7 ms·

This fact often catches people by surprise when I tell them also. The more conspiratorial theory is that JPL prefers not to include life detection equipment be

This fact often catches people by surprise when I tell them also. The more conspiratorial theory is that JPL prefers not to include life detection equipment because it would mean the end of robotic missions and more of an emphasis to get humans there to do real biology, which is more the domain of Houston Mission Control. Follow the money...

BEEdwards 7y ago
That would be some seriously short term thinking though. If humans go to mars we will be proceeded by the robots.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  well it's too late now to go to Mars without having been preceded by robots
  - BEEdwards 7y ago
    True, but not exactly what I meant. Constructor bots instead of explorer bots.
nkrisc 7y ago
Which seems kinda silly to this layman because there are no shortage of potential robotic missions.
- weberc2 7y ago
  I don’t support the conspiracy theory, but the shortage isn’t potential robotic missions, it’s money for missions.
  - leksak 7y ago
    This assumes the amount of funding would remain the same. Would it? Hell, if they found life on Mars I'd consider switching jobs to work on that. I'd be surprised if tax-paying people wouldn't be open to funneling more tax-money towards space travel. Human- or robot missions, regardless.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      It doesn’t assume a fixed amount of money. The total amount could grow and JPL could still see their cut shrink.
Waterluvian 7y ago
I would guess that all ships would rise and spending, public and private, would go up, if they ever got serious about a need to send humans to Mars
PopePompus 7y ago
This argument can be flipped, though. If life were found on Mars, that might lead to a ban on manned Mars missions, because there's absolutely no chance that a manned mission will not contaminate Mars with microbes from Earth. So to protect a Martian ecosystem, we might have to use only robots to explore Mars.
- vbezhenar 7y ago
  Why would anyone care about Martian ecosystem?
  - gdubs 7y ago
    Not my field, but I’ll hazard a guess: because once we contaminate it, we ruin our chance at getting an un-tarnished understanding of it?
    - dfilppi 7y ago
      We've already contaminated it
- MichaelMoser123 7y ago
  or rather to protect us from what is coming back; I remember that the Apollo astronauts were kept in quarantine due to that fear. I think it's sort of funny that the effort to make us a multi planetary species might as well doom us if we catch something unusual while on Mars.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rightbyte 7y ago
    Would extra terrestrial bacteria have any chance versus generation after generation of earth specific bacteria in life forms on earth? I mean, wouldn't it be like a baseball team showing up for cricket or maybe slalom?
arcticbull 7y ago
Cmon folks, let’s be realistic. If someone at NASA had indeed reason to believe life exist(s/ed) on Mars it would 200% have leaked by now. No funding discussion would inhibit someone from leaking this information. It’s the biggest discovery in human history and you think someone’s sitting on it for funding reasons?! Especially since the immediate reaction would be to pour billions into them following up? A big discovery has a high burden of proof and that’s basically where we’re at. There’s definitely reason not to rule it out but I can’t believe conclusive evidence is being sat on by all of NASA for funding reasons. Let’s speculate for a sec. Tardigrades can survive space. Things have been hitting us knocking earth stuff into space for billions of years. Some of that stuff probably made it to Mars and back in the day it was pretty liveable. It’s not far fetched. None of that negates the above.
- aflag 7y ago
  I don't think that microscopical life in Mars is the biggest discovery in human history. It's more like an interesting trivia. But it doesn't change people's lives any more than the discovery of water on Mars.
  - slfnflctd 7y ago
    It may not change people's lives directly (unless you're an astrobiologist), but it would absolutely change our lives indirectly-- the effects on the future of space exploration and the ongoing human conversation would be dramatic. Ultimately no one's mind is likely to be changed about much of import - such as religious beliefs - but at the very least it will mean we approach Mars missions differently.
    - aflag 7y ago
      It'd surely have impact in the related fields. However, I'd save the "biggest discovery" title to findings that debunk and completely change our assumptions, rather than more evidence for assumptions we already hold. Perhaps, having another life origin to study will lead us to new understandings. But the mere discovery of alien life is not that disruptive. Given all theories and evidences we've observed thus far it's expected that we are not the only living things in the universe. Except for some fringe theorists, everyone expects life to exist in other places besides Earth. Finding out that life exists elsewhere in the solar system would just be more evidence for what we already belive to be true. So, not really huge news in itself.
Spooky23 7y ago
I doubt it. Finding life would be a real mindfuck for religious beliefs and has a real possibility of causing issues in society,
mturmon 7y ago
Uh, no, this is nuts. I work there and personally know the PI of the below-linked instrument which is designed to “search for organics and minerals that have been altered by watery environments and may be signs of past microbial life.” Some of the best engineers at JPL have worked to get this ready for Mars2020. https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/instruments/sherloc/ https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/instruments/sherloc/ There is a standard and open pipeline to getting an instrument on these missions. Scientific American is not part of it. It’s more like AGU, LPSC, Icarus, and the National Academies decadal survey — writing actual instrument proposals with hypotheses and trace back to hardware that can make the measurements needed to test the hypothesis.

BEEdwards 7y ago

That would be some seriously short term thinking though. If humans go to mars we will be proceeded by the robots.

LoSboccacc 7y ago
well it's too late now to go to Mars without having been preceded by robots
- BEEdwards 7y ago
  True, but not exactly what I meant. Constructor bots instead of explorer bots.

nkrisc 7y ago

Which seems kinda silly to this layman because there are no shortage of potential robotic missions.

weberc2 7y ago
I don’t support the conspiracy theory, but the shortage isn’t potential robotic missions, it’s money for missions.
- leksak 7y ago
  This assumes the amount of funding would remain the same. Would it? Hell, if they found life on Mars I'd consider switching jobs to work on that. I'd be surprised if tax-paying people wouldn't be open to funneling more tax-money towards space travel. Human- or robot missions, regardless.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    It doesn’t assume a fixed amount of money. The total amount could grow and JPL could still see their cut shrink.

Waterluvian 7y ago

I would guess that all ships would rise and spending, public and private, would go up, if they ever got serious about a need to send humans to Mars

PopePompus 7y ago

This argument can be flipped, though. If life were found on Mars, that might lead to a ban on manned Mars missions, because there's absolutely no chance that a manned mission will not contaminate Mars with microbes from Earth. So to protect a Martian ecosystem, we might have to use only robots to explore Mars.

vbezhenar 7y ago
Why would anyone care about Martian ecosystem?
- gdubs 7y ago
  Not my field, but I’ll hazard a guess: because once we contaminate it, we ruin our chance at getting an un-tarnished understanding of it?
  - dfilppi 7y ago
    We've already contaminated it
MichaelMoser123 7y ago
or rather to protect us from what is coming back; I remember that the Apollo astronauts were kept in quarantine due to that fear. I think it's sort of funny that the effort to make us a multi planetary species might as well doom us if we catch something unusual while on Mars.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rightbyte 7y ago
  Would extra terrestrial bacteria have any chance versus generation after generation of earth specific bacteria in life forms on earth? I mean, wouldn't it be like a baseball team showing up for cricket or maybe slalom?

arcticbull 7y ago

Cmon folks, let’s be realistic. If someone at NASA had indeed reason to believe life exist(s/ed) on Mars it would 200% have leaked by now. No funding discussion would inhibit someone from leaking this information. It’s the biggest discovery in human history and you think someone’s sitting on it for funding reasons?! Especially since the immediate reaction would be to pour billions into them following up? A big discovery has a high burden of proof and that’s basically where we’re at. There’s definitely reason not to rule it out but I can’t believe conclusive evidence is being sat on by all of NASA for funding reasons. Let’s speculate for a sec. Tardigrades can survive space. Things have been hitting us knocking earth stuff into space for billions of years. Some of that stuff probably made it to Mars and back in the day it was pretty liveable. It’s not far fetched. None of that negates the above.

aflag 7y ago
I don't think that microscopical life in Mars is the biggest discovery in human history. It's more like an interesting trivia. But it doesn't change people's lives any more than the discovery of water on Mars.
- slfnflctd 7y ago
  It may not change people's lives directly (unless you're an astrobiologist), but it would absolutely change our lives indirectly-- the effects on the future of space exploration and the ongoing human conversation would be dramatic. Ultimately no one's mind is likely to be changed about much of import - such as religious beliefs - but at the very least it will mean we approach Mars missions differently.
  - aflag 7y ago
    It'd surely have impact in the related fields. However, I'd save the "biggest discovery" title to findings that debunk and completely change our assumptions, rather than more evidence for assumptions we already hold. Perhaps, having another life origin to study will lead us to new understandings. But the mere discovery of alien life is not that disruptive. Given all theories and evidences we've observed thus far it's expected that we are not the only living things in the universe. Except for some fringe theorists, everyone expects life to exist in other places besides Earth. Finding out that life exists elsewhere in the solar system would just be more evidence for what we already belive to be true. So, not really huge news in itself.

Spooky23 7y ago

I doubt it. Finding life would be a real mindfuck for religious beliefs and has a real possibility of causing issues in society,

mturmon 7y ago

Uh, no, this is nuts. I work there and personally know the PI of the below-linked instrument which is designed to “search for organics and minerals that have been altered by watery environments and may be signs of past microbial life.” Some of the best engineers at JPL have worked to get this ready for Mars2020. https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/instruments/sherloc/ https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/instruments/sherloc/ There is a standard and open pipeline to getting an instrument on these missions. Scientific American is not part of it. It’s more like AGU, LPSC, Icarus, and the National Academies decadal survey — writing actual instrument proposals with hypotheses and trace back to hardware that can make the measurements needed to test the hypothesis.