Excavating theoretical Martian fossils.

[llivinglarge]

If fossils exist on Mars, would it be logistically impossible to dig them up or perform large scale excavations?

 

[bonzelite]

interesting question. <br /><br />the infrastructure does not exist. such work is delicate and untenable on scales such as dinosaur bones. it would require an apparatus equal to/nearly equal to human movement and intuition; only then to require a recovery/prep & return method. <br /><br />however, fossils may be inadvertently excavated in future dirt & rock sample return missions not necessarily looking specifically for fossils. there may be some in the regolith mixture, for example. perhaps microfossils. it would be a shocking find indeed. would rewrite history in perhaps the largest way ever known possible. <br /><br />

 

[centsworth_II]

The Phoenix lander, launching this summer, will dig several feet below the <br />martian surface and will carry a microscope capable of seeing bacteria-sized <br />objects. No doubt many will see micro fossils in the returned images. Whether <br />or not they really exist is another matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Thats for sure, and one of the reasons I emphasize the need for a human expedition where exobiology is concerned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...the need for a human expedition..."</font><br />A returned sample (via an unmanned flight) containing purported micro fossils <br />would also be great, and a more realistic expectation in the forseeable future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

None of the close-ups of the in-situ 'blueberrys' showed any little tiny sea shells in the matrix material . . . . <br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

So....? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Well, we already have data in hand on the existence of Martian fossils. We can establish an upper size limit, and distribution stats (probabilities) at this point.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[l3p3r]

I would have though some of the more recent craters might be a good place to look, that way the excavation is done for us, just have to chip into the bigger chunks of rock... <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

For the sites we have visited. It should be noted too that of the five sites seen only Meridiani and Gusev offer sedimentary rocks.<br /><br />On Earth despite supporting life during the Archaean, only a few sites of this age have yielded microfossils. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

If, I repeat, IF there ever was life on Mars, I would expect it to be anaerobic <br />and microscopic. Nothing big enough to see with the MER "micro" imager. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

However some structures made by microfossils should be visible, if they were present. Stromatolites and filaments, for example.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

I think one would have to be very fortunate to run across organised, multicelled <br />structures (or their fossils). I think the best, first chance of discovering microfossils <br />would be to see the microscopic erosional breakdown products of such large structures. <br />These would be spread planetwide whereas the original structures would be in specific,<br />hard to find locals. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Actually, I would say the reverse. There are more Archaean stromatolite localities known than those with actual Archaean microfossils. The organic remains often decayed before they could be fossilised, however the larger structures they formed have a much higher preservation potential. Remember that stromatolites are not organised structures in a biological sense, rather they are a self-organised structure resulting from the intrerplay of biological and environmental factors.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

I think the title of this thread is misleading (almost certainly unintentionally).<br /><br />This brings up a pet peeve of mine, which is the common misunderstanding of the words theory, hypothesis, speculation (and natural law and principle). You can see evidence of this misunderstanding all the time in some newspaper stories, or any of the many intentional mischaracterizations by creationites and 'intelligent design'-ites.<br /><br />"Excavating <font color="black">theoretical</font>Martian fossils."<br /><br />The title should read:<br />"Excavating <font color="yellow">speculative</font>Martian fossils."<br /><br />The following title is also too unsupported:<br />"Excavating <font color="black">hypothetical</font>Martian fossils."<br /><br />We have absolutely no data that life ever existed on Mars, nor any data that any fossils exist on Mars. Zero. In fact, argumentatively (with no data), the possibility that life ever existed on Mars leans to unlikely.<br /><br />"Theoretical" means describing an idea which is part of a theory, or a consequence derived from theory. Theories are comprehensive explanations of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community. Usually an explanation remains a theory until a decisive proof can be shown (which is usually only possible in mathematics).<br /><br />No fossil data means that the thread title should not be "theoretical", since it cannot mean the minimal standard for this word.<br /><br />"Hypothesis" is a tentative explanation of a given set of data that is expected to remain valid after future observation and experimentation, or a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. <br /><br />Probably the complete lack of Martian fossil data also excludes "hypothetical" from proper use in the thread title.<br /><br />"Speculative" means simply showing c <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[chesh]

That is exactly the case. An instrument is a closed system, with very few ranges of freedom. Human microbiologists could see a lot more in a very short time and geologists so trained being far more open ended, advance Martian geology immensely in a very short time.<br /><br />Bringing them back, tho would be a very different and serious problem. Not before 2025 at least. May be even 2050 or later.<br /><br />Still, the cart is VERY much before the horse. MARS is dead. and for many kms. below the surface due to radiation, extreme cold, oxidants destructive to organic molecules and a general lack of water, circulation of materials to keep any growth going, and so forth.<br /><br />MARSIS showed deep ice, kms. below the Martian surface. Phoenix isn't going to find anything but subsurface materials. The geology is the important part. Esp. if it's able to find briny ice below the surface.<br /><br />for colonizing, or research stations, water is not only important, but a must find to live on Mars. No nations can afford to send enough water there from the earth.

 

[JonClarke]

All being well we should get samples back from Mars in about 10 years, if ESA's MSR mission stays on track. Of course they will be from only one spot<br /><br />It's important to note two things. First we don't know that Mars is dead. The presence of at least ephemeral liquid water at and near the surface means that some of the environmental restraints for life are met. Radiation and oxidants are not a problem in the surbsurface, provided the putative organisms are active often enough to repair radiation damage. So looking for present life is a worthwhile goal.<br /><br />Even if Mars is shown to be biologically dead now (abd I suggest it will take decades to demontrate this possibility), this does not mean it was always so. To show this would, I suggest, take a century or so of work. So looking for fossils is also worthwhile.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>