Viking Mars Mission Might Have Missed Life

Johan Louwers writes "The Viking mars mission in 1976 might have missed signs of life due to not completely working analysis equipment. GC-MS on the Viking 1976 Mars missions did not detect organic molecules on the Martian surface, even those expected from meteorite bombardment. This result suggested that the Martian regolith might hold a potent oxidant that converts all organic molecules to carbon dioxide rapidly relative to the rate at which they arrive. This conclusion is influencing the design of Mars missions. We reexamine this conclusion in light of what is known about the oxidation of organic compounds generally and the nature of organics likely to come to Mars via meteorite."

Comments

In short - no life on Mars.

[Cicero382]

...barring some bizarre deep-rock extremophiles.

1. Hard radiation on surface - not good.
2. Virtually zero atmosphere - not that good.
3. No (or little water) - not good.
4. Highly oxidising compounds on surface - very bad.

Each in themselves, not a show-stopper. Two - err... All of them == no life. Well, not as we know it (Jim - sorry).

As a biochemist, I wouldn't expect any form of life (AWKI) to survive those conditions; not even if I were allowed to tweak every other possible variable to the organism's advantage. It would be nice to be proved wrong - but I don't think so.

Re:In short - no life on Mars.

[LWATCDR]

But then almost no one would have expected to find life some of it pretty complex living in and near geothermal vents.
Life seems to be very adaptable. I am pretty sure that not environment on earth have been found to be devoid of life. They found living bacteria on the less of the Surveyor camera that had sat on the moon for like two years!

From what I know of history people thought that the deep sea would be lifeless as well. I mean think of the total lack of light, the cold, and the pressure. No life as they knew it could survive miles down.
Never say never.

Cost

[BeeBeard]

Mars missions are still extremely expensive, and there's a lot of wisdom behind analyzing past mistakes to make sure they don't happen again in future missions.

Oh give me a break

[Vintermann]

The optimism of life-seekers on Mars does not suprise me any longer. Just about every person I have heard quoted believes that either there is life on Mars, or there was in the past. The only dissent I've heard was from James Lovelock, who predicted _before_ the Viking missions that no life would be found on Mars, based on its infrared signature from space. Simply put, he said that on the one planet we know life exists, it has completely transformed our environment to such a degree that would be completely impossible (from the amount of unstable gases in our atmosphere, among other things) for an alien observer to miss it. If there was life on Mars, why has it been so utterly passive and gentle to its environment compared to life on earth?

I'm still convinced by that. I don't think life could have existed on Mars today without transforming its environment, and I don't think it could have existed in the past without leaving huge traces - and it would be very unlikely that it should die out, too. Life as we know it just doesn't behave like that.

Re:Oh give me a break

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

That's not what he means. The blue-green algae changed the planet more than sentient life ever has.

Re:Oh give me a break

[Captain Hook]

Life as we know it just doesn't behave like that.

Based on a sample of one data point.

Another remote possibility...

[mrjb]

...is of course, still, that there simply is no life on Mars (except for the micro-organisms we brought there from Earth). Just because the equipment failed to detect it, doesn't mean it has to exist. That's like saying "I've never seen a yellow-dotted purple kangaroo, but I may have been looking in the wrong direction so they probably exist."

Re:Why not try again?

[Dunbal]

silly to base 2006 missions on results from a 30 year old set of space technology.

      You think that's silly, wait until you find out what missions were based on 30 years ago!

      But seriously, what _else_ are we going to base it on?

Just Means Not Conclusive

[EXTomar]

Which doesn't mean "it missed something!" Viking might have "missed something" and yet there still might not be life. It just means it isn't very conclusive so we should go back and look again.

One thing that I continually like to point out is that "life" at a basic level is agressively replicant. If there is any life that is a little successful, it explodes and tries to fill every nook and cranny and does it as fast as it can. If there is life anywhere on Mars it should be easy to find if we take a wide survey testing multiple places at multiple times of the Martian year. Just two tests isn't sufficient to call it either way.

Re:Just Means Not Conclusive

[RsG]

One thing that I continually like to point out is that "life" at a basic level is agressively replicant. If there is any life that is a little successful, it explodes and tries to fill every nook and cranny and does it as fast as it can.

That assumption is working from Earthlike conditions. Life is successful here for reasons that don't apply offworld; namely the abundance of liquid water, plentiful useful chemical compounds in the air, and a thick atmosphere coupled with a magnetic field that blocks most harmful radiation. Without those advantages, Earth could only support a handful of extremophiles.

Mars lacks liquid water on its surface. The atmosphere is thin, meaning that lifeforms would have to make do with less Co2 (and no free Oxygen). The thin atmosphere coupled with the lack of a magnetic field means that surface radiation is unhealthy by terrestrial standards, at least during the day.

Now, what that means is that logically, the chances of there being any life at all on Mars are slim. The odds are against there even being simple bacteria. But if there is life, there most certainly aren't the conditions for abundant, successful life. Scant resources and unfavourable surface conditions make Mars an environment only suited to simple, minimal biology. And the surface would be the wrong place to look for it; we'd have to dig down to find it, if it even exists.

Simply looking for signs of aggregate life, or looking for massive biological activity, won't work.

Re:I dont understant the story

[Sique]

It's not due to the fact that the experiment was broken. It's just the way it was designed.

So it was broken by design?

Re:Why should there be ANY future missions?

[garyboodhoo]

If we were to wait for all the "problems" on Earth, all the discoveries of "genuine value" on Earth to be figured out before looking up, we'd be a nation of lawyers, accountants and middle managers.

we can multitask! We can kill & explore & educate & entertain all at the same time. The $400 million or whatever spent on a single unmanned probe is money well spent; not cheap, but not out of scale with any number of public or private projects. If we must, lets sacrifice 3 summer blockbusters each year and funnel the money "saved" to pay for the missions.

Or

[slapout]

it could simply be that there is no life on Mars.

Organic != Little Green Men.

[Dibblah]

Organic means literally "compounds containing but not limited to Carbon and Hydrogen". Most of the comments here seem to be focussing on the "life" aspect here - Which is not what this science experiment (AFAIK) was about.