Patricia Straat looks back on the Viking lander experiment that aimed to find microbes

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What we have are multiple positive results of the labeled release experiment and the specifically for this purpose designed control experiment. These results were repeatedly obtained under different conditions over the course of the mission. The setup further has a proven track record for detecting metabolism and we also know today that organic compounds exist on Mars.

Why shouldn't we therefore prefer the biological explanation over a counter-hypothesis that has not been able to fully reproduce the results of the LR experiment? Especially when considering that the original results correspond to those obtained on Earth using terrestrial organisms?

Life No Life only one sure way to find out send more probes designed to see if there is life .
So many people say it could have been no life Could have been means it also could have been life .

So tell me why do we not find out ? tek has gotten better we know tons more about were to look .
So why do we keep looking at rocks ?
My guess is NASA does know and it is classified .
So many reasons to keep it secret and ONLY one reason to tell the public .
Because they want to know and that to the Governments is not even a reason .

To much way to much evidence mars does have life to discount the possibility .
No one but me thinks its odd mars still has FREE Oxygen ? why ?
Oxygen combines with darn near every thing ! the reason mars has red soil is the Iron in it has rusted .
Turned to Iron oxide .
with out a source to brake down co 2 back into Carbon and 02 all the o2 should have been going long agaio .
add the methane which being so common again points to a good possibility ( yes i know it could be this or that or some such BUT its main reason for being on mars could BE life along with free O2 .
To many people say no way well lets find out for sure dig find underground water ( its there for a FACT )
that would be a good place to start and the poles have LOTS of ICE water along with c0 2 ice .
another good place to look .
we dug Bactria out of eh ice on earth frozen 50,000 years and it was still able to live why not mars .

a reply to: midnightstar

Because it would require a probe the size of a room just for that one experiment to verify life, and then it could only chewck that one location meaning it still could not give us definitive answers. The Mars2020 mission has more instruments dealing with life on Mars, so the idea that NASA is doing nothing is simply wrong.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: jeep3r

Heating does affect Hypochlorate. There is literally zero evidence Hypochlorate is not responsible. Levin dismisses it as an explanation, but has zero evidence and has not conducted any tests to discount it.

What you think is likely is irrelevant, there are alternative explanations. Hypochlorate is only one of them, anyone who claims this is a definitive test that detected life wants it to be true.

The real question is why there has not been a test for life on Mars on the last six missions to the surface (really more if you count the ones that have crashed since Viking). One or two tests might not prove anything, but one or two test on six different missions over a decade. That sure could of given us a lot of data to answer the question of life on Mars.

A British lander Beagle 2 had a test for life, but it never made it to the surface of Mars. NASA helped the ESA put Mars Express into Mars orbit, but did not give Colin much help on how to land safely on Mars.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: midnightstar

Because it would require a probe the size of a room just for that one experiment to verify life, and then it could only chewck that one location meaning it still could not give us definitive answers. The Mars2020 mission has more instruments dealing with life on Mars, so the idea that NASA is doing nothing is simply wrong.

They sent a microscope on the Phoenix lander for the rock guys. NASA can send a microscope that would be able to see microbes and bacteria on Mars. It could have a drill too so it could test underground samples. NASA does not seem to want to look for life on Mars, for some reason or another.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

The Phoenix microscope had a resolution of 16 μm. Not really well suited to seeing bacteria. But they did see some dust.

Part of the problem is figuring out how to go about looking for life. Avoiding ambiguity, just because something may look like life, it doesn't mean it is.

Figuring out where to look would be important as well.

a reply to: Phage

The Phoenix microscope had a resolution of 16 μm. Not really well suited to seeing bacteria. But they did see some dust.

There is no limitation that would prevent a microscope that is more powerful and could see life. It is just a few lens changes.

Part of the problem is figuring out how to go about looking for life. Avoiding ambiguity, just because something may look like life, it doesn't mean it is.

If you see enough things that look like life, your next mission is a sample return to the space station. Testing for life and sample return are two things NASA has the tech to do, but is not doing for some reason or another.

Figuring out where to look would be important as well.

That's an easy one, underground where water is thought to be.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

There is no limitation that would prevent a microscope that is more powerful and could see life. It is just a few lens changes.

A bit more to it than that. It requires imaging technology and power requirements for the microscope and ancillary equipment.

Testing for life and sample return are two things NASA has the tech to do, but is not doing for some reason or another.

Sample returns are in the proposal stages. But they involve technology which does not exist at this time. There is no system for getting a sample off the planet, much less rendezvousing with a vehicle which will return it to Earth. Not to mention that there is no such vehicle. That all involves a lot of research, a lot of development, and a lot of cost. But Trump is in a hurry to repeat the Apollo missions. That's great.

That's an easy one, underground where water is thought to be.

How deep underground?

a reply to: Phage

A bit more to it than that. It requires imaging technology and power requirements.

Yes it will take a bit more but it can be done I have seen the papers.

Sample returns are in the proposal stages. But they involve technology which does not exist at this time. There is no system for getting a sample off the planet, much less rendezvousing with a vehicle which will return it to Earth. Not to mention that there is no such vehicle. That all involves a lot of research, a lot of development, and a lot of cost.

We did it on the moon with a much more precious cargo. Plenty of research has been done, but there is no will to do it by TPTB at NASA.

How deep underground?

As deep as they can get, 5 to 20 feet maybe. Near the north pole in the ice would be a good place to look too. NASA is pretty good at picking landing sites. I am sure they could figure it out.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

We did it on the moon with a much more precious cargo.

The Moon is much, much closer.

Plenty of research has been done, but there is no will to do it by TPTB at NASA.

Research does not produce equipment. That requires development. NASA would love to do a Mars return mission. But the purse strings are in other hands.

As deep as they can get, 5 to 20 feet maybe.

I meant, how deep is the water?

a reply to: Phage

The Moon is much, much closer.

Why would that matter? Mars has more gravity and that would matter a bit.

Research does not produce equipment. That requires development. NASA would love to do a Mars return mission.

If they really wanted to do one they could of done it by now. It has not been a priority.

I meant, how deep is the water?

It depends where you are talking about. Its at the surface in the north polar region and in some craters. NASA has plenty of radar data from MEX and MRO to know where to drill underground for water.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Why would that matter?

Fuel requirements. Light speed delays. Radiation shielded equipment due to transit exposures.

If they really wanted to do one they could of done it by now. It has not been a priority.

It has not been funded.

a reply to: Phage

Fuel requirements. Light speed delays. Radiation shielded equipment due to transit exposures.

None of which are show stoppers.

It has not been funded.

You say tomato, I say tomahto

a reply to: LookingAtMars

None of which are show stoppers.

Of course not. But the technology does not exist at this time.

You say tomato, I say tomahto

I say that if NASA had its druthers, it would be drilling a hole in the ice of Enceladus as we speak. Life is more likely to be found there than in Mars.

a reply to: Phage

Of course not. But the technology does not exist at this time.

Of course the tech exists, may need some modding but we fly stuff to Mars every couple of years.

Fuel requirements - fuel exists

Light speed delays - what?

Radiation shielded equipment due to transit exposures - shielding exists - NASA shields equipment flown to Mars.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Yes, it could be done, it would just cost an exorbitant amount of money, they would basically have to ship a whole room to Mars. Why would they when all signs point to no life on the surface of Mars?

so it would take a probe the size of a room you say so first that is stupid .
all you need is a drill to get to water - and a microscope to look in the water for cells .
Curiosity has a drill and its the size of a truck .
So add a microscope and wala DRIVE around taking samples until you find Liquid water .
we SEE areas that have RUNNING water at times of the year send a probe to thous areas .
Only one reason people here are talking the idea of finding life down they are afraid of the results .

Even if it takes a whole city to do it so what its been 30 years from viking 30 years spent looking by now we would know for sure .

starting now even at 53 i could live long enough to see the results .
Ill tell you one thing for sure we will never know just taking pictures of rocks - drilling rocks or just saying hey that looks like it had water there .