Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

A New Angle on Martian Methane 95

dusty writes "A recent hypothesis paper entititled 'Martian CH4: Sources, Flux, and Detection' delves into the production of methane on Mars. This hypothesis compares Mars with South Africa, and draws the conclusion that the radiolysis of martian ice and water while reacting with carbon dioxide can produce enough methane to account for recently observed concentrations. Methane is important because it is hard to explain. It has a short half-life and must be replenished frequently. As recently as 2005 the public line from NASA/JPL was that the methane could be produced by volcanism. Mars' dormant Olympus Mons is the largest volcano in the solar system but auspiciously quiet. A recent study from NOAA throws into question the whole idea stating, 'If Mauna Loa is a valid terrestrial analog, our findings suggest that volcanic activity is not a significant source of methane to the Martian atmosphere.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A New Angle on Martian Methane

Comments Filter:
  • No life? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Life700MB ( 930032 ) on Friday October 06, 2006 @07:28AM (#16334557)

    All that looong summary and no mention of the most interesting posibility: that the methane is life-generated by bacteria and the like living under the Martian soil.

    --
    Superb hosting [tinyurl.com] 200GB Storage, 2_TB_ bandwidth, php, mysql, ssh, $7.95
  • by OnyxIR ( 456300 ) on Friday October 06, 2006 @08:27AM (#16334899)
    I agree totally and welcome our new bacterial overlords.

    Science, particularly in the US, seems to be slipping back into its old habits. Dogma reigns supreme and dissident voices are quashed without cause or concern simply for going against the norm.

    A friend of mine used to argue that science was no different from religion, and scientists a new breed of priest. I hated his argument, but lately I have had to question how valid that may be.

    The question to ask then is, why would life on Mars recieve such scathing denials from the scientific community? Who benefits from from perpetuating the belief that there can be no life on Mars?

    Surely if one applies occams razor to the question, we must believe strongly in the possibility that Mars does indeed have the capability of supporting some forms of primitive life. This is especially easy to believe when one considers some of the habitats where life has been found here on earth. Buried thousands of meters in rock, volcanic vents 6Km below the suface of the ocean and boiling lakes of acid...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 06, 2006 @09:35AM (#16335499)
    > "Who benefits from from perpetuating the belief that there can be no life on Mars?"

    The most logical answer is just "common sense." It's been universally accepted that Mars is a barren planet for hundreds of years (mice in telescopes and canals aside). That builds a lot of inertia to overcome by anyone that wants to come along and change that belief.

    The other possibility is a roadblock that The Mars Society and The Mars Underground ran into a couple of years back. Their goal is to get NASA to Mars and eventually begin terraforming and colonization but a lot of there supporters turned on them when they realized they might destroy any life native to Mars if we completely re-engineered the martian environment.

    This inevitably lead to a wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] dedicated to it.
  • Thomas Gold (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BenJeremy ( 181303 ) on Friday October 06, 2006 @09:48AM (#16335661)
    Didn't Thomas Gold postulate that we'd find lots of methane on Mars? He had many intriguing theories on "deep life" - and recent evidence of "replenishment" of petroleum reserves, IIRC, while puzzling to geologists following the standard theories, would not have been a mystery to him.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...