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.

"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

"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 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.

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 +++

"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

"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

"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.

"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

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.