Showdown Nears on Search for Life on Mars Indecision, squabbling, general lack of support threaten to delay search for life on other planets The search for life on other planets, which many leading U.S. scientists feel should be the nation's top space objective, may be due for a late start. A combination of scientific squabbling, agency indecision, and general lack of support threatens to ground the project until well into the 1980's. "It's time to stop talking and start doing something," a leading space biochemist tells C&EN. "Either we scientists come to terms soon on a single approach, and the program gets the kind of support it needs, or this country will have allowed an opportunity for a truly great scientific breakthrough to slip literally by the window." The "window" is the Mars "window"—that all-important time when conditions are most favorable for a Mars launching. The reasons for the current crisis are these: Mars is the only planet that space scientists now feel is capable of sustaining any form of life as we know it. Only three more opportunities remain between now and 1973 when conditions will be right for an attempt to land a life-detecting instrument probe on Mars. After 1973, the "window" closes and will remain closed for approximately 10 years. But now, with time becoming more and more the critical factor, space scientists still are deadlocked over what approach the program should take. Meanwhile, the program has been unable to muster much support where it really counts—at high levels in the Administration, in the Congress, or, for that matter, among the nation's scientists themselves. As a result, it continues to plod along after an enthusiastic start. Work is now under way on a dozen or so remote life-detecting instruments or techniques. They range in name from the exotic, such as Gulliver, Wolftrap, and Multivator, to the more prosaic, such as TV cameras, microscopes, mass sspectrometers, and the like (which are anything but prosaic in concept and design). The most advanced of these in terms of its stage of development is Gulliver, the radio24
C&EN
APRIL
27,
1964
NASA's Orr Reynolds More scientific backing needed to get search-for-life off the ground
isotope biological probe shown in the photos opposite and on the following page. But program funding remains relatively light. Only about $10 million of the $5.3 billion requested by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal 1965 is earmarked for exobiology research and development. And of this $10 million, less than half is for the search for life. By comparison, manned space flight represents approximately 65% of the NASA budget. However, the comparison is misleading. Some scientists are quick to use it in an attempt to pin the blame for the search-for-life program's dilemma solely on NASA's preoccupation with the man-on-the-moon mission. But they fail to consider the $1.4 billion of Apollo money that is going for the development of the new family of super-thrust Saturn launch vehicles that will be needed in the search-for-life program. They also neglect to mention the more than $54 million that will be spent on the Mariner project, which is slated for a major role initially in the exobiology program. NASA officials are just as quick to blame the scientists for the program's
difficulties. They charge the scientific community with failing to rally behind the program and help give it the boost they say it needs to really get off the ground. "How can we justify asking Congress for massive support for a scientific project when we can't even show evidence that scientists themselves are all that interested in it?" asks Dr. Orr E. Reynolds, director of NASA's biosciences programs. He urges scientists to whip up some enthusiasm for the program. The agency's concern over the lack of scientific support was made evident this month. NASA Administrator James E. Webb authorized the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a summer study of exobiology to clarify scientific concepts and attitudes on the subject. This same Space Science Board in the summer of 1962 proclaimed, "On solid scientific grounds, on the basis of popular appeal, and in the interests of our prestige as a peace-loving nation capable of great scientific enterprise, exobiology's goal of finding and exploring extraterrestrial life should be acclaimed as the toppriority scientific goal of our space program." Despite its protestations, NASA cannot escape blame entirely for the program's current troubles. Scientists in as well as out of NASA are highly critical of what they feel is the lack of scientific emphasis in the NASA program. They label the top-priority manned lunar landing program a "technological stunt." They call for an overhaul of space objectives to give new attention to the truly scientific aspects of space exploration. As one of the agency's ranking scientists tells C&EN, "We are dominated by engineers who are more concerned with our pre-eminence in space—whatever that is—than with scientific advancement." To take advantage of the 1969 and 1971 Mars opportunities, reasonable funding-on the order of $30 to $50 million, according to estimates by industrial study contractors—will have to be allocated in fiscal 1966. This
Gulliver—furthest along in development of the devices the U.S. may use to search for life on other planets—undergoes field tests. Test sites were chosen which approximate on
Color Photos by Dr. Gerald Laboratory
earth the extremes in environment likely to be encountered on Mars. Here, Gulliver is put through its paces on a barren, rocky ledge 12,000 feet up on California's White Mountain
Soffen, Jet Propulsion
means that planning will have to begin this fall to meet the schedule of the budget cycle. But Congress is likely to be extremely cool toward any new and massive spending programs in space. Right now it seems too concerned with trying to justify its current space commitments to consider taking on new ones of any major proportions. At Odds. Project scientists are still at odds over which of two approaches should be used for the Mars life detection probe. Should the U.S. get the search under way as soon as possible with a series of small (10 to 20 pounds of instruments) probes? Or should it hold off until it can land bigger, more sophisticated packages containing up to a ton of instruments and then go for broke toward the 1973 deadline? The first approach, using a Mariner-type system, would probably cost about $30 million per shot. If they get the go-ahead now, proponents of this approach say, they could easily have a number of different life-detecting probes ready to go by 1969. The alternative carries a much bigger price
Gulliver scientists survey site for the second in this latest test series—a sand dune near Death Valley, Calif. They selected this spot because of the low level of organic material in the sand and the hot, dry environment APRIL
27, 1964
C&EN
25
Gulliver's "sticky string" sample collector etches the desert sand as it is reeled in to deposit its catch in the radioisotopetagged "universal" culture medium. Bacteria caught on the string grew in the broth, gave off radioactive gas which was detected and reported by a tiny Geiger counter tied to a telemetering device—all within an hour
Dry, salty soil of the Salton proved to be no obstacle to ticularly heartening because the surface of Mars may be 26
C&EN
APRIL
27,
Sea desert flats Gulliver. Success some scientists similarly high in 1964
in California here is parbelieve that salt content
Close-up of Gulliver without its cushion cap reveals "pie tin" housing for Geiger tubes atop electronic circuitry maze. Two mounted "guns" to the right fire "bullets" which carry sampler strings out in different directions along the terrain
tag—about $3 billion total for several launches. The hardware probably wouldn't be ready for the launching pad until 1973. But, its backers say, it would have a greater chance of success and would yield more data than all the smaller probes combined. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. Advocates of the go-for-broke or "707" approach contend that success of the first mission is vital because, despite sterilization precautions, there's a chance that the probe might contaminate Mars with microorganisms. If this were to happen before the presence or absence of indigenous life were established, it would cast doubt on the origin of any life detected later. Science would suffer an incalculable loss. Furthermore, they say that a launch made with a vehicle and instruments that could be ready in 1969 would have at best a marginal chance for success. A failure or negative result might turn the public and Congress against the project, making it difficult or impossible to get money for the larger 1973 mission. The "Kittyhawk" or early bird school contends that, even if the modest attempts were unsuccessful, they would provide much needed information for the development and assured success of larger ones to come. Then, too, they point out that a smaller capsule can be sterilized with greater certainty than can a larger one. Kittyhawkers also feel it is important to try to get to Mars ahead of the Russians. As one explains it, "The Soviets have been less than candid in revealing their spacecraft sterilization plans." As far as the effects of an early failure on future program funding are concerned, Kittyhawkers argue that Congress .might sustain one or two $30 million failures, particularly if some useful information were obtained. But a $3 billion failure might well mean the end of the program. This year, NASA's life-search plans are limited to a seat on a Mars "fly-by" very similar to the Mariner II fly-by of Venus in December 1962. NASA hopes to send a payload of comparable weight (449 pounds) to within 15,000 miles of the Red Planet. From this mission, exobiologists hope to learn more about the Martian terrain (from TV cameras aboard the spacecraft) and, through various other instruments aboard, more about the planet's atmosphere and environment. This mission will be followed by
another fly-by in 1966 with another Mariner, Mariner-D, carrying more sophisticated remote experiments. "These two fly-bys, together with ground-based spectroscopic observations, should give us a better approximation of the atmosphere density profile as well as preferred landing sites derived from infrared 'mapping'," says Dr. Freeman H. Quimby, chief of NASA's exobiology program. "Hopefully such 'mapping' will reveal the location of environments favorable for life," he points out. "We also plan to repeat the ground-based experiment that prompted much of the current scientific debate on the Martian atmosphere." The experiment that touched off the controversy was the quadrature study by Spinrad, Munch, and Kaplan conducted at Mount Wilson Observatory last year. It indicates that the atmosphere around Mars may be a lot thinner than scientists had previously thought—so thin, in fact, that some scientists now say it won't sustain a parachute landing of an instrument capsule. If these new data hold up in subsequent experiments, the early bird approach probably will be out of the running. A more powerful launch vehicle, with retro rockets, likely will be needed for the Mars lander attempt. A rocket like this probably couldn't be ready to go in time for the '69 or '71 launch opportunities. The 1971 Mars "window" is the best one. At that time, Mars and Earth will be closest together—less than 35 million miles. The probe could be designed and launched at a time when it would take full advantage of the mysterious "waves of darkening," the phenomenon that suggests to biologists that there may be life on the planet. These "waves" occur during the Martian spring and summer along with the waning and "melting" of the polar icecaps. Experiments. "The kinds of information we hope to get on Martian life," Dr. Quimby explains, "are morphological, physiological, and chemical." Toward the first of these objectives, NASA is sponsoring work on a vidicon, or TV, microscope suggested for use in the extraterrestrial life search by Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg of Stanford University. This idea is being investigated by Dr. Lederberg and also by Dr. Gerald Soffen at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
For more on space science—life port systems—see page 78.
sup-
Another possible morphological technique under development is nearscan, high-resolution TV, which might be used to pick up macroscopic objects on the Martian terrain. JPL and Hughes Aircraft are working together on a similar TV system for the Surveyor spacecraft. This could be adapted for a Mars capsule. The principal physiological experiments are Gulliver, Wolftrap, and Multivator. Gulliver, the brainchild of Dr. Gilbert V. Levin of Hazelton Laboratories (Falls Church, Va.), is based on the detection of metabolic end products from organisms grown in a radioisotope-tagged medium. Dr. Norman Horowitz of Caltech is working with Dr. Levin on the project. AMF is well along in hardware development. The Wolftrap, or "bug-detector," is designed to do just that: detect bac-
Dr. Freeman H. Quimby Mockup of Mars stimulates reflection on problems of search for life
terial growth on Mars. Its principal component is a vacuum tube extended on one end into a fragile probe. When the probe strikes the surface of Mars the tip will shatter. The vacuum will then suck dust into the tube, which contains exposed culture media. If bacterial growth occurs it will be detected by the increase in turbidity of the media and/or by the change in acidity. The device is appropriately named after its inventor, Dr. Wolf Vishniac of Rochester UniAPRIL
2 7, 1964
C&EN
27
versity. Ball Brothers is just starting to develop hardware for Wolftrap. Multivator, another of Dr. Lederberg's products, is based on the detection of enzymatic action, that of phosphatase for the Martian life probe. Its basic elements are a light source, followed by a filter, the sample, another filter (centered at either the same wave length as the excitation filter for colorimetry, or at a different wave length for fluorometric observations), and a light detector (usually a photomultiplier). Dust-bearing air is drawn into the reaction chamber and the substrate materials are dissolved. After a preset reaction time, the excitation lamps are turned on sequentially. The photomultiplier tube detects the light signal or the fluorescence level in the case of the phosphatase assay. NASA is also funding work on a number of chemical life-detecting techniques. Among them: • Optical Rotatory Dispersion Profiles. Dr. Ira Blei of Melpar (Fairfax, Va.), who is doing this work, is looking for an optimum sensitivity in the adenine absorption area. Of the five nucleic acid bases, adenine is the one most readily synthesized under prebiotic conditions. • Mass Spectrometer. This project is a feasibility study by Dr. Klaus Biemann of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to learn if amino acids and peptides can be identified by the mass of their pyrolysis products. • Ultraviolet Spectrophotometry. Melpar is looking into the possibility of building an extremely compact and rugged spectrophotometer geared primarily to detect peptides. • Gas Chromatograph. Scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center, in cooperation with JPL scientists, have designed and built a prototype gas chromatograph. It is adapted to analyze planetary atmospheres for biologically significant gases. • J-Band Life Detector. Two biochemists at Philco Research Laboratories, Dr. E. R. Walwick and Dr. R. E. Kay, are working on this technique. It is based on the assumption that early conditions on other planets were similar to those on Earth, where primeval forms of life are believed to have been protein-centered. This method of life detection observes spectral changes due to aggregation of dibenzothiocarbocyanine dye when it is absorbed on the macromolecule. 28
C&EN
APRIL
2 7, 1 9 6 4
New York Exchange Bans Stop Orders on Texas Gulf Shares Company's ore find in Canada exceeds 25 million tons Texas Gulf Sulphur's discovery of a major ore deposit in Canada made the firm a wild favorite on the New York Stock Exchange. Trading became so active that the exchange had to ban stop orders for Texas Gulf shares last week after the firm's stock posted a 12-point gain to a 1964 high of $42.25 per share. In six days, nearly 1.6 million shares of Texas Gulf changed hands. In all of 1963, only 3.5 million shares were traded. By banning stop orders, the exchange can prevent a wild buying or selling wave. Traders use a stop order either to buy or to sell at the going market price when the price of a stock rises above or falls below a specified limit. The exchange also had to ban stop orders for the stock of Curtis Publishing, which announced it had a large amount of timberland adjacent to the Texas Gulf ore find and that Curtis was involved in a mineral exploration arrangement with Texas Gulf. The ore discovery could mean that Texas Gulf is headed for its first venture in the metals business. The firm could be mining zinc, copper, and silver from the discovery in a year. The ore is located in the Timmins area of Ontario. Texas Gulf says that reserves in this find exceed 25 million tons of ore and that the ore body is at least 800 feet long, 300 feet wide, and 800 feet deep. The firm's present interests are chiefly in sulfur and potash. It also is moving to mine phosphate rock in North Carolina (C&EN, April 13, page 3 3 ) . Texas Gulf points out that open pit mining of the ore body is practical. Overburden is about 20 feet and the average mineral content, based on a preliminary assay, ran 1.18% copper, 8.1% zinc, and 3.8 ounces of silver per ton of ore. The area also contains massive deposits of pyrites and other sulfides. The company also says its land position in the area is favorable. It owns mineral rights on 70% of Kidd Township, Ont., general location of the new find. The area is only 1.5 miles from a power line and 12 miles from a railroad. Texas Gulf has not formulated a mining or manufacturing plan in de-
tail, but it does say that it may consider making an arrangement with a smelter in the area. International Nickel has a facility in that part of Canada, and there are also many custom smelters in the area.
Three Move to Exploit Oil from Shale Core testing will be the first step in the new venture being formed by Standard Oil Co. (Ohio), Oil Shale Corp., and Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. to extract petroleum commercially Next from oil shale in Colorado. month, the results of the tests will be used to determine procedures for mining the shale. The new venture includes 7500 acres of oil-shale land near Rifle, Colo., and 1300 acres of auxiliary land in Colorado. The 7500 acres of land is on option from Dow Chemical Co. Edward F. Morrill, vice president in charge of chemicals and plastics for Sohio, will lead the as-yet-unnamed company. Other management people and key employees will come from the three participating companies. Sohio will directly own 40% of the venture. Oil Shale, New York City, and Cleveland-Cliffs, Cleveland, Ohio, will each own 30%. Sohio's actual participation, however, will be a litde higher than 40%, as it owns about 10% of Oil; Shale; last month Sohio acquired 400,000 shares of Oil Shale's common stock. Sohio also has an option to acquire 600,000 more over a three-year period. Aquitaine Oil Corp. and Auxirap Corp. have also acquired about 10% of Oil Shale Corp. (406,000 shares). Dow will get an undisclosed, but substantial, cash payment for the option on the oil-shale lands. It expects to receive continuing payments from successful development of the optioned lands. The 7500 acres represent all of Dow's oil-shale holdings in the U.S. The three participants in the planned large-scale facilities are pooling extensive financial resources, research experience, and know-how in the venture. Oil Shale owns patented processes for extracting petroleum from crushed shale. . The company says it has reduced costs to the point where a commercial oil-shale industry is now economically feasible.
