5 ms·

I’m Convinced We Found Evidence of Life on Mars in the 1970s (2019)

33 points by areoform 4y ago

chiefalchemist 4y ago
> NASA concluded that the LR had found a substance mimicking life, but not life. Inexplicably, over the 43 years since Viking, none of NASA’s subsequent Mars landers has carried a life detection instrument to follow up on these exciting results. I stopped here. If NASA concluded it didn't find signs of life then no future attempts is explicable. Budgets are tight. Ever pound being launched counts. No news here.
- BoiledCabbage 4y ago
  > I stopped here. Then why post if you don't understand the material being discussed?
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    I posted to say...it's effectively click bait. Entertainment? Pandering to the overly curious? Certain to draw plenty of eyeballs? Yes, yes and YES. It's very simple. He says, the multitudes of experts at NASA concluded they found *nothing*. But then immediately inexplicably uses the word inexplicably*. It was by no means inexplicable. Full stop. Once you falsely buy into that *assumption* you keep reading. Everything that follows is built on that false assumption. Why did you keep reading? Why did you let your bias get the best of you? Or did you hear what you wanted to hear? This is so typical of HN sometimes. * Again, these trips and payload are EXPENSIVE. You don't toss stuff on a rocket for shit & giggles. The author contradicts himself and common rocket-to-Mars sense.
    - areoform 4y ago
      He is an expert. He was the principal investigator for the payload! He helped design the experiment. The author and his colleagues worked with NASA. We should follow up our experiments for finding life on other worlds if they give a positive result, even if we think it’s a false positive, because what if we missed out on The Discovery of our species?
      - chiefalchemist 4y ago
        An expert would need to make a false assumption. Let's just leave it at that.
    - BoiledCabbage 4y ago
      Honestly your comment looks even worse now after your attempt at explaining it. If you had read the article you'd understand why. Please don't comment on topics you aren't familiar with and don't understand.
      - chiefalchemist 4y ago
        I didn't keep reading because the author said something that completely lacked credibility. It he was so confident, then why the false assumption? Why not just come up with some other line of thought / argument? But you missed that part. That's not on me. He said it, I didn't. That's not on me. I would have kept reading if my BS detector didn't go off. That's not on me. See?
        BoiledCabbage 4y ago
        Again you just keep digging. You just posting you being unaware of the answer isn't convincing anyone, because they read the article and understand it. > But you missed that part I didn't miss any part. I read the article so I know why you're wrong. It's really that simple. but you just keep digging... have fun dig away
areoform 4y ago
Context: The author, Gilbert Levin, was the Principal Investigator of the Labeled Release experiment that was sent with the Viking landers. The experiment is beautiful in its thoroughness and elegance, > In the LR experiment, a sample of Martian soil was inoculated with a drop of very dilute aqueous nutrient solution. The nutrients (7 molecules that were Miller-Urey products) were tagged with radioactive 14C. The air above the soil was monitored for the evolution of radioactive 14CO2 (or other carbon-based[13]) gas as evidence that microorganisms in the soil had metabolized one or more of the nutrients. > The result was quite a surprise, considering the negative results of the first two tests, with a steady stream of radioactive gases being given off by the soil immediately following the first injection. The experiment was done by both Viking probes, the first using a sample from the surface exposed to sunlight and the second probe taking the sample from underneath a rock; both initial injections came back positive.[1] > Sterilization control tests were subsequently carried out by heating various soil samples. Samples heated for 3 hours at 160 °C gave off no radioactive gas when nutrients were injected, and samples heated for 3 hours at 50 °C exhibited a substantial reduction in radioactive gas released following nutrient injection.[14] A sample stored at 10 °C for several months was later tested showing significantly reduced radioactive gas release. There's debate whether it's simple oxidation due to superoxidizers present in the soil due to the high UV environment of Mars, or if the positive detection really was life. Levin and the other scientists on the team have contended that it's likely to be evidence for life. Others have disagreed. Either way, it's a great experiment to re-run with our better technology. This time we could add steps to eliminate the chemical reaction hypothesis more thoroughly. Even if it's a negative, it's still an important result. It is my personal hope that the samples that we'll obtain via Mars Sample Return will go towards ending this debate.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
senkora 4y ago
The wiki article discusses this controversy and is worth reading for another viewpoint: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_lander_biological_experiments https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_lander_biological_exp...

33 points by areoform 4y ago

> NASA concluded that the LR had found a substance mimicking life, but not life. Inexplicably, over the 43 years since Viking, none of NASA’s subsequent Mars landers has carried a life detection instrument to follow up on these exciting results. I stopped here. If NASA concluded it didn't find signs of life then no future attempts is explicable. Budgets are tight. Ever pound being launched counts. No news here.

BoiledCabbage 4y ago
> I stopped here. Then why post if you don't understand the material being discussed?
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  I posted to say...it's effectively click bait. Entertainment? Pandering to the overly curious? Certain to draw plenty of eyeballs? Yes, yes and YES. It's very simple. He says, the multitudes of experts at NASA concluded they found *nothing*. But then immediately inexplicably uses the word inexplicably*. It was by no means inexplicable. Full stop. Once you falsely buy into that *assumption* you keep reading. Everything that follows is built on that false assumption. Why did you keep reading? Why did you let your bias get the best of you? Or did you hear what you wanted to hear? This is so typical of HN sometimes. * Again, these trips and payload are EXPENSIVE. You don't toss stuff on a rocket for shit & giggles. The author contradicts himself and common rocket-to-Mars sense.
  - areoform 4y ago
    He is an expert. He was the principal investigator for the payload! He helped design the experiment. The author and his colleagues worked with NASA. We should follow up our experiments for finding life on other worlds if they give a positive result, even if we think it’s a false positive, because what if we missed out on The Discovery of our species?
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      An expert would need to make a false assumption. Let's just leave it at that.
  - BoiledCabbage 4y ago
    Honestly your comment looks even worse now after your attempt at explaining it. If you had read the article you'd understand why. Please don't comment on topics you aren't familiar with and don't understand.
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      I didn't keep reading because the author said something that completely lacked credibility. It he was so confident, then why the false assumption? Why not just come up with some other line of thought / argument? But you missed that part. That's not on me. He said it, I didn't. That's not on me. I would have kept reading if my BS detector didn't go off. That's not on me. See?
      - BoiledCabbage 4y ago
        Again you just keep digging. You just posting you being unaware of the answer isn't convincing anyone, because they read the article and understand it. > But you missed that part I didn't miss any part. I read the article so I know why you're wrong. It's really that simple. but you just keep digging... have fun dig away

areoform 4y ago

Context: The author, Gilbert Levin, was the Principal Investigator of the Labeled Release experiment that was sent with the Viking landers. The experiment is beautiful in its thoroughness and elegance, > In the LR experiment, a sample of Martian soil was inoculated with a drop of very dilute aqueous nutrient solution. The nutrients (7 molecules that were Miller-Urey products) were tagged with radioactive 14C. The air above the soil was monitored for the evolution of radioactive 14CO2 (or other carbon-based[13]) gas as evidence that microorganisms in the soil had metabolized one or more of the nutrients. > The result was quite a surprise, considering the negative results of the first two tests, with a steady stream of radioactive gases being given off by the soil immediately following the first injection. The experiment was done by both Viking probes, the first using a sample from the surface exposed to sunlight and the second probe taking the sample from underneath a rock; both initial injections came back positive.[1] > Sterilization control tests were subsequently carried out by heating various soil samples. Samples heated for 3 hours at 160 °C gave off no radioactive gas when nutrients were injected, and samples heated for 3 hours at 50 °C exhibited a substantial reduction in radioactive gas released following nutrient injection.[14] A sample stored at 10 °C for several months was later tested showing significantly reduced radioactive gas release. There's debate whether it's simple oxidation due to superoxidizers present in the soil due to the high UV environment of Mars, or if the positive detection really was life. Levin and the other scientists on the team have contended that it's likely to be evidence for life. Others have disagreed. Either way, it's a great experiment to re-run with our better technology. This time we could add steps to eliminate the chemical reaction hypothesis more thoroughly. Even if it's a negative, it's still an important result. It is my personal hope that the samples that we'll obtain via Mars Sample Return will go towards ending this debate.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

senkora 4y ago

The wiki article discusses this controversy and is worth reading for another viewpoint: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_lander_biological_experiments https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_lander_biological_exp...