by Dr. Michio Kaku

The recent discovery of methane on Mars is more than a curiousity. It could be a game changer.

For the last three decades, NASA’s Mars exploration program has been based on a single mantra: Follow the water. Where there is water, there might be life. So far, this strategy has come up empty handed. But now, NASA might have to change course and follow the methane. Methane gas, which heats up our food in our kitchen stoves, can be created by natural processes, but about 90% of the earth’s methane gas comes from living things, such as the decomposition of organic materials. So this is tantalizing evidence that perhaps some form of Martian life created this methane.

Back in 2003, the European Mars Express orbiter detected methane on Mars in the northern hemisphere. Careful analysis over several years with three ground-based telescopes then detected plumes of methane gas spewing from several specific sites on Mars, peaking in the summer time. Up to 20,000 metric tons of methane gas have been detected in these plumes. The burning question now being asked is: what is the origin of this methane gas?
3 billion years or so ago, Mars was tropical, with lakes, rivers, perhaps even an ocean as big as the United States. Back then, you could get a sun tan on prime beach front property. And perhaps microbial life in the form of algae and plankton thrived in this lush environment. But today, Mars is a frozen desert, a bleak, sterilized, and freezing landscape with a thin atmosphere of almost pure carbon dioxide. Perhaps this methane gas was left-over from the decay of organic life billions of years ago. A more interesting hypothesis is that this methane gas comes from present-day microbial life that grows underground, perhaps heated up by volcanic activity and hot springs.

(The earth also belches large quantities of methane gas, such as off the coast of Calif., because of methane deposits on the bottom of the ocean. Some have even speculated that these belches of gas might explain the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle. Colossal bubbles of gas seeping from the floor of the Caribbean may have suffocated sailors on ships or destabilized airplanes.)

At the very least, it means that NASA may re-think where to land the next series of Mars rovers. The next mission is the Mars Science Laboratory, to be launched in 2011. Before this announcement, NASA had considered (and passed over) the Nili Fossae area for a landing site, where methane plumes have been found. Scientists may reconsider this decision in light of this discovery. By digging into the soil, or by carefully analyzing the hydrogen isotopes within the methane, scientists may settle the question of the origin of methane gas.

If it turns out to be organic in nature, it could be the most profound achievement of the entire space program, rivaling sending a man to the moon.

In the long term, even if the methane gas has been found to be of inorganic origin, there are other possible uses for it. First, it might be used to create rocket fuel. In a manned mission to Mars, the astronauts may melt the ice in the ice caps or permafrost, separate out the oxygen and hydrogen from the water, and use them for rocket fuel. If methane exists in large quantities, it might be mixed with other volatile gases to make rocket fuel, thereby saving a considerable amount of money (since it may cost upwards of several hundred thousand dollars or more to put a pound of anything on the surface of Mars).

Second, in the far future, science fiction writers have speculated that it might be possible to create an artificial Greenhouse Effect on Mars by deliberately injecting methane into the atmosphere, since methane is much more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. In this way, one might be able to heat up the planet to melt some of the ice caps and permafrost so that liquid water may one day freely flow on the surface of Mars. Some have speculated that we might be able to create a new Garden of Eden on Mars. The goal would be for humanity to terraform Mars so that humanity can become a “two-planet species,” (i.e. to create an insurance policy in case life is threatened on earth.)

Having a spare planet could come in handy one day.

ALIEN bugs are responsible for strong plumes of methane gas detected on Mars, it was claimed tonight.

Nasa scientists say the gas emissions could have either a geological or biological source - as The Sun exclusively revealed today.

Nasa announced its historic findings on its online television channel...

Life is responsible for more than 90 per cent of the Earth’s atmospheric methane.

Experts believe there is a good chance that organisms produced the gas emissions - as large as some of those seen on Earth - on Mars too.

Scientist Michael Mumma of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center said: “This raises the probability substantially that life was there or still survives at the present.

“We think the probability is much higher now based on this evidence.”

The bugs that made it may have vanished millions of years ago, leaving the methane frozen under the planet’s surface.

But another possibility is that some hardy organisms still survive on the Red Planet, living underground without sunlight and using hydrogen from water for energy. Similar microbes exist on Earth.

Methane produced by the action of water on hot carbon bearing rocks, as occurs in volcanic regions on Earth, is the alternative explanation.

Whatever the source is, scientists agree that something is replenishing the methane.

The find is seen as exciting new evidence that Martian microbes are still alive today.

Some scientists reckon methane is also produced by volcanic processes. But there are NO known active volcanoes on Mars.

Furthermore, Nasa has found the gas in the same regions as clouds of water vapour, the vital “drink” needed to support life.

Experts speculate that the methane is being emitted as a waste product by organisms called methanogens living in water beneath underground ice.

And they would have to be alive today because the methane would otherwise have been lost from the Martian atmosphere...

The Obama administration should set a concrete schedule for human Mars missions, and make sure new hardware developed for NASA's return to the Moon can be adapted for missions to other destinations, a new report says.

With a new US president set to take charge of the White House and many questions hanging over NASA's future, many have been trying to advise the agency about where it should go from here.

President-elect Barack Obama's transition team has been very tight-lipped, but if the Obama administration takes its cue from the preponderance of advice it's getting, then human missions to Mars may well move up in priority.

Back in November, the Planetary Society, a space advocacy group, released a report called "Beyond the Moon", which called for delaying new missions to the Moon and channelling more resources into paving the way for human missions to Mars instead (see Moon takes a backseat in new space plan).

Now, an independent group of space experts, led by David Mindell of MIT, is calling for a timeline for human Mars missions, and urging that any Moon hardware be designed with other destinations in mind as well...

   Read More »

On the NASA home page, I found two interesting interactive features. The first is a JPL study into climate change. The second is a history of NASA itself. Give it a try!

http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html

 We would do well to increase NASA funding in the 111th Congress.

Space policy made a pretty decent splash at Netroots Nation. We had an excellent panel on space policy, and an excellent platform meeting. For those of you who don't remember, we had Andrew Hoppin moderating, and Chris Bowers, Lori Garver, Patricia Grace Smith, and George Whitesides all speaking. You can about the panelists here.

Join me over the fold to read, and see it

This is being re-posted from my diaries over at dailykos

In many of my past diaries, I commented on Senator Obama, and his lack of a space policy, and the concern that he is anti human spaceflight. These diaries have ranged from long explanations, to something that was probably close to a rant.

In a debate at the  International Space Development Conference between democrats and a representative of the McCain campaign, Lori Garver, former NASA associate administrator and NSS executive director representing a group of space policy thinkers in the Democratic party, advocated a policy that would “take us back to the Moon and beyond” as well as the “worthy ambition of sending humans to Mars.” It is not an uncommon position.  In his piece on Politico, Scott Horowitz, a former NASA associate administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission wrote a piece advocating manned exploration of space.

My friends, this is more of the Bush-lite nonsense.  We don't need to ape the Bush mindset to win votes away from the Republicans.  Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration" is a policy for retarding space exploration, not accelerating it.  As science policy analyst Robert L. Park has noted, remotely controlled explorers "are doing so well it's going to be hard to justify sending a human."

Recently, the Air Force was roundly criticized by the secretary of defense for its foot dragging in building the unmanned aircraft that have proven themselves on the battlefield as well as in tests as bombers and fighters. Engineers know that unmanned craft can pull off maneuvers that no human could survive due to high g forces. So why do the ex pilots who now command the air force so fiercely resist the new technology? For the same reason ex pilot Horowitz does.

Ego.

Call it the "Silk scarf" syndrome. Note that Horowitz's hidden premise in his essay that space exploration = astronauts.

The rosiest projections of manned exploration of Mars is that if we fully funded it and did nothing else, we wouldn't make it there by 2037. 2037! Well wake up people.  We are already exploring Mars today. Admittedly, the people exploring Mars have not physically touched the Martian surface- but let's be honest here- even an astronaut on the surface wouldn't either- because they must be safely protected from its harsh environment by technology. So the brutal truth is that the manned space advocates want us to wait 30 years so we can reduce the distance of control of that intermediary technology from a couple million miles to one inch. Is that wait worth the benefit?

Sure, an astronaut can do in 30 minutes what it takes a remotely piloted vehicle to do in 3 days. But consider this. Spirit and Opportunity rovers have collectively spent 109 months on Mars and are still exploring the surface. Using the discount of 3 days of remote control rover = 30 minutes of manned time on the surface, the remotely piloted rovers have done the work of 90 manned days on the Mars surface, assuming astronauts on a manned mission worked flat out, 6 hours every day with no down time.

The difference is that we accomplished this today, not 2037.

Spin offs? You bet there will be technology spin offs. But consider which endeavor is free to push the envelope. By its nature, the engineering for manned flights is risk averse. That doesn't push the technology envelope. With an unmanned mission, we can experiment with novel propulsion systems, and new means of powering, landing and locomotion on the surface. With manned missions, you only use the tried and true.

The costs of manned missions are orders of magnitude more expensive, due to the need for return flight, massively redundant systems, life support and so on. A remotely piloted explorer doesn't require any of that.

As long as the silk scarfs are guiding policy at Nasa, we will have less exploration, not more.

You want science? Do 10 times more exploration via remote control for the same amount of money. You want silk scarves and couple of hours of entertainment? Go see a movie. You want real romance? Join the real explorers- get an engineering degree and apply at JPL.

We are shutting down the Shuttle and backing out of the space station because basically- it is returning miniscule science for the vast investment.  Unmanned systems like Hubble and the gamma ray observatory are doing the heavy lifting but strangely, programs like them haven't been getting the money under the republicans.  At one point, the republicans thought it would be a better idea to destroy Hubble rather than fix it. 

Why?  Really- it's because a kid is in the white house.  A kid with no interest in science, but grew up wearing steve canyon helmets and playing spaceman as much as he liked playing cowboy.  We all know where the cowboy game took us in Iraq. 

Let's look at where his spaceman fantasies took Nasa with his idiotic goal of reorienting NASA completely towards a manned mission to Mars.  His views are generational, and this is illustrated with a question.

Who's your favorite space explorer?  Armstrong? Glenn? 

Mine is the Opportunity (Mars exploration) rover.  4 years after setting down on Mars, it is still toiling away, uncovering more of Mars' secrets.  In terms of science return on dollar invested, it has been a magnificent investment.

Sure- it doesn't get any mention in the news any more.  But though science can be dramatic, drama is not the point.  Unfortunately, Bush believes it is, and so set Nasa on a track towards re-asserting America's manhood in space- designed to land men on the moon again by.  That's what his man in space policy to send astronauts to Mars is about.

Landing men on Mars will be a huge distraction and resource hog for Nasa.  Other than the fleeting drama it will provide, such a goal makes very little sense from a science or business (spin off technology) perspective.  It's not complicated to figure out why.  Unlike technology of the 60's, robotic exploration means engineers can push the envelope in experiments of new approaches.  Manned exploration forces engineers to be extremely conservative.  The risk taking necessary for breakthrough technologies means dead astronauts- so guess what.  It's a bad bet to count on the breakthroughs coming from manned programs.   So really, it doesn't take a genius to realize which approach generates more new technologies.   That means fewer growth opportunities for Florida and Texas businesses hoping to generate spin off technology products for global markets.

Next consider the cost of proving our manhood in space.  90% of the equipment necessary for manned missions are useless baggage on Telerobotic missions.   Telerobotic explorers are on a one way trip.  No return fuel needed.  No human crew being present on the vehicle means massively redundant systems are not necessary, nor is the bulky life support systems required.  Reliable airbag landing systems can be used because machines can be subjected to 40G stresses. 

Sure- let's build bases on the Moon, Mars and Europa that "live off the land", we return samples from the outer planets and send high velocity ion propulsion probes outside of the solar system.  We can do all of this dramatic stuff a lot faster if we don't have to be 100% sure that every mission will be a success.  Ok- the eyes that see all this will be separated from the mars environment not by a piece of clear plastic in a helmet, but by the silicon of a high resolution camera.  The distance from the human explorers face to the mars environment will not be measured in inches but in millions of miles.

Is that difference worth waiting 30 years or more for and spending 10 times as much money that could be spent on 10 times more Nasa exploration in unmanned form?  For what?  So we can do then what we can do today on mars minus the in situ hemoglobin?  The price of human vanity is indeed very high.

The nice thing about Telerobotics space exploration is that we can be there without having to wait 20 years to develop the technology to safely move our bodies there.  It's good for American businesses that can profit from accelerated risk taking engineering efforts that the telerobitic approach allows.  It's good for science because we get an order of magnitude more science bang for the buck.  Lastly, it's even good from the perspective of the drama of exploration because we don't have to wait decades to make baby steps to the planets.  Instead we can move their boldly and use space as a vast proving ground of radical new technologies that on earth will make our country more competitive.

(Disclaimer- I am not in any way associated with the space or aerospace industry or an inhabitant of Florida or Texas or anyone so connected.  I am a former software engineering manager at a well known company and hold a handful of patents in the field.  Now I mostly change my children's diapers.)

Current research indicates that the anticipated changes that might result from an increase in atmospheric CO2 are not so simple. Computer models are being used to project climate change, but because the actual mechanism of climate change is not well understood, doubts have been raised in the science community about their accuracy.  Recent papers suggest that previous studies have significantly underestimated the phenomenon, and that the "fierce urgency of now" actually happenned 8 years ago.  

Even with extensive measures of CO2 emissions, scientists agree that the processes that govern the carbon cycle are not very well understood. This fact is siezed on by extremists who would deny climate change due to human activity exists. 

There are two responses to this.  The first is political.  Many of those swayed by such rhetoric are actually reflexively responding to the notion that this is some sort of hippie environmentalist fad hoax.  This can be disarmed by reloading