Mars Rover Finds Signs Of Microbial Life

Mars Rover Finds Signs Of Microbial Life
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 12-11-2007 | Katie Franklin

Mars rover finds signs of microbial life

By Katie Franklin and agencies
Last Updated: 8:53am GMT 11/12/2007

Nasa says its Mars rover Spirit has discovered "the best evidence yet" of a past habitable environment on the planet's surface.

Spirit unearthed a patch of silica-rich soil

Spirit has been exploring a plateau called Home Plate, where it discovered silica-rich soil in May.

Researchers are now trying to determine what produced the patch of nearly pure silica - the main ingredient of window glass.

They believe the deposits came from an ancient hot-spring environment or an environment called a fumarole, in which acidic steam rises through cracks.

On Earth, both of these types of settings teem with microbial life, said rover chief scientist Steve Squyres.

"Whichever of those conditions produced it, this concentration of silica is probably the most significant discovery by Spirit for revealing a habitable niche that existed on Mars in the past," he said.

"The evidence is pointing most strongly toward fumarolic conditions, like you might see in Hawaii and in Iceland.

"Compared with deposits formed at hot springs, we know less about how well fumarolic deposits can preserve microbial fossils. That's something needing more study here on Earth."

Spirit and its twin rover Opportunity have remained on Mars for much longer than originally planned.

Their mission has been extended five times since they landed on opposite sides of the planet in January 2004.

But the rovers faced their biggest challenge yet this summer, when a series of dust devils blanketed their solar panels and limited their movement.

Winds managed to clean off Opportunity, but Spirit is still covered in gunk and working at 42 per cent capacity.

Scientists said Spirit was now facing a face against time to reach a resting spot for winter.

"Spirit is going into the winter with much more dust on its solar panels than in previous years," said Nasa's John Callas, project manager for the rovers.

"The last Martian winter, we didn't move Spirit for about seven months. This time, the rover is likely to be stationary longer and with significantly lower available energy each Martian day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Donaldson

But the rovers faced their biggest challenge yet this summer, when a series of dust devils blanketed their solar panels and limited their movement.

---

Kind of funny that the place that is known for scrubbing missions because some obscure backup isn't working 100%, wouldn't have devised some method of keeping the panels clear. Like even a simple windshield wiper setup! But, I suppose it isn't entirely their fault. After all, they didn't plan on the rovers being in service for this long. Then again, why not plan to get the most out of the money spent?

Which speaks to a question asked on another board. Why isn't NASA screaming to high heavens about the success of the 2 probes working so much longer than exspected? Were they designed to last this long after all?

Their stated mission life expectancy was 90 days by the book, however a friend of mine who occasionaly contracts with NASA said the unofficial hope was they'd make it to 180-210 days. Landing Jan 2004, they're now pushing 1,460-ish days come a month from now in Jan '08.

As a tax payer who happily supports NASA, I have to say we got our money's worth.

Now if we could just tap into a bit of that over-achievement and seal the freakin borders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toad

Their stated mission life expectancy was 90 days by the book, however a friend of mine who occasionaly contracts with NASA said the unofficial hope was they'd make it to 180-210 days. Landing Jan 2004, they're now pushing 1,460-ish days come a month from now in Jan '08.

As a tax payer who happily supports NASA, I have to say we got our money's worth.

Now if we could just tap into a bit of that over-achievement and seal the freakin borders.

---

:welcome: Toad!

I'd definitely agree with getting our money's worth. Especially considering the numbers you've given! Agree with the border point too... ;)

But I, like Luke, question why in the world NASA hasn't been playing the massive success of the rovers to the hilt. 4 years in service in a rather hostile environment with no outside maintenance or care! Pretty amazing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luke

Which speaks to a question asked on another board. Why isn't NASA screaming to high heavens about the success of the 2 probes working so much longer than exspected? Were they designed to last this long after all?

---

NASA's successes speak for themselves.

I'm still trying to figure out what failures they've had other than a couple of probes completely missing Mars...

I'd also like to point out that BOTH Pioneer space craft are still functioning even though they have both zoomed out of the solar system.

Quote:

---

But I, like Luke, question why in the world NASA hasn't been playing the massive success of the rovers to the hilt. 4 years in service in a rather hostile environment with no outside maintenance or care! Pretty amazing!

---

I find it amazing so many people simply go after NASA, look at the idiots that did it consistently over on Anomalies. No real rhyme or reason. But, look, do YOU go around bragging about your successes? That's a bit over the top for an Agency like that. They have successes, and they have failures, they are not a "security origanization" like DHS where they CAN NOT FAIL.

They are a scientific organization, and hell yeah, there will be failures and misinterpretation of data, there will also be thundering successes.

The demonization of NASA by people like Hoagland needs to stop....

I wouldn't call my statements demonization, I'd consider it more constructive criticism. After all, though NASA is a scientific agency, they are fighting for a slice of Uncle Sugar's pie against the likes of welfare benefits for illegal aliens, multi-million dollar bridges in remote Alaska, and a failing public school system. As such, in their fight, they should be making the most out of their hard fought successes to get their well deserved slice. They should be trumpeting that they are able to do so much with such relatively little money. The Marine Corps is always pointing out about how they manage to do the most with the smallest budget of any of the DoD branches. And to be honest, yes, when it comes down to benefiting me at work I will tout the good things I do. Not to the point of being overly braggadocios but, enough so that I am given proper credit where it is due. I'm just saying that it wouldn't hurt NASA to do the same for their betterment.

As to the criticism of the rovers, I just think they should have planned on them being in service for longer than they thought and just incorporated some sort of method to keep the solar panels clear. Dirty solar panels aren't an issue for the Pioneer probes, though I'm sure strike damage is. And, since you used Pioneer as an example, NASA should have seen the success of that and planned on an equally long life for the rovers but, at the same time made the adjustments (method to clean the solar panels) for the very different environment the rovers would be in.

That's just my take...

I wasn't talking about YOU, I was talking about Hoagland and some of the other Hoagie-bots who are anti-NASA all the time.

Also, not that solar panel prices dropped drastically since the 1970s and now, and that the technology is certainly better, but the differences are pretty great in the ability to transfer power.

As you said, there's a big difference in being in space, and being on a dusty planet.

Imagine being about anywhere in the Sahara desert (I've been there, many months worth of time there) and trying to use something like a 'windshield wiper'.

I'm not saying "it won't work", but it is a poor substitute for thinking about the lifespan of a robot in an unknown atmosphere. They really do NOT know everything that could cause problems there.

ANY atmosphere where there is a lot of dust is going to cause a LOT Of mechanical issues - and Mars is not much different from the Sahara, dusty, windy and I'm surprised the stuff worked as long as it has. I'm sure they didn't expect it either.

From a pure engineering point of view, the devices are designed to be small, lightweight and set up to run for what they considered would be a maximum run time. Anything beyond that is "gravy".

Even the Shuttle has a realistic failure time period (that's not public I'm sure, but I am POSITIVE they know how long they can fly those things and I think they are already well into the past-fail period)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Donaldson

I wasn't talking about YOU, I was talking about Hoagland and some of the other Hoagie-bots who are anti-NASA all the time.

---

I didn't think so but, since you quoted me I just wanted to add some clarification. :)

Well you were both saying the same thing. I didn't feel like quoting all of it, so I'm lazy sue me.

Space exploration is a dangerous adventure to say the least. Apollo 1, Skylab, Challenger and Discovery come to mind as failures. Unfortunatly lives were lost. Losing unmanned probes in my view is like Edison's "failures" before inventing a workable lightbulb. We learned 2 ways to not land on Mars.

I think NASA should have a larger part of the budget. Giving more notice of the durability of the Mars probes could help accomplish this end.

NASA has also been involved in launching many military satellites for communication and intelligence work I suspect. Since the beginning of the ISS project not so much. I would imagine Vandenburg launches most military satellites by now.

Hoagland is a puesdo-science-fiction writer at best.

I saw a good one this morning. Someone complaining that "there's too much time and effort going into safety" because the ISS may have been impacted by a micrometeorite, and they are going to have do an EVA to repair the damage.

The guy was complaining that they are too worried about safety and not doing enough science, so we shouldn't spend money on the programs any more.