9 ms·

It would be so exciting if they find life there

skeptical1 5y ago
curiousgeorgio 5y ago
I'm glad they're careful not to oversell this finding, but it's a little discouraging how far we are from the phrase we want to hear: "Mars has life" "We've found past life on mars" "Rover finds past life on mars" "Rover finds hints of past life on mars" "Rover detects hints of past life on mars" "Rover detects carbon signature that hints of past life on mars" "Rover detects carbon signature that may hint of past life on mars"
- Stevvo 5y ago
  You would have to look for evidence of life in the first place if you wanted to find it. None of the rovers we have on Mars right now have the right instruments to do so. Exomars' Rosalnd Franklin will be the first.
  - floxy 5y ago
    https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/viking-1/in-depth/ https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/viking-1/in-depth/ Viking 1 July 20, 1976: Lander touched down Scientific Instruments Lander 1. Imaging System (2 facsimile cameras) 2. Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer (GCMS) 3. Seismometer 4. X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer 5. Biological Laboratory 6. Weather Instrument Package (Temperature, Pressure, Wind Velocity) 7. Remote Sampler Arm
- klyrs 5y ago
  Not for me. Behind all those hedges is where the intrigue lies! I'd rather that than overselling a thrice-maybe as a positive.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >"Rover detects carbon signature that may hint of past life on mars" If you expand the list to include all the geological stuff Spirit/Oportunity, Pathfinder and Viking found then slap a "you are here" on it we are much closer to the "earth" end of things than the "dead rock" end of things.
bpodgursky 5y ago
I hope they don't. It would be a very bad indicator for our future in the cosmos, making it far more likely that whatever great filter is out there, is in front of us still.
- sudofail 5y ago
  Not necessarily. Before the great filter, there's the jump to multi-cellular life. As far as we know, the symbioses with mitochondria bacteria only happened once, and is the progenesis of all multi-cellular life on earth. So single-celled life may not be terribly uncommon throughout the cosmos.
  - csee 5y ago
    > Before the great filter, there's the jump to multi-cellular life. Well, the filter may exist prior to the jump to multi-cellular life. Finding early life on Mars would necessarily be bad because we would now be able to mostly eliminate that possibility, which means that the probability that the filter is ahead of us increases.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      I disagree. While finding dead life on other planets decreases the probability of some filters, it also increases the probability of other filters. For example, if we go to every planet in the solar system and see evidence of extinct multi-cellular life, but no sapient life, this would suggest that the filter is indeed behind us, and not in front of us.
      - bpodgursky 5y ago
        I don't think this is right. It moves the filter forward from "no life" to "no intelligent life" (If we have a TON of examples – remember, we are also a data point. so even if we find 200 planets with dead multicellular life, we still have 1/200 making it to spacefaring — that's a huge % when extrapolated out to a galactic scale! It's a large enough % that I don't even find this to be a meaningful prior adjustment). It also adds no information as to which, if any, filters are in front of us. How would "lot of dead fish" help us understand "do civilizations destroy themselves with nuclear weapons"?
neom 5y ago
Beresheet Tardigrades floated over and are setting up camp to enact their revenge would be my bet.
- czbond 5y ago
tenelmike 5y ago
it would be super ironic if it turned out earth life came from Mars or something :P

I'm glad they're careful not to oversell this finding, but it's a little discouraging how far we are from the phrase we want to hear: "Mars has life" "We've found past life on mars" "Rover finds past life on mars" "Rover finds hints of past life on mars" "Rover detects hints of past life on mars" "Rover detects carbon signature that hints of past life on mars" "Rover detects carbon signature that may hint of past life on mars"

Stevvo 5y ago
You would have to look for evidence of life in the first place if you wanted to find it. None of the rovers we have on Mars right now have the right instruments to do so. Exomars' Rosalnd Franklin will be the first.
- floxy 5y ago
  https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/viking-1/in-depth/ https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/viking-1/in-depth/ Viking 1 July 20, 1976: Lander touched down Scientific Instruments Lander 1. Imaging System (2 facsimile cameras) 2. Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer (GCMS) 3. Seismometer 4. X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer 5. Biological Laboratory 6. Weather Instrument Package (Temperature, Pressure, Wind Velocity) 7. Remote Sampler Arm
klyrs 5y ago
Not for me. Behind all those hedges is where the intrigue lies! I'd rather that than overselling a thrice-maybe as a positive.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>"Rover detects carbon signature that may hint of past life on mars" If you expand the list to include all the geological stuff Spirit/Oportunity, Pathfinder and Viking found then slap a "you are here" on it we are much closer to the "earth" end of things than the "dead rock" end of things.

bpodgursky 5y ago

I hope they don't. It would be a very bad indicator for our future in the cosmos, making it far more likely that whatever great filter is out there, is in front of us still.

sudofail 5y ago
Not necessarily. Before the great filter, there's the jump to multi-cellular life. As far as we know, the symbioses with mitochondria bacteria only happened once, and is the progenesis of all multi-cellular life on earth. So single-celled life may not be terribly uncommon throughout the cosmos.
- csee 5y ago
  > Before the great filter, there's the jump to multi-cellular life. Well, the filter may exist prior to the jump to multi-cellular life. Finding early life on Mars would necessarily be bad because we would now be able to mostly eliminate that possibility, which means that the probability that the filter is ahead of us increases.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I disagree. While finding dead life on other planets decreases the probability of some filters, it also increases the probability of other filters. For example, if we go to every planet in the solar system and see evidence of extinct multi-cellular life, but no sapient life, this would suggest that the filter is indeed behind us, and not in front of us.
    - bpodgursky 5y ago
      I don't think this is right. It moves the filter forward from "no life" to "no intelligent life" (If we have a TON of examples – remember, we are also a data point. so even if we find 200 planets with dead multicellular life, we still have 1/200 making it to spacefaring — that's a huge % when extrapolated out to a galactic scale! It's a large enough % that I don't even find this to be a meaningful prior adjustment). It also adds no information as to which, if any, filters are in front of us. How would "lot of dead fish" help us understand "do civilizations destroy themselves with nuclear weapons"?

neom 5y ago

Beresheet Tardigrades floated over and are setting up camp to enact their revenge would be my bet.

czbond 5y ago

tenelmike 5y ago

it would be super ironic if it turned out earth life came from Mars or something :P