How Did the Jarosite Form at Meridiani?

Pedro Rosa wrote:
Alex Wisnieski wrote in message ...

jonathan wrote:


No - The surface temperature of Mars varies from -20 degrees celsius to
almost -100 degrees celsius (these measurements were obtained by the
Viking landers)...I would most certainly say that NO surface area of
mars is capable of sustaining a bacteria such as this for any length of
time. PERHAPS deep underground, but thats something else entirely.

A. You are dealing with old information. Take at least Pathfinder's
information for a check up. Temperature may go over our 0... Truly, in
very short moments.

I thought I had mentioned that in this paragraph. The temperature DOES
rise well above 0, in some areas, for short periods. My error, I
apologize. I rechecked as far as I could, considering I don't have the
time to learn and install the software to get exact details from the MGS
TES data, and the difference is not so much to make me start screaming
that theres jarosite-producing bacteria on Mars...

B. You are dealing with high latitudes and regions that are similar to
many of our deserts. And they were chosen for that to avoid putting
Viking's in danger of breaking into some hill. No one knows what may
happen in a more weather protected region.

C. Go read some data on Antarctica, btw the most near-martian
environment we have, and you'll find that some microorganisms do
survive at -80. Yes, truly they are in a deep-hibernation. But look at
A. and B. and you see they have a chance to mess a little bit for a
second. Besides, some organisms survive a little deep inside fissures.
Less than two millimeters deep, in a environment that usually is known
as deep freezing drought.

If the argument was regarding the existance of ANY life on Mars, you'd
be 100% correct, and I would certainly agree with you. However, the type
of bacteria that jonathan has specified requires a MUCH warmer
environment than -80 degrees to survive...

D. You don't need a permanent living community in Mars to think about
life. In some of our deadliest deserts, many living origanisms are
adapted to live in a moment. That moment may be as long as a few
years.

Ok, I don't understand completely what you're trying to say, so I'm not
going to reply without a bit of clarification...

E. You are talking about the present conditions in Mars. But it is
clear they were different in the past.

Jonathan...Care to narrow down your time frame of when exactly the
conditions at Meridiani would "easily support" any kind of microbial
life, let alone this specific one?


Also, you did not look at the temperature range of T. ferrooxidans ...
It survives in a temperature range of 0-51 degrees celsius (and thrives
at the warmer end of that range) ... The surface of mars, as measured by
the Viking landers, has a range from ~-20 to ~-90 celsius...In some
areas, it reaches 50 degrees celsius, but it does not stay this warm.
Temperatures this low would certainly kill these organisms off.

Again I would recomend you to recheck the temperature ranges. Besides
remember that there is still a question wether water can possess a
temporary liquid state, under such temperatures, in a environment just
about the edge of the soil (something that rose under some of Viking
observations). As atmosphere is much lower and we don't know fully the
physico-chemical conditions some microns deep, this is still a
question.

Again, I have, and still don't see any areas that would "easily support"
this bacteria. Please remeber, this was not regarding ANY/ALL bacteria,
but a specific type of bacteria found in dark, warm, acidic, and
sulfer-rich environments (such as mines)...



Opinions?

Ok, but you're not going to like it.

Your statements are based on the SPECULATION that there is life on mars,
and that it is EXACTLY like life on earth. This has been speculated to
no end, argued to no end, so I'm not going to cover this beyond saying
"Speculation is not fact."

You are also making some speculations... Adn we are all making
speculations. You are starting from a point which you suppose that
Viking's landing places were a standard for Mars. As we know now they
are far from being a wholescale standard. Besides do not forget that
Vikings measured the temperature now but we have very little data
about Mars paleoclimate. Which, under MERs expeditions seems to have
been a lot milder in the past.

Indeed, however the Viking data is not so far off as to be called
completely unreasonable. I think my speculations are a good bit closer
to reality than his are. Nothing you've said has shown me anything to
the contrary.


Your "supporting evidence" is, quite frankly, laughable. You've failed
to read completely the sources you've quoted, and you quite obviously
don't understand most of the parts that you have read. Those VERY few
sentences you could make sense of, you've taken COMPLETELY out of
context and then presented them as facts.

Well I ain't gonna start judging left and right the original poster,
but I think you are running too fast into conclusions also.

And why not? It's not your place to do so? Well...If you won't stand up
against this, I'm more than happy to, even if I'm not as accurate or
precise as you might like me to be.

You sure seem pretty damn quick to judge me left and right...why not the
original poster?


It's obvious you believe you know something about science or science
related activities. This belief contradicts reality, however. If you

I would say it contradicts your beliefs also. And yours and his
beliefs may not go with my beliefs. The reality is out there, in that
red spot over the sky. That's the reality pal. And we are still a long
way to know it.

And you'd be right, again, if I were formulating theories on how
ANYTHING on mars got there. I'm not. I'm attempting to discourage
jonathan, and those like him, from jumping to the most complex, and most
desired explanations (life) for processes that have many, many
non-organic origins as well. Keep It Simple, Stupid (K.I.S.S ... Or a
simplified version of Occums Razor)

If I'm doing a shi**y job, well...you're more than welcome to help out.
No, I'm not the anti-stupid-theory-god, but since I haven't seen a whole
helluva lot of discouragement of this kind of thing coming from anyone
else...


have an interest in science, then by all means, take some college
courses in the field of science of your choice...But don't waste our
time, or bandwidth, by presenting garbage like this. There are brighter,
MUCH more knowledgeable minds at work on this than yours. Your lazy,
half-ass approach to theory is, at best, rediculous, and at worst, a
detriment to science (I sure as hell hope you don't spout this garbage
off to people who don't know any more than you do, in hopes of
impressing them).

Too much flame and fast conclusions. Not much better than the original
poster...

Did you read the original post?

You're right. There is a bit of flame in there. I'm on
Comp.Robotics.Misc because I enjoy building robots, not because I enjoy
idiots crossposting hairbrained theories with
half-read-and-quarter-understood evidence. I have to listen to enough
idiots at work...I don't enjoy it in my free time. If I've horribly
offended anyone except jonathan...you have my half-assed apologies. :P

Please remeber also, that this was opinion (after the point when he ASKS
for opinions), MY opinion, no one elses. Opinion does not require basis
in reality...If you don't like my opinions, well...too bad.

"Alex Wisnieski" wrote in message
...
Sir Charles W. Shults III wrote:

It would also make sense to look deep underground for bacteria that
metabolize petroleum using magnetite as the electron donor for its
digestion.


That's ludicrous. Do you know how petroleum forms?!

Petroleum forms when organic matter (and a lot of it) is subjected to
heat, and pressure, for an extended period of time. Right now, there is
no evidence of life having EVER existed on Mars (NOTE - This -may-
change. But at this point, there is only some evidence of water).
Therefore, it would -NOT- make ANY sense to go drilling into mars,
hoping to find oil. (They call it fossil fuel for a reason...)

Maybe you might like to look into the work of Dr. Thomas Gold. It seems
that the best and simplest explanation for petroleum and natural gas is that
it formed from methane clathrates, where the methane is from the
protostellar cloud from which the planets formed.
Heat, pressure and time have done their jobs, polymerizing the methane
into heavier molecules. Drilling deeper than any possible fossils has
turned up signs of petroleum and also the bacteria that consume it. The
only reasonable explanation for it at those depths is that is it not of
biological origin.
That being the case, we can expect that there is petroleum or at the
very least, natural gas on Mars. That would easily support bacterial life
that metabolizes petroleum.

Cheers!

Chip Shults

"Pedro Rosa" wrote in message
m...
"Chosp" wrote in message news:q1D7c.1$Ui.0@fed1read06...
"Sir Charles W. Shults III" wrote in message
news
I agree. It seems pretty clear that since life once existed, it
still
probably does.

Except that it is not entirely clear that life once existed on Mars.
That remains speculation.
If you disagree, please supply confirmation that life once existed
on Mars.
Well, Chosp, reading some of your posts, it seems that you are looking
for some new flame war popping from the corner... Did you see the
bunny? It was gone... So where did it go? It hide... Quite strange
correct? It seems alive...
Wanna see the bunny?.. Well look at the bottom of this page:

http://cydonia.ksu.ru/jovian/index.html

Now, when you have The Proof can we go into a more pragmatic talk???


Your web page is cute - but basically content-free.
When you have something to offer - we'll talk further.

"Pedro Rosa" wrote in message
om...
The current mainstream theory still
around is that Petroleum is a fossil fuel, mainly created during the
Carbonic Era.

Carbonic Era?

Better not say that Mars has oil too loud. W might invade.

chris in napa

Pedro Rosa wrote:
Alex Wisnieski wrote in message ...

Sir Charles W. Shults III wrote:


It would also make sense to look deep underground for bacteria that
metabolize petroleum using magnetite as the electron donor for its
digestion.


That's ludicrous. Do you know how petroleum forms?!

Petroleum forms when organic matter (and a lot of it) is subjected to
heat, and pressure, for an extended period of time. Right now, there is
no evidence of life having EVER existed on Mars (NOTE - This -may-
change. But at this point, there is only some evidence of water).
Therefore, it would -NOT- make ANY sense to go drilling into mars,
hoping to find oil. (They call it fossil fuel for a reason...)



Cheers!

Chip Shults


Well, that thing ain't so simple. The current mainstream theory still
around is that Petroleum is a fossil fuel, mainly created during the
Carbonic Era. BUT! There is a lot of people and data that point to the
fact the some oil reservoirs are not in the right place and right
conditions for such a simple explanation. Some detractors consider
that oil may have migrated under the plasts. Again BUT! That does not
explain the discoveries made by the Mirs... No, no, there are three
Mirs, one in space, two on the bottom of the sea, ooops now all of
them are on the bottom of the sea... Don't remember? Those of Titanic
fame... Yes, yes, yes DiCaprio and Celline Dion going BRRRUPP!!! Now
well, lets' return to our fish... Well, the Mirs _before_ all that
romantic and heartbreaking sink were two of the most famous scientific
deep sea submarines. On the Red Sea, at the rift over there, they made
a long analysis of the so-called hot-spots or black chimneys... These
structures are slightly the equivalent of our geysers on Earth. The
difference is that they are more permanent and make a lot of mess
around. Soooo, the Mirs found on those hot-spots oil. Well deep under
sea! That shook a little bit certain conceptions about oil formation.
Yes, oil is being created there and seems a lot of it. They brought up
some samples of rocks that were saturated with oil.

Anyway this is not a proof or evidence that can be easily related to
Mars. Mars has a problem with this. Plate Tectonics there were either
too weak or nearly non-existent. People do think that oil is still
made from biology but, it is not so fossil as it seems and may be
currently produced near certain active tectonic zones that lately calm
down, allow oil to rest and be extracted quite easily.

Again I would warn not to pick too much these theories. They have at
least 20 years of living, have many caveats (mainly the one about rift
production) and still we really cannot be sure about many things
occurring at the hot spots. But I think that bringing them to Mars is
running a little bit over the rope over there. If there was oil in
Mars, then, there would be by-products floating around, specially the
gaseous fraction of Methane. Besides we should have hit already some
tarpit or similar. There could exist "Holy Rocks" like those found in
Azerbaidjan, where oil pours naturally into open surface. Well
anything... But there is no such information there. Yes, we could
think that oil is well, well deep inside Mars... Large reseorvoirs...
After all a big bump on the side, that basalt, mega-volcans and signs
of massive shake-ups? I wonder...

"Nick and Dale" wrote in message
.. .

"jonathan" wrote in message
...


MORPHOLOGY OF JAROSITE-GROUP COMPOUNDS
PRECIPITATED FROM BIOLOGICALLY AND CHEMICALLY
OXIDIZED Fe IONS
http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/mineral/m...38/04538-1.pdf


From the above paper it appears to me that jarosite
forms normally when the alkali sulfate is at its
boiling point. And chemical formation requires
oxidation. Neither of these conditions are abundant
in the current conditions at Meridiani.

SNIP
Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

What makes you think that oxidation can't occur.


I was looking for the reason Nasa suggested a hot springs
environment once existed there. My impression is that Nasa
is trying to explain the high levels of jarosite through past
high temperatures at the site.

I was also trying to open a discussion on biological processes
that could explain the unusual levels of jarosite that's
consistent with the present conditions. As opposed to
Nasa's suggestion that requires an explanation, hot
springs, that's not supported by the pictures.


In fact the martian soil
seems to be highly oxidising.


Is the earth environment more oxidizing than on Mars?
They did say that jarosite is rather rare on earth, but
relatively abundant at Meridiani. This difference needs
an explanation.



When the soil was wetted in the Viking
experiments oxygen was released in abundance. It was suggested that either
peroxides or superoxides are common. Recently the Joint Astronomy Centre's
James Clerk Maxwell Telescope in Hawaii found direct evidence of H2O2 in the
martian atmosphere. The colour of the red planet in itself is something of a
give away as to the oxidation state of the regolith (ie Fe+++). The other
thing is, conditions in lab experiments here on earth should parallel those
on Mars.


The point underlying this post is that Nasa is contriving explanations
to keep this confined to geology alone. Was Meridiani once a hot springs
to explain the jarosite? Or was it once covered by extensive sedimentary
outcrops to explain the spherical 'concretions'. And now they're
supposing something moved the soil in after the unseen outcrops
weathered away. None of these suppositions make any sense
within a ...single... view of the history of the site.

I see Nasa being determined to contain any explanation within
geology alone, with the result being theories that require
unseen formations and processes that are inconsistent
with each other.

I intend to post a rather heated rant on this shortly.


Jonathan

s




Nick

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:36:08 -0500, "jonathan"
wrote:

I see Nasa being determined to contain any explanation within
geology alone, with the result being theories that require
unseen formations and processes that are inconsistent
with each other.

I intend to post a rather heated rant on this shortly.


Jonathan
But will it help?
NASA is a political controlled organisation.
I would not be surprized if many people in NASA really wanted to come
forward with theories that DO support life.
But if they have orders to keep it geology only, then it will not
happen.
There is a republican - religious dogma mountain to climb.
Not sure a demoratic new president will like to tackle the far
religious right, as I have heard they still oppose Darwin in some
parts of the place, not to mention other peculiarities.
maybe US is still a bit in the middle ages, like they burned witches
here in Europe, now they burn
No I won't say it.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:36:08 -0500, "jonathan"
wrote:

I see Nasa being determined to contain any explanation within
geology alone, with the result being theories that require
unseen formations and processes that are inconsistent
with each other.

I intend to post a rather heated rant on this shortly.


Jonathan
But will it help?
NASA is a political controlled organisation.
I would not be surprized if many people in NASA really wanted to come
forward with theories that DO support life.
But if they have orders to keep it geology only, then it will not
happen.
There is a republican - religious dogma mountain to climb.
Not sure a demoratic new president will like to tackle the far
religious right, as I have heard they still oppose Darwin in some
parts of the place, not to mention other peculiarities.
maybe US is still a bit in the middle ages, like they burned witches
here in Europe, now they burn
No I won't say it.
---------------------
Nahhhh! Americans imagine they will hear there was/is life elsewhere
at some point, it wouldn't make a bit of difference, and NASA is not
a big political appointment arena, too many scientists are liberal.
They would say whatever the hell they want and roast anyone who
tried to stop them, they don't call Bush for anything. NASA is
basically a collection of very different contractors and research
grants anyway, it's not centrally controlled.

As popular as anti-Amerikan political paranoia is in Europe, your
surmise is simply wrong and off the mark.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

The microscopic pictures should be of interest.



"Results and Discussion: Our FE-SEM analysis
indicates a range of microbial life forms on the fractured
stromatolite surfaces. Spheroidal features are the
most common, with four distinct populations, characterized
by their highly uniform intrapopulation sizes:"

Lunar and Planetary Science XXXII (2001)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2001/pdf/1068.pdf



Although the spheres pictured above are several orders
of magnitude smaller than our beloved spheres, the difference
is in scale. I wonder if such spheres, produced by single
cell organisms, would also be produced in a ...multi-cellular...
organism. And bring them to a scale appropriate to
the Meridiani observations?

Nah, that would be too improbable
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb96.htm#gemmules


I wonder...what kind of multi-cellular organism might
best fit the Meridiani environment?

Was The Humble Sponge Earth's First Animal?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...peoflife1.html


"During the spring gemmule "hatch", the peripheral thesocytes
differentiate into a pinacoderm that balloons out, like a bubblegum
bubble, through the micropyle. This micropyle bubble makes
contact and attaches to the substratum"

Page 90
http://64.78.63.75/samples/04BIORupp...oology7ch5.pdf


http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:36:08 -0500, "jonathan"
wrote:

I see Nasa being determined to contain any explanation within
geology alone, with the result being theories that require
unseen formations and processes that are inconsistent
with each other.

I intend to post a rather heated rant on this shortly.


Jonathan
But will it help?

Yep!

Math is my minor, my major and first internet
love was messing with govt agencies. I can
stir more crap than you can shake a stick at.




NASA is a political controlled organisation.
I would not be surprized if many people in NASA really wanted to come
forward with theories that DO support life.
But if they have orders to keep it geology only, then it will not
happen.


If I were that Nasa geologist, I would want the prize...and badly.
It might be difficult to pass the baton to the biologists.

Keeping the observations within that limited sandbox would
also result in contorted theories if the true explanation
is biological. That seems to be the case here, one tortured
and incomplete theory after another.

I'm giving this a couple more weeks, but if that
geologist thinks he can turn this mission into
another Viking just to satisfy his personal agenda.

He's wrong!

We shouldn't be expected to spend a generation arguing
over what was really found....again. This is too
important.



Looks like Opportunity make it out of the crater. The
larger crater should provide the highlights of this mission.
I can't wait till it gets there!!!!


singin'

.....get your motor running...head out on the highway....




Jonathan

s




There is a republican - religious dogma mountain to climb.
Not sure a demoratic new president will like to tackle the far
religious right, as I have heard they still oppose Darwin in some
parts of the place, not to mention other peculiarities.
maybe US is still a bit in the middle ages, like they burned witches
here in Europe, now they burn
No I won't say it.