Is NASA trying to draw out Mars missions

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1033640.htm

Above is more evidence that Mars did in fact once harbour
microscopic life. This raises serious questions about the
science payload on the MER rovers. These tell tale
signs have now been found in a large proportion of
Martian rocks so I think the naysayers are losing
credibility.

One cannot help feeling that NASA did not put a biology
payload on the Rovers so that they could get further
funding for such missions down the road.

The whole basis of exploring Mars is to find if life
did once exist there. Lets cut all the bull about
interesting geology and photos; no-one really
gives a toss. We pay attention to this information
because we think that it could give indications as to
the biological viability on Mars.

This whole saga has got me thinking about the Viking
findings. Many of the scientists on that project still to
this day claim they found biology. So we have to
wonder why NASA might be motivated to put a
pessimistic light on their Viking findings.

The answer is all about money and future funding.
Is this honest science?

Mike Morris wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1033640.htm

Above is more evidence that Mars did in fact once harbour
microscopic life. This raises serious questions about the
science payload on the MER rovers. These tell tale
signs have now been found in a large proportion of
Martian rocks so I think the naysayers are losing
credibility.

One cannot help feeling that NASA did not put a biology
payload on the Rovers so that they could get further
funding for such missions down the road.

Umm... From the article:

"The fossils that we have in the meteorite are
the original material - the only difference is
that you need a very high-powered electron
microscope to image them, to see them and
basically whenever we find these fossils here
on Earth, no one ever questions they were made
by bacteria," he said.

Do you have any clue as to what the high-power electron
microscope that the rover would need to carry to see such
would weight? And a biology kit is utterly useless in case
of millions of years old fossils.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Mike Morris wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1033640.htm

Above is more evidence that Mars did in fact once harbour
microscopic life. This raises serious questions about the
science payload on the MER rovers. These tell tale
signs have now been found in a large proportion of
Martian rocks so I think the naysayers are losing
credibility.

One cannot help feeling that NASA did not put a biology
payload on the Rovers so that they could get further
funding for such missions down the road.

Umm... From the article:

"The fossils that we have in the meteorite are
the original material - the only difference is
that you need a very high-powered electron
microscope to image them, to see them and
basically whenever we find these fossils here
on Earth, no one ever questions they were made
by bacteria," he said.

Do you have any clue as to what the high-power electron
microscope that the rover would need to carry to see such
would weight? And a biology kit is utterly useless in case
of millions of years old fossils.

You've lost me. My point was that we should be sending
science packages that can either prove or disprove that
life either once did exist on Mars, or perhaps still does
in certain locations.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:55:06 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Morris"
wrote:

Do you have any clue as to what the high-power electron
microscope that the rover would need to carry to see such
would weight? And a biology kit is utterly useless in case
of millions of years old fossils.

You've lost me. My point was that we should be sending
science packages that can either prove or disprove that
life either once did exist on Mars, or perhaps still does
in certain locations.

First, we have to know where to look. That's what the Rovers are for.
It looked like hematite from orbit, and now it looks like it up close.
We won't know for sure until we drill into the stuff and see.

Brian

"Mike Morris" wrote in message
...

The whole basis of exploring Mars is to find if life
did once exist there. Lets cut all the bull about
interesting geology and photos; no-one really
gives a toss.

With 100% certainty, you are mistaken.

We pay attention to this information
because we think that it could give indications as to
the biological viability on Mars.

Some do. Some don't.

This whole saga has got me thinking about the Viking
findings. Many of the scientists on that project still to
this day claim they found biology.

Many?

So we have to
wonder why NASA might be motivated to put a
pessimistic light on their Viking findings.

The answer is all about money and future funding.
Is this honest science?

You seem to be implying that NASA has secretly confirmed
that life exists on Mars and are keeping this information
suppressed to keep their funding.
Frankly, you would have to be out of your mind to think
that if NASA announced they had confirmed the
existence of life on Mars - that there would not be
a massive increase in funding. It is inconceivable
that they would suppress such knowledge in the
hope of increasing or maintaining funding. This
is an argument only a troll would use.

"Mike Morris" wrote in message
...

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...

Do you have any clue as to what the high-power electron
microscope that the rover would need to carry to see such
would weight? And a biology kit is utterly useless in case
of millions of years old fossils.

You've lost me. My point was that we should be sending
science packages that can either prove or disprove that
life either once did exist on Mars, or perhaps still does
in certain locations.

You think this is a simple task?
Care to design a few experiments? What specifically
would you send to either prove or disprove that life
exists or once existed on Mars? If we re-sent the
Viking experiments and got the same mixed results
at a new site - where would that get us? What
would you send instead?
If you don't find it in one location does that mean it
doesn't exist elsewhere?

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:m8HSb.33431$F15.16016@fed1read06...

"Mike Morris" wrote in message
...

The whole basis of exploring Mars is to find if life
did once exist there. Lets cut all the bull about
interesting geology and photos; no-one really
gives a toss.

With 100% certainty, you are mistaken.

You are completely ignoring what makes us human,
and what has driven us into space exploration.
Its about mans need to know whether we are alone
or not in this universe. Finding even one microorganism
on Mars, will change the way we look at ourselves,
and our evoloution.

That is not to say that there are no other purposes
to exploring Mars. But the fact remains that if they
did find life, or signs of ancient life, it will drive
exploration forward within our solar system.


We pay attention to this information
because we think that it could give indications as to
the biological viability on Mars.

Some do. Some don't.

Most do, and if you dont then I think you are
pretty unusual in that sense.


This whole saga has got me thinking about the Viking
findings. Many of the scientists on that project still to
this day claim they found biology.

Many?

Well, atleast 2 or 3 that I have seen write articles.


So we have to
wonder why NASA might be motivated to put a
pessimistic light on their Viking findings.

The answer is all about money and future funding.
Is this honest science?

You seem to be implying that NASA has secretly confirmed
that life exists on Mars and are keeping this information
suppressed to keep their funding.


No, I never said that. I'm saying that they are
taking their time about implementing the kind of mission
that could give us a definitve answer.


Frankly, you would have to be out of your mind to think
that if NASA announced they had confirmed the
existence of life on Mars - that there would not be
a massive increase in funding. It is inconceivable
that they would suppress such knowledge in the
hope of increasing or maintaining funding. This
is an argument only a troll would use.

Well, your last comment could be right, as I agree
that finding life would invigorate more missions.

However, I find that accusing me of being a troll
is pretty pathetic. You may not agree with me but
that is uncalled for.

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:LhHSb.33432$F15.2646@fed1read06...

"Mike Morris" wrote in message
...

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...

Do you have any clue as to what the high-power electron
microscope that the rover would need to carry to see such
would weight? And a biology kit is utterly useless in case
of millions of years old fossils.

You've lost me. My point was that we should be sending
science packages that can either prove or disprove that
life either once did exist on Mars, or perhaps still does
in certain locations.

You think this is a simple task?
Care to design a few experiments?

Now, you are being silly.


What specifically
would you send to either prove or disprove that life
exists or once existed on Mars? If we re-sent the
Viking experiments and got the same mixed results
at a new site - where would that get us?

I would have thought that we have way more sensitive
tests for the existence of microrganisms, than during
the Viking era.

Whats wrong with atleast trying to detect it?


What
would you send instead?
If you don't find it in one location does that mean it
doesn't exist elsewhere?

Of course not. But one must start somewhere, and then
keep looking in different areas.

You seem so pessimistic, as though its not worth looking
for because we may not find it. I'm more optimistic.

"Mike Morris" wrote in message
...

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:m8HSb.33431$F15.16016@fed1read06...

"Mike Morris" wrote in message
...

The whole basis of exploring Mars is to find if life
did once exist there. Lets cut all the bull about
interesting geology and photos; no-one really
gives a toss.

With 100% certainty, you are mistaken.

You are completely ignoring what makes us human,
and what has driven us into space exploration.

I am not. You are simply wrong when you say that
no one really "gives a toss".

Its about mans need to know whether we are alone
or not in this universe. Finding even one microorganism
on Mars, will change the way we look at ourselves,
and our evoloution.

That is entirely true - but it is still false to say that no
one really "gives a toss" about geology and photos.
You were incorrect and you should admit it.

We pay attention to this information
because we think that it could give indications as to
the biological viability on Mars.

Some do. Some don't.

Most do, and if you dont then I think you are
pretty unusual in that sense.

I wasn't speaking for myself. For me personally, finding
life would be, by far, the most important issue.
Nonetheless, I have had geologist friends who really
couldn't care less about anything whatsoever biological.
Life just blocks their view. They can't see the rocks
through the ground cover. They live for road cuts.
To them, the search for life takes needed funds for what's
really important (to them) - geological research.
There are as many motivations as there are interested people.
There are most certainly people who DO "give a toss" about
both geology and pictures. That was what I was disagreeing
with you about.

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:klRSb.34698$F15.3538@fed1read06...

"Mike Morris" wrote in message
...

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:m8HSb.33431$F15.16016@fed1read06...

"Mike Morris" wrote in message
...

The whole basis of exploring Mars is to find if life
did once exist there. Lets cut all the bull about
interesting geology and photos; no-one really
gives a toss.

With 100% certainty, you are mistaken.

You are completely ignoring what makes us human,
and what has driven us into space exploration.

I am not. You are simply wrong when you say that
no one really "gives a toss".

Its about mans need to know whether we are alone
or not in this universe. Finding even one microorganism
on Mars, will change the way we look at ourselves,
and our evoloution.

That is entirely true - but it is still false to say that no
one really "gives a toss" about geology and photos.
You were incorrect and you should admit it.

You're quite right, some people do care about raw
geology. I meant that in comparison, the quest for
life was way more important to most people than
the complexities of rock content.

(snip)

Most do, and if you dont then I think you are
pretty unusual in that sense.

I wasn't speaking for myself. For me personally, finding
life would be, by far, the most important issue.
Nonetheless, I have had geologist friends who really
couldn't care less about anything whatsoever biological.
Life just blocks their view. They can't see the rocks
through the ground cover. They live for road cuts.
To them, the search for life takes needed funds for what's
really important (to them) - geological research.
There are as many motivations as there are interested people.
There are most certainly people who DO "give a toss" about
both geology and pictures. That was what I was disagreeing
with you about.

Well, it wasnt meant to offend anyone in geology. Apologies
if that was the case.