Growing ‘fungi’ spotted in Mars Curiosity Rover photos

It's funny, I was just thinking about creating a new thread the other day for the Skunk Works forum that claimed those "blueberries" were actually the living Mars organisms that we've been looking for. I don't think it's true, though. There are other natural processes that can account for what these people are looking at. I've looked at Mars rocks for years now, and as far as I can tell there ain't nothing alive on that planet.

Besides, they missed this one that I pointed out years ago:


Also, that calcium crap that fills up all those cracks is not alive, as far as I can tell. I don't know what caused all the sedimentary rock to crack and then fill with that white/yellow calcium (that must have been a helluva storm), but I'm pretty sure it's not alive.

Stupid double post.

The most important thing is that these are funky fungi.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

I think it's safe to say that we're not going to hear anything from NASA with regards to life on Mars. They seem to avoid astrobiology like the plague. Planetary habitability is the only exception since related investigations are part of Curiosity's official mission.

So let's hear it from those who don't have to comply with mission protocols. I think Joseph and his co-authors manage to make an interesting case and I don't mean just the photos and observations. They cite quite a few other works relevant to the topic, such as those dealing with protection from radiation, survival of terrestrial organisms in space etc.

I still haven't gone through all of it but it's definitely more interesting than I first thought when I read that Express article mentioned in the OP.

a reply to: wildespace

It does look like a false-color version of a photo taken by either Opportunity or Spirit. I wish they would have been a bit more clear about what we're looking at here. If I manage to find the original NASA/JPL image, I'll make sure to share the link.

Interesting thread!

There have been several "that's weird" moments with the landers and rovers. This would be one of them.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Wildmanimal

I think it's safe to say that we're not going to hear anything from NASA with regards to life on Mars. They seem to avoid astrobiology like the plague.

Really? Their next Mars rover is directly related to astrobiology and will look for signs of past life.

Doesn't Curiosity have a SAM (Sample Analysis at Mars) module, which can be used to put the speculations to rest?

well I have seen photos of mars polar caps taken over the course of the year and in the spring the ice ( mostly co2 with some water ice ,mixed in ) melts Durning this melt the edges of the ice turn green as if alga is growing around the edges .
In the 1970s en.wikipedia.org...
were sent to see if they could detect life ALL the experiments they had except one DID decet life .

Thing is so afr they have done nothing to see if they can see a cell .
No microscopes involved .
Other thing is after this they went back to looking at rocks .
so question is WHY ? why have they not landed at the poles were all the action is ? why have they not sent another probe to look for life WITH a microscope in it ?

We know there is liquid water at times we know there is what looks like alge at the poles in mars spring and yet we fail time and time again to send a ship to a place were these things may be found . Just more rocks .
honestly I do believe the Government does not want the general public knowing for a fact there is life on other worlds even if only algae .

I no longer believe its because they think we will go nuts but alot of there power is based on earth being IT .
Once we know for a fact we are not alone Even if just algae then we start to question just what power really is for humans and what control others can have over us .

originally posted by: WideOpenSpace
Doesn't Curiosity have a SAM (Sample Analysis at Mars) module, which can be used to put the speculations to rest?

It's not really designed to check for chemical biosignatures. It's more to detect water and other associated minerals.

originally posted by: wildespace
The most important thing is that these are funky fungi.

Hard to say. I still can't quite figure out what this thing is:


Maybe it's some of that funky fungi, too.

a reply to: jeep3r

Well the elephant in the room is the thin
atmosphere and non - molten core. (weak magnetic field).

For us, the ultraviolet light levels and
cosmic rays would be instant sterilization.

Again, at the time there was no public disclosure
of water or oxygen on Mars.

But you know, millions of years of evolution can create
incredible adaptability.

Keep your inquisitiveness energetic.

I doubt very much that anything, fungus, mushrooms... whatever
could survive in the martain top soil

Mars covered in toxic chemicals that can wipe out living organisms, tests reveal

The chances of anything coming from Mars have taken a downward turn with the finding that the surface of the red planet contains a “toxic cocktail” of chemicals that can wipe out living organisms.

Experiments with compounds found in the Martian soil show that they are turned into potent bactericides by the ultraviolet light that bathes the planet, effectively sterilising the upper layers of the dusty landscape.

...

Wadsworth’s research was driven by the discovery of powerful oxidants known as perchlorates in the Martian soil some years back. Hints of perchlorates first showed up in tests performed by Nasa’s Viking lander missions 40 years ago, but were confirmed recently by the space agency’s Phoenix lander and Mars rover, Curiosity.

In 2015, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter spotted signs of perchlorates in what appeared to be wet and briny streaks that seeped down Martian gullies and crater walls.

...
Further tests found that the UV rays broke down the perchlorate into other chemicals, namely hypochlorite and chlorite, and it is these that appear to be so destructive to the bacteria.

The scientists followed-up with another round of experiments that looked at the toxic effects of iron oxides and hydrogen peroxide, which are also found in Martian soil. These tests yielded even more bad news for microscopic Martians: when the bacteria were hit with UV rays in the presence of perchlorates, iron oxide and peroxide, the bugs were killed 11 times faster than with perchlorates alone. Writing in Scientific Reports, the researchers say that the inhospitable conditions on Mars are caused by a “toxic cocktail of oxidants, iron oxides, perchlorates and UV irradiation.”

a reply to: jeep3r

It's a bit strange that we can't find the source for that image.

a reply to: ArMaP

The base image is legitimate but it's from sol 890 taken with Curiosity's right MastCam: Sol 890 MastCam Right

The close-up of one of the features is also from sol 890 (ChemCam):
Sol 890 ChemCam

The discoloration seen on the image in the paper may be a false color representation which is sometimes used to better distinguish details, as explained here. Although I don't know whether the camera's science filters are applicable for that particular image. And here we can find the sol 890 images in the MSL analyst's notebook.

a reply to: jeep3r

Thanks for that.

So, how can I trust the work of people that publish a scientific paper and get the identification of two photos wrong, pointing to sol 820 when it was from sol 890?

a reply to: ArMaP

I agree that more care should have been taken since the correct identification of photos and how they have been processed is key when theorizing about life on Mars.

One would hope that someone is going to proofread and check the paper prior to publication. And while looking into the details, perhaps they'll also point out that one of the scientists they quoted, whom they cordially refer to as "Ruffi" is actually Steven W. Ruff.

Yet, I think some of the points they make are really interesting and the different sources they included are quite impressive. I also think it's generally important that other experts, apart from mission scientists, take part in the discussion about life on Mars.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: jeep3r

Thanks for that.

So, how can I trust the work of people that publish a scientific paper and get the identification of two photos wrong, pointing to sol 820 when it was from sol 890?

Because everyone makes mistakes. There is still a lot of good information in the paper. I think a lot of what is in the paper could turn out to be fact.

I believe the blueberries have a good chance to be related to life on Mars in some way. Because of the blueberries Oppy has given us the best images of what may be life on Mars, but all the rovers have given us some images.

There is also this report from years ago. These MSL images were taken in a dry lake bed at Yellowknife Bay.



Potential Signs of Ancient Life in Mars Rover Photos

Nora Noffke, a geobiologist at Old Dominion University in Virginia, has spent the past 20 years studying these microbial structures. Last year, she reported the discovery of MISS that are 3.48 billion years old in the Western Australia’s Dresser Formation, making them potentially the oldest signs of life on Earth.

In a paper published online last month in the journal Astrobiology (the print version comes out this week), Noffke details the striking morphological similarities between Martian sedimentary structures in the Gillespie Lake outcrop (which is at most 3.7 billion years old) and microbial structures on Earth.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
Because everyone makes mistakes.

Sure everyone makes mistakes, but publishing what is supposedly such an important work without confirming the information they publish makes me doubt their professionalism and thoroughness. Also, it doesn't help the publishing and peer reviewing process, as either the peer review didn't worry about that detail or it wasn't present on the reviewed paper but added when published.

But this is just me.

There is still a lot of good information in the paper. I think a lot of what is in the paper could turn out to be fact.

Yes, there's a lot of information in the paper.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: wildespace
The most important thing is that these are funky fungi.

Hard to say. I still can't quite figure out what this thing is:

Maybe it's some of that funky fungi, too.

i try not to get carried away with Seeing Things In The Rocks but hot damn is that a lizard???! ;o