TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

JPL director: Curiosity may have found organic, not biological molecules

302 pointsby pitiburiover 12 years ago

25 comments

anigbrowlover 12 years ago
Organic in this context means carbon-bearing - a necessity for life (as we know it), but not direct evidence of it. Encouraging, though!<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry</a>
评论 #4842155 未加载
评论 #4842480 未加载
pitiburiover 12 years ago
Just to clarify. This guy -&#62; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Elachi" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Elachi</a> in a conference in Rome today said that what they found in Mars was organic molecules. He said it was a "perhaps" because they still have to check the data. He also said that Curiosity can not say if an organic molecule is biological or not, so all they can say is that there are organic molecules. Again, perhaps, until the data checking ends and full data is presented.<p>All this reported by ANSA.<p>PD: it was in a conference in La Sapienza, in Rome, hardly a remote and/or obscure university/place.
评论 #4842214 未加载
评论 #4842203 未加载
tokenadultover 12 years ago
This news was anticipated by an article in The Guardian as the speculation was building up, "Whatever the Curiosity rover has found, it's not evidence of life on Mars."<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/across-the-universe/2012/nov/23/curiosity-rover-life-mars" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/across-the-universe/2012/n...</a><p>The author's evidence for that bold headline claim was earlier reporting on the issue as the speculation built up.<p>"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.'<p>"Following up the internet speculation, Jeffrey Kluger of Time talked to Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory spokesperson Guy Webster and was told, 'It won't be earthshaking, but it will be interesting.'"<p>Organic molecules (molecules containing carbon) are commonplace in many lifeless places around the Solar system, so this is hardly surprising. It is moderately interesting, but certainly not earthshaking, as previously reported.<p>AFTER EDIT: Replying to the first reply kindly posted to my comment,<p><i>I'm not arguing whether Curiosity has found evidence for life on Mars or not but I would like to point out a logical fallacy in the cited argument; in particular, the statement "device X wasn't designed to do Y" does not imply "device X can't do Y".</i><p>I take the statement made by the NASA planners at face value for a simple reason. While the Curiosity rover, with its cameras, would surely be able to detect Martian megafauna, if there were such a thing, for example a Martian elephant, I trust the statement that Curiosity is incapable of providing unambiguous evidence of microorganisms on Mars. I cited the Guardian article in my first posting of this comment. The issue of detecting life, or not, was surely discussed by the NASA mission planners, who included astute exobiologists. The mission profile of Curiosity does not include a task of detecting life on Mars, and the instruments on Curiosity are not reliable for distinguishing organic molecules made by living microorganisms from organic molecules made by purely physical processes. Whatever Curiosity detects with its molecular analysis instruments, it cannot be taken as evidence for life on Mars. That is the statement of the article, based on interviews with people knowledgeable about the planning of the mission, and that is a credible statement, given the amount of thought the mission planners must have devoted to this issue.
评论 #4844120 未加载
评论 #4842468 未加载
phreezaover 12 years ago
Organic molecules on mars are nothing new. Methane had been shown in very low concentrations using remote sensing (spectral) methods, but had not been detected directly on Mars so far by Curiosity. This might mean that it has now detected methane after all.<p>The reason why methane would be exciting is that it is broken down by UV radiation, so there must be some persistent source of it on the planet for a sustained presence.
评论 #4842198 未加载
rpm4321over 12 years ago
Does anyone know how this jives with Slate and The Atlantic reporting yesterday that the whole thing was a big misunderstanding and that no big discovery had been made?<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4841107" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4841107</a> <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4840905" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4840905</a><p>Edit: Here are similar stories from PC Magazine and Mashable, which was apparently the original source of all of these articles:<p><a href="http://mashable.com/2012/11/27/curiosity-rover-discovery-npr/" rel="nofollow">http://mashable.com/2012/11/27/curiosity-rover-discovery-npr...</a><p><a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412567,00.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412567,00.asp</a>
评论 #4842369 未加载
评论 #4843145 未加载
pitiburiover 12 years ago
Please keep in mind that Curiosity has not the capability to recognize biological molecules, only organic ones. That means that even if it finds current life, it will only be able to recognize the presence of organic compounds. That is why the "organic, not biological"; it may well be biological, but Curiosity cannot know.
评论 #4842043 未加载
评论 #4842067 未加载
评论 #4842072 未加载
micahgoulartover 12 years ago
Actually it's been confirmed to be just a big misunderstanding. The NASA director was talking about the whole mission as being "one for the history books". More details here: <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/27/nasa_mars_discovery_misunderstanding_mission_leader_excited_about_entire.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/27/nasa_mars_...</a>
fredleyover 12 years ago
Can someone please explain the difference between an organic molecule and a biological molecule?
评论 #4842022 未加载
评论 #4841969 未加载
评论 #4841966 未加载
评论 #4841963 未加载
评论 #4842261 未加载
InclinedPlaneover 12 years ago
This is just a regurgitation of a speculative statement by an uninvolved scientist. What is this, TMZ?
评论 #4841980 未加载
dendoryover 12 years ago
Edit: It seems more Italian newspapers are reporting this quote than just this one site, but for an announcement of this importance, I'm still not going to believe it until we get some more confirmation.
评论 #4841971 未加载
评论 #4841975 未加载
评论 #4841979 未加载
goldfeldover 12 years ago
I want to summarize and add some commentary to the article[1] posted by macu as a reply to another comment.<p>It's amazingly interesting and well argued. In short, the author says first that any sufficiently advanced civilization will at one point send self-replicating probes that will eventually colonize all of the galaxy and even universe. And it takes only one match to light a fire, and this is important--that is, for a sufficiently advanced planet, it would take only one rebel, one mad scientist, to set the colonization, by robots, of every habitable body in motion.<p>Assuming the above is true, then why do we not see any sign of these probes? It follows that there must be a Great Filter that prevented them from ever being created. Things that qualify as such a filter are not plenty, and include the original formation of life and the transition from procaryotic to eucaryotic (taking a couple billion years).<p>Thus if we find life so easily formed on Mars or anywhere else (especially eucaryotic cells), we can assume these past events are not really Great Filters. Then, the only reason we haven't found a single probe is that any sufficiently advanced civilization destroys itself before it ever gets to that point. If it's not nuclear weapons, then there must exist technologies that are sure on our path to discovery while at the same time guaranteeing our extinction--again, think in terms of things that only need one outlier to use it in a way that compromises the existence of all on Earth for good.<p>So he concludes that we must pray that we never find life anywhere else, because it would in turn give us hope (but not assure us) that there might exist no Great Filter ahead of us, and the Great Filter was indeed in our conception as life--thus we are the one single unfathomably lucky planet to ever have harbored life. If nothing potentially impedes our expansion, we will be the one sending probes and expanding to everywhere.<p>Adding my own expansion on this, I believe it's extremely unlikely that there is some irrevocably cataclysmical tech to be discovered before ever we are able to send self-replicating probes--ones who can mine the raw materials needed for unbounded expansion.<p>I don't think we're that far from that point, and taking from our own anecdotal existence since it's the only one there is, even if we do annihilate ourselves before sending them out by chance, other civilizations might not have done so, if they existed. Thus indeed the only tech that would assure a Great Filter is the self-replicating technology itself. And that is a strong point--the author seems to ignore the fact that these probes wouldn't really be the expansion of humanity, it would be the expansion of drones. And what might the precursor techs for such a replicating machine look like? If superior AI is needed at any rate, we could think that the tech leading to sure extinction is indeed robots who decimate us humans. And since they would do this as early as chance would afford it, the robots eliminating us would be as dumb as possible--thus we can assume they would be incapable of advancing technology on their own; or of coordinating an event like launching themselves into space, and thus would never leave Earth. In this scenario, we can assume every civilization that ever got a shot in going to space ended up extinct, their planet ridden with dumb self-replicating robots who can never launch themselves into space.<p>Since self-replicating robots are the hypothesis of the author's argument, then indeed it makes sense that every potential civilization either never reached this tech (the Great Filter is in life's conception, or otherwise somehow denies the existence of self-replicating robots), or it must absolutely reach it, in order to colonize space, but in doing so it declares it's extinction.<p>So, like the author, I also hope[2] that we never find life elsewhere, that we might put our tiny hopes in thriving as a race, the only one that ever existed.<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf</a><p>[2]: Just an hour ago, I would have jumped with joy if this NASA announcement was indeed confirming life.
评论 #4842485 未加载
评论 #4842659 未加载
评论 #4842680 未加载
评论 #4843505 未加载
评论 #4842470 未加载
评论 #4843204 未加载
评论 #4842921 未加载
评论 #4842619 未加载
评论 #4842444 未加载
评论 #4845171 未加载
评论 #4847003 未加载
评论 #4844455 未加载
评论 #4847166 未加载
评论 #4842631 未加载
politicianover 12 years ago
I am quite annoyed with the shield of political correctness that the scientific community has to wield w.r.t the "life on Mars" issues in order to preempt yellow journalists who will, without a doubt, use any turn of phrase to rile up the various factions for and against to generate clicks, sales, and burnings-at-stakes.<p><i>As if our opinions change the chemistry of a planet none of us have ever been to.</i>
forgotAgainover 12 years ago
NASA seems to be backing off this:<p><i>Guy Webster, a spokesman for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., which operates Curiosity, said the findings would be “interesting” rather than “earthshaking.”</i><p>from <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/science/space/undisclosed-finding-by-mars-rover-fuels-intrigue.html?hpw" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/science/space/undisclosed-...</a>
评论 #4842668 未加载
kamaalover 12 years ago
Strange that none of the mainstream media has covered this.<p>Can anybody verify if this news is true? Or its from a trust worthy source?
评论 #4841974 未加载
zerostar07over 12 years ago
How can they be sure it's not earthly contamination?
mmarianiover 12 years ago
More details here <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/science/space/undisclosed-finding-by-mars-rover-fuels-intrigue.html?hp&#38;_r=0" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/science/space/undisclosed-...</a>
Syssiphusover 12 years ago
The keyword here is 'perhaps'.
评论 #4842035 未加载
netcanover 12 years ago
What exactly is the relationship between organic molecules &#38; life?
评论 #4841970 未加载
Achsharover 12 years ago
If they found organic molecules in the very first test then it says something. The size of sample was very small and from an average patch of crust.
forgotAgainover 12 years ago
This has become an example of an organization losing control of it's PR when it goes viral. This is damaging to the credibility of those involved. If / when the details are given they will be "historic" either for their scientific importance or the hit it has done to NASA.
CuriousityCureover 12 years ago
The majority of any existing life would be subterranean as the article states.
评论 #4842828 未加载
fondueover 12 years ago
I guess I'm pretty naive in wishing they'd accidently rolled over a fossil.
pitiburiover 12 years ago
another link quoting Elachi <a href="http://www.getradardetectors.com/mars-quotfind-organic-moleculesquot/" rel="nofollow">http://www.getradardetectors.com/mars-quotfind-organic-molec...</a>
trafnarover 12 years ago
<i>may</i> have found
评论 #4842168 未加载
codeulikeover 12 years ago
They have Organic Farming on Mars! Oh, wait ...