Prof Pillinger talking nonsense about Nasa probes.

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Dolores Claman wrote:

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
"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.


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.

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.

"Dolores Claman" wrote in message ...
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Dolores Claman wrote:

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
"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.


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.

Thats complete rubbish, the microscopic analyzer is perfectly capable
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.
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

"Hobbs aka McDaniel" wrote in message

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...ite_chains.htm

Obviously, way below the resolving power of the MI on MER.

Jon

"Hobbs aka McDaniel" wrote in message
om...
"Dolores Claman" wrote in message
...
Thats complete rubbish, the microscopic analyzer is perfectly capable
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.

"Chosp" 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? 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

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
"Chosp" 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.