按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
d as on Earth for almost all its history； abundant microbial life。
The 〃life detection〃 experiments on Viking were designed to detect only a certain subset of conceivable biologies； they were biased to find the kind of life about which we know。 It would have been foolish to send instruments that could not even detect life on Earth。 They were exquisitely sensitive； able to find microbes in the most unpromising； arid deserts and wastelands on Earth。
One experiment measured the gases exchanged between Martian soil and the Martian atmosphere in the presence of organic matter from Earth。 A second brought a wide variety organic foodstuffs marked by a radioactive tracer to see if there were bugs in the Martian soil who ate the food and oxidized it to radioactive carbon dioxide。 A third experiment introduced radioactive carbon dioxide （and carbon monoxide） to the Martian soil to see if any of it was taken up by Martian microbes。 To the initial astonishment of； I think； all the scientists involved； each of the three experiments gave what at first seemed to be positive results。 Gases were exchanged； organic matter was oxidized； carbon dioxide was incorporated into the soil。
But there are reasons for caution。 These provocative results are not generally thought to be good evidence for life on Mars： The putative metabolic processes of Martian microbes occurred under a very wide range of conditions inside the Viking landers—wet （with liquid water brought from Earth） and dry； light and dark； cold （only a little above freezing） to hot （almost the normal boiling point of water）。 Many microbiologists deem it unlikely that Martian microbes would be so capable under such varied conditions。 Another strong inducement to skepticism is that a fourth experiment； to look for organic chemicals in the Martian soil； gave uniformly negative results despite its sensitivity。 We expect life on Mars； like life on Earth； to be organized around carbon…based molecules。 To find no such molecules at all was daunting for optimists among the exobiologists。
The apparently positive results of the life detection experiments is now generally attributed to chemicals that oxidize the soil； deriving ultimately from ultraviolet sunlight （as discussed in the previous chapter）。 There is still a handful of Viking scientists who wonder if there might be extremely tough and petent organisms very thinly spread over the Martian soil—so their organic chemistry could not be detected； but their metabolic processes could。 Such scientists do not deny that ultraviolet…generated oxidants are present in the Martian soil； but stress that no thorough explanation of the liking life detection results from oxidants alone has been forthing。 Tentative claims have been made of organic matter in SNC meteorites； but they seem instead to be contaminants that have entered the meteorite after its arrival on our world。 So far； there are no claims of Martian microbes in these rocks from the sky。
Perhaps because it seems to pander to public interest； NASA and most Viking scientists have been very chary about pursuing the biological hypothesis。 Even now； much more could be done in going over the old data； in looking with Viking…type instruments at Antarctic and other soils that have few microbes in them； in laboratory simulation of the role of oxidants in the Martian soil； and in designing experiments to elucidate these matters—not excluding further searches for life—with future Mars landers。
If indeed no unambiguous signatures of life were determined by a variety of sensitive experiments at two sites 5；000 kilometers apart on a planet marked by global wind transport of fine particles； this is at least suggestive that Mars may be； today at least； a lifeless planet。 But if Mars is lifeless； we have two planets； of virtually identical age and early conditions； evolving next door to one another in the same polar system： Life evolves and proliferates on one； but not the other。 Why？
Perhaps the chemical or fossil remains of early Martian life can still be found—subsurface； safely protected from the ultraviolet radiation and its oxidation products that today fry the surface。 Perhaps in a rock face exposed by a landslide； or in the banks of an ancient river valley or dry lake bed； or in the polar； laminated terrain； key evidence for life on another planet is waiting。
Despite its absence on the surface of Mars； the planet's two moons； Phobos and Deimos； seem to be rich in plex organic matter dating back to the early history of the Solar System。 The Soviet Phobos 2 spacecraft found evidence of water vapor being out…gassed from Phobos； as if it has an icy interior heated by radioactivity。 The moons of Mars may have long ago been captured from somewhere in the outer Solar System； conceivably； they are among the nearest available examples of unaltered stuff from the earliest days of the Solar System。 Phobos and Deimos are very small； each roughly 10 kilometers across； the gravity they exert is nearly negligible。 So it's paratively easy to rendezvous with them； land on them； examine them； use them as a base of operations to study Mars； and then go home。
Mars calls； a storehouse of scientific information—important in its own right but also for the light it casts on the environment of our own planet。 There are mysteries waiting to be resolved about the interior of Mars and its mode of origin； the nature of volcanos on a world without plate tectonics； the sculpting of landforms on a planet with sandstorms undreamt of on Earth； glaciers and polar landforms； the escape of planetary atmospheres； and the capture of moons—to mention a more or less random sampling of scientific puzzles。 If Mars once had abundant liquid water and a clement climate； what went wrong？ How did an Earthlike world bee so parched； frigid； and paratively airless？ Is there something here we should know about our own planet？
We humans have been this way before。 The ancient explorers would have understood the call of Mars。 But mere scientific exploration does not require a human presence。 We tan always send smart robots。 They are far cheaper； they don't talk back； you can send them to much more dangerous locales； arid； with some chance of mission failure always before us； no lives are put at risk。
〃HAVE YOU SEEN ME？〃 the back of the milk carton read。 〃Mars Observer； 6' x 4。5' x 3'； 2500 kg。 Last heard from on 8/21/93； 627；000 km from Mars。〃
〃M。 O。 call home〃 was the plaintive message on a banner hung outside the jet Propulsion Laboratory's Mission Operations Facility in late August 1993。 The failure of the United States' Mars Observer spacecraft just before it was to insert itself into orbit around Mars was a great disappointment。 It was the first post…launch mission failure of an American lunar or planetary spacecraft in 26 years。 Many scientists and engineers had devoted a decade of their professional lives to M。 O。 It was the first U。S。 mission to Mars in 17 years—since Viking's two orbiters and two landers in 1976。 It was also the first real post…Cold War spacecraft： Russian scientists were on several of the investigator teams； and Mars Observer was to act as an essential radio relay link for larders from what was then scheduled to be the Russian Mars '94 mission； as well as for a daring rover and balloon mission slated for Mars '96。
The scientific instruments aboard Mars Observer would have napped the geochemistry of the planet and prepared the way for future missions； guiding landing site decisions。 It might have cast a new light on the massive climate change that seems to have occurred in early Martian history。 It would have photographed some of the surface of Mars with detail better than two meters across。 Of course； we do not know what wonders Mars Observer would have uncovered。 But every time we examine a world with new instruments and in vastly improved detail； a dazzling array of discoveries emerges just as it did when Galileo turned the first telescope toward the heavens and opened the era of modern astronomy。
According to the mission of Inquiry； the cause of the failure was probably a rupture of the fuel tank during pressurization； gases and liquids sputtering out； and the wounded spacecraft spinning wildly out of control。 Perhaps it was avoidable。 Perhaps it was an unlucky accident。 But to keep this matter in perspective； let's consider the full range of missions to the Moon and the planets attempted by the United States and the former Soviet Union：
In the beginning； our track records were poor。 Space vehicles blew up at launch； missed their targets； or failed to function when they got there。 As time went on； we humans got ；）otter at interplanetary flight。 There was a learning curve。 The ；adjacent figures show these curves （based on NASA data with NASA definitions of mission success）。 We learned very well。 Our present ability to fix spacecraft in flight is best illustrated by the Voyager missions described earlier。
We see that it wasn't until about its thirty…fifth launch to the Moon or the planets that the cumulative U。S。 mission success rate got as high as 50 percent。 The Russians took about 50 launches to get there。 Averaging the shaky start and the better recent performance； we find that both the United States and Russia have a cumulative launch success rate of about 80 percent。 But the cumulative mission success rate is still under 70 percent for the U。S。 and under 60 percent for the U。S。S。R。/Russia。 Equivalently； lunar and planetary missions have failed on average 30 or 40 percent of the time。
Missions to other worlds were from the beginning at the cutting edge of technology。 They continue to be so today。 They 。ire designed with redundant subsystems； and operated by dedicated and experienced engineers； but they are not perfect。 The amazing thing is not that we have done so poorly； but that we leave done so well。
We don't know whether the Mars Observer failure was due to inpetence or just statistics。 But we must expect a steady background of mission failures when we explore other worlds。 No human lives are risked when a robot spacecraft is lost。 Even if we were able to improve this success rate significantly； it would be far too costly。 It is much better to take more risks and fly more spacecraft：。
Knowing about irreducible risks； why do we these days fly only one spacecraft per mission？ In 1962 Mariner 1； intended for Venus； fell into the Atlantic； the nearly identical Mariner 2 became the human species' first successful planetary mission。 Mariner 3 failed； arid its twin Mariner 4 became； in 1964； the first spacecraft to take close…up pictures of Mars。 Or consider the 1971 Mariner 8/Mariner 9 dual launch mission to Mars。 Mariner 8 Was to map the planet。 Mariner 9 was to study the enigmatic seasonal and secular changes of surface markings。 The spacecraft were otherwise identical。 Mariner 8 fell into the ocean。 Mariner 9 flew on to Mars arid became the first spacecraft in human history to orbit another planet。 It discovered the volcanos； the laminated terrain in the polar caps； the ancient river valleys； and the aeolian nature of the surface changes。 It disproved the 〃canals。〃 It mapped the planet pole to pole and revealed all the major geological features of Mars known to us today。 It provided the first close…up observations of members of a whole class of small worlds （by targeting the Martian moons； Phobos and Deimos）。 If we had launched only Mariner 8； the endeavor would have been an unmitigated failure。 With a dual launch it became a brilliant and historic success。
There were also two Vikings； two Voyagers； two Vegas； many pairs of Veneras。 Why was only one Mars Observer flown？ The standard answer is cost。 Part of the reason it was so costly； though； is that it was planned to be launched by shuttle； which is an almost absurdly expensive booster for planetary missions—in this case too expensive for two M。 O。 launches。 After many shuttle…connected delays and cost increases； NASA changed its mind and decided to launch Mars Observer on a Titan booster。 This required an additional two…year delay and an adapter to mate the spacecraft to the new launch vehicle。 If NASA had not been so intent on providing business for the increasingly uneconomic shuttle； we could have launched a couple of year