Looking for life in Mars

It is a bit frustrating that the people driving the machine
in Mars seem to be much more interested in rocks than
in finding living beings.

I would like to know the composition of the carbonates
around, that were signaled by the instruments.

Even if the microscope carried can't resolve a bacteria,
it could resolve very small animals or things that
creep around. Did they test for this yet?

Is there any trace of organic compounds?

Jacob navia wrote:

It is a bit frustrating that the people driving the machine
in Mars seem to be much more interested in rocks than
in finding living beings.

There aren't any "living beings" on Mars. There may or may not be very simple
life forms there (results have so-far been inconclusive), but the rover is
designed to do geology, not biology, and for a *good* reason. The people
"driving the machine" are doing their job. They are interested in finding out
about the surface of Mars, both present and past, since this has a huge
bearing on whether life ever existed there, or is possible there now. To do
this requires a knowledge of the rocks and the story they tell (ie: whether
there ever was water in Gusev and for how long, since water is needed for most
forms of life). The rocks and soil analysis should give good clues to what
happened, so this is what is being concentrated on. I am quite certain that
the scientists want to look for life on Mars (and would be the first to get
excited if evidence came up for it), but for right now, they are looking at
what the rocks and soils are all about.

I would like to know the composition of the carbonates
around, that were signaled by the instruments.

So would they. The MiniTES instrument detected carbonate-bearing minerals on
or in the surface, but whether they are in the rocks or in the soils isn't
known for certain yet. That is why they are looking at a big rock first to
see what it says, and then they will dig some trenches in the soil to get an
analysis of the sub-surface material. They will also be looking at other
patches of surface material as well as other rocks. This kind of science
takes a while (the APXS and Mossbauer spectrometers can take many hours to get
their data), and the analysis takes even longer, so you must be patient. The
first results on the soils shows the presence of the mineral Olivene which is
interesting in and of itself.

Even if the microscope carried can't resolve a bacteria,
it could resolve very small animals or things that
creep around. Did they test for this yet?

The Microscopic Imager again isn't really a high-power microscope, nor was it
intended to be. Its more like a geologists field magnifyer, designed for a
wider field. It can detect things as small as about 30 microns (0.03
millimeters), which is the size of some of the larger forms of bacteria,
althought it would miss really small organisms. It might be able to detect an
organism the length of a Paramecium, and there are many other larger (but
still small) organisms which might be within range of the M.I. It might also
be able to detect fossils if they are there, although again, this is a long
shot. They have used the imager on a patch of soil, revealing a lot of fine
granular detail, but it didn't detect any changes other than the displacement
of a few soil grains which the Mossbauer spectrometer disloged when it touched
the surface.

Is there any trace of organic compounds?

Not so far, but they have only done the full analysis on that little patch of
soil. Again, you have to be patient. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...
It is a bit frustrating that the people driving the machine
in Mars seem to be much more interested in rocks than
in finding living beings.

That is because it is a geology mission.
This was made clear long before it was ever launched.
Were you not paying attention?

I would like to know the composition of the carbonates
around, that were signaled by the instruments.

That information will be available soon.


Even if the microscope carried can't resolve a bacteria,
it could resolve very small animals or things that
creep around. Did they test for this yet?

There were no obvious signs of macroscopic life creeping
around at any of the previous three landing sites.
The expectation of finding photographable life on the
surface of Mars is extremely low.
There have been no changes showing movement of anything
in the before and after images of the same areas from Spirit
so far.
Other than that, what tests did you have in mind?


Is there any trace of organic compounds?

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:s0RPb.50702$XD5.43984@fed1read06...

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...
It is a bit frustrating that the people driving the machine
in Mars seem to be much more interested in rocks than
in finding living beings.

That is because it is a geology mission.
This was made clear long before it was ever launched.
Were you not paying attention?


I do not want to dismiss gelogy. It is a very important
science. I am just convinced that life exists in Mars, for several
reasons, among others, a photograph from a marsian
"bacteria" discovered by NASA some years ago in a
marsian meteorite.

Hence my impatiance.

I would like to know the composition of the carbonates
around, that were signaled by the instruments.

That information will be available soon.


I hope. This is a crucial point.


Even if the microscope carried can't resolve a bacteria,
it could resolve very small animals or things that
creep around. Did they test for this yet?

There were no obvious signs of macroscopic life creeping
around at any of the previous three landing sites.

Obviously since none of the previous missions carried a microscope.

The expectation of finding photographable life on the
surface of Mars is extremely low.

Yes. I agree with you, but even if low, it is WORTH TESTING!

There have been no changes showing movement of anything
in the before and after images of the same areas from Spirit
so far.

I haven't read of any negative tests. I mean a slowly moving
small creature would be difficult to see without looking at a spot
for several hours.

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:s0RPb.50702$XD5.43984@fed1read06...

There were no obvious signs of macroscopic life creeping
around at any of the previous three landing sites.

Obviously since none of the previous missions carried a microscope.

I wrote macroscopic. Do you know what that means?

"David Knisely" wrote in message
.. .
Jacob navia wrote:

It is a bit frustrating that the people driving the machine
in Mars seem to be much more interested in rocks than
in finding living beings.

There aren't any "living beings" on Mars.

Well, there you go with those a-priori...
What do you know?
We just do not know about Mars. And specially, we do not
know about alien life, that could look quite different from what
we expect.

There may or may not be very simple
life forms there (results have so-far been inconclusive), but the
rover is
designed to do geology, not biology, and for a *good* reason.

Maybe that is why you do not find anything. If you do not look for
something, you can't find it !

The people
"driving the machine" are doing their job. They are interested in
finding out
about the surface of Mars, both present and past, since this has a
huge
bearing on whether life ever existed there, or is possible there
now.

No problems. Biology is interested in the surface of Mars too.
Couldn't
we look under the stones, or in warmer places in protected
micro-environments
in the rocks?

To do
this requires a knowledge of the rocks and the story they tell (ie:
whether
there ever was water in Gusev and for how long, since water is
needed for most
forms of life).

Instruments in the american satellites sensed a lot of water
underground.
We know there is water already, and the erosion patterns tells us
about
water in ancient times.

The soil could be dry in surface, and wet underneath. I think that
there is a possibility that an underground ecology comes out in summer
to use the increased solar energy and warmth. Some photographs
show objects that look like plants.

The rocks and soil analysis should give good clues to what
happened, so this is what is being concentrated on.

I do not think you can guess "what happened" if you do not
see the ground as it is NOW first.

I am quite certain that
the scientists want to look for life on Mars (and would be the first
to get
excited if evidence came up for it), but for right now, they are
looking at
what the rocks and soils are all about.

Geology is important, yes.

Biology has other objectives though.
Biology is interested in living beings. Any kind of living beings.

Why are we fascinated with that planet since such a long time?
Why do we make the effort of going there, as soon as we can?
Why is that robot crawling around there?

Because we want to meet other beings. It is a natural thing
for a civilization about to be born.

I would like to know the composition of the carbonates
around, that were signaled by the instruments.

So would they. The MiniTES instrument detected carbonate-bearing
minerals on
or in the surface, but whether they are in the rocks or in the soils
isn't
known for certain yet.

I suppose that they carried instrumentation to analyze the soil
(not the rocks) ???

Yes, getting to the interior of a rock is geologically interesting but
from a biologist standpoint SOIL ANALYSIS would be much more
interesting sigh...

That is why they are looking at a big rock first to
see what it says, and then they will dig some trenches in the soil
to get an
analysis of the sub-surface material.

Good good, but why not start just with the surface itself?
Why dig?
Let's analyze the surface first without any digging !

They will also be looking at other
patches of surface material as well as other rocks. This kind of
science
takes a while (the APXS and Mossbauer spectrometers can take many
hours to get
their data), and the analysis takes even longer, so you must be
patient. The
first results on the soils shows the presence of the mineral Olivene
which is
interesting in and of itself.


Olivene means just that the surface is very dry, and this since a long
time.
So what?

An underground ecology would leave traces in the surface anyway.
And this "mud", what is holding that together? Can't be water but then
what?

The tracks of the rover leave very fine impressions like in wet sand.

Even if the microscope carried can't resolve a bacteria,
it could resolve very small animals or things that
creep around. Did they test for this yet?

The Microscopic Imager again isn't really a high-power microscope,
nor was it
intended to be. Its more like a geologists field magnifyer,
designed for a
wider field.

Yes, but biologists will do with anything, even with a geologist
field magnifier.

It can detect things as small as about 30 microns (0.03
millimeters), which is the size of some of the larger forms of
bacteria,
althought it would miss really small organisms.

No published photographs. It is a pity that this is not available.
Let's wait till JPL publishes that.

The soil is like wet sand but can't be water (see Olivene above). So
what
is holding this mud together???

Is there any trace of organic compounds?

Not so far, but they have only done the full analysis on that little
patch of
soil. Again, you have to be patient. Clear skies to you.

To you too. I am convinced we are before a big discovery.

--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

I wrote macroscopic. Do you know what that means?

Yes, I thought that you did a typing error.

I remind you that Viking detected a colour change in spring in the
rock facing it.

Spectra as lichens.

This slept in the scientific journals for decades.

jacob navia wrote:

Well, there you go with those a-priori...
What do you know?

I know that a "being" is an intelligent life form (or at least comparable to
our own intelligence). I know that in the places we have landed, there are no
signs of intelligent life (and no unequivocal evidence that life exists at
all). I know that down to a resolution of only a few meters from orbit over
much of the planet's surface, there is no indication of intelligent life on
Mars. If there is life there, it will be in a primitive form (ie: microscopic
or small and non-intelligent).

Maybe that is why you do not find anything. If you do not look for
something, you can't find it !

I am not looking for anything because I don't have the tools to do so (ie: I
don't have a spacecraft on Mars). However, the scientists who are studying
Mars *are* looking.

Couldn't
we look under the stones, or in warmer places in protected
micro-environments
in the rocks?

Viking did that. It dug under the soil (and under at least one rock I
believe). It didn't find anything conclusive. The rover's Rock Abrasion Tool
will be able to allow us to look inside the rocks, so we are planning to look
there. I am certain we will be looking to other places on Mars in the future,
but so far, the search has come up empty.

Instruments in the american satellites sensed a lot of water
underground.

No, the instruments detected the *possible* presence of water in some parts of
planet, mostly in the soils and polar caps, and mostly in the form of water
ice. Water ice does not mean life. We do know that water flowed on Mars in
various places, but for how long and exactly where is not well known.

Some photographs
show objects that look like plants.

What photographs? All the images I have seen of the surface of Mars show
nothing but soil and rocks. There is no firm evidence that plants exist on Mars.

I suppose that they carried instrumentation to analyze the soil
(not the rocks) ???

The instruments on the rovers can analyze *both*.

Good good, but why not start just with the surface itself?
Why dig?
Let's analyze the surface first without any digging !

They have already done that (and you didn't read what I said carefully). They
will continue to analyze both the surface and the sub-surface materials.

Olivene means just that the surface is very dry, and this since a long
time.
So what?

So, it means that the surface is not water bearing. It may have been in the
past, so we need to look around for a while to see what the rocks and the
sub-surface materials may tell us about conditions both now and in the distant
past.

No published photographs. It is a pity that this is not available.
Let's wait till JPL publishes that.

Yes, the first Microscopic Imager images *have* been released and *are*
available. Go to the NASA MER site and see them for yourself:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html

--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

"David Knisely" wrote in message
.. .
jacob navia wrote:

Well, there you go with those a-priori...
What do you know?

I know that a "being" is an intelligent life form (or at least
comparable to
our own intelligence). I know that in the places we have landed,
there are no
signs of intelligent life (and no unequivocal evidence that life
exists at
all).

Yes, that is obvious. There is a misunderstanding here;
I am not speaking about "green men" sorry. For me "being" is any kind
of living entity not just intelligent like us.

I am expecting bacteria and lichens. No marsians in green :-)

I know that down to a resolution of only a few meters from orbit
over
much of the planet's surface, there is no indication of intelligent
life on
Mars. If there is life there, it will be in a primitive form (ie:
microscopic
or small and non-intelligent).


Yes, but that would be a "*fundamental*" discovery !

A simple bacteria-like organism would double our amount of
knowledge. How many types of life you know?

One.

A simple marsian bacteria would make that TWO.

Instruments in the american satellites sensed a lot of water
underground.

No, the instruments detected the *possible* presence of water in
some parts of
planet, mostly in the soils and polar caps, and mostly in the form
of water
ice.

Yes.

Water ice does not mean life.

But makes it more possible...

Some photographs
show objects that look like plants.

What photographs? All the images I have seen of the surface of Mars
show
nothing but soil and rocks. There is no firm evidence that plants
exist on Mars.

Arthur Clarke presented many photographs that look like plants,
that appear in Mars in the spring.

http://www.martianspiders.com/photoindex.htm

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...

Geology is important, yes.

That is precisely why they decided to do a geology mission.

Biology has other objectives though.

True, but irrelevant because this is a geology mission.
One thing to remember - experiments needed to
conclusively prove the existence of life tend to be far
more complex to design, construct, and analyze
and considerably more expensive than geological
experiments. Witness how arguments still fly over
the Antarctic meteorite. This is being studied in some
of the most sophisticated labs in the world with equipment
far more sensitive and detailed than anything that can
be sent to Mars and there is still no definitive answer
that convinces everyone.

Biology is interested in living beings. Any kind of living beings.
Why are we fascinated with that planet since such a long time?

There are as many reasons as there are fascinated people.

Why do we make the effort of going there, as soon as we can?

The biological drive to explore. Curiosity. Prestige. To show off
to the world. To learn about rocks. Soil. Atmosphere. Magnetic
fields. Gravity. To dispell myths. To create new myths. Escape.
It beats staying home with the wife and bratty kids. Spite. Revenge.
National honor. Human honor. The utter joy of discovery.
Oh yes, and to search for signs of past or present life.
All the above and many, many, many more reasons.

Why is that robot crawling around there?

It itches.


Because we want to meet other beings.

Some of us more than others.

Some really just want to study rocks.