Life on Mars: I’m a Skeptic

No one would be more excited than me to learn of the discovery of extraterrestrial life, be it intelligent life via SETI or the simplest of microbes on Mars or somewhere else nearby (Europa, or tiny Enceladus, for a real stretch). And it is wise to be aware that we may not recognized ET life because we will be looking for the familiar and ET life might be organized quite differently than terrestrial life. This appears to be the point of a paper delivered at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society by Dirk Schulze-Makuch about the possibility of Martian microbes going unrecognized by the Viking landers’ life-searching experiments. The media coverage, however, paints the paper thus:

Two NASA space probes that visited Mars 30 years ago may have stumbled upon alien microbes on the Red Planet and inadvertently killed them, a scientist theorizes in a paper released Sunday.

Okay, that’s just one article, but the other one I saw on-line had a similar wording. This is the lead sentence in the article, and it is worded to suggest that the Viking landers actually did find alien microbes and kill them. Of course, all we can know, and I’m willing to bet this is what Schulze-Makuch says in his paper, is that if there were alien microbes of a certain type (in this case, with lots of Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) rather than H2O) on Mars, then the Viking experiments would not have identified them but would instead of killed them. That’s a subtle change of wording resulting a gigantic change of meaning. Reading the Yahoo! article one gets the impression that it is suggested there is life on Mars, while the reality is simply that the Viking experiments of the 70′s were not able to detect a variety of theoretically possible alien biochemistries.

There is no solid evidence for life on Mars. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and when it comes to life on Mars, we’re still looking for it. I hope we find it, but I’m not holding my breath.

Playing with Moon Dirt

The study of planetary rings led me in a roundabout way to the study of dirt. “Dirt” is actually the lay term, while the technical term is soil or dust, depending on whom you’re talking to. In the mid-1990′s Martin Taylor, then a graduate student, and I, then a post-doc, conceived of a simple experiment to study the collisions that take place in planetary rings. This experiment, dubbed COLLIDE (COLLisions Into Dust Experiment), flew on the space shuttle in 1998 and 2001. Ring particles bump into each other very slowly (typically less than 1 cm/s), and they have negligible gravity, so that’s why the experiments needed the microgravity environment of the space shuttle. The experiment consisted of shooting marble-sized projectiles into trays of special space dirt and seeing what happens.

This is where the connection to the Moon comes in. Astronauts tromping around on the lunar surface will be kicking up a lot of dirt – uh, dust. How much dust, and how fast it moves, depends on exactly the same physics studied by COLLIDE. That’s in part because the special space dirt we used was JSC-1, a standard pulverized volcanic rock that was used to simulate lunar dirt. A totally different line of research has also led me back to the lunar surface. My colleagues and I have been studying the dynamics of charged dust particles in the solar system, and the small particles on the lunar surface collect charge and can dance around above the surface in surprising ways. Studying this has been yet another use for that incredibly dark and dirty JSC-1 powder. This is a potential hazard for lunar astronauts, and a contaminant for lunar experiments. We have been studying this process and have a review paper coming out in Reviews of Geophysics soon.

Now that NASA is discussing a permanently manned lunar base, there is another need for this lunar simulant, as JSC-1 and other similar terrestrial materials are known. NASA’s plans for the lunar dirt are not limited to avoiding contamination, which are the kinds of problems are experiments address. They are also planning on building, excavating, and, more fancifully, drinking, breathing, and burning lunar dirt. While I’m not holding my breath in anticipation of extracting useable water or oxygen from the lunar regolith (the rocks and dirt on the surface), there is no question that there will be drilling, excavating, and other mass movements of material on the lunar surface in order to establish permanent lunar structures. The problem is there is no more JSC-1. NASA has been working to establish a plan for tons of a new lunar simulant to be tested so that engineers and scientists can test lunar construction techniques. One of the most surreal experiences I’ve had in my scientific career was attending a NASA-sponsored workshop on plans to deal with Moon dirt that was also attended by representatives from the Caterpillar company and the John Deere company.

The Trouble with Asks

Being in a relatively brain-dead mode here at the end of the year (my only excuse being a return from a mentally exhausting visit to Florida where I started a new job, shopped for and bought a house, videotaped my niece’s wedding and attended several large family gatherings), I am unable to come up with anything particularly interesting to write about as the last post of the first year of this blog. So I will finish 2006 with one of the countless unimportant things that regularly distract me from actual thought. Today’s example: the word “asks”, or any word that ends with “asks”. Why? It’s a short word, one vowel, technically one syllable, yet it is not possible to get that last “ks” sound out with adding another syllable. Say it. Repeat it. Slowly. As-kus. I hate that. Happy New Year.