truth. How is pouring more tax money into Mars exploration of " enourmous " value to mankind ?

I agree with the OP. I personally can't wait for Nasa's love affair with " life " on Mars and other planets to end. I don't see one single benefit to our society in finding a long dead single cell bacteria frozen in Mars ice. Honestly, whats the point ?

I'm FAR more interested in making major discoveries in space travel and propulsion so that a trip to Mars won't take months on end and cost million of dollars.


Mars, the fuel station...
By Cosworth on 8/5/2008 8:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
Now, this chemical may only be local to the area, or possibly just the small spot that the lander happened to land on. But, if the entire planet were like this, I could definitely see Mars becoming a large place to just mine rocket fuel in the future.

Great... Another place for environmentalists to protect..




RE: Mars, the fuel station...
By FITCamaro on 8/5/2008 8:31:20 AM , Rating: 3
Actually I was thinking the same thing. Maybe not mining it for mass use but it does provide a potential source of fuel for a return trip home for a manned mission to Mars.


RE: Mars, the fuel station...
By Dark Legion on 8/5/2008 2:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm...but would there actually really be any gain considering that you have to fly from Earth to Mars, then back? It seems that it would make more sense to do what FIT said, otherwise it might not be worth it.


RE: Mars, the fuel station...
By FITCamaro on 8/5/08, Rating: 0
Rocket fuel eh?
By Amiga500 on 8/5/2008 8:41:35 AM , Rating: 5
That's no planet.... Its a space station.




Eggs in a Basket
By marsbound2024 on 8/5/2008 9:05:54 AM , Rating: 5
Let's not put all our eggs in one basket. Phoenix is just one mission landing at one spot and could have indeed contaminated the soil in reach of its robotic arm. Of course, with its rocket thrusters firing down onto Mars, I would assume some chemicals might have been mixed it with the soil. I would say a true test would be the upcoming Mars Science Laboratory and the potential successor the Astrobiology Field Laboratory. These rovers would be able to traverse vast distances far and away from the landing sites giving us a truer picture of the Mars soil characteristics.

For those that don't remember, there was speculation that Phoenix would contaminate or even destroy Martian organics in the first place by firing its thrusters right until it touched down. It seems a bit obvious to me that hot, chemical thrusters and fragile organic material just don't make a good story for getting a true sampling of the Martian environment.




Don't be daft...
By xzc145 on 8/5/2008 11:31:34 AM , Rating: 1
....the bible doesn't say anything about life on mars, therefore how can it exist?!




RE: Don't be daft...
By Alareth on 8/5/2008 4:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of things aren't mentioned in the Bible yet still exist.


RE: Don't be daft...
By foolsgambit11 on 8/5/2008 5:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
...and a lot of things are mentioned in the Bible and yet still don't exist.


Per arstechnica.com
By nanogeektech on 8/5/2008 4:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
"Perchlorate's chemical formula is ClO4-, and is found naturally on earth, typically as part of a salt with a positive ion. It was once thought to be such a strong oxidizing agent that it was considered incompatible with organic compounds, leading to some of the rumors that circulated about findings of a chemical that could kill. Since then, however, it has not only been found in deposits with organic compounds, but microbes have been discovered that actually use it as the primary oxidizing agent in their metabolism"




RE: Per arstechnica.com
By mindless1 on 8/5/2008 7:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
From JPL
By marsbound2024 on 8/5/2008 8:11:53 PM , Rating: 3
"Mission scientists today discussed their current investigation into percholate salts detected in Martian soil. The salts are neither good nor bad for life, said one scientist, but do make us reassess how we think about life on Mars. (Aug. 5)"

"Perchlorate is an ion, or charged particle, that consists of an atom of chlorine surrounded by four oxygen atoms. It is an oxidant, that is, it can release oxygen, but it is not a powerful one. Perchlorates are found naturally on Earth at such places as Chile's hyper-arid Atacama Desert. The compounds are quite stable and do not destroy organic material under normal circumstances. Some microorganisms on Earth are fueled by processes that involve perchlorates, and some plants concentrate the substance. Perchlorates are also used in rocket fuel and fireworks. "

Link to article: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008...




Or.....
By tiostorm on 8/5/2008 9:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
Or they just think it's possible/found life on mars and the whole church/catastrophic people thing made them act this way: a plausible story (just for now?) to say life on mars isn't possible..




Giant cockroaches on Mars!
By wordsworm on 8/5/2008 9:40:59 AM , Rating: 2
Later findings confirmed that, in fact, it was just an earth-cockroach that got gutted on the camera lens.




I hope it is lifeless
By ZachDontScare on 8/6/2008 2:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
If we discover 'life' in any form on Mars, governments will spend the next 100 years arguing about what to do. And in the end, the most likely outcome is that man will never, ever set foot on the planet for fear of 'contamination'.




Strange?
By jahinoz on 8/8/2008 1:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone else find it strange that its taken USD 386,000,000 just to be able to confirm what we pretty much already knew from a spectroscopy of parts of the planet over the years?




Contamination
By DeltaZero on 8/5/2008 11:05:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Phoenix detected the salt through a chemistry experiment. The lander mixed soil with water brought from Earth into a teacup-size beaker and stirred it.

quote:
another Phoenix instrument that bakes and sniffs soil samples found no evidence of perchlorate


Maybe that perchlorate is from the water.




"LIFE FINDS A WAY"
By JonnyDough on 8/5/2008 3:12:39 PM , Rating: 1
Just as we find a way to survive in the harsh elements of earth, just as we have pushed outward into space, so have other civilizations on other worlds conquered space and brought us here.




"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki