Is Pheonix blowing it|?

So far, Phoenix is analyzing very tiny amounts of Mars' surface material. I question that such minue amounts can accurately evaluate the existence of life, prior or present. If one were to take a similarly sized random sample from, say, the sand dunes of the Sahara here on Earth, it is more than possible no evidence of life would be found!

OC; I am beginning to concur with your point on Phoenix. If the ice is too hard to sample this may turn out to be a mission with little value.

Hi ben,
My it is not like you to be pessimistic. They have now rasped the ice and proven the technique to get a sample in the scoop. They have opened the doors which they said they would do 2 days before taking the real sample. All is on track and in the hands of true professionals. Don't be be

I don't think this is pure water ice, rather it would probably be a permafrost combination of as yet unknown material. (ice, salts, dust and who knows what else). We don't even know how the ice was laid down. Atmospheric deposition in the past, runoff, frozen water table?

A small sample is just as good as a large sample to detect organic traces. And I would stress the organics rather than life. ie Methane is a simple organic compound but does not require biology. The TEGA and Mass Spectrometer in combination are a clever design. The temperature of the sample can be correlated to the volatile release to aid in identification and the MS can measure the isotope ratios of C, N, O, H, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe. You may have already seen the link below. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/1780.pdf

The wet chemistry lab has already provided a wealth of data on the soil If knowledge is considered important then the mission has already been of great value.

Brian; Anyone can have a bad day. Thanks you cheered me up!!!

"The wet chemistry lab has already provided a wealth of data on the soil"

Can you share some of the Knowledge Brian?

Mann,

Try reading this

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-121

I appreciate that this is only a tantalising taste. But you cannot expect them to release all the detail of hard won science data until they have had time to analyse the results and write (hopefully) erudite, peer reviewed papers.

This is the same policy followed by the Rovers. Release raw jpeg but save the science data until they are ready to publish. And the outcomes of this approach were absolutely outstanding, epitomised by the Mclennan and Grotzinger papers on the geochemistry and provenance of Eagle and Endurance.

And the determination of the ph of the soil is a huge result, being a key data point in validating the explanation for the Viking results.

Brian

I'm beginning to conclude that you view Official results through a tunnel and with glasses that totally filter out alternative possibilities to the explanations proffered by officialdom.

The determination of the pH of the soil at one point at the Phoenix site is not an overwhelming or even a "key" point in validating the superoxides explanation for the viking results. It could only be so if they have also found significant amounts of ferrate ions. It could only be so if they also found direct evidence of other superoxides. It is merely one simple data point that, if associated with other confirmatory points, could assist in validating the very theoretical and biased viking results explanations.

I also think that the McClennan and Grotzinger paper, even though an excellent one, may eventually be found wanting in the theory it proposes for the existence of the meridiani berries.

I agree with you that we will have to wait until the team has thoroughly examined the data developed by phoenix to get past the tantalising taste but why do you think that those snippets thrown out are totally representative of the whole? It has been reported that one Team member was in ecstacy as the pH data was unravelled. He was obviously a rooter for the superoxides theory but the benign soil theory was the one that came out.

It is still possible that the benign nature of the soil which is a huge data point for the bio alternative is also a huge data point for negation of the superoxides "theory".

I would suspect that Mann had already read your reference above and concluded despite it that the data available to us from the WCL was inadequate to back up your points.

However, having said all of that, I agree that Phoenix although it looks like it, is not blowing it. I think it has a quite good chance of providing mars-paradigm-shattering information if the remaining TECP, TEGA and MECA tests are successfully concluded in an expanded mission, which I think is very much on the cards.

Winston

Winston,
If the soil was not alkalyne then the superoxides explanation for the viking results would be false. So by defenition it is a key validation point. A yes/no branch in a logic path.

The quote from the release 'We are awash in chemistry data' is the key indicator that they have the data to analyse. Thus the mission to my mind is successful.

Also I do not equate Cornell and other institutions scientists, geologists and other researchers with some kind of US government officialdom that has a fixation on a sterile Mars. That isd a statement more worthy of the Hoaxland site. As far as I can see they review all possibilities, including biology in analysing results. In fact there have been contentious releases such as the martian meteorite suggesting life on Mars that have caused some embarrasment.

I am not sure what the mars-paradigm that will be shattered is?

Hi Brian

The superoxides theory has been promoted as being true for the whole of Mars. But would you consider that, given the chemical species found at Meridiani and their abundances, that the soil there could have been anything other than acid even though the rovers had no means to test this. So would you say that there is a possibility that at meridiani the superoxides theory is likely to be wrong.

Re. Phoenix, You are partially right in that if the soil sample was not alkaline the superoxides explanation could be invalidated for that case alone.

However, I don't think that anyone would suggest that if the soil were not alkaline the biological explanation for the Viking result would therefore be true.

There are therefore too many other factors related to this question to segregate pH alone as a key factor.

Therein lies the rub. Too many people jumped on the bandwagon and, instead of saying that the superoxide theory still lives, claimed that the superoxides theory was proven because of this one solitary data point that might not even hold up in the next sample. Remember that the phoenix MECA sample was only moderately alkaline with a ph of between 8 and 9 on a log scale of 1-14. In fact, I would bet that the pH was nearer to 8 than 9 as they would have said almost 9 if it were close to 9.

Re. the mindset of the researchers on these geology missions. They are good Researchers all who steadfastly seek to validate the current paradigm.

The paradigm is the impossibility of life near the surface. Phoenix was not equipped to look for life. Indeed there appears to be somewhat of an embargo on life seeking experiments since Viking. But If the results from the various instruments show that;
1) There is again no hint of superoxides in the soil
2) The soil has no intrinsic characteristics that would preclude life taking hold there.
3) The soil, in the MECA tests, look and have the chemical characteristics of a real soil and not a sterile regolith as is suggested by the images and the reported cohesivity
4) The OM, and perhaps the AFM also, show up some particles that are difficult to characterise as definitely derived purely from sterile regolith making processes and could just be biological
5) The TEGA finds some Organics
6) The TECP finds a water cycle in the arctic

It would be the start of the breaking up of the current paradigm.

I expect that some of these things will be found and not others but I think in the end the current paradigm will fall.

Winston

Hi LWS.
Please don't confuse my preference for scientific analysis with any wish not to find evidence of life on Mars. Quite the opposite in fact. I don't think there is anyone (well stand fast religious fanatisism) who would not be delighted to find evidence of life having started on Mars.

As you say, all involved (and they cover a number of countries, institutions and fields) are good Researchers. But I don't think they are steadfastly seeking to validate the current paradigm. Rather they are carefully analysing data and then publishing the results, using the peer validated findings to modify the Mars model. This is quite unlike the (for instance) Mark Levin approach of claiming water puddles based on hasty and poor, out of context analysis.

The basaltic component in the soil, regolith whatever we call it would tend to buffer, but that does not mean that there were not significant periods of acidicity. The evidence of huge volcanic events would in fact dictate highly acid water events despite this buffering effect.

The argument against the Viking experiment being due to biology has nothing to do with the superoxide theory. This arose as the explanation for the anomalous Viking results. A biological cause just did not hold. I posted this logic previously:
1. If A (bio experiments positive) and B (control confirms)then C (biology).
2. If A and Not B then not C.
3. If A and Not B and Not D (GCMS confirms) then definitely not C.

2 and 3 resulted. 1 did not.

Even Dr Levin, who at the time of the landing was contracted to NASA as a team member for the experiment, did not particularly profess a biological explanation until his involment in the book published in the late 90's.

True science involves establishing a model that best explains the available data, and then modifying this model to reflect changes from additional data. This evolving model is the Mars paradigm although Thomas Khun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
proposed that a scientific paradigm addresses what is to be investigated, the questions to be asked with respect to the investigation, how the investigation is to be structured and how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.

Keep the faith Winston. I myself doubt that organics will be found in the top layer of soil. But the ice? Now that is another matter.

Re your #9 above.

Thanks!!

Re. your equation above

Agreed prior criteria showed; A and B therefore C
GCMS was defective therefore its results should be thrown out.

We could argue about this for ever so Let's agree to disagree.

I neglected to add in my reply #8 above that the case against a Biological explanation of the LR results would be significantly strengthened if Phoenix

1) provides irrefutable evidence that there are no Organics
2) No particles that could be of bio-origin are found by the OM and AFM
3) Superoxides are found
4) The TECP provides no indication of a water cycle in the soil near the surface

I anxiously await the results.

Winston

they dont want to find any proof of previous life form because they will find our ancestors. this will destroy religion s strangle hold on society. God forbid (pun intended).

MSR; I think it will take a lot more than that to destroy religion.
Humans unfortunately,seem to need something greater than themselves in order to function.

I need the truth to function as a human. without it i would just be an aimless pilgrim. probably like yourself. now that would be worth suicide. unfortunately it seems as though you are giving humans more credit than they are worth. You keep following buddy, and ill keep discovering.

Ben,

Yes, yes indeed.

Fred