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.'"
First, Uranus has dark spots on it.... (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Marvin should cut back on the tacos, or he might destroy the Earth.
KFG
Re: (Score:1)
Methane's short half life is a good thing.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We could use each other as space suits.
Re: (Score:2)
Um...I think I'll wait for body mods so that I don't require constant breathing in space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Radioactive? (Score:2)
Methane has a short half-life? I thought only radioactive elements had "half-lifes". Either I am just dumb about this (entirely possible) or someone chose their words poorly.
Re:Radioactive? (Score:4, Informative)
The term can be applied to anything which decays with time, though radioactive decay would probably give the most attractive decay curve.
Re:Radioactive? (Score:5, Insightful)
You get the same curve from anything that has a probability of decay that is independent of time.
If the probability of decay, destruction or loss for an individual atom is L per unit time, then for N atoms the rate of change of N is:
dN/dt = -L*N
and integrating gives N = No*exp(-L*t) where No is the number of atoms at some arbitrary t=0.
So for any situation where you have a constant decay probability you will get the same curve. For methane in the Martian atmosphere the rate of decay is pretty much constant due to solar ultra-violet radiation breaking up the molecules. Therefore, if there were no source the amount of methane in the atmosphere would drop exponentially.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
MadCow.
Re:Radioactive? (Score:4, Informative)
UltraViolet radiation/light breaks down the Hydrongen bonds in Methane (CH3) thus 'destabalising' the molecule.
Mars has no ozone layer too, (which blocks a large % of ground-level UV)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hydrogen bonds certainly can be intramolecular. Intramolecular hydrogen bonds are a significant part of what holds a folded protein in its shape.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's a "homolytic cleavage"--they split as two radicals:
H3C-H ---> H3C. +
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Next thing you know every reaction will proceed via the "backside attack" [sparknotes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life [wikipedia.org]
oxides easily (Score:2)
No life? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:No life? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No life? (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that we know the rate of destruction of Methane on Mars we also know the rate of production, which should make it possible to estimate the mass of Methane producing bacteria, assuming that is the source.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
To make an estimation about how much living mass would be a
Bullshit! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the ONLY experiment ever designed to specifically test for life on Mars had a POSITIVE RESULT, I think it's highly misleading to say that there is NO evidence for living organisms on Mars. Remember, just because there is evidence for something doesn't mean that something is true. It
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No life? (Score:5, Informative)
If there's any life there, it must be extremely different from life on Earth to be able to withstand the oxidative environment. On Earth, Martian regolith would be a disinfectant.
Besides, volcanism and this new theory aren't the only viable ones for methane production. Serpentization of olivine will do the trick as well. That is to say, if anywhere on the planet there is subsurface water saturated with CO2 in ever-common olivine-rich rock, it will produce methane.
Re:No life? (Score:5, Informative)
In truth, there has never been a test on a Martian lander designed to either confirm or identify the nature of this hypothetical strong oxidant. While there are theories that suggest that UV light should create such oxidants, the presence of a higly oxidant Martian surface has never been confirmed by experiment. Rather, it has been invoked as an EXPLANATION why certain other results, such a the Viking LRE, must be faulty.
To date, no subsequent Mars probe has produced data that points to a strong global surface oxidation beyond the usual culprits of H20 and CO2 (which account for the rust).
Bruce
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
H2O2 *has* been detected on Mars. In 2003, the IR TEXES spectrometer team detected 20-50 ppb of H2O2 in the atmosphere. The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope confirmed this. Since it doesn't last long in the atmosphere, this means that it's constantly being produced. H2O2 bound to dust particles would end up in the soil, so this observation is consistant with theory.
In short
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Biggest Volcano (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. Its "the most powerful". While they might cover the same surface area, Olympus Mons stands much higher.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the real business with a volcano happens under ground and we don't know much about this part of either volcano.
Olympus Mons (Score:2)
True, Olympus Mons [solarviews.com] is absolutely huge. The summit is at 27 kilometres above the mean surface level on Mars and it covers a surface area the size of Arizona. It would be fantastic to be able to stand on that summit and enjoy the view.
Beans... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
The musical fruit.
The more you eat.
The more you toot.
[Someone had to say it.]
Re: (Score:1)
They're good for your heart.
The more you eat,
The more you fart.
There, corrected it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Are good for the heart.
Baked, beans,
Make you fart.
The more you fart,
The better you feel,
So eat, Baked beans,
For every meal!
There, corrected it for you.
Finish it... (Score:2)
The better you feel,
So be sure to eat beans
With every meal!
Re:This is interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
would be seriously dumb as CH4 is a much more potent greenhouse gas than C02, and stockpiling it would harder than just stockpiling the CO2 in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, burning methane would produce CO2 + H20 and energy. It's a nice way of wasting energy if you have to produce the methane, but it's already there. So, it's a good source of energy (which could be stored or used) but also a good source of water (which is kind of a necessity for terraforming and/or human survival).
So, if you ask me, I think the large, renewable supply of methane on mar
Re: (Score:2)
Dangerous? I think it's under control. We use this all the time. What about those natural gas pipes everywhere?
Re: The relativity drive returns (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 scathi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 an
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called: Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.
Science isn't about believing anything is possible until proved otherwise. I think many scientists would agree that it's possible there is or was life on Mars. But life evolving independently anywhere other than Earth would be a major breakthrough for science, so they want to be very careful about claiming it until it is really, unquestionably proved. IMO this is just good science.
Re: (Score:1)
I suppose a lot of it also comes down to what we want science to tell us.
1. Men have a higher IQ than women on average... Yaaaay.
2. Methane on Mars is NOT from farts... Boooo.
Of course, this is just my opinion.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is that "facts" are slippery creatures. People lie. Instruments are faulty. Methods are applied incorrectly. Relationships between variables are misunderstood. There are all sorts of reasons why what we think of as factual may be incorrect. To combat this science requires that experiments be repeatable under controlled conditions. Given enough trials, we tend to believe that the facts, at least, are correct. This establishes "dogma", if you like, but I would say it establishes a baseline of pret
Re: (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a misuse of Occam's Razor. The principle basically says that the solution that requires the fewest number of variables is most likely to be correct. So in this case, the existance of life on mars is a big "extra", if the presence of methane can be explained without it.
What do you call "scathing denials"? (Score:2)
What do you mean? They have sent lots of missions to Mars, spent billions of dollars doing that, and still try again to find any sign of life.
If scientists were so interested in denying the existence of life in Mars they wouldn't have had any need to send other spacecraft after the Viking missions in 1976. But they still keep trying, even if the data seems to indicate that Mars is lifeless and ha
Good science (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, I wish more of our scientific quotes sounded like this one. It lays it out straight and simple. Here is our source of info: analogy with Mauna Loa. Here is our assumption: we can project info from it onto Olympus Mons. Here is our conclusion: there is something else other than volcanic activity producing methane on Mars. I like how all that info was neatly packaged into a simple sentence. I also like how he admits the assumption... if. The thing that comes to mind are all the dinosaur shows explaining their day to day lives, zodiac signs and favorite take-out places.
South Africa (Score:1)
huh? (Score:2)
Means it isn't producing any auspices (Score:2)
Thomas Gold (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Gold was also convinced that the Moon was covered in dust many meters deep - after the Surveyor landings showed that to be incorrect, he changed his belief to 'the moon is covered in dust with a crust just thick enough to
A source? (Score:2)
Quick, alert the DEA! (Score:1)
methane on Uranus too? (Score:2)
Mauna Loa (Score:2)
!! TFA PDF Warning !! (Score:1)