|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Prof Pillinger talking nonsense about Nasa probes.
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 bull****. Sure, it would be bloody lucky to come across a fossil, even if they exist, but it is feasible. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Prof Pillinger talking nonsense about Nasa probes.
"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. See: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sh...rs03rovers.pdf Jon |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Prof Pillinger talking nonsense about Nasa probes.
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Prof Pillinger talking nonsense about Nasa probes.
The press has screwed this one up.
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Prof Pillinger talking nonsense about Nasa probes.
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. Hint - its exteremely unlikely there was ever multicellural life on Mars. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Prof Pillinger talking nonsense about Nasa probes.
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
Dolores Claman 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...ite_chains.htm Now look at the this: http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Project...ic_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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Prof Pillinger talking nonsense about Nasa probes.
"t_mark" wrote in news:dKaRb.3$ay1.2@okepread05:
The press has screwed this one up. 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. Jealous because he can't get his up? --Damon, who already knows about that |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Prof Pillinger talking nonsense about Nasa probes.
"Jon Berndt" wrote in message ...
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message Dolores Claman 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Prof Pillinger talking nonsense about Nasa probes.
"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
"Jon Berndt" 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Prof Pillinger talking nonsense about Nasa probes.
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes | Michael Ravnitzky | Space Station | 5 | January 16th 04 04:28 PM |
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes | Michael Ravnitzky | Policy | 5 | January 16th 04 04:28 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |