<p>I'm basing this answer off an article: <em>Kevin Lepot, Karim Benzerara, Gordon E. Brown Jr., Pascal Philippot (2008). 'Microbially influenced formation of 2.7 billion-year-old stromatolites'. Nature Geoscience Vol.1 No.2, pp.118–121</em>. DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo107" rel="nofollow">http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo107</a></p>

<p>Instruments that are desirable (and are actually used) to study stromatolites/freshwater microbialites:</p>

<ul>
<li>Raman microspectroscope</li>
<li>Confocal laser scanning microscope</li>
<li>Scanning transmission X-ray microscope</li>
<li>Transmission electron microscope (TEM), including high-resolution TEM</li>
<li>Near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscope</li>
<li>The usual sets of fine analytical chemistry and microcutting tools</li>
</ul>

<p>As you might suspect, this may require rather massive, power-hungry and bulky rovers. There is a solution and it's called <strong>sample return</strong>. Although the tools and instruments are constantly evolving and undergoing miniaturization, a skilled and attentive lab researcher will find out more back here on Earth than a rover on Mars.</p>

<p>Another consideration in favor of sample return is the verifiability of possibly sensational results - the sample will be curated and subdivided between universities and labs worldwide, applying diverse techniques and not relying on a single set of ultra-costly but possibly systematically biased hardware.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-14T19:30:58.507Z
Thanks for including the reference, unfortunately that uri is unavailable (both here and on Wikipedia.)
Mark Rovetta
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-14T19:36:54.637Z
I understand how SEM and TEM could provide morphological evidence for a biological origin, but what features would we look for? I don't see how Raman or X-ray spectroscopy would be applicable - are you suggesting it might show evidence of organic material?
Mark Rovetta
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-14T19:41:25.513Z
I take your answer as: "sample return." Which is reasonable, if also a bit disappointing. I'm marking this as answered.
Mark Rovetta
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-15T02:39:03.633Z
@MarkRovetta - the article looks for nanoscale structures, hence the choice of instruments. It *is* possible to pack a robotic lab on a Mars lander (6-7 metric tonnes).
Deer Hunter
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-10T06:30:51.620Z
2014-07-10T06:30:51.620Z
Deer Hunter
<p>I recently read of a company in Canada using <a href="http://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news/255397371.html">robotic technology</a> to <a href="http://www.pavilionlake.com/">study freshwater microbialites</a>. Their claim is that greater understanding of terrestrial microbialites could help in the search for extraterrestrial microbialite fossils (if they exist) on Mars.</p>

<p>If a rover encountered a microbialite fossil on Mars, how would it identify the rock as being a fossil?</p>

<paleontology><fossils><astrobiology><planetology>
How would a Mars rover identify a microbialite fossil?
Mark Rovetta
# How would a Mars rover identify a microbialite fossil?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-05-09)

I recently read of a company in Canada using [robotic technology](http://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news/255397371.html) to [study freshwater microbialites](http://www.pavilionlake.com/). Their claim is that greater understanding of terrestrial microbialites could help in the search for extraterrestrial microbialite fossils (if they exist) on Mars.

If a rover encountered a microbialite fossil on Mars, how would it identify the rock as being a fossil?

**Tags:** paleontology, fossils, astrobiology, planetology


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-07-10. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

I'm basing this answer off an article: *Kevin Lepot, Karim Benzerara, Gordon E. Brown Jr., Pascal Philippot (2008). 'Microbially influenced formation of 2.7 billion-year-old stromatolites'. Nature Geoscience Vol.1 No.2, pp.118–121*. DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo107>

Instruments that are desirable (and are actually used) to study stromatolites/freshwater microbialites:

* Raman microspectroscope
* Confocal laser scanning microscope
* Scanning transmission X-ray microscope
* Transmission electron microscope (TEM), including high-resolution TEM
* Near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscope
* The usual sets of fine analytical chemistry and microcutting tools

As you might suspect, this may require rather massive, power-hungry and bulky rovers. There is a solution and it's called **sample return**. Although the tools and instruments are constantly evolving and undergoing miniaturization, a skilled and attentive lab researcher will find out more back here on Earth than a rover on Mars.

Another consideration in favor of sample return is the verifiability of possibly sensational results - the sample will be curated and subdivided between universities and labs worldwide, applying diverse techniques and not relying on a single set of ultra-costly but possibly systematically biased hardware.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for including the reference, unfortunately that uri is unavailable (both here and on Wikipedia.)  
> **username_0**: I understand how SEM and TEM could provide morphological evidence for a biological origin, but what features would we look for? I don't see how Raman or X-ray spectroscopy would be applicable - are you suggesting it might show evidence of organic material?  
> **username_0**: I take your answer as: "sample return." Which is reasonable, if also a bit disappointing. I'm marking this as answered.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 - the article looks for nanoscale structures, hence the choice of instruments. It *is* possible to pack a robotic lab on a Mars lander (6-7 metric tonnes).  

---

