The article is good but the title is a bit too slippery a statement in my opinion. The article is saying more evidence is consistent with possible ancient life on Mars. In astrobiology the massive problem is that geology can imitate biology. The presences of minerals formed by microbes on Earth does not prove microbes are involved in their production on Mars, it is a big jump to make.
Tangential, but really looking forward to what Europa Clipper[0] finds in its flybys.
The delay in communication makes ambitious manoeuvres challenging - perhaps advances in AI (and by extension robotics) helps build much more autonomous space rovers. This could enable us, for example, to evaluate the samples by sending wet microscopes with the rover itself.
I am not an astrophysicist, but I have read that the thick layer of ice is supposed to protect the miles-deep ocean against radiation, which might harbour life.
Viking 1 & 2 returned positive results in the seventies but these have been played down or hand waved. I think there is good evidence of microbial life in the soil or underground. We should be wary of bringing Martian microbes back to Earth, because they may find our environment too hospitable and end up invasive species.
Mineral that can be only formed by life, or under special conditions when water flows over rock, has been found on Mars, where water had been known to flow over rock.
NASA doesn't want to find life on Mars. They want to find evidence, so that the next probe can be more complex and more expensive than the previous one.
NASA will never send wet microscope to Mars, you know, the kind you used in school to show bacteria in dirty water. As that would instantly prove life on Mars and make ever more expensive probes hard to justify.
I’m curious why you seem to believe that all exploration of Mars would cease as soon as life is discovered there? It would be one of the biggest scientific discoveries of all time and would open up a huge number of possible future missions, for the next few centuries at least. It would also make for good justification for missions to other worlds that could harbor life.
I think the opposite - unless the discovery of life was preceeded or coincidental with the discovery of some other hyper interesting thing (for example, if Martian life has some sort of utility for medicine, maybe) then I think that would be that for Mars exploration missions. Of course there would be many announcements and excited political agreements around "continuing to explore the new frontier" but I think that no more money would appear.
I suspect that NASA knows this full well, as do Mars scientists, and I suspect that they are being very careful to make sure that definitive proof does not appear until they understand all sorts of other stuff about the planet.
But why? Why would there be no money for that but there’s money now when there’s no conclusive evidence of life, past or present, on Mars? It makes no sense.
This is an odd comment. Any scientist or scientific organisation would love to be the first to discover life on another planet. It would catapult that organisation and individuals involved to legendary status with their discoveries being counted amongst the greatest of humankind. It would be an epoch defining moment. Funding for their work and personal riches would pour in. There would be movies made about it. Their names would be remembered thousands of years into the future.
To imply there would be a conspiracy to cover up such discoveries because you think the opposite would happen is such an odd way to think about things.
Do you really think that all the scientists view NASA as a make work program? That so many people spent years in schools getting advanced degrees and there is no one there who wants to make the most significant discovery in the history of humanity? That nobody wants the instant Nobel prize?
It also doesn't make sense from any kind of financial perspective. The budget for NASA would explode for all kinds of missions. They would have free reign to go wherever and do anything.
The discovery team would instantly create brand new fields of study and career paths, and anyone on the team that discovered life would become experts in the field with unlimited investment opportunities to continue their research.
Sending a microscope is easier said than done. Many natural structures can look like bacteria, and vice versa. If there's more complex single celled life then we might see stuff swimming around but that's considered unlikely close to the surface where there's a decent amount of solar and cosmic radiation. If complex life does exist it's probably deep underground or in caves and lava tubes where we can't reach it yet.
The other reason is planetary protection. The best places to send a microscope are low lying areas where there may be brines near the surface. Those specific areas have been designated high on the list of protection sites. Earth microbes are really resilient, so even with intense sterilization procedures we can't be 100% sure. We don't want to contaminate the most valuable scientific find ever, and so we're approaching it carefully.
But I think the first reason I gave is the most significant one. It's technically pretty hard and not definitive. The surface of Mars is probably mostly sterile even if there is life. If it survives, it's probably underground.
I also disagree that NASA would not want to find life. If anything, finding life would make their budget explode. They could suddenly make a strong case for a Europa submersible, a submarine to visit Titan's methane lakes, huge space-based SETI radio telescope arrays, huge space telescopes to try to find more exoplanets and characterize their atmospheres, all kinds of things, since we'd know for a fact there's life out there.
If life emerged in two places in one solar system, we'd know that the universe is teeming with it. Maybe not complex intelligent life -- there's still reasons to think Earth may be kind of special for that. But life, certainly.
The article is good but the title is a bit too slippery a statement in my opinion. The article is saying more evidence is consistent with possible ancient life on Mars. In astrobiology the massive problem is that geology can imitate biology. The presences of minerals formed by microbes on Earth does not prove microbes are involved in their production on Mars, it is a big jump to make.
Tangential, but really looking forward to what Europa Clipper[0] finds in its flybys.
The delay in communication makes ambitious manoeuvres challenging - perhaps advances in AI (and by extension robotics) helps build much more autonomous space rovers. This could enable us, for example, to evaluate the samples by sending wet microscopes with the rover itself.
[0]: https://science.nasa.gov/mission/europa-clipper/
Too much radiation for anything close to Jupiter. You will find life on Venus clouds and in Titan....
Everybody looking at the wrong targets. Mars is a dead, radiation cooked, burned, poisonous place. Forget about it, leave it to the trillionaires.
I am not an astrophysicist, but I have read that the thick layer of ice is supposed to protect the miles-deep ocean against radiation, which might harbour life.
> Too much radiation for anything close to Jupiter.
Europa's water is an excellent radiation shield.
Viking 1 & 2 returned positive results in the seventies but these have been played down or hand waved. I think there is good evidence of microbial life in the soil or underground. We should be wary of bringing Martian microbes back to Earth, because they may find our environment too hospitable and end up invasive species.
Mineral that can be only formed by life, or under special conditions when water flows over rock, has been found on Mars, where water had been known to flow over rock.
NASA doesn't want to find life on Mars. They want to find evidence, so that the next probe can be more complex and more expensive than the previous one.
NASA will never send wet microscope to Mars, you know, the kind you used in school to show bacteria in dirty water. As that would instantly prove life on Mars and make ever more expensive probes hard to justify.
I’m curious why you seem to believe that all exploration of Mars would cease as soon as life is discovered there? It would be one of the biggest scientific discoveries of all time and would open up a huge number of possible future missions, for the next few centuries at least. It would also make for good justification for missions to other worlds that could harbor life.
Scientists can string out things. It is a means of securing funding for long periods.
I think there has been evidence of life in the Venusian atmosphere since the 80s and on/in Mars since the 70s.
If they found actual life on Mars the NASA budget would multiply many times, so I don't understand your thinking.
I think the opposite - unless the discovery of life was preceeded or coincidental with the discovery of some other hyper interesting thing (for example, if Martian life has some sort of utility for medicine, maybe) then I think that would be that for Mars exploration missions. Of course there would be many announcements and excited political agreements around "continuing to explore the new frontier" but I think that no more money would appear.
I suspect that NASA knows this full well, as do Mars scientists, and I suspect that they are being very careful to make sure that definitive proof does not appear until they understand all sorts of other stuff about the planet.
But why? Why would there be no money for that but there’s money now when there’s no conclusive evidence of life, past or present, on Mars? It makes no sense.
This is an odd comment. Any scientist or scientific organisation would love to be the first to discover life on another planet. It would catapult that organisation and individuals involved to legendary status with their discoveries being counted amongst the greatest of humankind. It would be an epoch defining moment. Funding for their work and personal riches would pour in. There would be movies made about it. Their names would be remembered thousands of years into the future.
To imply there would be a conspiracy to cover up such discoveries because you think the opposite would happen is such an odd way to think about things.
Do you really think that all the scientists view NASA as a make work program? That so many people spent years in schools getting advanced degrees and there is no one there who wants to make the most significant discovery in the history of humanity? That nobody wants the instant Nobel prize?
It also doesn't make sense from any kind of financial perspective. The budget for NASA would explode for all kinds of missions. They would have free reign to go wherever and do anything.
The discovery team would instantly create brand new fields of study and career paths, and anyone on the team that discovered life would become experts in the field with unlimited investment opportunities to continue their research.
A little far-fetched..?
What mineral can only be formed by life?
You know what they say, sufficiently advanced geological process is indistinguishable from life.
Sending a microscope is easier said than done. Many natural structures can look like bacteria, and vice versa. If there's more complex single celled life then we might see stuff swimming around but that's considered unlikely close to the surface where there's a decent amount of solar and cosmic radiation. If complex life does exist it's probably deep underground or in caves and lava tubes where we can't reach it yet.
The other reason is planetary protection. The best places to send a microscope are low lying areas where there may be brines near the surface. Those specific areas have been designated high on the list of protection sites. Earth microbes are really resilient, so even with intense sterilization procedures we can't be 100% sure. We don't want to contaminate the most valuable scientific find ever, and so we're approaching it carefully.
But I think the first reason I gave is the most significant one. It's technically pretty hard and not definitive. The surface of Mars is probably mostly sterile even if there is life. If it survives, it's probably underground.
I also disagree that NASA would not want to find life. If anything, finding life would make their budget explode. They could suddenly make a strong case for a Europa submersible, a submarine to visit Titan's methane lakes, huge space-based SETI radio telescope arrays, huge space telescopes to try to find more exoplanets and characterize their atmospheres, all kinds of things, since we'd know for a fact there's life out there.
If life emerged in two places in one solar system, we'd know that the universe is teeming with it. Maybe not complex intelligent life -- there's still reasons to think Earth may be kind of special for that. But life, certainly.
What reasons do you think exist that lead you to believe Earth is special for having evolved complex intelligent life?
There is a lot of abrasive dust on Mars as well, which poses a problem to any microscope.
> NASA doesn’t want
Citation needed
> NASA will never
Citation needed