It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DaTroof
That would be one hell of an expensive "no".
Mars is just a dead rock, nothing more.
This $2.5 billion expedition is not a life-detection mission. The lab’s instruments are the most sophisticated in the history of planetary space exploration. But they couldn’t distinguish pebbles from protozoa.
“Curiosity is not set up to detect life directly,” said Steven Lee, deputy manager of Mars Science Laboratory surface operations.
“Now if we come across a trilobite or a dinosaur bone, yes, that would be pretty definitive. But if life ever developed on Mars, it was most likely small, microbial life. So we’re not quite ready to make instruments small enough to do that detection directly on Mars.”
This mission is all about what planetary scientists call “habitability.” Scientists are trying to determine whether Mars ever harbored all the ingredients key to the formation of life.
Originally posted by ladyteeny
i thought it was already pretty established that mars has been inhabited at some point anyway? i think it would be better to develop technology to explore our oceans more efficiently than sending stuff to mars that might or might not work when it gets there.