Slashdot Mirror


New Study Suggests Mars Viking Robots Found Life

techfun89 writes "New analysis of data, now 36 years old, from the Viking robots, suggests that NASA had found life on Mars. This conclusion was published by an international team of mathematicians and scientists this week. The Labeled Release experiment looked for signs of microbial metabolism in soil samples in 1976. The general thinking was that the experiment had found geological not biological activity. However, the new study approached things differently. Researchers broke the data into sets of numbers and analyzed the results for complexity. What they found were close correlations between the Viking results' complexity and those of terrestrial biological data sets. Based on this they concluded that the Viking results were more biological in nature than just geological processes."

7 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. And true or not-- it provides lube by way2trivial · · Score: 5, Interesting

    to loosen up a few dollars to the space program.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  2. NASA ignored Viking experimental protocols by mbone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Each Viking Lander had 3 biological experiments, for a total of 6.

    I worked on Viking (but not on the biological experiments), and before the mission landed I received a bunch of NASA PR type hype, including the protocols for the biological experiments. These were each (at a very high level) of the same form -

    - collect a soil sample
    - add something to it (such as water or nutrients)
    - see what happens

    and, as a control, repeat this with another sample after "sterilizing" it (by heating it).

    At the one bit level, a successful biological result would be something positive happens to the active sample, the same something doesn't happen to the control.

    The biological experimental protocols did not mention the mass spectrometer at all.

    In the actual case, each biological experiment (all 6) returned a positive result for biology "at the one bit level." The Labeled Release (LR) experiment was more or less what they were expecting, the other 2 experiments (in each case) did something, just not what was expected. In every case, the control runs had a much smaller or no reaction.

    I, following this, actually expected the Viking project to announce that life had probably been found, with positive (if not fully understood) results from the 6 biological trials. Instead, they announced a negative result, based on not finding organic matter with the mass spectrometer. The conclusion was that the positive results were due to some (unknown, and still unknown) inorganic chemistry of the surface, which went over like a wet balloon.

    To this day, I feel this was a violation of the pre-launch protocols for the biological experiments. If the mass spectrometer trumped all, why fly the biologicals? If the biological experiments were worth doing, why were they not worth investigating further? Gilbert Levin (the Labeled Release experiment PI), for example, has always felt that the LR experiment detected biology. Is that not worthy of a followup ?

    Instead, this was announced in such a fashion as to make it as uninteresting as possible and the Mars science budget was cut to the point that, in the early 1980's, it was almost impossible for a student to get a job in the field. The JPL Mars crew was broken up, let go or reassigned (I was at JPL at the time, I saw it happen). Basically, a generation was lost (Viking Lander 1 died, from a lack of funding, in 1982; the next successful US mission to Mars was 1997).

    Because of the way this was handled, this problem has never been investigated further on Mars. We have had successful 4 lander / rovers since then, but no biological tests whatsoever. I must say that, since then, I have not had a lot of respect for the "conventional wisdom" of the Mars science community. In my book, this was blown, and blown badly, with serious damage to the course of science.

    1. Re:NASA ignored Viking experimental protocols by Maow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Each Viking Lander had 3 biological experiments, for a total of 6.

      I worked on Viking (but not on the biological experiments), and before the mission landed I received a bunch of NASA PR type hype, including the protocols for the biological experiments. These were each (at a very high level) of the same form -

      - collect a soil sample
      - add something to it (such as water or nutrients)
      - see what happens

      and, as a control, repeat this with another sample after "sterilizing" it (by heating it).

      I recall your post from the last time a meta-analysis was performed concluding 75%, then ~90% likelihood of life found on Mars by Viking.

      This is the 3rd meta-analysis to conclude the same thing, yet even the science shows like CBC's Quirks & Quarks haven't addressed the issue.

      I find it very frustrating that possibly the most significant discovery in history has been virtually ignored.

    2. Re:NASA ignored Viking experimental protocols by mbone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The biological experimental protocols did not mention the mass spectrometer at all.

      That's pretty much unsurprising. I bet if you go back and look you'll find they didn't mention the weather instruments or the cameras either. Each set of instruments is going to have it's own protocols.

      Totally irrelevant to my argument.

      To this day, I feel this was a violation of the pre-launch protocols for the biological experiments. If the mass spectrometer trumped all, why fly the biologicals?

      Because NASA was following basic scientific procedures and guarding against false positives.

      By not following the prelaunch scientific procedures, and making it up as they went along. I don't have very much trouble with doing that, by the way, where I have trouble is assuming (and broadcasting) a certainty where in reality none exists.

       

      Because of the way this was handled, this problem has never been investigated further on Mars. We have had successful 4 lander / rovers since then, but no biological tests whatsoever.

      That's because they've changed the strategy for looking for life - away from "pin the tail on the donkey" (blind stabs in the dark like Viking) and towards more basic chemical research. Biological experiments are sexy, but they're meaningless without the proper foundation of knowledge to design them and to interpret their results.

      None of the subsequent NASA landers have had the slightest biological component. MER was so resolutely geological it didn't even have any meteorological instruments. Mars Science Laboratory (currently on the way) will (skycrane willing) finally deliver a mass spectrometer and gas chromatograph which might begin to answer the questions raised by Viking. Pardon me for pointing out what a frakking long time 30 years has been.

       

      (And seriously, have you been living in a cave the three plus decades? This is all pretty much common knowledge if you've been following Mars exploration for the last fifteen odd years rather than nursing a thirty year old grudge.)

      Oh, I follow it. I was just at the LPSC2012, for example. With all due respect, I don't think this is common knowledge among readers of slashdot, which is where I happen to be posting at this instant.

      Look, IMHO the planetary science community shot itself in the foot by being overly cautious after Viking. And for what? Do you, for example, look down on cosmologists because they are much more inclined to extrapolate from incomplete and confusing data? Part of life is to learn from your mistakes, and I regard this as a big one I wish someone would learn something from.

    3. Re:NASA ignored Viking experimental protocols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are being a giant a-hole. You haven't offered any counter arguments at all except to insultingly suggest "you're wrong and you'd know that if you werent a) nursing a grudge b) living in a cave and c) being willfully ignorant". If you are so knowledgable, why don't you pull the stick out of your butt and explain to the rest of us bystanders what it is that MBone should aready know If he weren't apparently such a troglodyte- because I don't know either. As far as I can tell he or she is making valid arguments... And you're not.

  3. Maybe if they bothered to send a decent microscope by backslashdot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They STILL have not sent a decent microscope .. you know of the kind any high school biology lab would have .. to Mars. And the next mission doesn't have one scheduled either. The previous mission (this decade) they did send a microscope but its magnification would not even have showed bacteria .. even tiny pollen type grains. And of course they didn't send any staining chemicals either.

  4. Not necessarily by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The truth is, we have absolutely no idea and the "Drake test" has too many unknowns to be of any use.

    My own suspicion, which is at least supported by events so far, is that a single inhabitable planet does not contain sufficient energy resources to allow any intelligent form of life any significant way of getting off-planet. The energy consumption needed to get to a technological civilisation may be such that by the time the necessary engineering skills exists, an energy crisis has been reached the outcome of which is either population collapse or evolution to a state more like an ant community than anything else.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."