Prof Pillinger talking nonsense about Nasa probes.
Dolores Claman
I heard Prof Pillinger (Beagle 2 notoriety) on Sky last night.
He was basically saying that there was no way that either of the
NASA rovers would be able to determine whether life had or
currently existed on Mars.
While he is right in that neither rover has life detecting instruments;
he forgot that fossils are top drawer evidence of past life. A tiny
fossil would show up on the microscopic imager, if it was contained
in bedrock being analysed. So to say that the Nasa rovers can
in no way determine whether life once existed, is complete bullshit.
Sure, it would be bloody lucky to come across a fossil, even if they
exist, but it is feasible.
Jon Berndt
>
> I heard Prof Pillinger (Beagle 2 notoriety) on Sky last night.
> He was basically saying that there was no way that either of the
> NASA rovers would be able to determine whether life had or
> currently existed on Mars.
The press has screwed this one up. The rovers are not meant to search for
life and their instruments are for geology. The stated purpose for these
rovers is to examine the rocks and soil for signs of water, etc. -- i.e. to
determine if *conditions* might have ever been conducive to *supporting*
life.
Pillinger is exactly correct.
See: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/mars03rovers.pdf
Jon
Dolores Claman
"Jon Berndt" <j...@at.hal-pc-dot.org> wrote in message
news:4014fc43$0$41126$be86...@news.hal-mli.net...
> "Dolores Claman" wrote:
> >
> > I heard Prof Pillinger (Beagle 2 notoriety) on Sky last night.
> > He was basically saying that there was no way that either of the
> > NASA rovers would be able to determine whether life had or
> > currently existed on Mars.
>
> The press has screwed this one up. The rovers are not meant to search for
> life and their instruments are for geology. The stated purpose for these
> rovers is to examine the rocks and soil for signs of water, etc. -- i.e.
to
> determine if *conditions* might have ever been conducive to *supporting*
> life.
>
> Pillinger is exactly correct.
He and you are both wrong. Fossil finds by the Mer rovers would
prove that life had existed. End of story.
t_mark
This is the same press that 'tells' Europe about America, yet they can't get
something as simple as this right? And how many times just in the past few
days have we seen the phrase, "The press has screwed this one up?"
> The rovers are not meant to search for
> life and their instruments are for geology. The stated purpose for these
> rovers is to examine the rocks and soil for signs of water, etc. -- i.e.
to
> determine if *conditions* might have ever been conducive to *supporting*
> life.
Depends. If the doc was in his regular form, he was presenting the argument
to be that the rovers were essentially useless and an excercise in NASA
self-masturbation.
Sander Vesik
The MER rovers are incapable of distinguishing the only type of fossile
that could possibly be found on mars from some other kind of structure.
I heavily doubt they even have such microscopes as would be needed.
Hint - its exteremely unlikely there was ever multicellural life on Mars.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Jon Berndt
> Dolores Claman <dol.c...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > He and you are both wrong. Fossil finds by the Mer rovers would
> > prove that life had existed. End of story.
> >
That's not what I was disagreeing with.
> The MER rovers are incapable of distinguishing the only type of fossile
> that could possibly be found on mars from some other kind of structure.
> I heavily doubt they even have such microscopes as would be needed.
>
> Hint - its exteremely unlikely there was ever multicellural life on Mars.
>
> Sander
Of course finds of fossils of life forms would indicate that life existed on
Mars at some point - but who says what constitutes a life form fossil:
there's disagreement on ALH 84001 here on earth where we have it in hand,
and have examined it with a scanning electron microscope (IIRC). However,
as I stated before, Mr. Pillinger was correct in his [purported] assertion,
IMHO. Look at this and note the scale on the picture of the "Magnetotactic
bacterium", and the magnetite crystals within it:
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?article=old/magnetite_chains.htm
Now look at the this:
http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/MER-AthenaMI/microscopic_imager.html
and notice the capability of the MI.
This is what the Athena web site at Cornell says about the MI (emphasis
added):
"This instrument will also yield information on the small-scale features of
rocks formed by volcanic and impact activity as well as
_tiny_veins_of_minerals_ like the *carbonates* that may *contain*
microfossils in the famous Mars meteorite, ALH84001."
Likewise, nowhere in the Press Kit
(http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/merlandings.pdf) does it mention
anything other than that the MER instrument packages would determine if
conditions were conducive to supporting life.
I don't know anything about Mr. Pillinger, but I do remember hearing at the
Spirit post-landing press conference that he had called the MER team to
congratulate them. That was nice.
Jon
Damon Hill
Jealous because he can't get his up?
--Damon, who already knows about that :(
Alex Terrell
> "Sander Vesik" <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
>
> > Dolores Claman <dol.c...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > He and you are both wrong. Fossil finds by the Mer rovers would
> > > prove that life had existed. End of story.
> > >
>
> That's not what I was disagreeing with.
>
Dolores is perfectly correct. If a rover bumps into a fully preserved
dinosaur skeleton, and films it, it will have discovered conclusive
evidence that life existed on Mars.
Jon Berndt
> "Jon Berndt" <j...@at.hal-pc-dot.org> wrote in message
> >
> > That's not what I was disagreeing with.
>
> Dolores is perfectly correct. If a rover bumps into a fully preserved
> dinosaur skeleton, and films it, it will have discovered conclusive
> evidence that life existed on Mars.
Well ... OK, I missed that possibility. It also occurred to me that the rear
hazcam might pick up the roadkill images of slow-moving varmints that might
be surprised by opportunity as it whizzes across the Martian landscape.
Jon
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Dolores Claman wrote:
>
> I heard Prof Pillinger (Beagle 2 notoriety) on Sky last night.
> He was basically saying that there was no way that either of the
> NASA rovers would be able to determine whether life had or
> currently existed on Mars.
>
If the rovers got high-centered on a stump, that would pretty much do
it.
Dolores Claman
Thats complete rubbish, the microscopic analyzer is perfectly capable
of seeing a fossil.
You are making ridiculous assumptions about what kind of life may
be found in a martian fossil record.
Hobbs aka McDaniel
You're wrong. The scope on the rovers is for geologic survey and not
a true microscope. It can only resolve things as small as .03 mm.
The suspected bacteria fossils found in a Mars rock and similar
found in native earth rocks in Washington State are only
.01 to .02 mm in size. So tell me how you would see them with the
imager on the rover? Keep in mind that you only get one pixel of
image data per .03 mm.
As far as identifying bones... all you can count on is being able
to find that there is something unusual about a rock's composition
and maybe it's shape but there ARE certain kinds of volcanic rock
on earth that look like lifeforms even though they were never
associated with anything living. Like you can find rocks shaped
like bones, automobiles, internal organs and so on. Just because
something looks familiar doesn't mean much... now if you find
multiple examples or you know how the material formed that's a different
story.
> You are making ridiculous assumptions about what kind of life may
> be found in a martian fossil record.
One thing I do know.. even if you set a Mars rover to work in
your backyard, the chances of you finding an obvious fossil in a
rock within 90 days are next to zero unless you happen to live
in a fossil rich area.
-McDaniel
Jon Berndt
> You're wrong. The scope on the rovers is for geologic survey and not
> a true microscope. It can only resolve things as small as .03 mm.
> The suspected bacteria fossils found in a Mars rock and similar
> found in native earth rocks in Washington State are only
> .01 to .02 mm in size. So tell me how you would see them with the
> imager on the rover? Keep in mind that you only get one pixel of
> image data per .03 mm.
It's even worse than that. Magnetotactic bacteria contained a chain of
magnetite crystals in ALH84001 (the "Mars Meteorite"). The diameter of a
single crystal is about one-millionth of an inch -- 0.0254 um (micrometers)
according to this: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0111/20marslife/
The diameter of a magnetotactic bacteria is about .5 um according to this:
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?article=old/magnetite_chains.htm
Obviously, way below the resolving power of the MI on MER.
Jon
Chosp
> "Dolores Claman" <dol.c...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<bv8iqi$hb3$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> > of seeing a fossil.
> >
>
> You're wrong. The scope on the rovers is for geologic survey and not
> a true microscope. It can only resolve things as small as .03 mm.
So what? If there were an equivalent to fossilized coral there -
it would certainly show up and it would most certainly
recognized as life.
It could be completely macroscopic and identifiable.
> The suspected bacteria fossils found in a Mars rock and similar
> found in native earth rocks in Washington State are only
> .01 to .02 mm in size. So tell me how you would see them with the
> imager on the rover? Keep in mind that you only get one pixel of
> image data per .03 mm.
The point being that having suspected bacteria fossils in one
rock does not preclude the existence of macroscopic fossils
in the next rock over.
> One thing I do know.. even if you set a Mars rover to work in
> your backyard, the chances of you finding an obvious fossil in a
> rock within 90 days are next to zero unless you happen to live
> in a fossil rich area.
Mars is not your backyard and we cannot yet rule the possibility
of fossil rich areas on Mars.
Jon Berndt
> So what? If there were an equivalent to fossilized coral there -
> it would certainly show up and it would most certainly
> recognized as life. It could be completely macroscopic and identifiable.
>
> The point being that having suspected bacteria fossils in one
> rock does not preclude the existence of macroscopic fossils
> in the next rock over.
>
> Mars is not your backyard and we cannot yet rule the possibility
> of fossil rich areas on Mars.
Have you ever looked for fossils - even in fossil rich areas? I have. They
are not sitting out in plain view. And a few surface drillings on an entire
planet of rocks is not likely to hit "pay dirt". Think about the reality and
the probabilities. I'd like to think that Mars had some kind of life on it
at one point -- it's a fascinating thought. Indeed, one of the lead
scientists on the Mars meteorite investigation team is a personal friend of
mine, with whom I have discussed the "life on Mars" prospects. The fact is
that the MER was not designed or intended to seek actual evidence of current
or past life, but to investigate whether conditions ever existed that were
conducive to life.
Jon
Chosp
> "Chosp" <ch...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > So what? If there were an equivalent to fossilized coral there -
> > it would certainly show up and it would most certainly
> > recognized as life. It could be completely macroscopic and
identifiable.
> >
> > The point being that having suspected bacteria fossils in one
> > rock does not preclude the existence of macroscopic fossils
> > in the next rock over.
> >
> > Mars is not your backyard and we cannot yet rule the possibility
> > of fossil rich areas on Mars.
>
> Have you ever looked for fossils - even in fossil rich areas?
Yes, I have, in fact, looked for fossils. And found them.
I have found fossils in fossil rich areas and in areas that are not
fossil rich.
I'm not saying there is a reasonable expectation of finding a
perfectly intact skull exposed on the surface.
However, fossil coral reefs on earth can cover miles.
The Guadalupe range over Carlsbad caverns in Texas
is an example of a fossil reef which is exposed on the surface
for miles and miles - and which would be recognizable as such
by MER if landed on an equivalent exposed surface.