It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Is an expert panel really needed to assess whether Viking discovered life? I don’t think so. Scientists compare older data with newly obtained results—such as those from the Curiosity Rover—all the time. And the consensus remains that the bar for claiming current life on Mars has not been reached. What we need is a new mission dedicated to life detection, especially before we send humans to Mars.
But I do agree with Levin’s second request. It would be highly instructive to run the Labeled Release Experiment one more time on Mars, with amino acids separated into left (L)-handed and right (R)-handed compounds.
If carbon dioxide is produced by L-amino acids only, it would indicate life as we know it, because life on Earth—with very few minor exceptions— only uses L-amino acids. If it is produced by R-amino acids only, it would indicate life as we don’t know it, and possibly a separate origin of life on Mars (more exciting!). And if both types of amino acids react at roughly the same rate, it would support the explanation that there is no life, and that the observations are only due to a chemical reaction, because chemistry does not distinguish between the different handedness of molecules.
Dirk Schulze-Makuch is a Professor at the Technical University Berlin, Germany, and an Adjunct Professor at Arizona State University and Washington State University. He has published eight books and nearly 200 scientific papers related to astrobiology and planetary habitability. His latest books are The Cosmic Zoo: Complex Life on Many Worlds and the 3rd edition of Life in the Universe: Expectations and Constraints.
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
If you can think of a better answer to this question, please post it here if you have the time.
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
If you can think of a better answer to this question, please post it here if you have the time.
Sure. NASA ran the experiment. It did not find life on Mars according to the definitions at the time. It has decided to look for evidence of past life on Mars in subsequent experiments. End of story. No conspiracy needed.
It has decided to look for evidence of past life
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: LookingAtMars
The purpose of government is to suppress the public from becoming "excited" about anything. This is why they haven't run the Labeled Release Experiment ever again.
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: schuyler
It has decided to look for evidence of past life
More than 40 years later it has decided to look for evidence of past life?
What about "it would mean increased funding for them. It would be the biggest discovery in our history."
I can't accept nothing to see here. It does not compute for me. Your answer is not logical to me.
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: schuyler
It has decided to look for evidence of past life
More than 40 years later it has decided to look for evidence of past life?
What about "it would mean increased funding for them. It would be the biggest discovery in our history."
I can't accept nothing to see here. It does not compute for me. Your answer is not logical to me.
You asked for an alternative explanation. I gave you one. You have provided zero evidence that there is some sort of conspiracy here. You have to make up stuff to make your explanation work. Your answer is not logical to me.
The first Viking launched on 20 August 1975. The US has had five successful Mars landings since the Viking landers and two unsuccessful missions. The 2020 Mars rover will launch in less that a year and it will have no experiment to look for life on Mars. It will look for signs or markers of past life and look for organics on Mars. Organics can be present without life.
That is eight times over almost 45 years that NASA has passed on looking for life on Mars. Many say, "Oh if NASA found life they would tell us, it would mean increased funding for them. It would be the biggest discovery in our history." Then I have to ask why are they not looking for it?
You asked for an alternative explanation. I gave you one.
Your answer is not logical to me.
You have to make up stuff to make your explanation work.
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
Can I ask what you think I made up for my explanation to work?
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
Can I ask what you think I made up for my explanation to work?
Everything you listed above. Your argument sounds like this: "NASA ought to be looking for life because I think if they found life that would mean increased funding for them. They are not looking for life in the way I think they ought to, therefore there is life on Mars."
That's a circular argument. Let me make it even simpler: Because they are not looking for life, therefore there must be life. That makes no sense at all.
The first Viking launched on 20 August 1975. The US has had five successful Mars landings since the Viking landers and two unsuccessful missions. The 2020 Mars rover will launch in less that a year and it will have no experiment to look for life on Mars. It will look for signs or markers of past life and look for organics on Mars. Organics can be present without life.
That is eight times over almost 45 years that NASA has passed on looking for life on Mars. Many say, "Oh if NASA found life they would tell us, it would mean increased funding for them. It would be the biggest discovery in our history."
You have to make up stuff to make your explanation work.
The best answer I can come up with
originally posted by: Blue Shift
It's always going to be hard to prove that there isn't life on Mars because you can't prove a negative. So what we're stuck with is debating about the efficacy of the tests. But that's science in a nutshell, anyway. Test, test, and then test again. It just takes a long time and a lot of money to try to replicate the tests or design something better and send it all the way to another freekin' planet.
Like everything else, we'll have to wait. Then argue more about the new tests.
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
So for eight missions and over 40 years we send all kinds of test equipment to look at just rocks. I don't buy it and it is not logical. Spend all that time and money on Mars to just look at rocks, because one set of tests we did were said to have failed.
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
That is in no way a circular argument.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
So for eight missions and over 40 years we send all kinds of test equipment to look at just rocks. I don't buy it and it is not logical. Spend all that time and money on Mars to just look at rocks, because one set of tests we did were said to have failed.
To be fair, not all of them have been focused on rocks. And there have been quite a few failures, so you can't count them. Don't worry. We have plenty of time to find it if it's there and forever to look some more if those answers aren't satisfactory. Unless we die before then, and in that case, we won't care.
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
Is there life on Mars is a much bigger question than how did this rock come about. Not to say Mars geology is not important.