Big, yes, as well as being completely missed by what's been reported by Covault, re the provocative results being wet-chemistry ones, and the key being how water and soil behave, and it not being a discovery of past life on Mars, and it being about habitability.

I don't see a fit.



The preliminary image I recall was of some silicon substrate, a set of parallel micro-grooves. Here's the press image: First Atomic Force Microscope Image from Mars. AFM results can be rendered as an image, but I wouldn't call them photos.

... and the views from Down Under... and Russia...

And we think OUR media's nuts here in the UK...!

'NASA Hides Truth About Mars' --- *groan*

This just is going to get more and more widespread. NASA really needs to address this. Just a short little blurb is all they would need. (Just my opinion, of course).

I'd say they've covered it in the most appropriate way to be honest.

And that Australian piece is supposed to be a serious piece of journalism? Typical attitude to anything scientific - frivolous.

I don't think anyone with two brain cells to rub together is going to take that coverage seriously; apart from the fact it's very poorly written and full of mistakes, it's clearly for domestic consumption only, maybe even a clumsy way of building up interest in and support for Phobos-Grunt... I only linked to it as a way of illustrating how restrained and sensible we're being here.

I think my posts make me sound more frustrated than I actually am. Whatever the Phoenix teams do I'll happily roll with. After all, it doesn't change any of the science results one way or the other.

But for the record, I don't think that Twitter suffices as a news release.

I'd like to point out that there is actually no contradiction between what Craig Covault wrote and the "denial" from the Phoenix Twitter feed.
Craig wrote that the White House had been "alerted." The Twitter post said there had been no White House briefing. Craig wrote that there was an important announcement coming regarding habitability, Twitter said life had not been found.
It all fits together, and I suspect all those statements are correct.
At this stage, it would be premature to have an actual WH briefing. "Alerted" probably just means a phone call or an email saying something big might be coming.
As far as I know, the last time there was any kind of direct communication about a planetary science matter to the White House was just before the NASA press conference on the Mars meteorite ALH84001. So yes, any kind of contact at all signals that this is something very significant.
Both Covault and Leonard David are very seasoned reporters with very good sources, and I've known them both for a long time. I'd be astonished if they were wrong about any of the details that they have reported.

I have been down here on Cape Cod since Friday on a little vacation with no modern conveniences save the Ocean and the beer chest (and no computers! wife's edict). So this morning we go into town for more supplies, and I find this little Internet Cafe in the back of coffee shop. And lo! Anon! No news on 'the find'. After reading all the posts in this thread, and knowing I can do nothing else, I have decided to go back to fishing for a week.

Please NASA....Please surprise me when I get back!

We sure do live in interesting times!

cheers UMSFers!

<Doug, my condolences on the admin overtime!..take care>

The aussie article wasn't that bad, it clearly mentions it contains speculations, which is exactly what this thread also offers.
Now, the russian one ........ I better not say anything

I agree completely with that. I'd be shocked too. I think your analysis is also right.

It'd be a small hiccup for the Phoenix team to get their Public Affairs a little off - they're scientists and engineers doing a great job. Craig and Leonard report. That's their job so it's a much bigger deal for >them< to be caught out here. C'mon NASA, give us a proper press release.

Alexis Madrigal here from Wired.com. I'd just like to report that the White House science advisor's spokesperson denied any briefing and seemed genuinely surprised. She's checking into whether any lower-down NASA policy analysts spoke with anyone from the Phoenix team.

Actually, the Covault article also says "The Bush Administration's Presidential Science Advisor's office, however, has been briefed on the new information". Is the Science Advisor's office not part of the white house?

I agree with jmjawors that Twitter seems like a fairly trivial means for nasa to release information. Perhaps this is a signal of the significance that nasa attaches to the speculation that's spanning the internet on this story.

Seems to me that NASA has been using Twitter quite strategically and not as a throwaway add-on to their PR.

It's a perfect rumor-tamping tool, actually, especially if you don't have the time or resources to put together a full release and the ensuing onslaught of questions, etc. 30K plus people get the denial all at once.

space.com quoting Peter Smith now: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0808...oenix-meca.html




Doesn't sound happy to me lol.

Well, yes, but the parsing of these statements remains very interesting:

Today's space.com story says:

(Covault wrote that) "The Bush Administration's Presidential Science Advisor's office, however, has been briefed on the new information that NASA hopes to release as early as mid August."

But Smith told SPACE.com that this was "not true, MECA results have not been discussed at the White House."

I assume he's being careful about his language. So if it wasn't discussed "at the White House", that still allows for a phone call or email discussion, as I mentioned. And Covault's story didn't say the Science Advisor had been briefed, just someone in that office.

Covault is sticking by his story, the report says. Smith says there are different points of view among the science team. No surprise there, that's as it should be. So, it looks to me like the story is real, but the meaning of the findings still being hotly debated.

Okay UMSFers, a question:

- what class of discovery requires normal care, super care or can be blithely uttered without any care?

When they landed Peter was quite happy to speculate about the polygons and that, for sure, they'd find ice. Holy Cow looked like a skating rink and they said so. Sublimating ice? Boom. The pH news came right away as did the taste of ice last week.

They've discussed all the troubles they've had with the delivery of samples to TEGA and have been forthright about the performance of the craft.

I don't quite understand the nature of the "news" from Phoenix that could be different than the above? In other words, the best case discovery scenario possible is what? Why would whatever it could be, be outside their established process? Why would they need extra special procedures for any discovery possible?

So now Peter says that the July 7th MECA sample is being analyzed and they won't go forward with only half a story. But they were happy to go with preliminary data one day (check me) after their first sample which had the great news about growing asparagus in Martian soil.

I am sure I am missing the big picture here, unless Craig's story is completely bogus which he now categorically denies.

I think you are reading too much into the verbal semantics. Let's take Peter at his word OK? This is getting a bit nutty. He said no such discussion took place as did Veronica to the Twitter list. So I believe we need to drop it.

Well, all the principal actors in this seem to have shot down the story. Including Covault, who doesn't get it quite right in his response when he says his report was misrepresented. Only a handful of sources talked about life, the majority did qoute him correctly.

More damaging than Covault's report perhaps, is Peter Smith talking about the conflicting points of view within the team. If they have a hard time interpreting their findings and agreeing on one story, it doesn't bode well for the peer review their conclusions are going to get. But I suppose that's what science is all about.

I'd say the story that you want to publish in Science requires whatever care that publication demands i.e. embargo.
Unambiguous detection of nitrogen compounds, organic compounds or carbonates would merit a quick publication, I think. I also (in total ignorance) am guessing that carbonates would give the quickest unambiguous signal in MECA while the others might require more teasing of the data or help from TEGA.

I don't know what other big story there could be.

For those who haven't bumped into this - Science and Nature both have histories of being rather snitty, up to and including at least the threat of pulling papers out of production, if the results find their way into the media before being printed. An enterprising reporter for Science with a camera at a meeting once got us into warm water with a Nature editor, as if there's anything a poor investigator can do short of jumping in front of the poster presentation if something starts to flash.

Regarding some of the other speculation - I can see where habitability for humans seems very important at some levels where policy might eventually be affected, while being much more of an abstract piece of random information to many of the investigators.

Just curious, as temp drops and CO2 starts to "snow" out, would Martian atmosphere dynamics allow for the formation of '"snow devils"? (Equivalent of dust devils, but made of CO2 'foofies' instead of dirty dust)

Not earthshaking in it's import, (and not what CC is onto apparently) but still a fun thing if it might exist.

What effect does leaking the results from MECA or the implications of the results have on getting a paper published in a journal?
Would having too many details being discussed publicly interfere with the process?

Edit: Never mind, I see my question has already been answered.

I agree with Dan here.

We have two, independent rebuttals of this story. One via JPL, Veronica and the Twitter page, the second by Peter, in an interview with Space.com

For whatever reason, Craig has heard something that appears to not be entirely true. Anyone claiming there is something more, something being hidden, is stepping into the realm of conspiracy and thus is in breach of forum rules. This thread can continue, but that line of discussion is not up for debate.

I'm told a NASA release is coming out some time today, so it might be a good time to reserve further speculation and wait for the official story.

--Emily

Hear, hear. The fat lady's gonna sing sooner or later; think we've explored every reasonable possibility beyond exhaustively.

Just wanted to chime in to thank Alexis (last page) for the info (which is pretty conclusive I think) and some good points about the strategic use of Twitter. Oh, and welcome!

This is kind of a tangent but I keep wondering this: has anyone seen a news report about Martian life? That's one of the things that Phoenix's tweet and also Peter Smith said, that the reports of Martian life are false. Leaving aside the White House business for a moment (nothing really much to say anyway), is the "discovery of life" being reported somewhere or are they just referring to blogs and message boards?

Agh...just search Google News & there are all kinds of hits for this. I didn't see anything too tin-hat, but didn't look hard, either. Certain that there are some out there, though.

So it seems like a basic story of the conflict between scientific publication and the needs of the news media with a "White House" grenade thrown in the middle of it. Lots of fallout somewhere but not for discussing here anymore...

A question here : could it be a release that basicaly will say there's nothing to report ?
I mean, do we have exemple(s) of Nasa needing to make a statement to stop a rumor ?
Thanks

Be patient, you'll see soon enough!

Emily

Not at all damaging I would say! If the answers were always straightforward, you don't need any scientists at all The more different ideas the better. Then you try and figure out which idea fits best.

It will be interesting what NASA has to say, but I assume it will be along the lines of 'please move on, there's nothing to see here', which might actually be the truth (!).

You may be right: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...p;channel=space

Hmm. Definitely a ratchet-down of expectations...not too surprised, actually.

Is this a complete U turn by CC or what ?

Here it is!

The discussion is about perchlorate.

Nice. That's a very well-written release, reinforcing the notion that science results take time and that no, they've not discovered life.

I'm not chemist enough (or at all, really) to know that they are talking about. Thank goodness for wikipedia!

Oh, my. Well, perhaps they've found the fabled superoxidant; perchlorates are nasty.

Emily, on top of it as always, has posted an excellent blog entry on the subject.

Congratulations to Emily, I second what you says Nick, this is an excellent blog entry.

Excellent post Emily! EXCELLENT press release by NASA! Who says you can't reveal the process.

So even the AAAS/Science thing was not right?

A Superoxidant that destroys organic material?? So Mars is and always has been lifeless then?

Wouldn't go that far yet. A strong oxidant is also a strong energy source...and Mars ain't Earth.

The L word is gonna be an open issue for a long, long time IMHO.

Berkeley Science Review: Natural Solutions - Organic answers to toxic questions

Actually, the possible detection of perchlorate well explains what has been going on here:

1.The evident agitation of the Phoenix team during what should have been a positive press conference can be attributed to the fact that, having suggested the benign nature of the soil underneath Phoenix just a few days ago, they may now have to report that it is actually toxic (some bacteria excepted).

2. IF (note the capitalization) the possibility has arisen that perchlorate is widespread on Mars, especially in association with the available moisture, this would be quite consistent with the White house having been notified in some way -- because suddenly the props have been kicked out from underneath our manned space program as presently constituted.

Just catching up on the news after being out all evening, and I have to agree with what others have said: Emily, that's one of the best blog entries you've ever written, clear and concise and leaving no room for misinterpretation or myth. Textbook stuff.

I'm going to have to do some catch-up reading here - and then probably some additional checking up elsewhere - on the science behind this "Perchlorate" stuff, but it sounds nasty. But congrats to the Phoenix team on their latest discovery, and for maintaining a dignified silence throughout this 'interesting' few days too. And also to everyone here who participated in our weekend discussion in such a respectful and constructive way. I think we showed more than a few people out there how a Forum should behave.

Science beats conspiracy again. Result!

So... if anaerobic, perchlorate eating microbes are "ubiquitous" right here on earth...

Maybe they are reporting positive information about the life bearing properties of the soil!

Surely that's one way to frame it. Chemosynthetic processes are frequently the preferred methods for terrestrial extremophiles, so if this is a genuine detection (and I'm betting that if it's there, it's NaClO4), this might just be good news.

As far as kicking the props from underneath the focus for US manned space flight...nah. All this might do is reveal Mars to be even more alien than we thought. (Well, maybe not so alien; more and more, Mars' soil seems to resemble terrestrial mine tailings! Things still live in such places, though.)

Why would you think that? True, perchlorates are not to be taken lightly, but I have over thirty pounds of high grade potassium perchlorate sitting around my house (it is used in pyrotechnics). I'm still alive and healthy.

In fact, I have some ammonium perchlorate too. Makes great rocket fuel. Note that hundreds of thousands of pounds are used in the shuttle solid boosters. Maybe astronauts on mars could use it to refuel (just kidding).

The idea that there was probably some kind of strongly oxidizing component in martian soil has long been held, and yet plans for manned flights there have gone forward without much concern up to this point.

1) The WCL has a special sensor for perchlorate : http://planetary.chem.tufts.edu/Phoenix/WetChemLab.html
It will be very interesting to see in future releases from the Phoenix team what is the cause of uncertainty or interference in their soil measurements.

2) The Atacama desert in Chile is full of perchlorates. Why do we even bother sending probes to Mars ?

3) Two relevant conference abstracts regarding oxidants on Mars :

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/09253/EGU06-J-09253.pdf

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/1778.pdf

4) I would expect experienced journalists (or their inside sources) to be able to differentiate between habitability enhancing/decreasing data.

I just can't figure a lot of this whole brouhaha out, but I'm sure that in the days & weeks ahead we'll be illuminated.