Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Imaginarynumber1

Mars discovery "one for the history books"

115 posts in this topic

The simple version of what this could mean? The possibility of very strong scientific evidence of life on another world. Evidence which has been carefully checked, and rechecked and will stand up to rigorous examination. If life can exist in such diverse environments as those of Earth and Mars, this discovery speaks of a universe teeming with life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is evidence of life, it would either be past life i.e when Mars was teeming with streams - Where there is water, there is life the saying goes. However, if life forms were discovered right now in the soil, my only hope in this life will have been fulfilled, we are not alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re write the History Books I say ! Lets hope that they release something on that scale ! We can dream afterall ,Right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, even if they found overwhelming evidence of something Organic, in other words that they had found some sort of Life, whether animal or plant, you can bet that they'd put it in the most dry scientific terms (e.g. some of the material in the soil sample was not minerals, but something finely granular, which is amorphous appearing with the x-ray laser, a sentence which I can guarantee most people would have to read at least three times to understand what it might mean), that a good 82% of people of people would go "What?". It was the same with the Higgs Bison. For all the talk of "God particle", do anyone outside the Scientific community really have the vaguest idea what it actually means or what it might mean for Humanity?

I love that comment .....scientific results would be like this:

Element Percent by Mass Oxygen 65 Carbon 18 Hydrogen 10 Nitrogen 3 Calcium 1.5 Phosphorus 1.2 Potassium 0.2 Sulfur 0.2 Chlorine 0.2 Sodium 0.1 Magnesium 0.05 Iron, Cobalt, Copper, Zinc, Iodine <0.05 each Selenium, Fluorine <0.01 each

We won't even mention that's a human LOL :)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets be honest... the finding will be intensely boring, no evidence of "life" on Mars, perhaps they have found a Gold Lodestone.. Anybody releasing this hyperbole, that has been released, is just feeding into the desire to find extra - terrestrial life at whetever level of evolution..

I think the final release will just bore us all to death!! IMO

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets be honest... the finding will be intensely boring, no evidence of "life" on Mars, perhaps they have found a Gold Lodestone.. Anybody releasing this hyperbole, that has been released, is just feeding into the desire to find extra - terrestrial life at whetever level of evolution..

I think the final release will just bore us all to death!! IMO

I assume you are saying this because if Curiosity had indeed discovered life, even traces of life, then the news would be too amazing to keep quiet about, even if they had to make absolutely sure that they were sure of the discovery and so take a few weeks to analyse the data. Otherwise your saying this because you are a glass is half empty kinda guy. Why not be optomistic about the possibility of life being discovered elsewere in the universe? As well, you seem to be assuming that life should have been discovered already elsewere in the universe long ago and so have given up on the search for it. Strange, considering that space technology is still in its infancy.

Edited by Twin Peaks
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you are saying this because if Curiosity had indeed discovered life, even traces of life, then the news would be too amazing to keep quiet about, even if they had to make absolutely sure that they were sure of the discovery and so take a few weeks to analyse the data. Otherwise your saying this because you are a glass is half empty kinda guy. Why not be optomistic about the possibility of life being discovered elsewere in the universe? As well, you seem to be assuming that life should have been discovered already elsewere in the universe long ago and so have given up on the search for it. Strange, considering that space technology is still in its infancy.

Highlighted part: Why do you assume this???Nothing in my post suggests this. NO life of any sort has been detected outside of the Earth. Life MOST certainly does exist outside of our solar system and possibly within it, we have yet to see the proof. That is the point of my post.

If it is a Geologically unexpected phenomena then I will be very excited, if it is EVIDENCE of life (either micro or macro biotic, I will be equally excited). This point in time when a "hint" of something is made is entirely specious, because we have been there before. Give us all (the Cloud Community) more raw data. Let everyone analyse this data..

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok...you went from being negative to being positive and my reasons for my post are blatently obvious considering your previous post. I will say this anyway though, that it seems you have given up all hope of finding martian life... . But now you suddenly changed your tune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new article today, at space.com. It affirms, with expert opinion, the significance of finding organic compounds now, for the apparent detections of life on Mars a generation ago by the Viking landers. It also mentions a scientific consensus that organic compounds are the likeliest thing for Curiosity to have found, given its capabilities and current activity. If the earliest date given for the NASA press briefing on this (Dec. 3rd) is correct, we have just one week to wait. Link to article: http://www.space.com/18626-nasa-mars-rover-secret-discovery-speculation.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historic! Whatever they may find there most probably it is somekind of primitive it did not evolved to something else. My first notion Obviously there is no evidence of any kind of structure like buildings, highways, bridges or something made of different kind of elements so that might mean the ones living on this planet is not thinking like humans it is more of an animal. Or, if there is really any structure or living things it might have been pulverized by time so they have to find out also how old is the planet maybe millions of years now, are the scientists already estimeted how old is the EARTH? Or, maybe the structure or any evidence is only buried under the sands. My take this mission is 80% useless, You don't have to be a scientist to think of my first notion.

Edited by brainiac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to wait :)

And just to add, I think if there were evidence of life on multiple planets in the same solar system that it would more than likely be of the same origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Whatever Curiosity has found, it is not evidence for life on Mars. It can't be. Curiosity is not designed to look for life. Grotzinger has stated this himself. In a Nasa video about the mission, he says, "Curiosity is not a life detection mission. We're not actually looking for life; we don't have the ability to detect life if it was there."

Scroll down this page for the full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/across-the-universe/2012/nov/23/curiosity-rover-life-mars

What? cant detect life?

Well clearly this story has been overhyped by the media, see:

"The stories derive from an interview conducted by NPR reporter Joe Palca with Curiosity Project Scientist John Grotzinger in which Grotzinger said, "This data is gonna be one for the history books. It's looking really good."By the time the story reached the pages of the UK's Daily Express, it had turned into: "Nasa are set to reveal what could be the most significant scientific discovery in modern times, teasingly stating they have unearthed something on Mars 'for the history books'.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/across-the-universe/2012/nov/23/curiosity-rover-life-mars)

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted, that Curiosity is not a life-seeking mission, per se, and that it can not detect life directly. It has no experimental chamber in which soil samples, perhaps containing life, could be fed, and the reactions monitored, as the Viking probes did. Curiosity *does* have the ability to analyze the chemical elements of a sample, down to the isotopic level. We know that life strongly favors the use of the lighter carbon isotope, carbon 12, over the heavier carbon 13. If carbon 12 is predominant in a sample, this will have to be explained. Perhaps the best and simplest explanation is the presence of life. Together with the positive findings of life by the Viking probes, which were disregarded when no organic matter could be found in the soil, the ready finding of organic matter *now*, which implies that it is very common, would complete the picture of life on Mars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a new article out says that the PR people at NASA are saying it is nothing, just over enthusiast scientists making broad statements.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412567,00.asp

Curiosity's 'Historic' Mars Discovery Just a Big Misunderstanding

It seems that the misunderstanding between Grotzinger and NPR came about because the NASA scientist was discussing Curiosity's mission and findings in general terms as "historic," while the public radio programmer interpreted his words as a reference to a specific and recent discovery made by the surface probe.

So Grotzinger's reference to a recent Curiosity soil sample-collecting foray that the mission's "science team is busily chewing away on" was simply a description of the scientific process the team uses rather than a hint at a specific finding by the rover in the Martian soil, according to Wills.

McGregor further explained that the scientist's discussion of new Curiosity data set to be released in December was just a reference to "a press conference slated for Dec. 3 at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting" which has "been on the books since Curiosity actually landed on Mars and does not coincide with a major announcement," Wills reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suppose that, as a social media manager for NASA, Mr. McGregor have been given the information available to the Curiosity science team, and which they have been holding onto so closely. Guy Webster, a JPL press operative has also been making minimizing statements about the discovery. In a New York Times article this morning, he admits that he does not know what Curiosity has found. Meanwhile, Charles Elachi, director at JPL, has said at a meeting in Rome, that Curiosity may have found organic molecules, and that this matter will be covered at the American Geophysical Union meeting, on Dec. 3rd. The fact that this meeting was scheduled in advance of the supposed discovery on Mars is not of the essence. There are many scientific meetings. This one simply appears to occur at the opportune time. Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/science/space/undisclosed-findings-by-mars-rover-fuels-intrigue.html

Edited by bison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a new article out says that the PR people at NASA are saying it is nothing, just over enthusiast scientists making broad statements.

http://www.pcmag.com...,2412567,00.asp

Curiosity's 'Historic' Mars Discovery Just a Big Misunderstanding

I have it on good authority that this is correct.

The discovery is significant to the scientific community, but will be met with ho-hums from the general public. But, frankly, unless they found an arm or something like that, this would probably be the case anyway.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have it on good authority that this is correct.

The discovery is significant to the scientific community, but will be met with ho-hums from the general public. But, frankly, unless they found an arm or something like that, this would probably be the case anyway.

Right, even if it was metal, or carbon compounds, or glass, or something else fairly mundane, the scientists would be going bug-crazy, but the general population is going to be yawning big time.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JPL: Curiosity rover has not found organic compounds on Mars

http://www.pasadenas...ganic-compounds

i dont know about nasa, they kind of lost my trust. so what did they find then ??

Edited by sean6
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a dead martian cat.

The rover ran over it, so the headline will be that... "curiosity killed the..."

We wont know till we know, but is there a chance this is now being censored/kept quiet so other countries dont rush to go there? Or for whatever other reason?

Edited by seeder
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JPL: Curiosity rover has not found organic compounds on Mars

http://www.pasadenas...ganic-compounds

https://plus.google....sts/d2UADsreXQR

i dont know about nasa, they kind of lost my trust. so what did they find then ??

JPL: Curiosity rover has not found organic compounds on Mars

http://www.pasadenas...ganic-compounds

https://plus.google....sts/d2UADsreXQR

i dont know about nasa, they kind of lost my trust. so what did they find then ??

The Headline doesn't agree with what was actually said in the article. No *definitive* evidence of organics has been detected by Curiosity. If there were no evidence for them at all, why add the qualifier 'definitive'? Perhaps they did find organic compounds, but aren't certain of it yet. Definitive evidence seems quite like proof. Responsible scientists are not talking in terms of proof at this point. This is all about a single soil sample, and one team of scientists looking at some chemical test results. Many more samples, many more tests, and peer review lie between any potential discovery and scientific proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Headline doesn't agree with what was actually said in the article. No *definitive* evidence of organics has been detected by Curiosity. If there were no evidence for them at all, why add the qualifier 'definitive'? Perhaps they did find organic compounds, but aren't certain of it yet. Definitive evidence seems quite like proof. Responsible scientists are not talking in terms of proof at this point. This is all about a single soil sample, and one team of scientists looking at some chemical test results. Many more samples, many more tests, and peer review lie between any potential discovery and scientific proof.

they said

"one for the history books",, they have found nothing...... nothing that they did not know about...

to say they found something and then say its nothing? come on ???

this is why peple dont tust nasa,

this is how it frist wint down

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49904984/ns/technology_and_science-space/#__utma=14933801.1257598512.1352889797.1353415022.1353439992.19&__utmb=14933801.6.10.1353439992&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1352889797.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29|utmccn=%28direct%29|utmcmd=%28none%29&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|cover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=86023576&__utma=14933801.1257598512.1352889797.1353415022.1353439992.19&__utmb=14933801.6.10.1353439992&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1352889797.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29|utmccn=%28direct%29|utmcmd=%28none%29&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|cover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=86023576

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The person making the 'one for the history books' remark was Dr. Grotzinger, head of the Curiosity rover team. He was giving his personal reaction, not speaking officially on behalf of NASA, at the time. Chris Mckay was the one saying, essentially, that nothing new has been found. He also seems to have been giving a personal evaluation.

In just about 3 & 1/2 days (Monday, Dec. 3rd, at 9 a.m.) we will be told what has been found. They will probably say that materials have been found that stand a good chance of being organic compounds, but that new soil samples need to be examined to verify this conclusion. This is not evasion or deception on their part. It is simply the slow, careful way in which science works.

Edited by bison
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The person making the 'one for the history books' remark was Dr. Grotzinger, head of the Curiosity rover team. He was giving his personal reaction, not speaking officially on behalf of NASA, at the time. Chris Mckay was the one saying, essentially, that nothing new has been found. He also seems to have been giving a personal evaluation.

In just about 3 & 1/2 days (Monday, Dec. 3rd, at 9 a.m.) we will be told what has been found. They will probably say that materials have been found that stand a good chance of being organic compounds, but that new soil samples need to be examined to verify this conclusion. This is not evasion or deception on their part. It is simply the slow, careful way in which science works.

Dr. Grotzinger, head of the Curiosity rover team.....and yet he dont speak for nasa ,,,,,,,righttttttttttttttt,,, ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.