ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Next Mars Rover Will Seek Out Signs of Past Life

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Artists concept of rover

Artists concept of Mars 2020 rover. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

NASA officials have revealed their vision for what comes after the wildly successful Curiosity rover on Mars. Think of it as Curiosity Plus. Using Curiosity’s design as a starting point, Mars 2020 (as it’s currently known) will be another rover digging around the surface of the red planet. But, this time, rather than just looking for evidence that Mars was once habitable, the robotic explorer will be searching for signs of past life and packing up samples that, someday, will be returned to Earth for analysis.

“Curiosity has answered the question of whether Mars ever harbored a habitable environment,” said John Grunsfeld, NASA’s associate administrator for science, at a July 9 press conference describing the new report. “Of all the options going forward…we really need to go back to the surface [of Mars] and do the next stage in answering the questions about potential past life on Mars: did Mars ever have life?”

The mission concept is pretty straightforward: find somewhere promising to land, learn about the geology of the region, then look for biosignatures—some evidence that life may once have hung out in the neighborhood. Potential biosignatures include detection of organic molecules, minerals produced by biological functions, or even very small fossils.

If Mars 2020 detects biosignatures while on Mars, NASA won’t pop the champagne and announce they’ve discovered extinct extraterrestrial life just yet. That next step will require getting a sample of the soil to Earth and interrogating it back home. “If that biosignature happens to be a dinosaur type bone,” said Grunsfeld, “we probably wouldn’t have to return that sample [to Earth]. But our understanding is that it’s likely to be microbial and that’s a darn hard measurement to make and a darn hard measurement to convince the skeptical scientist community.”

 

Sample cache

Prototype storage capsule for soil core samples. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Mars 2020 will not deliver the samples itself. It will only select, acquire, and package them for later pick up. Who will do that task and when that will happen is unclear. NASA has no firm plans for a sample return mission and it’s not even clear who would get there first: robots or humans. But mission scientists are keen to separate the sample acquisition from the subsequent return to Earth. Researchers want to first ensure that they can remotely identify biosignatures as well as safely and reliably store biologically interesting samples. The problem of lifting those samples off the surface of Mars and retrieving them on Earth is left for a later mission.

NASA is not declaring this mission a search for life, current or extinct. Rather, they emphasize that they are looking for markers that may have been left behind by once living organisms. “We are not looking for the life that must have been there, because we don’t know the answer to that question,” said Jack Mustard, chair of the Mars 2020 Science Definition Team and Professor of geological sciences at Brown University. “But we’re saying, given the number of signs we’ve had, including what Curiosity is finding, that there is promise that had life been there and had left a mark in the geologic record, we want to be able to seek those signs.”

From here, mission scientists and engineers will analyze the report in detail and they hope to announce an open competition for instruments by this fall. The estimated cost, minus the launch vehicle, is $1.5 billion.

 

Christopher Crockett About the Author: Christopher is a AAAS Mass Media Fellow and intern for Scientific American. In a previous life he was an astronomer and spent the last several years looking for planets. Follow on Twitter @@CosmicThespian.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 5 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. timbosta 10:24 am 07/11/2013

    Rather diminishes the apparent achievement of Curiosity, doesn’t it? Here’s us all thinking that Curiosity was trundling around looking for evidence of water/microbial fossils, idiosyncratic chemistry etc etc, and it turns out it was only there to check on whether or not Mars had ever harboured a habitable environment… NASA needed to spend HOW much for that narrow remit? Silly me…

    Link to this
  2. 2. Owl905 12:26 pm 07/11/2013

    “Where are they?” continues to be one of the Great unanswered questions. Apollo didn’t find it; Rover didn’t find it; SETI didn’t find it; Von Danekin didn’t find it; even Spielberg didn’t find it … Mulder and Scully stopped looking. Common sense and probability says it’s abundant, but other than the mild controversy over ALH84001 … there’s nothing but silence and a homegrown trail of life.

    “Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense” … so keep looking. We found out that a war to end all wars wouldn’t stop an even bigger war; we found out that pollution really does have the power to change the climate; we found out that a bollide could be a restart button for the web of life.
    Find out how it all started. And find out that life isn’t so rare that humanity passes through its existence alone.

    Link to this
  3. 3. matthewkantar 6:18 pm 07/11/2013

    No RTG for this mission so where are the solar panels in the illustration? The Curiousity rover can’t even go near water because of poor vehicle prep. Will the budget for the new craft include more complete sterilization that the current mission lacks? The TiME mission would have been so much more compelling than this redo plus the InSight mission, for many dollars less.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Daniel35 6:54 pm 07/11/2013

    This seems pretty much like what they’ve been doing all along. But at least I guess they’re finding new sources of money. Suppose they find something that takes a million years to reproduce, and it hasn’t even had its first date. Can they still call it life? Or suppose the dominant lifeform got so prolific that it set things in motion to destroy its own support system, like maybe other examples of ET. Would it make any difference?

    Link to this
  5. 5. kienhua68 8:20 pm 07/13/2013

    If there is any life evidence it will be very basic. I doubt life got any start on Mars. Better we go to the moon and establish a base. From that we can learn how living in such an environment will affect us over time.
    Mars is most interesting but very impractical due to its distance from Earth.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article



This function is currently unavailable

X