On July 30, 1976, the LR returned its initial results from Mars. Amazingly, they were positive. As the experiment progressed, a total of four positive results, supported by five varied controls, streamed down from the twin Viking spacecraft landed some 4,000 miles apart. The data curves signaled the detection of microbial respiration on the Red Planet. The curves from Mars were similar to those produced by LR tests of soils on Earth. It seemed we had answered that ultimate question.When the Viking Molecular Analysis Experiment failed to detect organic matter, the essence of life, however, NASA concluded that the LR had found a substance mimicking life, but not life. Inexplicably, over the 43 years since Viking, none of NASA’s subsequent Mars landers has carried a life detection instrument to follow up on these exciting results. Instead the agency launched a series of missions to Mars to determine whether there was ever a habitat suitable for life and, if so, eventually to bring samples to Earth for biological examination.
It's not just George, there's a range of us that wants a reconsideration to the labelled release experiment.The current response to The Labeled Release is either in denial or "The world isn't ready to accept that there's life on other planets."That being said, the labelled release experiment does not confirm that there's life on Mars, but it does tell us that introducing urey-miller molecules (as nutrients) to Martian soil results in the release of Carbon dioxide.But there is a problem when we are no longer considering that there's a possibility to life.Ever since then, the missions to Mars have being dominated by geological experiments to find "evidence of past life."Without even thinking that the "evidence of past life" could be indicative of present life. The instruments we send up there often cannot tell at which point life is possible.Instruments that could give better indication of life on Mars have being suggested, but they are often pulled out.(look up Urey: Mars Organic and Oxidant Detector).We could make far more progress in this area if we actually considered instruments that look for evidence of extant life instead of evidence of past life. This means that we should consider biological or biological-related experiments instead of geological experiments.
The ExoMars rover does include experiments to look for life does it not
"The current response to The Labeled Release is either in denial or "The world isn't ready to accept that there's life on other planets.""Or... that soil chemistry is capable of producing the observed result. Until it is clear that soil chemistry alone, without biology, cannot produce the observed result, the assumption that life has been detected is unwarranted. Let's not overlook the little problem of conflict of interest in Levin's position. This is not the same as denial.
Quote from: Star One on 10/25/2019 09:39 pmThe ExoMars rover does include experiments to look for life does it notIt does not. It has a couple of instruments - the Raman Laser Spectrometer and the Organic Molecule Analyzer - that are very sensitive to organic (carbon-bearing) molecules. Both could in theory detect biosignatures, but that is not their primary purpose.
Quote from: Phil Stooke on 10/25/2019 10:04 pm"The current response to The Labeled Release is either in denial or "The world isn't ready to accept that there's life on other planets.""Or... that soil chemistry is capable of producing the observed result. Until it is clear that soil chemistry alone, without biology, cannot produce the observed result, the assumption that life has been detected is unwarranted. Let's not overlook the little problem of conflict of interest in Levin's position. This is not the same as denial.As far as I know, nobody has come up with a non-biological explanation of the results, or duplicated the results in the absence of life. Occam's razor here suggests biology is a stronger answer than chemistry.I have come to believe recently that finding hard evidence of life on some other world won't be as big a deal to the public as is generally thought. Headlines would be headlines for a couple of days and then people would go back to watching the boob tube.
Ghost-like moving lights, resembling will-O’-the-wisps on Earth that are formed by spontaneous ignition of methane, have been video-recorded on the Martian surface
Ah, Levin... last of the Mohicans, really. All the others - Vishniac, Oyama, Horowitz, and Biemann - are long gone. Back in 1974 the National Academies had had a prescient warning "Well, whatif the life seeking instruments give some split results - Oyama, Levin, Horowitz - and then Biemann GCMS fails to find organic molecules in the first place ? how can we justify positive life signs without organic molecules in the first place ?"And... it happened. The three life seeking experiments gave two resounding NO - Horowitz and Oyama. And then Levin found himself very alone when his own gave a YES signal. So they called Biemann, somewhat, to the rescue "Well... how about those organic molecules ?""Well, zippo. Nada. Found nothing"and now they had TWO controversies... "I found life ! " No, you didn't, we didn't ! and by the way, there was organic matter in the first place !" (facepalm) Twenty years of paralysis later, in 1997... and then ten more years, 2008... Phoenix land near the north pole... with a new kind of GCMS... "Hey look, that soil is full of perchlorates !""Perchlorates ? hell, those things destroys organics when heated. Pyrolisis, you know, the way Biemann GCMS searched for them...""Oh god damn it, can you believe what this mean ??!!! Biemann GCMS exactly destroyed what is was supposed to search, and, how surprising, it did not found it..." ..."...and then Horowitz used Biemann negative results to rebuke Levin claims, so the two separated controversies tangled together, with catastrophic results..." "Murphy law, how I hate you."
As far as I know, nobody has come up with a non-biological explanation of the results, or duplicated the results in the absence of life. Occam's razor here suggests biology is a stronger answer than chemistry.
Why We May Have Already Found Life On Mars with Dr Patricia Ann Straat:
QuoteGhost-like moving lights, resembling will-O’-the-wisps on Earth that are formed by spontaneous ignition of methane, have been video-recorded on the Martian surfaceJust read this from George's article.Anyone know which paper or video this is from? (if it exists)
Quote from: Star One on 11/23/2019 07:45 amWhy We May Have Already Found Life On Mars with Dr Patricia Ann Straat:Oh dear. Still pushing the same barrow after so many decades of failure. It's sad really.Regardless of people's take there were only 8 runs of the Viking biology experiments in total. That is an incredibly limited data set.We now know that all the experiments were conceptually flawed in their assumptions.
Quote from: strkiky on 10/26/2019 12:11 pmQuoteGhost-like moving lights, resembling will-O’-the-wisps on Earth that are formed by spontaneous ignition of methane, have been video-recorded on the Martian surfaceJust read this from George's article.Anyone know which paper or video this is from? (if it exists)It's a really dodgy claim, stated without evidence (Nomadd's link does not contain i)t. 1) No video has been obtained from Mars. 2) How can methane spontaneously combust in an atmosphere essentially without oxygen. 3) It's a claim made in a scientific american story, a popular magazine, not a peer reviewed journal.
And now again you’re just trying to pass off a personal opinion as a fact.
1) No video has been obtained from Mars.
2) How can methane spontaneously combust in an atmosphere essentially without oxygen.
3) It's a claim made in a scientific american story, a popular magazine, not a peer reviewed journal.
Quote from: Star One on 01/07/2020 07:06 amAnd now again you’re just trying to pass off a personal opinion as a fact.Um, no. Dalhousie's post was indeed supported by well established facts:Quote from: Dalhousie1) No video has been obtained from Mars.This is a fact, unless you count timelapse, which wouldn't be likely to definitively show the claimed phenomena. MSL is theoretically capable of low frame rate video, but that capability has not be used in any significant way on the surface. Certainly not for atmospheric monitoring. AFAIK no previous mission was capable of frame rates we'd call video at all, except maybe the Phoenix MARDI, which was never used due to fears of triggering a spacecraft fault.Quote from: Dalhousie 2) How can methane spontaneously combust in an atmosphere essentially without oxygen.It's a fact that methane combustion requires an oxidizer, and oxidizers are are in short supply in the martian atmosphere. Quote from: Dalhousie 3) It's a claim made in a scientific american story, a popular magazine, not a peer reviewed journal.Scientific American is, in fact, a popular magazine and not a peer reviewed journal. Moreover, the page containing the claim was a blog post, which frequently have a lower standard of fact checking than articles. This isn't just elitist nitpicking: A scientific article would cite the sources for the various claims, allowing the reader to find and evaluate the underlying research. The blog post does not.I would add that the claim is nonsensical in another way: Even if the supposed phenomena has been observed, it's extremely unlikely any of the instrument suites landed on Mars could definitively attribute it to methane. Certainly timelapse video alone would not support such a definitive conclusion.
Also if someone doesn’t want something to look as if it’s more than just a personal opinion maybe they should have fully supported their statements more, rather than relying on another poster to do this work for them.
This matter could easily be resolved if NASA repeated these or similar experiments on another mission, but hasn’t so I regard the matter as still open.
Quote from: Star One on 01/08/2020 07:39 amAlso if someone doesn’t want something to look as if it’s more than just a personal opinion maybe they should have fully supported their statements more, rather than relying on another poster to do this work for them.I would have thought on this forum the facts that there was no video from Mars and that is not enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support combustion were sufficiently well known to not need elaboration.The fact that Scientific American is a popular magazine not a science journal should be obvious from the content and the front matter.QuoteThis matter could easily be resolved if NASA repeated these or similar experiments on another mission, but hasn’t so I regard the matter as still open.Why has it taken so long is explained by two things. Firstly, the 20 year hiatus in lander missions on Mars. Secondly, there is no point repeating experiments that were known to be flawed and gave obvious results. You need to do different experiments. Specifically testing the primary hypothesis from Viking that the results were from reactive soil chemistry. All the Mars surface missions since then except Schiaparelli have addressed this question in some way.To test this hypothesis this you need to get a better handle on soil physics, chemistry, mineralogy, texture, and reactivity. This has been done: physics - all missions to some degree; chemistry - Pathfinder, Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity; mineralogy - Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity (plus lesser capabilities on Pathfinder, Phoenix); texture - Curiosity, Phoenix (plus lesser capabilities on Spirit, Opportunity); reactivity - Phoenix. ExoMars, the 2020 NASA rover and the Chinese mission will add to all of these except reactivity, assuming they are successful of course.We also need to explore the issue of organic carbon. This has been done by Phoenix and Curiosity. We now know it is there. The 2020 rover and the ExoMars mission will, all being well add to our knowledge in these areas.We now know that perchlorate explains both the soil reactivity, and the low organic content of the soils. We know that the surface of Mars is largely uninhabitable by life as we know it and as we can reasonably imagine. There may be special regions, but these are relatively rare.We now are at a position to have another crack at the question, using new techniques in the possible special regions. But as with Viking it would be a very expensive mission (full cleanliness an sterilisation and the results will probably be ambiguous. It would need multiple missions to test the results.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 01/09/2020 12:20 amQuote from: Star One on 01/08/2020 07:39 amAlso if someone doesn’t want something to look as if it’s more than just a personal opinion maybe they should have fully supported their statements more, rather than relying on another poster to do this work for them.I would have thought on this forum the facts that there was no video from Mars and that is not enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support combustion were sufficiently well known to not need elaboration.The fact that Scientific American is a popular magazine not a science journal should be obvious from the content and the front matter.QuoteThis matter could easily be resolved if NASA repeated these or similar experiments on another mission, but hasn’t so I regard the matter as still open.Why has it taken so long is explained by two things. Firstly, the 20 year hiatus in lander missions on Mars. Secondly, there is no point repeating experiments that were known to be flawed and gave obvious results. You need to do different experiments. Specifically testing the primary hypothesis from Viking that the results were from reactive soil chemistry. All the Mars surface missions since then except Schiaparelli have addressed this question in some way.To test this hypothesis this you need to get a better handle on soil physics, chemistry, mineralogy, texture, and reactivity. This has been done: physics - all missions to some degree; chemistry - Pathfinder, Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity; mineralogy - Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity (plus lesser capabilities on Pathfinder, Phoenix); texture - Curiosity, Phoenix (plus lesser capabilities on Spirit, Opportunity); reactivity - Phoenix. ExoMars, the 2020 NASA rover and the Chinese mission will add to all of these except reactivity, assuming they are successful of course.We also need to explore the issue of organic carbon. This has been done by Phoenix and Curiosity. We now know it is there. The 2020 rover and the ExoMars mission will, all being well add to our knowledge in these areas.We now know that perchlorate explains both the soil reactivity, and the low organic content of the soils. We know that the surface of Mars is largely uninhabitable by life as we know it and as we can reasonably imagine. There may be special regions, but these are relatively rare.We now are at a position to have another crack at the question, using new techniques in the possible special regions. But as with Viking it would be a very expensive mission (full cleanliness an sterilisation and the results will probably be ambiguous. It would need multiple missions to test the results.This is all true but I’d argue that ESA seem to have a somewhat different attitude and or approach to answering this question than NASA. In that they’ve prioritised looking for the possibility of life now on their first rover mission. Which is rather different than looking at the past habitability of Mars which has been NASA’s focus I’d think I would be right in saying.
Quote from: Star One on 01/10/2020 03:55 pmQuote from: Dalhousie on 01/09/2020 12:20 amQuote from: Star One on 01/08/2020 07:39 amAlso if someone doesn’t want something to look as if it’s more than just a personal opinion maybe they should have fully supported their statements more, rather than relying on another poster to do this work for them.I would have thought on this forum the facts that there was no video from Mars and that is not enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support combustion were sufficiently well known to not need elaboration.The fact that Scientific American is a popular magazine not a science journal should be obvious from the content and the front matter.QuoteThis matter could easily be resolved if NASA repeated these or similar experiments on another mission, but hasn’t so I regard the matter as still open.Why has it taken so long is explained by two things. Firstly, the 20 year hiatus in lander missions on Mars. Secondly, there is no point repeating experiments that were known to be flawed and gave obvious results. You need to do different experiments. Specifically testing the primary hypothesis from Viking that the results were from reactive soil chemistry. All the Mars surface missions since then except Schiaparelli have addressed this question in some way.To test this hypothesis this you need to get a better handle on soil physics, chemistry, mineralogy, texture, and reactivity. This has been done: physics - all missions to some degree; chemistry - Pathfinder, Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity; mineralogy - Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity (plus lesser capabilities on Pathfinder, Phoenix); texture - Curiosity, Phoenix (plus lesser capabilities on Spirit, Opportunity); reactivity - Phoenix. ExoMars, the 2020 NASA rover and the Chinese mission will add to all of these except reactivity, assuming they are successful of course.We also need to explore the issue of organic carbon. This has been done by Phoenix and Curiosity. We now know it is there. The 2020 rover and the ExoMars mission will, all being well add to our knowledge in these areas.We now know that perchlorate explains both the soil reactivity, and the low organic content of the soils. We know that the surface of Mars is largely uninhabitable by life as we know it and as we can reasonably imagine. There may be special regions, but these are relatively rare.We now are at a position to have another crack at the question, using new techniques in the possible special regions. But as with Viking it would be a very expensive mission (full cleanliness an sterilisation and the results will probably be ambiguous. It would need multiple missions to test the results.This is all true but I’d argue that ESA seem to have a somewhat different attitude and or approach to answering this question than NASA. In that they’ve prioritised looking for the possibility of life now on their first rover mission. Which is rather different than looking at the past habitability of Mars which has been NASA’s focus I’d think I would be right in saying.The Rosalind rover carrieds a laser Raman spectrometer and a gas chromatograph and mass spectrometer (MOMA) to detect organics. It will not detect "life" as such, but characterise the organic molecules to an u preceden degree (we hope). It essentially is a modern version of the GCMS on Viking but uses Laser Desorption Mass Spectrometry to liberate the organics, circumventing the issue of thermal decomposition causing reactions between perchlorate and organics.
The experiment was poorly designed. That is why it failed. Technically it was a null result
Are viruses alive?Moves from asking that to how do we define life, to looking for life on other planets via the inconclusive life results of the Viking missions. Talks of how maybe if that experiment had been looking for different things it may have got a more definitive result. I presume they mean the experiment was flawed in that the conception of what is life as defined is arguably flawed as well.
The unsatisfying thing about the Viking labeled release experiments is that no one (to my knowledge) has repeated the results from Mars here on Earth to show the Mars results are possible with chemistry.
Quote from: matthewkantar on 05/24/2021 01:50 amThe unsatisfying thing about the Viking labeled release experiments is that no one (to my knowledge) has repeated the results from Mars here on Earth to show the Mars results are possible with chemistry.But Phoenix found perchlorates in the soil, and it was realized that, when heating a sample (as done by some Viking experiments) perchlorates would destroy organic matter. MSL and others re-did the search for organic matter without heating the soil - and organic matter was found. The results of Viking went this way Horowitz: NEGATIVE (no lifeforms) Oyama: NEGATIVE (no lifeforms) Levin (labeled release discussed here) : POSITIVE...Biemann: NEGATIVE (no organic matter - that experiment did not looked for lifeforms) While the search for life results were puzzling and deeply split the group of three, the really disturbing controversy that piled up on top was that no organic matter could be found. And then the worst happened: the two controversies mixed into a larger one. From my understanding, Horowitz somewhat used the lack of organic matter to shut Levin for good; and this enraged Levin and his supporters who in turn never gave up, and that's why we have this thread even 45 years later. On the Biemann front - where is my organic matter ? - Phoenix in 2008 brought a puzzling answer.
Technical overview of the Viking experiments. Apparently three of the four experiments have now had their results moved into the inconclusive bucket. Shame that Viking put NASA off from any attempt at further direct detections of life.
From a scientific standpoint, they made absolutely zero sense (not lookig for life, but how the Viking experiments were done). These were almost PR stunts.No one knows what was reacting or why. They knew nothing about the substrate. Anyone who reasonably questioned the experiment with only the knowledge of the time would be able to say they weren't very sound experiments. And thats WELL before you get into the actual microbiological aspect of the entire thing. The experiment basically assumed there was a gigantic population of healithy dormant microbes just waiting to have sugar water dumped on them.
Everyone knew mars was a dead planet WELL before viking. We found that out in the early 60s.Otherwise, I invite the board experts (jim, emmetvonbrown and others) here to explain why these were "good science". I know your more comfortable just lobbing insults and disagreements and never backing anything up. Super easy to.
I remember Bruce Murray stating in his book that some planetary scientists preferred a much better understanding of Martian geology and atmosphere before performing in-situ life detection experiments.Carl Sagan: Part of the solution? Or part of the problem?My opinion: Both. 🤔🙄🫡
<snip>A better strategy would have been to start with a basic, chemistry focused lander. Then follow that up with a more elaborate lander a decade later which would build on the results of the first and do biological experiments.
Well NASA/JPL got sidetracked with a series of rovers that is mostly for optical and spot surface geology investigations away from a static site.......Hopefully in the future there will be bigger Martian landers that can deploy larger rovers capable of more investigations in chemistry and biochemistry deep beneath the Martian surface.
Our understanding of organic matter on Mars has evolved from presumed ‘missing organic molecules’ based on Viking data to a robust library of organic molecules detected over the last decade by the SAM (Sample Analysis at Mars) instrument suite onboard the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover ........MSL detections of organics in Gale crater mudstone and sandstones include chlorohydrocarbons up to 300 ppbw; small aliphatic, aromatic, and, sulfur-containing compounds (at 0.1-10 ppmw detections) potentially originating from macromolecular organics and long-chain alkanes from C10 to C12. Total abundance of C is likely higher than individual molecular detections and on the order of 100’s of ppmw. The recent TMAH wet chemistry experiment liberated macromolecular organics, resulting in the detection of one to two-ring aromatic compounds, benzoic acid methyl ester, and benzothiophene. All these detections confirmed the presence of organics in the Martian subsurface, despite exposure to ionizing radiation for at least 80 My...
I think the biology experiments on Viking were over ambitious for their time. Several mistakes were made.
1/ They lacked a foundation of understanding of the chemistry of the surface, which they needed to design life detection experiments. They did not know how abundant organics were on Mars, or if that abundance increased with depth. They did not know how easy the surface material would be to dig and collect samples from. They did not know how the soil would react to being wetted. They didn't know what the soluble components were, and what types of solutions would form when water was in contact with the soil. They should have started with a smaller, cheaper lander which was focused on understanding the chemistry. The first experiments should have been a GCMS and a wet chemistry experiment similar to what flew on the Phoenix lander. That was the experiment which discovered the perchlorate.
Well NASA/JPL got sidetracked with a series of rovers that is mostly for optical and spot surface geology investigations away from a static site.
Also the lander and/or rover that lands on Mars retains the limitations of the Viking EDL (entry, descend & landing) method in payload mass & volume available. Which make chemistry investigations harder and more expensive. AIUI NASA is still using the same Mars EDL method for future Martian landers and/or rovers. That means getting core samples no deeper than a few cm below the Martian surface.
Hopefully in the future there will be bigger Martian landers that can deploy larger rovers capable of more investigations in chemistry and biochemistry deep beneath the Martian surface.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 10/21/2023 10:56 amWell NASA/JPL got sidetracked with a series of rovers that is mostly for optical and spot surface geology investigations away from a static site.I don't think rovers were a side-track. Even during Viking people saw the need for mobility as landers always come down somewhere safe (i.e. boring), away from the best features. Viking showed the need for better understanding of the martian surface, those rovers have done that.QuoteAlso the lander and/or rover that lands on Mars retains the limitations of the Viking EDL (entry, descend & landing) method in payload mass & volume available. Which make chemistry investigations harder and more expensive. AIUI NASA is still using the same Mars EDL method for future Martian landers and/or rovers. That means getting core samples no deeper than a few cm below the Martian surface. EDL technology limits do not preclude fairly sophisticated onboard analysis, as shown by Viking (the like experiments, XRF, GCMS), Phoenix (MECA, TEGA), Curiosity (SAM), and Rosalind (Pasteur). It does preclude the number of such instruments that can be carried, however. It does not preclude drilling either, witness Rosalind's 2 m drill.QuoteHopefully in the future there will be bigger Martian landers that can deploy larger rovers capable of more investigations in chemistry and biochemistry deep beneath the Martian surface. Maybe, though remember that costs tend to go up exponentially with size, the great the complexity of the instruments and the sample preparation the greater the chance of things going wrong, as we have seen with Viking, Phoenix, and Insight.
IMO. The historical Mars rover series was a sidetrack for biochemistry investigations until the Curiosity rover.
As for the Rosalind 2 m drill. AIUI that was with the Roselind aboard a Russian lander. Can ESA still put a 2 m drill with Rosalind rover landing aboard a NASA lander?
Also a big rover might be able to deploy a core drilling rig that can get samples from 5 meters beneath the Martian surface
Some sort of wet soil chemistry lab might have been possible on Viking, and at the expense of other instruments. Which would you throw out? I don't think that sort of very detailed soil behaviour analysis would have been deemed appropriate for initial missions, even if the technology was available.
Understanding the types of solutions formed when water comes into contact with Martian soil is fundamental to interpreting the results of any experiment that involves wet processing. It also has biological implications. Biochemistry always happens in aqueous solution and pH and solute concentration are really important to biology. There are reasons why acid curdles milk, why salt is added to food to preserve it, or why domestic bleach (sodium hypochlorite dissolved in water) kills microbes. If Martian soil formed very acidic/alkaline solutions, or solutions containing powerful oxidizing agents, then that would affect both chemistry and biochemistry.The gas exchange experiment on Viking showed that Martian soil releases oxygen when exposed to water vapor. I don't think they have ever explained that result. I suppose the current strategy to follow up on that result is to return a sample.
What is interesting too is Biemann take on the matter - in 1978 and near the end of his life: since he lived long enough to heard about that perchlorate thing : he died in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_BiemannWhen he made his conclusions in 1978 he wasn't that far off the mark (with 20/20, 100% hindsight of course !). I mean, he had the correct intuition: that some solvant inside his instrument ovens had destroyed the organics when actually looking at them - and quite logically brought a negative result. He just got the "hot solvant" wrong. He suggested it was NASA chemicals used to sterilize the ovens. Not quite: it was from Mars itself: perchlorates... Biemann himself had a interesting debate with other scientists, related to perchlorates and his instrument. Must have been fascinating to get new results after 30 years (1978 - 2008) but also perhaps a little painful. https://www.google.com/search?q="klaus+biemann""perchlorates"[zubenelgenubi: Wow! Very overly-long search thread truncated.]
What I have wondered about on recent Mars probes is why don't they put a microscope on board that could see a microbe in the samples collected. There are desktop electron microscopes available that could do the job. Do they draw too much power to be carried onboard? Can they not be miniaturized enough? Would it be too difficult to prepare a sample for viewing? I am just curious if anyone knows the answer.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 02/08/2024 07:40 amWhat I have wondered about on recent Mars probes is why don't they put a microscope on board that could see a microbe in the samples collected. There are desktop electron microscopes available that could do the job. Do they draw too much power to be carried onboard? Can they not be miniaturized enough? Would it be too difficult to prepare a sample for viewing? I am just curious if anyone knows the answer.Several Mars probes have had microscopes. The Phoenix lander had two microscopes, an optical one and an atomic force microscope. Spirit and Opportunity both had microscopic imagers. Curiosity's MAHLI has a maximum resolution of 14 microns per pixel. Perseverance's SHERLOC has a context camera with a maximum resolution of 10 microns per pixel.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 02/08/2024 03:30 pmQuote from: Eric Hedman on 02/08/2024 07:40 amWhat I have wondered about on recent Mars probes is why don't they put a microscope on board that could see a microbe in the samples collected. There are desktop electron microscopes available that could do the job. Do they draw too much power to be carried onboard? Can they not be miniaturized enough? Would it be too difficult to prepare a sample for viewing? I am just curious if anyone knows the answer.Several Mars probes have had microscopes. The Phoenix lander had two microscopes, an optical one and an atomic force microscope. Spirit and Opportunity both had microscopic imagers. Curiosity's MAHLI has a maximum resolution of 14 microns per pixel. Perseverance's SHERLOC has a context camera with a maximum resolution of 10 microns per pixel.Is it safe to assume that none of these have imaged anything that looks like a microbe on Mars?