Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 268 posts

Re: I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s

#201

Post by weberc2 »

leksak wrote: post #144
weberc2 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t support the conspiracy theory, but the shortage isn’t potential robotic missions, it’s money for missions.

This assumes the amount of funding would remain the same. Would it? Hell, if they found life on Mars I'd consider switching jobs to work on that. I'd be surprised if tax-paying people wouldn't be open to funneling more tax-money towards space travel. Human- or robot missions, regardless.

It doesn’t assume a fixed amount of money. The total amount could grow and JPL could still see their cut shrink.

Re: I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s

#202

Post by mmazing »

computerex wrote: post #188
jayalpha wrote: post #175

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary data. We don't have this data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_lander_biological_exper... It is "inconclusive" at best.

> Surface water sufficient to sustain microorganisms was found on Mars by Viking, Pathfinder, Phoenix and Curiosity; Ultraviolet (UV) activation of the Martian surface material did not, as initially proposed, cause the LR reaction: a sample taken from under a UV-shielding rock was as LR-active as surface samples; Complex organics, have been reported on Mars by Curiosity’s scientists, possibly including kerogen, which…

“Sure, but where's the evidence?”

Re: I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s

#203

Post by aflag »

em-bee wrote: post #195
aflag wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite unlikely that alien bacteria would be able to target humans.

the reverse side of this argument is that the human immune system may not be able to protect against alien bacteria.

I don't know that much about biology, but my understanding is that if the bacteria does not target our bodies, then it will be just some inert material that will eventually be eliminated by one mechanism or another.

Re: I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s

#204

Post by pyrale »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #141
catalogia wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things may get pretty shitty for them, but if I could wager on such a thing, I'd wager on the species surviving.

who would you collect from if you wagered against, and how would you take it with you?

One could say we are already collecting from our offspring.

Re: I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s

#205

Post by slfnflctd »

aflag wrote: post #183
arcticbull wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cmon folks, let’s be realistic. If someone at NASA had indeed reason to believe life exist(s/ed) on Mars it would 200% have leaked by now. No funding discussion would inhibit someone from leaking this information. It’s the biggest discovery in human history and you think someone’s sitting on it for funding reasons?! Especially since the immediate reaction would be to pour billions into them following up? A big discov…

I don't think that microscopical life in Mars is the biggest discovery in human history. It's more like an interesting trivia. But it doesn't change people's lives any more than the discovery of water on Mars.

It may not change people's lives directly (unless you're an astrobiologist), but it would absolutely change our lives indirectly-- the effects on the future of space exploration and the ongoing human conversation would be dramatic. Ultimately no one's mind is likely to be changed about much of import - such as religious beliefs - but at the very least it will mean we approach Mars missions differently.

Re: I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s

#206

Post by computerex »

mmazing wrote: post #202
computerex wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surface water sufficient to sustain microorganisms was found on Mars by Viking, Pathfinder, Phoenix and Curiosity; Ultraviolet (UV) activation of the Martian surface material did not, as initially proposed, cause the LR reaction: a sample taken from under a UV-shielding rock was as LR-active as surface samples; Complex organics, have been reported on Mars by Curiosity’s scientists, possibly including kerogen, which…

“Sure, but where's the evidence?”

That is the evidence. Science is often done indirectly. We know that the Sun is made up of hydrogen gas but no one has been there. We know black holes exist, and that the big bang took place 15 billion years ago, that atoms are made up of protons, electrons and neutrons, and that gravitational waves ripple through spacetime. No one has directly seen these things, but we know them to be true based on indirect evidence.

Similarly, the above list of facts is indirect evidence for life on Mars.

Re: I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s

#207

Post by aflag »

slfnflctd wrote: post #205
aflag wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that microscopical life in Mars is the biggest discovery in human history. It's more like an interesting trivia. But it doesn't change people's lives any more than the discovery of water on Mars.

It may not change people's lives directly (unless you're an astrobiologist), but it would absolutely change our lives indirectly-- the effects on the future of space exploration and the ongoing human conversation would be dramatic. Ultimately no one's mind is likely to be changed about much of import - such as religious beliefs - but at the very least it will mean we approach Mars missions differently.

It'd surely have impact in the related fields. However, I'd save the "biggest discovery" title to findings that debunk and completely change our assumptions, rather than more evidence for assumptions we already hold. Perhaps, having another life origin to study will lead us to new understandings. But the mere discovery of alien life is not that disruptive.

Given all theories and evidences we've observed thus far it's expected that we are not the only living things in the universe. Except for some fringe theorists, everyone expects life to exist in other places besides Earth. Finding out that life exists elsewhere in the solar system would just be more evidence for what we already belive to be true. So, not really huge news in itself.

Re: I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s

#208

Post by ianai »

jf- wrote: post #165
asdff wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they are looking for it. Science demands evidence for your claims. If x could be due to a, but also b, c, d, maybe e, you can't say x = a until you've proved that x ≠ b, c, d, e.

The fastest way isn’t to eliminate the other possibilities, it’s to find a unique test for a that can’t be met by any of the others. Bear in mind that your list of alternative causes may be very long and each require large amounts of work to eliminate. I too find it strange that multiple landers have been sent to mars since Viking, ostensibly looking for evidence of present or past life, and have yet have carried no…

The authors suggest testing for chiraliry in an LR test. Life creates certain “handed” organic molecules while purely chemical reactions do not. They said there’s already designs for flight ready tests. NASA just needs to include it in a mars mission. But they have no plans to do so.

This significantly increased my frustration with NASA.

Re: I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s

#209

Post by Spooky23 »

noetic_techy wrote: post #72
amingilani wrote: post #62

> 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 I'm very surprised by that. Especially since, as the article says, "NASA maintains the search for alien life among its highest priorities". I thought that would obviously translate to sending life-detection instruments to B̶a̶r̶s̶o̶o̶m̶ Mars.

This fact often catches people by surprise when I tell them also. The more conspiratorial theory is that JPL prefers not to include life detection equipment because it would mean the end of robotic missions and more of an emphasis to get humans there to do real biology, which is more the domain of Houston Mission Control. Follow the money...

I doubt it. Finding life would be a real mindfuck for religious beliefs and has a real possibility of causing issues in society,

Re: I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s

#210

Post by gdubs »

vbezhenar wrote: post #194
PopePompus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument can be flipped, though. If life were found on Mars, that might lead to a ban on manned Mars missions, because there's absolutely no chance that a manned mission will not contaminate Mars with microbes from Earth. So to protect a Martian ecosystem, we might have to use only robots to explore Mars.

Why would anyone care about Martian ecosystem?

Not my field, but I’ll hazard a guess: because once we contaminate it, we ruin our chance at getting an un-tarnished understanding of it?
Post reply on HN