MSL Results: "Earthshaking … one for the history books" Or Not?
Big News From Mars? Rover Scientists Mum For Now, NPR
“The exciting results are coming from an instrument in the rover called SAM. “We’re getting data from SAM as we sit here and speak, and the data looks really interesting,” John Grotzinger, the principal investigator for the rover mission, says during my visit last week to his office at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. That’s where data from SAM first arrive on Earth. “The science team is busily chewing away on it as it comes down,” says Grotzinger. SAM is a kind of miniature chemistry lab. Put a sample of Martian soil or rock or even air inside SAM, and it will tell you what the sample is made of. Grotzinger says they recently put a soil sample in SAM, and the analysis shows something earthshaking. “This data is gonna be one for the history books. It’s looking really good,” he says.”
Keith’s 20 Nov note: NASA SMD PAO has confirmed that Grotzinger will make an announcement at the AGU meeting next Wednesday. Given that he repeatedly uses phrases such as “Earthshaking” and “one for the history books” when talking to the media (clearly with zero NASA PAO guidance) one had better hope that his news will indeed be of that importance. Of course, while everyone seems to be thinking that SAM may have found something important in terms of organic compounds, it could well be that it has found absolutely no sign of organics. I suppose both extremes could be considered “Earthshaking” and “one for the history books”. Given NASA SMD’s recent botched PR efforts with regard to life in the universe i.e. “Arsenic-based life” and “Earthlike planets“, yet another false alarm or flurry of unsubstantiated arm waving and hype would really undermine SMD’s credibility.
Keith’s 21 Nov 10:07 am EST update: Now NASA PAO and others are finally being dragged into the viral discussion. Perhaps if Grotzinger coordinated his message and choice of words (in advance), things would calm down a little. Given that everyone at NASA is either on vacation or about to go away for a long Thanksgiving weekend, I suspect this flurry won’t really diminish. All too soon the UK tabloids will be proclaiming that Curiosity has (once again) “found life” on Mars.
Dcouverte historique pour Curiosity : le vrai, le faux, Ciel & Space
VIA Google Translate: “A “buzz” unjustified “None of that!” Insists the French Michel Cabane, Co scientific instrument Sat “We do not understand what is happening. We have absolutely no news to announce glowing!”
A Mars Announcement ‘for the History Books’? Not So Fast, Time
JPL spokesman Guy Webster made just this point today in an e-mail to TIME: “As for history books, the whole mission is for the history books,” he wrote. That’s not to say he rules out the possibility of truly big news. “It won’t be earthshaking,” he said in a later phone call, “but it will be interesting.”
Keith’s 21 Nov 2:46 pm EST update: According to Mars Curiosity’s Facebook page: “What did I discover on Mars? That rumors spread fast online. My team considers this whole mission “one for the history books.” This is just bizarre.
First Grotzinger, the mission’s Co-I gets quoted on a national news outlet saying some rather provocative things. Then NASA PAO refuses to make any statement either confirming or denying what Grotzinger said (indeed they have decline to dispute these comments when asked). Then someone at JPL takes to a Facebook page to try and cast doubt on Internet rumors. Between Grotzinger’s comments, and lack of PAO clarification, it is obvious that no one really cares if these rumors continue – or if they are inaccurate – and also, that no one is really in charge of public relations for this mission.
Keith’s 23 Nov note: Yes, when you listen to the audio, its the journalist who uses the word “Earthshaking”. And then Grotzinger agrees with the word (there is no evidence from the tape that he denied that this word was accurate in any way). When you ask NASA PAO if they dispute the characterization of Grotiznger’s comments as stating that the new data is “Earthshaking” NASA PAO says “No”.
If this announcement is not “Earthshaking” then why does NASA repeatedly pass on repeated inquires from the media when they offer NASA a chance to dispute the accuracy of the term or to distance themselves from its use in this specific context?
Maybe they will wait for the AGU meeting for an announcement.
There is special session on Wednesday at the AGU. I look forward to see what is happening there.
Space.com is reporting that the announcement will be made at the AGU.
A) Life
B) water
C) Fossilized life
D) None of the above
As it is related to SAM it is most likely organic material.
E) Teamster
July 30, 1975 – Jimmy Hoffa disappears.
August 20, 1975 – Viking 1 is launched to Mars.
I have a bad feeling that it’s going to be something really esoteric and one scientist’s enthusiasm wound up in front of the wrong audience.
Anyone who talks to the press has to mind what they say. They quote-mine, copy-paste, “jazz” it up and if it all goes wrong, they either move on or they put it on you. We’re not all grown ups; the one thing worse than the mainstream media these days is the mainstream media on science.
If anything he probably shouldn’t have dropped this hint. At this point the only discovery about Mars to go in a history book is going to be life – and only if it’s proven. Effectively. And if it’s not that, it’s going to be a huge letdown.
Professors, like politicians, love to pontificate. Grotzinger could have waited until the AGU meeting if the data is that “earthshaking”. Anything less, as you said Joe, will be a huge letdown.
Totally agree. It’s probably something like “organic material”, which is NOT life, and they’ll go on and on saying how important it is and they need to study more and send more rovers etc.
In all actuality, Mars is probably an extremely dead planet and if they want to look for life in our solar system they need to try Europa and Enceladus.
Mars is DEAD to me lol.
Of the few times I have been interviewed for a paper, including one feature article on my work, they got everything wrong that they could possibly have gotten wrong.
I was amazed to find direct quotes of me saying things I had not only not said, but never WOULD have said since what was in the quote was factually incorrect, actually the opposite of what I’d said.
I figure if every time I’ve read reports about things I have personal knowledge of they were glaringly wrong, then I guess I can’t really trust the reporting of things I DON’T know anything about.
This was not the result of politics, it was just the result of “reporters” who don’t feel the need to understand what they’re reporting on, and in some cases don’t even feel the need to take notes.
Considering that this is a *radio* story, and we’re hearing a direct recording of Grotzinger, I’m pretty sure that he actually said what we hear.
On the other hand, the “earthshaking” bit comes from Joe Palca – he’s paraphrasing Grotzinger’s excitement. Still, Joe’s a pretty stand-up guy.
Regardless, they’ll have an audience next Wednesday… unless somebody leaks the news early and it turns out to be nothing special.
Call NASA PAO and ask them if they disagree with the characterization “earthshaking” or associating Grotzinger with it. I did. The answer they offer is “no”.
Golly, you don’t think NASA PAO could be using this kerfuffle to drive interest in the MSL press conference at the AGU meeting, do you?
I can’t think of a worse way to drum up interest for MSL.
And t could be some unusual rock mineral that nobody expected. And that only a scientist could love…
If it’s proof that Mars once had water, I’m going to cry. lol.
I actually think Mars is alive at least somewhere based on everything I’ve read, but I don’t expect cool news about it until the 2030s if ever. Unless we want to fling two hundred billion dollars at it, incremental & focused missions is the way to go and as they say you only get to pick two of fast, cheap and accurate.
I could not agree more with you! The made up “drama” of these reports has more than worn thin. Time to grow up and quit with the “look at me… look at me… look what I have done.” It is not a befitting public persona for what should be a great agency.
He wasn’t quoted as saying Earthshaking. He was quoted as saying “This data is gonna be one for the history books. It’s looking really good,” which could describe any successful SAM measurement because this instrument is a great advance. Listening to the tape, it’s clear that NPR’s reporter jokingly adds Earthshaking to characterize the quote. Keith Cowing then put quotes back on “Earthshaking” and mistakenly attributes this to the MSL Project Scientist. This is one difference between science (where you have to take the time to check your facts) and journalism (where quality control gets rushed if it could nix a good story).Ironically, this difference is the real subject of the NPR story.
Here’s the whole paragraph for clarification: Grotzinger says they recently put a soil sample in SAM, and the analysis shows something earthshaking. “This data is gonna be one for the history books. It’s looking really good,” he says.
So the writer used the word earthshaking but is he repeating a word Grotzinger used? Regardless the title of this post uses words from the article in quotations.
Obviously the science team is excited at finding something unexpected. So double checking everything before releasing the result makes sense. Will it be something that the public sees as big news? That is yet to be determined. But there’s no doubt for those involved this is exciting news. We’ll just have to wait and be patient until it’s released or leaked.
Hi Marc, I suggest you listen to the tape which is linked at the top of the NPR page: http://www.npr.org/2012/11/… . The NPR web article is a write-up of the 4-minute tape. The NASAwatch article misattributes a quote to the Project Scientist of MSL in two places, first by combining something he did say with something he didn’t say in the title, and lower down (‘Nov 20 note’) by directly attributing the word ‘Earthshaking’ to the Project Scientist. From the tape it is clear this was light-hearted wordplay by the journalist. So the attribution is to the wrong person, who is not a scientist but a journalist, and who is using the word lightheartedly not seriously. This misattributed quote is then used to support an argument that scientists don’t have an attitude to facts and information that matches up with the media attitude to facts and information. I think NASAwatch has proven its point, though not in the way intended.
NASA PAO has been asked if the statements attributed to Grotzinger are incaccurate. They have declined to say that they are.
I respectfully suggest you listen to the tape.
This is a significant point. The word “earthshaking” is quite different than the phrase “for the history books”. I have a lot of history books that are filled with very interesting stuff that is hardly earthshaking. But it’s the “earthshaking” word that has excited (and to some extent annoyed) the public.
Is this a misattribution? It is reported here that Grotzinger used that word (bundled in the same pair of quotes as “history books”), and many media outlets picked that up. Again, respectfully requested, did Grotzinger, JPL, or NASA PAO ever use that word, as is alleged here?
Yes or no?
If Grotzinger reports a finding that would go in the history book, but not one that is perceived as really “earthshaking”, someone may owe him an apology, because he’s going to get accused of having exercised some wild extrapolation.
Call NASA PAO and ask them if they disagree with the characterization “earthshaking” or associating Grotzinger with it. I did. The answer they offer is “no”.
If we’re picking it apart, “history books” is vastly more hyperbolic (if it isn’t literally true).
I think it’s more or less established fact that there is plenty of H2O on Mars, and while some still debate whether it was ever seriously wet, it probably feels pretty settled in the minds of the public. We’ve been hearing a pretty constant stream of “evidence for water on ancient Mars” for decades.
So I’m assuming it’s not that.
And I think literally the only other discovery on Mars to make it in any kind of history book that isn’t called “History of Mars” happens to be life.
Everyone who sees this headline is either thinking “life!” or “sounds like life but I bet they’re f-ing with me”.
They’re not making efforts to blunt the excitement here.
Keith, they must have found something. There is no way they would say that there is “absolutely no sign of organics”, at such an early point in Curiosity’s mission.
Prediction: Inorganic molecules of a particular type that weren’t expected there were there, or that were expected there weren’t there. Or what was expected to be there was there but not in the way it was expected to be there.
No bearing on life, but they will need to drastically change their idea of one aspect of soil chemistry in that particular spot of that particular region of the surface of Mars. Possibly up to altering our understanding of the depth or flow of the water in that spot.
A nice solid experimental result that will please the scientists, add to our understanding, give some people some nice papers to write and is exactly what day-to-day experimental science is about…
… but which will probably not even get a yawn out of the public because they won’t even understand enough about it to be utterly bored by it.
This is reminiscent of the early results from Viking in 1976, where suggestions of organic chemistry were embraced by the JPL investigators. Soon afterwards, the results were generally agreed to be inorganic in nature, but believers continued to believe.
Not to mention the ‘fossil life found in meteorites from Mars’ claim in the 1990s.
So it’s not surprising they’re being careful with an official interpretation. I just wish they would be more careful with the “Earthshaking” PR.
Sounds like everyone best calm down:
http://science.time.com/201…
At $2.5B, there has to be something Earthshaking, One for the Record Books, Positive, Negative. At $2.5B, perhaps some Earthshaking has already happened.
Replying to myself is probably a good indication of a problem. Putting that aside, I think a question that is being missed in all the commentary on this, and something to think about in everything we do; How do we value the return on investment in a given mission? If we assume some “earthshaking” result, will it, or will they assuming we have a series of “one for the record books” results over the remainder of the mission, how does it, or they, add up?? How do we gauge our “return on Investment”? As a person with an interest in the space and science, I’m likely easily pleased. To the person, perhaps with a less direct personal interest, but with an interest as the guy/gal paying the bills;
how do we demonstrate that their hard earned dollar is well spent?
This leads back to my original comment. I’m suggesting that the PR folks involved have no choice; we spent “big bucks”, we have to have results, and they “better be overwhelming” (aka, earthshaking, for the record books, and so on).
My money is on a simple organic, maybe an amino acid. With all the energetic chemicals there, nonbiological synthesis is possible. I think the best way for a scientist to make sure that they aren’t misquoted is to skip the press and blog it out themselves along with their level of confidence. I think this suspense-building is silly.
vulture4,
That seems sensible to me, but I think they need to do both; blog it (or publish it, or equivalent) first, as to create solid, well thought out source material, and then do a press conference/release. Although there is obviously some overlap, I think there are two different audiences here and it’s necessary of reach both of them. But the scientists’ written presentation needs to come first so that misquotes and ambiguities are hopefully minimized.
Steve
Based on their past performance, their “earthshaking” announcements are usually things we already knew or were minor league discoveries. Hope I’m wrong but this smells like their more of the same.
Consider the possibility: a major announcement about Mars is made AND President Obama uses it to springboard off of for new cislunar and beyond exploration (http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
BTW, the original Science paper about meteorite ALH84001 has never been withdrawn, as far as I know, so the claims of evidence of fossilized Martian life still stand.
Erich,
True enough, but there has been more than enough written rebuttal of the ALH84001 proposal by reputable experts to make it at least an open question, rather than accepted theory.
Steve
What would the SAM fingerprint for something like this be?
http://exoplanetology.blogs…
CD,
Given the complaints about delays in presenting data from earlier missions, I have to wonder if this “wait and see” business is a direction from on high for the scientists to give the minions “something” fairly quickly without sticking their necks out.
Steve
MSL Results: “Earthshaking … one for the history books”
That’s NASAnees for: “The rover detected a pre-water based carbon ingredient that forms the bases of the forming of H20. Found throughout the solar system, it means that a water molecule could have started in the early phase of the planet’s history, meaning that if water was there, it never turned into water. What we’re saying is; like many places in the solar system, water could or could not have been there.”
“Earthshaking” and “one for the history books”
The line in the sand, no pun intended, should be Organics with isotope ratios indicative of biotic processes.
Just organics, well, meteorites deliver that to the surface and at some level it should be detectable.
Note also that this sand delivered to SAM is mostly local to Gale. Grains are too big to be transported by wind. It could be partly from the nearby alluvial fans and could be quite a smorgasbord of material. It could also be from the sedimentary layers off the flanks of Mount Sharp.
Re-examination of Viking experiment data after Mars Phoenix revealed Perchlorates in the soil, permits drawing a conclusion that Viking did detect organics. Positive measurements by MSL SAM would be further (indirect) support that we have two data points.
TT,
The bottom line is that any one single sample could conceivably be from anywhere in the solar system (or even the galaxy), so we should be very careful about trying to draw any conclusions at this point. One data point is not a statistical universe. And this point seems to be missed by those people who are complaining that we’ve done Mars and it’s time to move on. I think we’re going to need a lot more samples from a lot more locations on Mars before we begin to feel confident about the facts.
Steve
They found gold. Remember the shiny objects. Imagine a San Francisco style gold rush. Hmm. San Francisco??
Hmm, for someone who picks apart details, I’m surprised that you missed the detail that it was the reporter, not Grotzinger that used the word “earthshaking”. You later claim he regularly uses the word “earthshaking” with reporters – can you provide an example? To be honest, the main myth that PAO should worry about is that Curiosity could discover life on Mars as so many people (even in the comments here) seem to believe. It is NOT looking for life itself, and Curiosity’s instruments could only “prove” it existed there if something happened to stroll by the camera and wave. It’s looking at whether life could have existed…
Call NASA PAO and ask them if they disagree with the characterization “earthshaking” or associating Grotzinger with it. I did. The answer they offer is “no”.
Rather than waste your time and ours on the meaning of these exclamatory words, why don’t you be a reporter, take no prisoners and find us the answer! No pictures of NASA officials dressed as trekkies, just get the news rather than treating some as favorite sons.
“Favorite sons” – huh?
yeah. I love those $#&?@!* over at JPL, but uncover the news. they can still do their formal release at AGU. Get into the French network that’s part of SAM. French are terrible at keeping secrets. 😉 While you’re at it, inform about AC problems on Kepler or the on going saga of James Webb that is forcing a drawing of straws between Saturn, Jupiter and Mars missions. Otherwise, just entertain us with alien abductions like the National Enquirer
“When you ask NASA PAO if they dispute the characterization of Grotiznger’s comments as stating that the new data is “Earthshaking” NASA PAO says “No”.”
I’m sorry, but that’s not a fair test. PAO probably doesn’t have a clue about what the discovery is, and it’s hardly reasonable for them to dispute what a reporter said. Yep, the reporter sure did say that! They can’t dispute that “characterization” of what Grotzinger said (even though Grotzinger didn’t really say it …).
I just think that “for the history books” and “earthshaking” are vastly different descriptions, and it is fallacious to stuff the latter word in Grotzinger’s mouth if he never said it. It’s not fair to Grotzinger nor the entire Curiosity team. We’ve had enough of this tactic in the recent presidential campaign.
“If this announcement is not “Earthshaking”
then why does NASA repeatedly pass on repeated inquires from the media
when they offer NASA a chance to dispute the accuracy of the term or to
distance themselves from its use in this specific context?”
Simple. It’s because PAO is about spin. I’m not convinced they know the details of the discovery. What NASA PAO *should* say, is “Hell, we don’t know. We’re pretty clueless about this stuff.” But they’re unlikely to do that. They want to see themselves as the front porch for the agency.
I think it’s great to speculate about what is undoubtedly going to be a fascinating, and even exciting announcement. But it may not shake any planets, and we shouldn’t hold the team to such such seismic expectations. It would be a profound pity if a fascinating and exciting announcement gets polluted and distracted from with silly arguments about it’s Richter number.
‘you do not belive one single member of congress saw the reports . or were bugged by their kids on what it was?
Not a single call from anyone in the administration about the the earth shaking discovery was?
And what you believe is .. NASA public affairs is totally clueless when these kind of calls come in?
The sample obviously contained something that was not being considered… or wasn’t very high on the list and now they want confirmation.
It will probably turn out to be a little more mundane as lot of these earth shaking events are but any find will go into the history books.
Gee Helen WRT your comment “I’m sorry, but that’s not a fair test. PAO probably doesn’t have a clue about what the discovery is, and it’s hardly reasonable for them to dispute what a reporter said. Yep, the reporter sure did say that! They can’t dispute that “characterization” of what Grotzinger said (even though Grotzinger didn’t really say it …).”
Do you even read this stuff before you post it? Seriously? In a high profile instance such as this, NASA PAO knows exactly what the discovery is more or less as soon as the science people do. There was a PAO person siting next to Grotzinger when he spoke to NPR as the data started to appear on his laptop. The formal announcement about the media event goes out from NASA tomorrow and draft press releases are already being written. You don’t really help discussions along when you post things like this – as if what you say is fact – when you are clearly – and totally – operating beyond your first hand knowledge. If you dispute my comments, then call NASA PAO (and others) as I have and ask them.
“Simple. It’s because PAO is about spin.“
Helen,
You appear to consider yourself knowledgeable and sophisticated, yet you print sentences like this? I think you’re watching too much TV. NASA PAO may not be 100% efficient or effective, but knowing what’s currently going on in the various NASA programs and centers is their primary function. For every one hiccup in their work that we jump on, there are a whole lot of things that they do day in and day out to inform the public about NASA and vice versa. They have full-time people in every NASA center and I’m sure if all they were doing was “spin” then GAO and OMB (and others) would have had them on the carpet long ago. I get several NASA press releases in my email (from PAO) every day. There’s a PAO rep in mission control during the active portions of every mission, and they generate complete event reports day after day. Not all programs get the same level of attention, but none are overlooked. And they’ve been doing this all along (I have hard copies of the PAO reports for the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions here in my office.
These days, when missions are currently happening PAO isn’t necessarily the first entity to make information available to the public, because scientists and engineers, like other people, often short cut their “news” onto the internet, but PAO is still the official outlet, and they’re pretty good at it most of the time. Over the years I’ve found that for completed (or old, on-going) programs, between NASA PAO and the NASA History Office pretty much every NASA public domain document is available for the asking. What neither one will give you is up to the minute details on things still happening, which is completely realistic. And they don’t generate any “spin”; if anything, PAO reports are pretty dry — just facts without any opinion, which is as it should be.
Judge PAO also by what they accomplish, not just by what they don’t do.
Steve
When y’all get ready, I would like to know what the NEWS IS!
JOE Q
Wake me up when the news is Mars-shaking.
Interesting to me, is that NASA also isn’t saying what it isn’t. (If they knew it wasn’t organic molecules, it would be so easy to say, “We’ve found something, something we believe is important–but not organic molecules.” Maybe it’s like, dehydrated primordial soup? (PS…Dr Carl Sagan, I wish you were alive to share in NASA’s upcoming news…RIP.)
Johnny,
The MSL program, like all NASA programs, will have a documented official reporting process that everyone is supposed to follow. As has happened before, I think this current situation came about because somebody jumped the gun and didn’t comply with the official process, catching the rest of NASA unprepared. But, one player breaking the rules doesn’t mean that that the rules go out the window and everybody then ignores the process; that would be chaos and unprofessional.
And to be honest, if we were given information prematurely outside of the official process by “NASA,” then this thread would have been another one about lack of peer review and fact checking. So, since someone has made it so that NASA can’t win in this situation, the only responsible thing for PAO and the rest of NASA to do is to follow the process, play by the rules. The reporting process exists for good reasons, and once they’ve been though it we’ll get the official answers. Whether or not any of us finds them Earthshaking is probably a purely personal reaction. One way or another, I’d say that all data from any NASA Mars mission is “for the history books.”
Steve
Nevertheless, I’m happy and satisfied JPL addressed the organics issue by saying, “At this point in the mission, the instruments on the rover have not detected any definitive evidence of Martian organics.” I believe that was the responsible, professional thing to do.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission…
Regardless of how this latest development turns out, I’m going to demand that the news media labels any “historic” discovery about the Red Planet as “Marsshaking”.
They all reported Phoenix “found life” also – thanks so much to the broadcast media…. Not.