filaments on "bounce" rock

Dear All,

Please have a look at this picture from the Rover Opportunity on Mars.
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...YP2956M2M1.JPG

Can you see filamentous structures running on the surface of the rock
? Located mainly on the center/lower right?
Well... that staff on earth would look pretty biogenic biogenic to me.

Somebody out there has a more "reasonable" explanation for those...?

Greg Ruo

"Greg Ruo" a écrit dans le message de
...
Dear All,

Please have a look at this picture from the Rover Opportunity on Mars.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...YP2956M2M1.JPG

Can you see filamentous structures running on the surface of the rock
? Located mainly on the center/lower right?
Well... that staff on earth would look pretty biogenic biogenic to me.

Somebody out there has a more "reasonable" explanation for those...?

Greg Ruo

There is no way to know. It is in principle possible but this, as
NASA has said many times, is a geological expedition. The biological
expedition has not started yet. The europeans have one in the
works but will not start until 2009.

There is almost nothing of hard facts coming out of JPL, mainly, because
they didn't carry any biological instruments. The microscope is just a
"field magnifier", without the ability to resolve a bacteria or similar.

There are microbes in Mars, as the detection of methane proves.
It is the equivalent of the methane produced by the bacteria of
2.000 cows.

This is very small for a planet whose dry surface is equivalent to
Earth's. Life will be very difficult to find.

As recently discovered, the tilt of Mars could make very long cycles
where water is melted by extremely long summers, and life
could thrive better. It could well be that we arrive at the
bad time and all life is hibernating very slowly, underground.

That image could contain rests of fossilized bilogical
structures, as you propose, but it could be a salt/rock
evaporation/erosion artifact too. How can we know?

Salts could be better eroded by the wind over the eons
than other substances.

Eroding salts could leave filaments of harder
substances, or maybe salts are eroded by the wind
like that, leaving a thinner
and thinner "filament" structure until they disappear in
the wind. Note that the gravity is only a third of ours,
and that could change MANY things in how the wind
erodes salts. How can we know?

We have *no experience* about that surface,
we have just arrived, and our senses
could misinterpret many things we see.

That is why it is primordial to well design the
instruments. Instruments do not get disturbed
by a new environment like we. Biological
instruments (DNA concentration for instance)
could tell us more than just a field magnifier.

There is none in those rovers. There is no way
to measure exactly the carbon/organics
concentration in the soil. There is carbonates
(as they announced when Opportunity landed)
but then, a silence settled in.

The scientists "are working with the data" and
will withheld all information until they
publish their papers.

Two american detectives looking at those images
like you, discovered that very small sized
"particles" were MOVING. The NASA
acknowledged that fact (and they published
the story) but no consequences were drawn
from that fact to the behavior of the rovers.

They continue to do geology and interest
themselves for rocks.

We are looking for "traces of ancient life".
Since there is methane, and those detectives
discovered that some particles MOVE, a
closer look *could* be a good idea isn't it?

But that is no "ancient life" but maybe some
small beings creeping around. Not very
interesting as it seems.

I am following this trip with a sense of irony.
I can't do anything about JPL, me, a poor human,
not even an american human.

How can I tell them to start looking for life
before the rovers run out?

I can't.

So, I watch, like you.

I am impressed by the people that
were able to do this feat. With all the
complaints I can say, I am conscious that
they have done an incredible work. All
the hardware is working perfectly, after
such a long trip, and a risky landing.

All those computers, cameras and stuff
rolled and rolled in the soil, until they
stood still, and developed as planned.

If those small beings around can see
us, they saw those strange balls coming
from the heavens, and then those
insect-like enormous ships get out
and start roaming in the landscape.

More than a century after H.G. Wells.

"jacob navia" writes:

There are microbes in Mars, as the detection of methane proves.
It is the equivalent of the methane produced by the bacteria of
2.000 cows.

Non-sequitur. There is methane in interstellar gases, methane in comets,
frozen methane on Triton and Pluto, and methane composes a significant
fraction of Uranus' and Neptune's atmospheres; in =NONE= of these cases
is that methane "biogenic" in origin --- it is primordial.

Mars is not geologically dead, and even a "small" planet is very, very large.
It is _EASILY_ conceivable that methane could still be outgassing from Mars'
deep interior, even this late in its history --- just as the majority of the
methane emitted by _Earth's_ volcanoes is _NON-BIOGENIC IN ORIGIN_, as is
easily demonstrated by examining its isotope ratios.


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

In message , jacob navia
writes
"Greg Ruo" a écrit dans le message de
...
Dear All,

Please have a look at this picture from the Rover Opportunity on Mars.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...0496EFF08AYP29
56M2M1.JPG

Can you see filamentous structures running on the surface of the rock
? Located mainly on the center/lower right?
Well... that staff on earth would look pretty biogenic biogenic to me.

Somebody out there has a more "reasonable" explanation for those...?

Greg Ruo

There is no way to know. It is in principle possible but this, as
NASA has said many times, is a geological expedition. The biological
expedition has not started yet. The europeans have one in the
works but will not start until 2009.

There is almost nothing of hard facts coming out of JPL, mainly, because
they didn't carry any biological instruments. The microscope is just a
"field magnifier", without the ability to resolve a bacteria or similar.

There are microbes in Mars, as the detection of methane proves.
It is the equivalent of the methane produced by the bacteria of
2.000 cows.


And it could have been produced by abiogenic processes. We won't know
until we measure the isotopic composition (if then) or find the
organisms.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome

"Gordon D. Pusch" a écrit dans le
message de ...
"jacob navia" writes:

There are microbes in Mars, as the detection of methane proves.
It is the equivalent of the methane produced by the bacteria of
2.000 cows.

Non-sequitur. There is methane in interstellar gases, methane in comets,
frozen methane on Triton and Pluto, and methane composes a significant
fraction of Uranus' and Neptune's atmospheres; in =NONE= of these cases
is that methane "biogenic" in origin --- it is primordial.

Mars is not geologically dead, and even a "small" planet is very,
very large. It is _EASILY_ conceivable that methane could still be
outgassing from Mars' deep interior, even this late in its history
--- just as the majority of the methane emitted by _Earth's_
volcanoes is _NON-BIOGENIC IN ORIGIN_, as is easily demonstrated
by examining its isotope ratios.


Methane is unstable in the marsian atmosphere, (lifetime ~300 years)
so there must be a process that constantly produces it. It CAN'T be
primordial.

Volcanic activity in Mars may exist, but there isn't any observation that
would confirm this.

But there is no data (yet) to *prove* the existence of marsian life, I agree
with that.

"jacob navia" writes:

"Gordon D. Pusch" a écrit dans le
message de ...
"jacob navia" writes:

There are microbes in Mars, as the detection of methane proves.
It is the equivalent of the methane produced by the bacteria of
2.000 cows.

Non-sequitur. There is methane in interstellar gases, methane in comets,
frozen methane on Triton and Pluto, and methane composes a significant
fraction of Uranus' and Neptune's atmospheres; in =NONE= of these cases
is that methane "biogenic" in origin --- it is primordial.

Mars is not geologically dead, and even a "small" planet is very,
very large. It is _EASILY_ conceivable that methane could still be
outgassing from Mars' deep interior, even this late in its history
--- just as the majority of the methane emitted by _Earth's_
volcanoes is _NON-BIOGENIC IN ORIGIN_, as is easily demonstrated
by examining its isotope ratios.

Methane is unstable in the marsian atmosphere, (lifetime ~300 years)
so there must be a process that constantly produces it. It CAN'T be
primordial.

Methane is also unstable in Earth's atmosphere, with an even shorter lifetime.
That has not stopped non-biogenic methane that has remained trapped deep within
the Earth since its initial accretion from the solar nebulae from continuing
to bubble up in volcanic outgassing.


Volcanic activity in Mars may exist, but there isn't any observation that
would confirm this.

Then you haven't been keeping up with the literature. Outgassing has been
detected from the volcanoes in the Tharsis region via remote sensing from
orbit for about a decade; that outgassing is almost certainly volcanic in
origin.


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

"Gordon D. Pusch" a écrit dans le
message de ...
"jacob navia" writes:

Then you haven't been keeping up with the literature. Outgassing has been
detected from the volcanoes in the Tharsis region via remote sensing from
orbit for about a decade; that outgassing is almost certainly volcanic in
origin.

Can you give some references for this claim?
MOC images detected water outflows, but volcanic activity?

An overview article can be found at
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._010315-1.html
I cite:
A new study points a finger at one of the most obvious features on Mars, a
hulking, elevated region known as the Tharsis rise that may have released
tremendous amounts of lava, along with water and carbon dioxide that
combined to possibly create a habitable planet. The research also narrows
the range of time, under this scenario, that Mars would have been wet.


Reporting in the March 15 2001 issue of the journal Science, a group of 11
scientists used computer models to analyze gravity and topography data from
the Mars Global Surveyor, which is currently orbiting Mars. The results
suggest that the volcanic activity, thought to have occurred more than 3.5
billion years ago, left certain prominent features of the Martian landscape
still visible today.



Among the most prominent is the Tharsis rise, whose immensity has puzzled
researchers for three decades. This natural monument to Mars' early years
sits roughly 6 miles (10 kilometers) above the surrounding terrain and
covers an area of 11.6 million square miles (30 million square kilometers).

End quote

Later in the same article, those scientists argue that the volcanic activity
in Tharsis stopped several
billion years ago.

To explain the methane, we would need volcanic activity in the last 300
years.

"jacob navia" writes:

"Gordon D. Pusch" a écrit dans le
message de ...
"jacob navia" writes:

Then you haven't been keeping up with the literature. Outgassing has been
detected from the volcanoes in the Tharsis region via remote sensing from
orbit for about a decade; that outgassing is almost certainly volcanic in
origin.

Can you give some references for this claim?
MOC images detected water outflows, but volcanic activity?

An overview article can be found at
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._010315-1.html

That would be water =VAPOR= outflow, not "water" outflow --- and the most
plausible sources for water =VAPOR= and CO2 outgassing from a volcano this
late in Mars' history is that these volcanoes still contain substantial
residual heat.


Later in the same article, those scientists argue that the volcanic activity
in Tharsis stopped several
billion years ago.

To explain the methane, we would need volcanic activity in the last 300
years.

You are confusing volcanic _activity_ (i.e., active lava flows) with
volcanic _origin_. The amount of heat remaining in a volcano's magma
chamber is still _ENORMOUS_, even long after it ceases actively erupting;
it can continue to outgas and release geothermal heat for millions and
even BILLIONS of years. (For example, the Valle Grande caldera near
Los Alamos is still producing detectable heat and outgassing 1.2 million
years after its last eruption; Haleakala on Maui is still outgassing and
is still considered "active" even though its main crater hasn't produced
an eruption in nearly a million years, etc., etc.)


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

jacob navia wrote:

Methane is unstable in the marsian atmosphere, (lifetime ~300 years)
so there must be a process that constantly produces it. It CAN'T be
primordial.

The methane can of course be primordial -- it just has to have
been added to the atmosphere recently.

Paul

"Greg Ruo" wrote in message
...
Dear All,

Please have a look at this picture from the Rover Opportunity on Mars.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...YP2956M2M1.JPG

Can you see filamentous structures running on the surface of the rock
? Located mainly on the center/lower right?
Well... that staff on earth would look pretty biogenic biogenic to me.

Somebody out there has a more "reasonable" explanation for those...?

Greg Ruo

Well, no one as commented on whether those filaments really do look like
products of organic processes, so I'll start. I don't see anything in the
image that really comes out and says, "I'm a product of life." Even if you
argue that many inorganic processes produce produces that resemble those
that do come from biologic activity, the first question is whether what
you're seeing warrants being considered as a biological by-product. I look
at the image and say no.

Remember, Mars is fa and away from a dead world as far as forces that can
shape the look of the landscape is concerned. Frost, temperature changes,
not to mention that wind whipping things into a global dust storm, just to
name a few, can shape things into shapes that an mimic biological
by-products.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave

----------------------------------------------------------------------
A man is a god in ruins.
--- Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------