• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Viking lander and Mars life

  • Thread starter Thread starter BH
  • Start date Start date

BH

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
1,331
Location
United States-Texas
Basic Beliefs
Muslim
I was watching an episode of Event Horizon on youtube. The host, John Michael Godier was interviewing Dr. Patricia Ann Straat who was on the team that designed and built the Viking landers that went to Mars back in the mid 70s.

Anyway, Dr. Straat argues that the Viking landers discovered life on Mars with some soil test kits NASA sent on them.

I've read articles online saying this is probably true, others say probably not.

Here is my question.

If they can send a lander with a rover the size of a small car to Mars why cant they send a small lab with a few microscopes and robots that can prepare slides and look for any microorganisms directly and send pictures back via video . It's almost like NASA deliberately doesnt want to find life if it is there.
 
I vaguely reber the issue. There was also a piece of a meteor found on Earth believed to have orginated on Mars that some thught contained a fossilized organism or something like that.

The only way to really search for life on Mars is to send specialists with a fully equiped lab who can move around the planet. Discocering evidence would be one of the most significant events in human history, IMO.



NASA’s Curiosity rover has tested a new technique for finding signs of alien life on Mars. Although the rover found no such evidence, it suggests that future missions to other worlds could use the same method.

In March 2017, the rover scooped material from the Bagnold Dunes, a band of sand dunes stretching tens of kilometres on the surface. In December 2017, Curiosity transferred some of this material into its Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument.

SAM has 74 “cups”, or holders, that are used to analyse Martian samples. Most are empty, with the samples in them heated by the rover to be studied, but nine contain solvents that can dissolve the samples, which allows us to better work out their compositions. The test in December 2017 saw some of these solvents used for the first time, to see whether this technique could be useful on other worlds.
Read more: If Mars has life, its total mass is 10,000 times smaller than Earth’s

The results showed it could. After years of careful work on Earth to understand what they were seeing, Maëva Millan at Georgetown University in Washington DC and her colleagues found evidence for organic molecules in the samples that would have been missed by the rover’s regular analysis. While they didn’t find any concrete evidence of life, such as amino acids, the results showed the benefits of these so-called “wet chemistry derivatization” experiments.

“We have proved that this experiment can work,” says Millan. “That means we can do this same experiment again on different minerals like clay and sulphates that can better preserve organic molecules.”

That will include further studies on the surface of Mars by Curiosity in regions that are more conducive to life. Its sister rover, Perseverance, is also looking for signs of life, but doesn’t have the same “wet chemistry” equipment.

The technique will be used on future missions, such as Europe’s upcoming Rosalind Franklin Mars rover launching in 2022 and NASA’s Dragonfly mission, a drone that will explore the surface of Saturn’s moon Titan in 2036. “Now we know we’re able to make it work on the surface of another planet,” says Millan.

Sign up to our free Launchpad newsletter for a voyage across the galaxy and beyond, every Friday

Journal reference: Nature Astronomy, DOI: 10.1038/s41550-021-01507-9

More on these topics:

Mars
 
Oh, come on now! While I admit the Vikings were explorers they never had a space program! :)
 
Oh, come on now! While I admit the Vikings were explorers they never had a space program! :)
If they did, we would have not only landed on Mars, but we would have successfully invaded, raped, and ransacked it as well
 
Oh, come on now! While I admit the Vikings were explorers they never had a space program! :)
If they did, we would have not only landed on Mars, but we would have successfully invaded, raped, and ransacked it as well
Duh. Where do you think "Eric the Red" got his name? It wasn't from his exploits in Greenland, now was it?
 
Oh, come on now! While I admit the Vikings were explorers they never had a space program! :)
If they did, we would have not only landed on Mars, but we would have successfully invaded, raped, and ransacked it as well
Duh. Where do you think "Eric the Red" got his name? It wasn't from his exploits in Greenland, now was it?
A fair fraction of men are red/green colorblind.
As are a fraction of the dark men, too.
 
If they can send a lander with a rover the size of a small car to Mars why cant they send a small lab with a few microscopes and robots that can prepare slides and look for any microorganisms directly and send pictures back via video . It's almost like NASA deliberately doesnt want to find life if it is there.
How would one prepare the slides?

There is a very easy experiment to do to check on how well one might be able to do. Look at some Earth soil, like from wherever you live.
 
If the robot does prepare a slide and see microorganisms, how would we be sure it didn't bring them from Earth?
 
For all we know despite sterilization probes may have already contaminated Mars.
 
If the robot does prepare a slide and see microorganisms, how would we be sure it didn't bring them from Earth?
The slides not containing life that resembles earth biology.
 
The alleged Mars meteorite.



A NASA research team of scientists at the Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, TX, and at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, has found evidence that strongly suggests primitive life may have existed on Mars more than 3.6 billion years ago.

The NASA-funded team found the first organic molecules thought to be of Martian origin; several mineral features characteristic of biological activity; and possible microscopic fossils of primitive, bacteria-like organisms inside of an ancient Martian rock that fell to Earth as a meteorite. This array of indirect evidence of past life will be reported in the August 16 issue of the journal Science, presenting the investigation to the scientific community at large for further study.

The two-year investigation was co-led by JSC planetary scientists Dr. David McKay, Dr. Everett Gibson and Kathie Thomas-Keprta of Lockheed-Martin, with the major collaboration of a Stanford team headed by Professor of Chemistry Dr. Richard Zare, as well as six other NASA and university research partners.

"There is not any one finding that leads us to believe that this is evidence of past life on Mars. Rather, it is a combination of many things that we have found," McKay said. "They include Stanford's detection of an apparently unique pattern of organic molecules, carbon compounds that are the basis of life. We also found several unusual mineral phases that are known products of primitive microscopic organisms on Earth. Structures that could be microsopic fossils seem to support all of this. The relationship of all of these things in terms of location - within a few hundred thousandths of an inch of one another - is the most compelling evidence."

"It is very difficult to prove life existed 3.6 billion years ago on Earth, let alone on Mars," Zare said. "The existing standard of proof, which we think we have met, includes having an accurately dated sample that contains native microfossils, mineralogical features characteristic of life, and evidence of complex organic chemistry."

"For two years, we have applied state-of-the-art technology to perform these analyses, and we believe we have found quite reasonable evidence of past life on Mars," Gibson added. "We don't claim that we have conclusively proven it. We are putting this evidence out to the scientific community for other investigators to verify, enhance, attack -- disprove if they can -- as part of the scientific process. Then, within a year or two, we hope to resolve the question one way or the other."

"What we have found to be the most reasonable interpretation is of such radical nature that it will only be accepted or rejected after other groups either confirm our findings or overturn them," McKay added.

The igneous rock in the 4.2-pound, potato-sized meteorite has been age-dated to about 4.5 billion years, the period when the planet Mars formed. The rock is believed to have originated underneath the Martian surface and to have been extensively fractured by impacts as meteorites bombarded the planets in the early inner solar system. Between 3.6 billion and 4 billion years ago, a time when it is generally thought that the planet was warmer and wetter, water is believed to have penetrated fractures in the subsurface rock, possibly forming an underground water system.
 
If the robot does prepare a slide and see microorganisms, how would we be sure it didn't bring them from Earth?
The slides not containing life that resembles earth biology.
What does earth biology look like? Prokaryotes are staggeringly diverse. They'd have to look inside with an electron microscope, and electron microscope sample preparation is a long and involved process. I suspect NASA has better ideas than we have about how to test for life.
 
If the robot does prepare a slide and see microorganisms, how would we be sure it didn't bring them from Earth?
The slides not containing life that resembles earth biology.
What does earth biology look like? Prokaryotes are staggeringly diverse. They'd have to look inside with an electron microscope, and electron microscope sample preparation is a long and involved process. I suspect NASA has better ideas than we have about how to test for life.
No, they wouldn't. It can be fairly easy to spot things that are not what you would expect to find in the environment of the lander prep, and the list of things that can survive the trip and a thorough autoclaving, among the set of things that could be found in that environment, is fairly small.

Look for things that don't look like those things, with a standard microscope.

Fuck, you can even sometimes see organelles inside things with a standard microscope.

We could also sequence it for genetics common to most or all earth life, or a multiplex of them, using a standard automated bioassay.

The machines to do this would fit easily in the profile of a standard toaster or smaller.

I know this for a fact because I work for a company that makes a molecular detection bioassay for cell-free DNA that could (and does) detect random airborne DNA fragments.

No DNA in the moving living thing means it's not from earth, and non-earthly DNA means that just as much.

I would not be surprised, however, if either e
Earth or Mars contaminated each other through meteoric ejecta.
 
I would not be surprised, however, if either e
Earth or Mars contaminated each other through meteoric ejecta.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to find related life anywhere in the solar system that is habitable. Rocks can be ejected into space in a survivable fashion so it should be able to hop from world to world.
 
I would not be surprised, however, if either e
Earth or Mars contaminated each other through meteoric ejecta.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to find related life anywhere in the solar system that is habitable. Rocks can be ejected into space in a survivable fashion so it should be able to hop from world to world.
Given the age of the rocks, it's quite possible that earth life is in fact martian... Which would make telling the difference between them through genetic markers difficult.

Or worse that the variety of life on earth owes to a repeat exchange.
 
If the robot does prepare a slide and see microorganisms, how would we be sure it didn't bring them from Earth?
The slides not containing life that resembles earth biology.
What does earth biology look like? Prokaryotes are staggeringly diverse. They'd have to look inside with an electron microscope, and electron microscope sample preparation is a long and involved process. I suspect NASA has better ideas than we have about how to test for life.
No, they wouldn't. It can be fairly easy to spot things that are not what you would expect to find in the environment of the lander prep, and the list of things that can survive the trip and a thorough autoclaving, among the set of things that could be found in that environment, is fairly small.

Look for things that don't look like those things, with a standard microscope.

... you can even sometimes see organelles inside things with a standard microscope.
In eukaryotes. Prokaryotes don't have organelles other than ribosomes, and those are about twenty times smaller than a visible light wavelength.

We could also sequence it for genetics common to most or all earth life, or a multiplex of them, using a standard automated bioassay.
Quite possibly; but the proposal I was challenging was to use a conventional microscope, not a PCR machine.

I would not be surprised, however, if either e
Earth or Mars contaminated each other through meteoric ejecta.
I'm curious as to why it's feasible for randomly chosen bacteria to survive (1) a meteor impact big enough to launch debris to escape velocity, (2) millions of years floating around interplanetary space being exposed to vacuum and radiation, waiting for dumb luck to bring them to another planet, (3) uncontrolled reentry, and (4) lithobraking, but not feasible for them to survive (5) a gentle launch, a seven-month carefully guided trip, a soft landing, and "a thorough autoclaving".
 
I remember something about a NASA experiment. They sent bacteria into space exposed to the vacuum.

Apparently there is a strain that uder certain conditions crtes a hard shell for survival.

Back on the Earth the bacteria came back to life.
 
Back
Top Bottom