5 ms·

This feels very cynical, but what incentive does NASA have to do research showing alien life is not very likely in our solar system?

by dash2 1y ago

jiggawatts 1y ago
This is a point I keep making: every one of NASA’s Mars missions has very carefully excluded any scientific instrument that could conclusively eliminate the presence of life... and hence future missions to find life. I.e.: they don’t carry high power microscopes because apparently there’s no room for one on a 900kg rover the size of a car.
- Scarblac 1y ago
  What kind of instrument could conclusively eliminate presence of life?
  - keithwhor 1y ago
    One that goes boom.
    - lukan 1y ago
      Some bacteria survives hard radiation of deep space in stasis mode.
  - jiggawatts 1y ago
    Anything that can return a sample. Notice that Curiosity collects samples, but omits the sample return rocket. A good enough microscope can easily tell the difference between life and non-life, especially in the presence of water. If it moves on its own, it is almost certainly alive! Certain kinds of chromatographs can conclusively determine that no complex chemicals are present, the kind essential to life. I.e.: if only simple metal oxides and the like are present, then you have only a rock.
    - someothherguyy 1y ago
      > A good enough microscope can easily tell the difference between life and non-life, especially in the presence of water. They are still arguing over this one three decades later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg7905 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg7905 " Inorganic precipitation processes are capable of producing a wide range of morphological outputs. This range includes shapes with both crystallographic and non-crystallographic symmetry elements. Among the latter, morphologies that mimic primitive living organisms are easily obtained under different physico-chemical conditions including those that are geochemically plausible. The application of this information to the problem of deciphering primitive life on the early Earth and Mars is discussed. It is concluded that morphology cannot be used unambiguously as a tool for primitive life detection. " https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/3755/1/Morphological-behavior-of-inorganic-precipitation-systems/10.1117/12.375088.short https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of...
    - rsynnott 1y ago
      > Anything that can return a sample. Notice that Curiosity collects samples, but omits the sample return rocket. NASA (and also the Soviet Union and ESA) have repeatedly designed Mars sample return missions, but have not done them for budgetary reasons; it would be tremendously difficult and expensive. Here's the current one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA-ESA_Mars_Sample_Return https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA-ESA_Mars_Sample_Return - however, given that it was hitting funding problems even _before_ ol' minihands gutted NASA funding, it seems destined to become yet another NASA/ESA canceled program (there's a bit of a history of ambitious NASA/ESA collaborations which die when one side or the other pulls the budgetary plug; JWST was likely lucky to escape this fate, say). This puts it in a particularly weird place, as the earth return section is already built and due to launch on an Ariane 6 in two years (it will then proceed, slowly, to Mars using an ion drive, and await the lander and Mars launcher, which will presumably never arrive because budgets).
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      You're suggesting we can state "Mars has no life" based on a single sample? If that's so, I can produce a sample of material from the center of the Amazon rain forest that will conclusively prove to you that Earth is also lifeless.
- lukan 1y ago
  Erm, just no. I have an old book lying around about Viking, the first mission to the surface of Mars and written before it reached Mars. The book is full of the expectation that they will find life and are rather curious what kind of life. (And the book describes all the instruments and methology) But no traces of life were found ever. If there is life on Mars, it is hidden underground in vulcanic active areas and alike and no mission we can do today, could conclude with certainty that there is no life on Mars. But we have been looking real hard.
  - veqq 1y ago
    What's the name of the book?
    - lukan 1y ago
      Projekt Viking by Ernst Stuhlinger. But in german and no idea if it was ever translated, but I assume similar books exist in english.
- someothherguyy 1y ago
  > they don’t carry high power microscopes because apparently there’s no room for one on a 900kg rover the size of a car They do though: "The WATSON (Wide Angle Topographic Sensor for Operations and eNgineering) is a reflight of the MAHLI (MArs Hand Lens Imager) that is a part of the Curiosity rover (Edgett et al., 2012). WATSON obtains full-color images from microscopic scales (∼13 μm/pixel) to infinity and is used for initial textural analysis of rock and regolith targets, as well as to assess potential proximity science targets and the safety of robotic arm activities (Edgett et al., 2012). The ACI (Autofocus Contextual Imager) is a fixed field, 10.1 μm/pixel resolution grayscale imager used to obtain best-focus and colocate laser spots with surface feature analyzed during SHERLOC spectroscopic investigations (Bhartia et al., 2021)." From: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EA002544 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EA00... See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_(rover)#Instruments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_(rover)#Instrumen... https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-2020-perseverance/science-instruments/ https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-2020-perseverance/scie...
  - jiggawatts 1y ago
    They do not, because that's not high power microscope. I chose my words carefully. 10-13 μm per pixel is nowhere near good enough when a typical bacterium is 0.5 - 5.0 μm in size! I remember the discussions around the mission plan for both Opportunity and Curiosity where NASA kept making "mumbly" noises about why they can't ship decent optics with these things. Anything that would definitely eliminate (not just "potentially find") the presence of either life or water is never included. It's always omitted, for "reasons". Water and life must forever remain possible things for the funding to keep flowing.
    - maxbond 1y ago
      Individual bacteria are also generally not visible in optical microscopes without staining. If there was life on the surface of mars, you probably wouldn't need a microscope to see it. Just like you don't need a microscope to observe your bread it's moldy. Water isn't an abstract possibility on Mars. It's a reality. They've found minerals that only form in water, they've found ice, they've observed erosion. We don't understand the hydrology of Mars but it isn't some kind of conspiracy. It's a laborious process, which they continue to chug away at. Looking for life isn't the primary mission of Mars rovers. They're remote controlled geologists. The search for life really has nothing to do with funding for Mars missions. No one expects to find it.
robbomacrae 1y ago
Regardless of incentives I think this is some of the most important research they should be doing. As a species we need to get a better understanding of the probability of life on other planets and therefore a better understanding of fermi's paradox in case the dark forest theory is correct. So if NASA has an incentive to discover potential pathways for extraterrestrial life... great!
- dash2 1y ago
  The problem is that the incentive is biased against scepticism. So the process is more likely to find potential pathways but not notice obstacles or counter arguments.
- pavel_lishin 1y ago
  > a better understanding of fermi's paradox in case the dark forest theory is correct. We know so little about this, that we can't even begin to estimate the probabilities. It seems like other things are known potential dangers to us, no?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - robbomacrae 1y ago
    Yes and this helps us make a start. It slightly increases the odds of life elsewhere. And yes there are other dangers.. climate change, nuclear armageddon, bio weapons etc but the existence of another problem doesn’t mean you shouldn’t also attempt to tackle this one. Specially as unlike the others a band aid seems somewhat tractable.. Researcher: “with this new device we think we can attempt to create a gravity wave in the lab” Professor: “we should consider whether this might violate the 2028 embargo on dark forest beacon technology”
- catigula 1y ago
  A non-trivial faction of our government has been teasing knowledge of some sort of non-human intelligent lifeform (that word isn't considered precisely accurate) on EARTH. This isn't some crackpot theory, they've been having congressional hearings about it and congresspeople say it's real. You can think they are or aren't credible or being lied to, but, if congresspeople are part of or victims of some sort of psy-op with vague parameters and goals, our entire system of government is basically forfeit. I realize this is difficult to deal with but it's a pretty well-established fact at this point. We don't need to go anywhere for this information.
carabiner 1y ago
That's just a null result from attempting to prove that life elsewhere does exist.

This feels very cynical, but what incentive does NASA have to do research showing alien life is not very likely in our solar system?

by dash2 1y ago

This feels very cynical, but what incentive does NASA have to do research showing alien life is not very likely in our solar system?

jiggawatts 1y ago

This is a point I keep making: every one of NASA’s Mars missions has very carefully excluded any scientific instrument that could conclusively eliminate the presence of life... and hence future missions to find life. I.e.: they don’t carry high power microscopes because apparently there’s no room for one on a 900kg rover the size of a car.

Scarblac 1y ago
What kind of instrument could conclusively eliminate presence of life?
- keithwhor 1y ago
  One that goes boom.
  - lukan 1y ago
    Some bacteria survives hard radiation of deep space in stasis mode.
- jiggawatts 1y ago
  Anything that can return a sample. Notice that Curiosity collects samples, but omits the sample return rocket. A good enough microscope can easily tell the difference between life and non-life, especially in the presence of water. If it moves on its own, it is almost certainly alive! Certain kinds of chromatographs can conclusively determine that no complex chemicals are present, the kind essential to life. I.e.: if only simple metal oxides and the like are present, then you have only a rock.
  - someothherguyy 1y ago
    > A good enough microscope can easily tell the difference between life and non-life, especially in the presence of water. They are still arguing over this one three decades later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg7905 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg7905 " Inorganic precipitation processes are capable of producing a wide range of morphological outputs. This range includes shapes with both crystallographic and non-crystallographic symmetry elements. Among the latter, morphologies that mimic primitive living organisms are easily obtained under different physico-chemical conditions including those that are geochemically plausible. The application of this information to the problem of deciphering primitive life on the early Earth and Mars is discussed. It is concluded that morphology cannot be used unambiguously as a tool for primitive life detection. " https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/3755/1/Morphological-behavior-of-inorganic-precipitation-systems/10.1117/12.375088.short https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of...
  - rsynnott 1y ago
    > Anything that can return a sample. Notice that Curiosity collects samples, but omits the sample return rocket. NASA (and also the Soviet Union and ESA) have repeatedly designed Mars sample return missions, but have not done them for budgetary reasons; it would be tremendously difficult and expensive. Here's the current one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA-ESA_Mars_Sample_Return https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA-ESA_Mars_Sample_Return - however, given that it was hitting funding problems even _before_ ol' minihands gutted NASA funding, it seems destined to become yet another NASA/ESA canceled program (there's a bit of a history of ambitious NASA/ESA collaborations which die when one side or the other pulls the budgetary plug; JWST was likely lucky to escape this fate, say). This puts it in a particularly weird place, as the earth return section is already built and due to launch on an Ariane 6 in two years (it will then proceed, slowly, to Mars using an ion drive, and await the lander and Mars launcher, which will presumably never arrive because budgets).
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    You're suggesting we can state "Mars has no life" based on a single sample? If that's so, I can produce a sample of material from the center of the Amazon rain forest that will conclusively prove to you that Earth is also lifeless.
lukan 1y ago
Erm, just no. I have an old book lying around about Viking, the first mission to the surface of Mars and written before it reached Mars. The book is full of the expectation that they will find life and are rather curious what kind of life. (And the book describes all the instruments and methology) But no traces of life were found ever. If there is life on Mars, it is hidden underground in vulcanic active areas and alike and no mission we can do today, could conclude with certainty that there is no life on Mars. But we have been looking real hard.
- veqq 1y ago
  What's the name of the book?
  - lukan 1y ago
    Projekt Viking by Ernst Stuhlinger. But in german and no idea if it was ever translated, but I assume similar books exist in english.
someothherguyy 1y ago
> they don’t carry high power microscopes because apparently there’s no room for one on a 900kg rover the size of a car They do though: "The WATSON (Wide Angle Topographic Sensor for Operations and eNgineering) is a reflight of the MAHLI (MArs Hand Lens Imager) that is a part of the Curiosity rover (Edgett et al., 2012). WATSON obtains full-color images from microscopic scales (∼13 μm/pixel) to infinity and is used for initial textural analysis of rock and regolith targets, as well as to assess potential proximity science targets and the safety of robotic arm activities (Edgett et al., 2012). The ACI (Autofocus Contextual Imager) is a fixed field, 10.1 μm/pixel resolution grayscale imager used to obtain best-focus and colocate laser spots with surface feature analyzed during SHERLOC spectroscopic investigations (Bhartia et al., 2021)." From: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EA002544 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EA00... See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_(rover)#Instruments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_(rover)#Instrumen... https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-2020-perseverance/science-instruments/ https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-2020-perseverance/scie...
- jiggawatts 1y ago
  They do not, because that's not high power microscope. I chose my words carefully. 10-13 μm per pixel is nowhere near good enough when a typical bacterium is 0.5 - 5.0 μm in size! I remember the discussions around the mission plan for both Opportunity and Curiosity where NASA kept making "mumbly" noises about why they can't ship decent optics with these things. Anything that would definitely eliminate (not just "potentially find") the presence of either life or water is never included. It's always omitted, for "reasons". Water and life must forever remain possible things for the funding to keep flowing.
  - maxbond 1y ago
    Individual bacteria are also generally not visible in optical microscopes without staining. If there was life on the surface of mars, you probably wouldn't need a microscope to see it. Just like you don't need a microscope to observe your bread it's moldy. Water isn't an abstract possibility on Mars. It's a reality. They've found minerals that only form in water, they've found ice, they've observed erosion. We don't understand the hydrology of Mars but it isn't some kind of conspiracy. It's a laborious process, which they continue to chug away at. Looking for life isn't the primary mission of Mars rovers. They're remote controlled geologists. The search for life really has nothing to do with funding for Mars missions. No one expects to find it.

robbomacrae 1y ago

Regardless of incentives I think this is some of the most important research they should be doing. As a species we need to get a better understanding of the probability of life on other planets and therefore a better understanding of fermi's paradox in case the dark forest theory is correct. So if NASA has an incentive to discover potential pathways for extraterrestrial life... great!

dash2 1y ago
The problem is that the incentive is biased against scepticism. So the process is more likely to find potential pathways but not notice obstacles or counter arguments.
pavel_lishin 1y ago
> a better understanding of fermi's paradox in case the dark forest theory is correct. We know so little about this, that we can't even begin to estimate the probabilities. It seems like other things are known potential dangers to us, no?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- robbomacrae 1y ago
  Yes and this helps us make a start. It slightly increases the odds of life elsewhere. And yes there are other dangers.. climate change, nuclear armageddon, bio weapons etc but the existence of another problem doesn’t mean you shouldn’t also attempt to tackle this one. Specially as unlike the others a band aid seems somewhat tractable.. Researcher: “with this new device we think we can attempt to create a gravity wave in the lab” Professor: “we should consider whether this might violate the 2028 embargo on dark forest beacon technology”
catigula 1y ago
A non-trivial faction of our government has been teasing knowledge of some sort of non-human intelligent lifeform (that word isn't considered precisely accurate) on EARTH. This isn't some crackpot theory, they've been having congressional hearings about it and congresspeople say it's real. You can think they are or aren't credible or being lied to, but, if congresspeople are part of or victims of some sort of psy-op with vague parameters and goals, our entire system of government is basically forfeit. I realize this is difficult to deal with but it's a pretty well-established fact at this point. We don't need to go anywhere for this information.

carabiner 1y ago

That's just a null result from attempting to prove that life elsewhere does exist.