List,
New study on signs of (ancient?) life
on Mars about to be published. Advance
description at:
http://www.space.com/28194-mars-rover-curiosity-photos-ancient-life.html?
Sterling K. Webb
__
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archive
il!
http://www.astroecology.com/Astrobiology_Paper.htm
Buckleboo!
- Original Message -
From: "Darren Garrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Mars life concerns redux
Here's the answer to NASA's opinion on the issu
Here's the answer to NASA's opinion on the issue-- they are trying to come up
with genetically
engineered plants with the intention of growning them on Mars.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/05aug_nostress.htm
__
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteo
To borrow from Jim Carrey, "Alrighty then!" We'll go one at a time here...
> 1. What you seemed to be emphasizing in your first post was the
> probability
> that the astronauts contaminated specifically the (apparently virgin)
> part of
> the camera insulation during there journey back to earth.
>
> 1. What you seemed to be emphasizing in your first post was the probability
> that the astronauts contaminated specifically the (apparently virgin) part
> of
> the camera insulation during there journey back to earth.
To me, the most likely point of contamination occurred when the camer
>
> 1 to 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376.
>
> The above number represents the probability of a coin being flipped 100
> times and yielding 100 tails in a row. Maybe I missed a factor of two, but
> that
> is really not important. (and for 50 times it is still on the order of
>
Mark Fr. wrote:
>There's also a non-zero probability that gravity will reverse,
>time will speed up suddenly, evolution will cease, and that
>monkeys will fly out of my butt.
Hi Mark, Now that was a vile (bile?) respone! Was it from a John Carrey
movie or an original?
I'll keep my reply
>
> Mark F. wrote:
>
> >First off, the microbes on the Surveyor camera were most likely
> >introduced by the astronauts themselves during handling.
>
> Mark, Where were you when the damage was supposedly done in Nov. 1969? You
> speak quite authoritatively, as if you were sitting there in t
>First off, the microbes on the Surveyor camera were most likely
> introduced by the astronauts themselves during handling. The camera
> was kept in the Apollo lander and then the command module along with
> the astronauts, without any sort of contamination protection, for the
> entire trip ba
Howdy
"Unscientific", eh? (--truly vile response deleted---)
No, I wasn't there when the samples were analyzed. Hell, I wasn't
even born yet. Luckily for me that's not a prerequisite for owning a
fully functioning iota of horse sense. None of the other samples, either
from the lunar sa
Mark F. wrote:
>First off, the microbes on the Surveyor camera were most likely
>introduced by the astronauts themselves during handling.
Mark, Where were you when the damage was supposedly done in Nov. 1969? You
speak quite authoritatively, as if you were sitting there in the supervisor's
Howdy all
I noticed the microbes-on-spacecraft thread earlier today but put off
an answer until "later". Now I see that the list is all a-froth - wow!
First off, the microbes on the Surveyor camera were most likely
introduced by the astronauts themselves during handling. The camera
was kep
>Jaffe wrote to the Planetary Society that according to a report from
>somebody on his staff who had witnessed the biological test which
>gave positive results, a "breach of sterile procedure" took place at
>just the right time to produce a false positive result.
>One of the implements being u
Ron Baalke wrote:
>Jaffe wrote to the Planetary Society that according to a report from
>somebody on his staff who had witnessed the biological test which
>gave positive results, a "breach of sterile procedure" took place at
>just the right time to produce a false positive result.
Hello Ro
Hi Darren,
> Personally, I think that the "not mess around" part only really applies
> to worlds that have life (like Earth, for instance). Any dead rocks
> (like probably everything else in the solar system) I think are fair
> game.
But I think the point here is that we don't KNOW that Mars is
> Don't forget the Apollo mission that recovered the camera from the austere
> Surveyor 3 lander,
> after a tough trip and more than 2.5 year vacation on the Moon, in vacuum,
> without any food or water, surviving the conditions of transit and all the
> radiation thrown at them. Perhaps the
Rob M. wrote:
>But I think the point here is that we don't KNOW that Mars is a dead
>planet. Given the tenacity of microbes and the possibility that life
>on earth itself may have been initially delivered by comets or meteoroids,
>is the possibility of (primitive) life on Mars all that hard
17 matches
Mail list logo
