It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why no microscopes to Mars ?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   
HELLO

i am very puzzled by this serch for life on mars being done by chemical tests which can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways due to the vast permutations and combinations possible by the 100 odd elements available for the formation of these compounds.


now the question is why oh why did the viking probes etc instead of doing stupid chemical with ovens and gases...etc..etc ..tests for microbes as explained above not simpley carry a high power microscope attched to a suitable camera.....

soil samples could have been scanned visually....clear definitive evidence would be obtained...

just think...

simple and effective.....



instead of this nonsense of heating soil samples and checking the gas given of useing spectrometers and then trying to interprest the results which can have an infinite number of possible explanations....


also in the recent mars landings they could again have done this...but have failed and instead plan again to do more stupid chemical tests soon...

i mean how stupid can the people at NASA be??


can anyone explain this stupidity?

is there a reason for it?

i mean a microscope with a led light source attached to a camera how difficult can it be??

i mean they managed to turn a huge spectrometer from a huge table top size intoa shoebox size but the morons cant think straight and go for the simple direct visual approch.... they again are going to do more complex chemical tests with results subject to ambiguity.


why?


instead of the simple and direct approch they are basically (...) around with stupid chemical experiments which will always be open to vagueness and different explanations.


we already have automated labs with microscopes attached to cameras on earth but the moron cant send one to mars?

anyone explain this stupidity?

i am really angry....


[edit: All Caps title]

[edit on 1/8/2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Removed censor circumvention

[edit on 10/1/07 by masqua]




posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Preparing the specimens for the microscope would be a complex robotic task, certainly not available at the time of Viking. Furthermore, Bacteria (the most probable life to be found on Mars) are exteremely small, and wouldn't be seen well by a standard light microscope, so to get a true image you'd need a scanning electron microscope or similar technology, greatly complicating both the preparation of the sample and the microscope hardware itself.

This is probably something that can be done robotically in the future, but to really get good data, I think we need men and women there for a protracted period of time with a fully equipped lab to really tell what Mars has in the way of microbial life.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Preparing the specimens for the microscope would be a complex robotic task, certainly not available at the time of Viking. Furthermore, Bacteria (the most probable life to be found on Mars) are exteremely small, and wouldn't be seen well by a standard light microscope, so to get a true image you'd need a scanning electron microscope or similar technology, greatly complicating both the preparation of the sample and the microscope hardware itself.

This is probably something that can be done robotically in the future, but to really get good data, I think we need men and women there for a protracted period of time with a fully equipped lab to really tell what Mars has in the way of microbial life.


i dont agree.


99 % of most pathogen work is by normal microscopes...

electron microscopes used mostly for virii...


in any case the aim is simpley to find if life exists or not...

not to manufacture pharmacutical drugs on mars...

automated labs already exist...


preparation of the sample?

what preparation?

preparation for what?


we simpley want to LOOK at it....


WE ARE NOT DISSECTING specimans...

we simply want to SEE.


WE NEED MEN ON MARS??
AND HOW MUCH IS THAT GOING TO COST?

AND HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO TAKE 20 YEARS??

A TRILLION AT LEAST THE WAY NASA WORKS...

AND THEY JUST WASTED THAT IN IRAK...



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This is probably something that can be done robotically in the future, but to really get good data, I think we need men and women there for a protracted period of time with a fully equipped lab to really tell what Mars has in the way of microbial life.


No need as BOTH the original rovers already found life as determined by their pre-mission specificications. That probably explains why the following is happening...


More than two decades later, USC’s Joseph Miller, who was preparing a proposal to NASA to conduct biology experiments on future Mars missions, stumbled across the old data. A figure in an old geophysical journal report caught his eye. The gas emission, Miller noted, had been highly periodic. Subsequent investigation revealed that, in fact, the gas release signal followed a circadian rhythm. "It had a precise circadian rhythm of 24.66 hours," he reports, "which is particularly significant because it’s the length of a Martian day." Specifically, the gas emission fluctuations seemed to be entrained to a two degrees Celsius temperature fluctuation inside the lander.

The idea that such a pattern of gas release could have resulted from reactions among inorganic compounds in the soil now seems rather implausible, Miller says. "For one thing, there has since been research that shows that superoxides exposed to an aqueous solution like the nutrient solution in the experiment will quickly be destroyed. And yet the circadian rhythms from the Martian soil persisted for nine straight weeks," he notes. Furthermore, "there is no reason for a purely chemical reaction to be so strongly synchronized to such a small temperature fluctuation. I think back in 1976 the Viking researchers had an excellent reason to believe they’d discovered life; I’d say it was a good 75 percent certain," Miller remarks. "Now, with this discovery, I’d say it’s over 90 percent. And I think there are a lot of biologists who would agree with me." --Kate Wong


www.sciam.com... B882809EC588ED9F



The Spirit rover, and its twin, Opportunity, which is scheduled to land later this month, cannot perform complex chemical or biological tests that could prove the presence of life. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration aims to tackle the hardest questions last, after years of geological spade work to see if Mars was, or still is, conducive to life. The robot geologists are to look mainly for traces of water, examine rocks, minerals and land forms for clues to the planet's watery past.

astrobiology.berkeley.edu...



Maybe Mars even has life today. The evidence sent back from Mars by two Viking Landers in 1976 and 1977 was not clearcut (6). In fact, NASA's first press release about the Viking tests announced that the results were positive. The "Labelled Release" (LR) experiments had given positive results. But after lengthy discussions in which Carl Sagan participated, NASA reversed its position, mainly because another experiment detected no organics in the soil. Yet Gilbert V. Levin, the principal designer of the LR experiment, still believes the tests pointed to life on Mars (7). When the same two experiments were run on soil from Antarctica, the same conflicting results were obtained (LR - positive; organics - negative.) Soil from Antarctica definitely contains life. The test for organics was negative because it is far less sensitive than the LR experiment. The same problem could have caused the organics test on Mars to give a false negative.

www.panspermia.org...



The instrumentation onboard these rovers, combined with great mobility, will offer a totally new view of Mars, including a microscopic view inside rocks for the first time," said Ed Weiler, associate administrator for space science at NASA headquarters in Washington.

Levin, however, is critical of the latest missions, saying they will not answer the fundamental question of whether or not there's life on Mars.

"There's no life detection experiment on any of these expeditions," he said.

Levin says he has a new life-detection experiment that could settle the issue, but NASA declined to include it on its mission.

"NASA is afraid to re-examine the data," said Levin. "If it is proved wrong, these people would have egg on their face."

news.nationalgeographic.com...



All the links necessary for life on Mars have been forged:

* terrestrial microorganisms can live under Martian conditions; there is liquid water available to microorganisms on Mars;
* contrary to the GCMS results, organic matter seems certain to be on Mars (photo-chemically synthesized from the atmospheric gases and also deposited by meteorites);
* Earth and Mars have traded materials that could readily have contained bacteria; bacteria can be preserved for up to millions of years under the vacuum and low temperature of space travel;
* bacteria transported in meteorites can survive entry temperatures into the Mars or Earth atmospheres and the thermal and mechanical shock of landing;
* and freeze-dried bacteria are known to establish full metabolism very shortly upon entering a favorable environment.

These facts relieve scientists from the difficulty of accepting separate origins of life on Mars and Earth, an extremely unlikely happenstance. Now, it is possible that life on either planet may have come from the other -- or from a third source.

www.spacedaily.com...


Hope that clears up why anything that can find life does not make it there and what does make it there have no good means of making such measurements.

I have much more information if you are interested so just say the word.


Stellar



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by djohnsto77
r.

The idea that such a pattern of gas release could have resulted from reactions among inorganic compounds....

yes yes ...yes i have read your post and all the theories bases on the doubt and they dont confirm anything except SOME chemical reaction is ocurring....

LOOK mr steller you are simply regurgitating the various doubts and theories
of every tom dick and harry.....

did you even read what i demanded...???

no u did not....



if there any nasa employees could you get your fingers out of your poltical ass and do as i suggested instead of those lame gas fart experiments which are worthless and subject to a million different chemical interpretations????


i mean people like you should be fired for your gross incompetance for designing dumb ass fart experiments and wasting the tax payers money...and our time....



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
esecallum

As someone who has worked extensively with microscopes, both optical and electron, I have to disagree with you on the ease of use to get valid results.

The typical person has high school level experience with microscopes and may think that dropping some large cells on a slide and dripping some dye on them is easy...and it is, but that is hardly the way it would work on Mars. And it is definitely not how it works in a real lab.

For starters, let look at the challenges of Optical.
-Dye would freeze on the surface, so you can not stain the cells.
-Samples would contain tons of rocks, dust, and non-transparent things that would make seeing anything almost impossible.
-A mechanical manipulation of clear sample containers would be VERY tricky and if you break them, well you can't run out for more on Mars.

Now Electron.
-The power needed would drain a rover's battery in no time flat. You'd be lucky to get one scan.
-You'd need a way to coat or contrast the sample by machine... i'd be amazed if modern robotics can even do this.

These are just a few reasons off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more I'm not aware of. If you are still skeptical, then I suggest you research how microscopy works, outline a plan, and submit it to NASA.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Viking didn't carry a microscope because, if there were lots of microbes on mars, we'd probably see them through telescopes. Just like we can see blooms of algae in the ocean from satellites.

All indications are that there is no life on mars. If we are going to find evidence of life, its going to be through seemingly arcane chemical analyses, not by capturing one on a slide.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
esecallum

As someone who has worked extensively with microscopes, both optical and electron, I have to disagree with you on the ease of use to get valid results.

the surface, so you can not stain the ce-A mechanical manipulation of clear sample containers would be VERY tricky and if you break them, well

.



look u cant read what i wrote.

we are not interested in staining...stupid dyes and other crap...

we are looking for simple visual evidence...
thats all...

no we are not procesing tonsof rubble either....its not a mining operation .

the shovel takes a thin slice of martian soil and put it infront of the microscope attached to the camera on a motorised tray allowing it to be scanned...small actuators would manipulate the soil samples...

simple engineering already availableinthe 1960 let alone 1970...


all i am getting is stupid excuses for the morons at nasa....



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Have you ever been in a science class esecallum?

You can't just put a load of soil into a microscope, you need to prepare a slide carefully. This isn't a drop of pondwater, it's dirt that's mostly ground up rock that you'd need to eliminate before viewing in an optical microscope to detect life.

And even if we saw something, what would it look like? How would we know it was life? I guess if we saw it actively dividing or moving we could say yes, this is life...but who knows what the life processes of organisms on Mars would be? I imagine they'd be quite slow since Mars is cold, so even if we had microscopes in a probe, we might not even catch cells at the right time.

I think the only way to determine if Mars has life or is lifeless (much harder than to prove it has life) is to send humans there in a prolonged series of missions.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I can't really tell what you said and what you did not so feel free to correct me.


Originally posted by esecallum
yes yes ...yes i have read your post and all the theories bases on the doubt and they dont confirm anything except SOME chemical reaction is ocurring....


Then you have not read all my posts or have trouble understanding them as i specified quite clearly that in the original Viking test they found life based on their pre- mission specifications. There has never been a viable explanation for a alternative conclusions despite all the claims.


LOOK mr steller you are simply regurgitating the various doubts and theoriesf every tom dick and harry.....


That's pretty much what a lay person who investigates reality is forced to do for lack of expertise on the vast majority of topics. Can you address the problems these SCIENTIST raised or will you just go on stating the obvious?


did you even read what i demanded...???


I did but since it's so hard to understand what your trying to say i just proceeded to tell you that there are no reason to send 'microscopes' as we already know that there is life. If you do not know how to arrive at something objective don't insist the world to change to make such possible for yourself.


if there any nasa employees could you get your fingers out of your poltical ass and do as i suggested instead of those lame gas fart experiments which are worthless and subject to a million different chemical interpretations????


They are not subject to a 'million different' interpretations as that is not how physics works based on the premise of GR ( as here, there). If you can not discern the truth by putting all the data together that is fine but don't attack those who have found that it is in fact possible. Nothing that comes from NASA can really be trusted and the only reason anyone relies on their information is to expose the contradictions in it.


i mean people like you should be fired for your gross incompetance for designing dumb ass fart experiments and wasting the tax payers money...and our time....


I am pretty sure most NASA officials and scientist are very very smart indeed hence their success at covering up this issue for the last thirty years. Never assume stupidity when you can assume intelligence working towards a specific goal as i can assure you that such well coordinated 'stupidity' rarely has anything to do with the lack of intellectual prowess. These guys know what their doing and if you want to throw tantrums, by calling them names, your not doing anything but playing their game.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum

the shovel takes a thin slice of martian soil and put it infront of the microscope attached to the camera on a motorised tray allowing it to be scanned...small actuators would manipulate the soil samples...

simple engineering already availableinthe 1960 let alone 1970...



If you want to send me the engineering specs for such a tool designed to function at the Martian equatorial regions I'll happily pass it along to some of guys at JPL or NASA.

I've never seen a design that would function, but you seem pretty sure there is one, so draft the specs and I'll get some of my engineer buddies to review them. If you can mock one up, that would be even better.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
look mr steller you are confused..

if life has already been discovered why r they still looking for it??
answer us.


you are alo confusing simple enginneering tasks with methodology..


geting a bit of soil in front of a microscope is very difficult for u.


even though the viking landers managed to get some into an oven 30 years ago...

not to mention the enginnering advances since..



these are simple tasks...anyone student can put it together......






a microscope is the only way to solve the life on mars question...
the nasa people should have put microscopes on the rover instead of the mass spectrometers which told us what we already know...namely that mars is made up from the periodic table...

.this is something we already knew !!!

thats more money wasted.


also instead of soil being put in front of microscopes the microscopes could be brought next to the soil instead just by hovering the microscope over the soil ....
making it even simpler....



and a manned mars mission is just too expensive with those lame ass chemical rockets that nasa has stuck with for 40 years now.....

nasa is stuck in a rut...


jra

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
a microscope is the only way to solve the life on mars question...
the nasa people should have put microscopes on the rover instead of the mass spectrometers which told us what we already know...namely that mars is made up from the periodic table...


The two rovers do have a Microscopic Imager on them, although I don't know how well the magnification compares to bigger lab scopes.

As for spectrometers... of course the elements on Mars are the same as on Earth, but it's nice to be able to get an up close look at the rocks and soil to see what elements they are exactly.

But if you think you're idea's are way better than NASA's, then here's a link for you.

EDIT to add.

The next NASA rover, the Mars Science Laboratory is planned to have a Microscopic Imager as well. Taking true colour images at 1600x1200 with a resolution of 12.5 micrometers per pixel.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by jra]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
The next NASA rover, the Mars Science Laboratory is planned to have a Microscopic Imager as well. Taking true colour images at 1600x1200 with a resolution of 12.5 micrometers per pixel.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by jra]


Well there we go! Problem solved.

*goes off to look into the next rover mission*



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
look mr steller you are confused..
if life has already been discovered why r they still looking for it??
answer us.


Well their not looking for it?


The instrumentation onboard these rovers, combined with great mobility, will offer a totally new view of Mars, including a microscopic view inside rocks for the first time," said Ed Weiler, associate administrator for space science at NASA headquarters in Washington.

Levin, however, is critical of the latest missions, saying they will not answer the fundamental question of whether or not there's life on Mars.

"There's no life detection experiment on any of these expeditions," he said.

Levin says he has a new life-detection experiment that could settle the issue, but NASA declined to include it on its mission.

"NASA is afraid to re-examine the data," said Levin. "If it is proved wrong, these people would have egg on their face."

news.nationalgeographic.com...


And why would you look for something you already know is there?


you are alo confusing simple enginneering tasks with methodology..
geting a bit of soil in front of a microscope is very difficult for u.


When did i say it was difficult or hard to do? I just said it was pointless as they would likely find a way to falsify the results just as they did thirty years ago.



even though the viking landers managed to get some into an oven 30 years ago... not to mention the enginnering advances since..
these are simple tasks...anyone student can put it together......


And why are you telling me the possibly ( i am not so sure but i have no real objections) very obvious? Did i suggest that i consider microscopes to Mars to be hard or impossible?


a microscope is the only way to solve the life on mars question...
the nasa people should have put microscopes on the rover instead of the mass spectrometers which told us what we already know...namely that mars is made up from the periodic table...


A microscope is not required to find life as we already found life thirty years ago. There is no reason to send a microscope now as NASA could just admit that based on a reevaluation of the old data they are now sure it was in fact life.


.this is something we already knew !!!

thats more money wasted.


I agree but it was not wasted by design.


also instead of soil being put in front of microscopes the microscopes could be brought next to the soil instead just by hovering the microscope over the soil ....
making it even simpler....


Why not just admit that they found a crinoid fossil on Mars and leave it at that?

www.xenotechresearch.com...

www.xenotechresearch.com...

www.enterprisemission.com...


and a manned mars mission is just too expensive with those lame ass chemical rockets that nasa has stuck with for 40 years now.....

nasa is stuck in a rut...


And it's no accident or anything related to mere chance.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Mr steller i have checked your links and the photos are either too vague.....unclear....random natural lines ...or doctored .....
none of them CLEARLY proves anything.....


and an imager is not a microscope....



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
The next NASA rover, the Mars Science Laboratory is planned to have a Microscopic Imager as well. Taking true colour images at 1600x1200 with a resolution of 12.5 micrometers per pixel.


Most bacteria fall into the 1 - 2 micrometer range, so this newer microscopic imager still wouldn't be able image such cells.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
Mr steller i have checked your links and the photos are either too vague.....unclear....random natural lines ...


Thanks for your expert opinion Escallum.


or doctored ....


I suppose you have evidence of that?


none of them CLEARLY proves anything.....


Your obsession with microscopes is becoming quite apparent. Why on Earth do you think they will not be able to hide their findings by microscope as well as they did their findings with imager's?


and an imager is not a microscope....


Do you have anything worth saying or did you just feel a desperate urge to respond with a half dozen opinions?

Stellar



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by esecallum
Mr steller i have checked your links and the photos are either too vague.....unclear....random natural lines ...


Thanks for your expert opinion Escallum.


or doctored ....


I suppose you have evidence of that?


none of them CLEARLY proves anything.....




and an imager is not a microscope....


Do you have anything worth saying or did you just feel a desperate urge to respond with a half dozen opinions?

Stellar


LOOK

THE PHOTOS U CLAIM SHOWING LIFE
ARE HAZY...

POORLY DEFINED AND SUBJECT TO INTERPRATATION.


SOME ARE JUST RANDOM LINES LOOKING COINCIDENTALLY LIKE ANIMAL SHAPES...NOW MARS HAS TRILLIONS AND TRILIONS of random lines...

due to cracks on the surface...

DUE TO PLANETARY ELESTICITY...
DUE TO ROCK FORMATION....ETC ..ETC...

so it stands to reason that some will form random animal shapes...

DUE TO THE HUMAN MIND WHICH IMPELS IT TO FEAST ON SHAWDOWS.

nasa would be the first to admit about alien life...

why would they deny it?

i ask u

whats THE POINT OF DENYING IT?

why would nasa deny life exists on other planets....

why? tell us

we are waiting mr steller.


the only clear way is to send a high mag microscope with colour camera attached...

and then we can see minimovies in real time of any life dead or alive.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Well? We are waiting for an answer....

why would NASA REFUSE TO SEND MICROSCOPES TO MARS?

AND WHY WOULD THEY DENY LIFE ON MARS...WHY?

WHY??



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join