Former NASA scientist says they found life on Mars in the 1970s

[mukk_in]

Interesting.

Former NASA scientist says they found life on Mars in the 1970s - CNN

 

[solid_core]

Interesting.

Former NASA scientist says they found life on Mars in the 1970s - CNN

EU and Russia will send probe to Mars specialized to searching for martian life, in 2020.

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-european-russian-space-mission-life-mars.html

 

[Dave-W]

In an episode of All in the Family, Archie Bunker is asked by his son in law if he thought there was intelligent life on Mars.

Archie: I know there is.

Meathead: How can you be sure?

Archie: You don't see them trying to get here, do you?

 

[timewerx]

I found signs of life in my shirt

 

[eleos1954]

Interesting.

Former NASA scientist says they found life on Mars in the 1970s - CNN

Great! Now all we have to do is wait billions of years for everything to evolve

 

[Michael]

Interesting.

Former NASA scientist says they found life on Mars in the 1970s - CNN

Besides the discovery of organics in the Martian soil, they've also detected methane in the atmosphere that changes over time with the planetary cycle. That too could suggest that there is life on Mars.

There Is Definitely Methane on Mars, Scientists Say. But Is It a Sign of Life? | Space

Suffice to say it's not a "done deal" either way.

 

[The_Barmecide]

Interesting.

Former NASA scientist says they found life on Mars in the 1970s - CNN

This story as been around for quite some time. I read a book about this about 15 years ago. It's an interesting idea. And when you see it laid out like that it seems like SOMETHING should have been pursued. But I'm waiting for more proof.

 

[SelfSim]

The ambiguous results returned by the Viking life experiment instrument suite provided many lessons for NASA. The ambiguous results, themselves, provided the precedent/evidence for arguing for restraint when it came to the question of sending repeat 'Levin' experiment packages (L/R, GEx, Pyrolytic Release).

The underlying notion of searching the (local) universe specifically for Earth-like life however, has nonetheless persisted, (as is evidenced by ESA's Exo Mars astrobiology, NASA's Mars 2020 Rover programmes).

The strategy of pursuing directed (local) searches which specifically target finding Earth-like life, makes zero impact on finding Earth-like life in the case where such life turns out to be a product of only Earth's environmental evolution .. Which is of course, overlooked and completely ignored in the frenetic hunt for astrobiology's own 'Holy Grail'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The ambiguous results returned by the Viking life experiment instrument suite provided many lessons for NASA. The ambiguous results, themselves, provided the precedent/evidence for arguing for restraint when it came to the question of sending repeat 'Levin' experiment packages (L/R, GEx, Pyrolytic Release).

The underlying notion of searching the (local) universe specifically for Earth-like life however, has nonetheless persisted, (as is evidenced by ESA's Exo Mars astrobiology, NASA's Mars 2020 Rover programmes).

The strategy of pursuing directed (local) searches which specifically target finding Earth-like life, makes zero impact on finding Earth-like life in the case where such life turns out to be a product of only Earth's environmental evolution .. Which is of course, overlooked and completely ignored in the frenetic hunt for astrobiology's own 'Holy Grail'.

If you're suggesting that looking for Earth-like life may mean that we'll miss other forms of life because it may not be Earth-like, that's been taken seriously in trying to come up with a definition of life that captures the essence of what we mean by it. The other problem is detection - with only Earth-like life as an example, we only have one example of the kinds of detectable byproducts characteristic of life; in this respect, a broad definition of life makes little difference.

Here's a NASA discussion of the problem, and one of their definitions: "A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution."

 

[SelfSim]

If you're suggesting that looking for Earth-like life may mean that we'll miss other forms of life because it may not be Earth-like, that's been taken seriously in trying to come up with a definition of life that captures the essence of what we mean by it.

The scientific definition and its associated meaning is predicated on the context of evidence sourced only from earth's singular (inter-related) biosphere. Anything extrapolated beyond that contextual basis is thus speculative or hypothetical (at best). There is no evidence of any instances beyond our own instance .. and that is not to say that other forms of life should be ruled out, either.

The other problem is detection - with only Earth-like life as an example, we only have one example of the kinds of detectable byproducts characteristic of life;

There is no evidence of any examples beyond Earth-life in the first place .. therefore the notion that there are other examples 'of detectable byproducts characteristic of life', is speculative. (Hence the Holy Grail miraculously makes its appearance, yet again).

.. in this respect, a broad definition of life makes little difference.

Agreed .. therefore 'the Hunt' is also then seen again pursuing the belief in its existence. The belief in its existence will not make it appear in the case(s) where it is beyond detection limits/uncertainties, or the case where it doesn't exist at all within detection limits/uncertainties.

Yet the hunt for the Holy Grail continues unabated ..

Here's a NASA discussion of the problem, and one of their definitions: "A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution."

NASA in this instance (and most unfortunately I might add), is the chief protagonist in the pursuit of the Holy Grail. It even holds it as a strategic goal. The chances of success in its pursuit, by way of its directed searches, are directly proportional to the degree of intensity in the belief held .. which is a rather sad indictment for a scientific organisation.
The ambiguity produced by the Viking life experiments highlighted the flaw in pursuing such beliefs (rather painfully for scientists like Levin). It appears those who learned that lesson the hard way, seem to have been replaced by the new generation of those who haven't.

 

[Michael]

I tend to think that it's NASA's job to try to find out if life exists elsewhere in the universe. We're all curious, and NASA is simply the instrument and an extension of our collective curiosity. They always have been.

Had the landscape of Mars been filled with obvious signs of life their job might have been easily accomplished, but that simply wasn't the case. They chose to perform some logical types of experiments but alas those results were not conclusive either. I wouldn't fault them for tryiing however.

The same scenario is likely to continue as we explore other moons around Saturn and Jupiter which seem to have water. I don't mind paying for experiments that continue to search for life, in fact I think it's one of the few things that I enjoy seeing my tax dollars support.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have long felt* that NASA were precipitate in rejecting the positive results of some of the Viking experiments. The results were certainly ambiguous and the conclusion - no life - is more probable than not. However, in my opinion, follow up experiments, designed to test the abiotic explanations for the results, coupled with a more sensitive GC-MS, should have been part of the next lander programme.

If it turns out life was detected I trust Levin will receive appropriate recognition. (An apology would not go amiss.)

*i.e. four decades

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have long felt* that NASA were precipitate in rejecting the positive results of some of the Viking experiments. The results were certainly ambiguous and the conclusion - no life - is more probable than not. However, in my opinion, follow up experiments, designed to test the abiotic explanations for the results, coupled with a more sensitive GC-MS, should have been part of the next lander programme.

If it turns out life was detected I trust Levin will receive appropriate recognition. (An apology would not go amiss.)

*i.e. four decades

Yes; I can't help wondering why they didn't follow up. Was it politics or internal competition for mission objectives?

 

[Albion]

Former NASA scientist says they found life on Mars in the 1970s - CNN

"NASA concluded that the LR had found a substance mimicking life, but not life," said Levin in his article.

That's what it sounds like.

 

[SelfSim]

That's what it sounds like.

Levins experiment and its procedures were quite sound. Thus far, the lack of GCMS sensitivity is seen as the main flaw. The GCMS was not developed to complement the aim of his various biology experiments. Unless the GCMS could detect bio-organics at the multiple various sites the Landers were deployed at, his results were seen as isolated, unsupported findings.

 

[Albion]

Levins experiment and its procedures were quite sound.

The article shows him not to be sure of this theory himself, and his superiors didn't support the idea that is being pushed here.

Against that there is the "Wouldn't this be neat?" argument, however.

 

[SelfSim]

I have long felt* that NASA were precipitate in rejecting the positive results of some of the Viking experiments. The results were certainly ambiguous and the conclusion - no life - is more probable than not. However, in my opinion, follow up experiments, designed to test the abiotic explanations for the results, coupled with a more sensitive GC-MS, should have been part of the next lander programme.

I'm not so sure they outright 'rejected' the positive results. Results of any correctly designed experiments are always accepted as valid. The problem was that (at the time) all of the L/R, GEx, P/R and GCMS results were taken as being valid, yet they did not concur with eachother .. which then more or less forced the 'ambiguous' conclusion.

If it turns out life was detected I trust Levin will receive appropriate recognition. (An apology would not go amiss.)

I wholeheartedly agree.

The problem at the heart of ambiguity was the axiomatic-like assumed truth of the metabolism component of the definition of life and the assumption that nothing could mimic that (as far as the test data produced was concerned). I think (and IMO) this is why they then pursued organics testing (via the onboard labs on subsequent rovers) rather than pitching for the ultimate goal (the Holy Grail) of Earth-like life(?) See, in order to conculde 'life', the surrounding geo-environment has to be shown as being conducive to supporting it, and the GCMS results didn't do that. As I said previously, context (in this case, the surrounding geo-environment) in any test of a definition is vital (otherwise the results cannot rise to the level of producing scientific 'meaningfulness'). The Viking biology experiments produced that lesson .. but the belief that life exists on Mars is almost religious in its fervour.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes; I can't help wondering why they didn't follow up. Was it politics or internal competition for mission objectives?

I could never figure it out, or find a satisfactory explanation in journals or the NASA site. The two decade gap between Viking and Pathfinder may have contributed - new research team accepting the conclusions of the Viking team up front. Not good science, but perhaps sound politics.

The NASA argument seemed to be "We've found a non-life explanation for the experimental results, so that's the one we are running with." My conclusion remains "We have ambiguous results that could be explained by living organisms, or by abiotic chemical reactions. We should investigate further to determine which is responsible."

 

[SelfSim]

The article shows him not to be sure of this theory himself,

What 'theory' do you mean here? Levin's experiments were very sound but were based on the assumption that Earth-like metabolism must be present in order 'to prove' that it exists. That is a philosophical assumption and not a scientific 'truth'. My point is that testing hypotheses to prove their underlying assumptions is not a scientific approach. Following the data is. And so the 'ambiguous' result is actually the appropriate data led conclusion (much to the chagrin of the believers in martian life).

.. and his superiors didn't support the idea that is being pushed here.

What 'idea being pushed here' do you mean?

 

[SelfSim]

The NASA argument seemed to be "We've found a non-life explanation for the experimental results, so that's the one we are running with." My conclusion remains "We have ambiguous results that could be explained by living organisms, or by abiotic chemical reactions. We should investigate further to determine which is responsible."

Remember, at the time, the cost of the Viking probes was very, very high. The results were ambiguous. The question had to be asked (probably behind closed doors): "Was that a good return on investment?"