Well perhaps... however, it is necessary and sufficient that one needs organics to have life. I
Ok. In other words... Any claim that life has been discovered in space will obviously be scrutinized and vetted beyond any possibility of it being substantiated. The burden of proof is too significant for a small branch of NASA to be able to communicate with much credibility from the larger academic community. no sensor data will ever be sufficient even if it was produced by a manned crew on any object in the solar system.
So if NASAs purpose is to find life, why not solely focus on archeological data on Earth rather than wasting time and treasure on Mars, asteroids, moons of Jupiter etc.?
So let's apply a lean six sigma approach to ensure that NASA has a 99.99966% chance of success with all of its priorities/objectives. This way they wiil only fail 3.4 times out of 1 million attempts.
See chemistry is mostly a steady state condition. Much of what is detected by NASA is only a data point at one point in time (either remotely or on a surface somewhere). Water and organics in the solar system is just 'nice'. Detecting life is much much harder.
Life is something intrinsic to cells and molecules and is likely only apparent at a microscopic level. NASA is just only able to measure extrinsic conditions (methane evolving from a soil sample, fossilized remains of an inconclusive looking fossil, etc.).
This type of science doesn't get you anywhere if one is attempting to discover life.
So my thinking is that just looking for life and its intrinsic conditions may only be possible on Earth.
However, NASA pulled all the budget away from ExoMars.
An AFM will only show structure of something. In order to detect life, you need to see chemistry, structure and functionality of a cell/organism. This would require watching the synthesis of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) occurring in a cell while on another planet/object in the solar system.
It is too slow and too incremental.
Let's assume I could immediately hand you about 100 samples of Mars rocks today that are on Earth. How would you determine (with > 99% confidence) if there is something alive in them?
Im not an expert here but why is it so hard to put an automated microscope on Mars and take a look at a soil sample and settle this debate once and for all?
Quote from: SVBarnard on 04/29/2015 05:08 pmIm not an expert here but why is it so hard to put an automated microscope on Mars and take a look at a soil sample and settle this debate once and for all?I would've thought someone would have answered this by now. Ok so how did we discover microbes in the first place? We saw them in a microscope, so someone plz explain to me why there hasn't been a microscope on Mars yet? Is it impossible to create an automated micrscope that can be operated without a human? Surely not with today's technology.
Well wouldn't you agree that having conclusive results from research are preferred versus those that are low confidence, and are inconclusive and inaccurate?
But I think you are right in one part of what you're saying. I think six sigma lean approaches/expectations for science at this level are a bit much. I do. Expecting accuracy of results to 3.4 errors in a million samples is unrealistic and simply not affordable.And my loose target of having 99% confidence with 100 samples (already available) seems to be too much to ask for and might not reasonable (the science is trivial, has no result to show life exists and is too affordable).However, asking for all the money in the world (to go to Mars) to conclude nothing is also a flawed strategy as well.
So someone from this GE six sigma camp has begun a new wave of thinking called Disciplined Experiments. The theory is described in a book by a Dartmouth professor titled The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution Challenge by Vijay Govindarajan and Chris TrimbleI will summarize the concept here in steps:1. First you define the ultimate objective (but actually the objective you come up with is bigger than the one that you likely assumed you'd start with). The important idea is to just swing for the wall.2. List all of your unknowns. Go bananas listing what you don't know. Then rank them with higher scores if you are very uncertain and also with higher scores if the unknown is critical to your objective. No list is too long in this regard.3. then you define a large number of little experiments. Don't think lean and simple. Define tests that are quickly performed, but the sum total of them could be perceived as greater than if you'd performed this plan normally.4. Give yourself the pleasure of doing all of this research with 1/10th or 1/100th the budget of a normal project (or whatever you thought a project was worth). The disciplined experiment methodology will enable achievements that will feel like climbing Mt. Everest, except without having food, supplies, resources or even knowledge of what you are doing.Once you reach the peak of the mountain having only achieved one minuscule goal out of the multiple you listed, then you get to receive the joy as someone tells you that "less is more!" It's like having feelings of accomplishment, with toppings of ultimate ambiguity, alongside the frustration of having your leg stuck in a crevasse, wrapped around endless action item lists that have a scent of bacon! The only escape from this experience is to willingly eat your leg off.
... But I digress. What is wrong with setting realistic objectives and doing meaningful research?
I think that the best way of exploring for fossil life on Mars is to send some archaeologists to turn over rocks, dig up sediments and clamber around caves. Acknowledging that Congress is never going to pay for this, how likely is it to send some kind of device to the Red Planet that can scan underground for fossils, sort of like the device seen working in the film Jurassic Park?
Quote from: tea monster on 05/03/2015 12:02 pmI think that the best way of exploring for fossil life on Mars is to send some archaeologists to turn over rocks, dig up sediments and clamber around caves. Acknowledging that Congress is never going to pay for this, how likely is it to send some kind of device to the Red Planet that can scan underground for fossils, sort of like the device seen working in the film Jurassic Park?The Mars 2020 rover is going to have a ground penetrating radar. However, I suspect that this is a bad way to look for evidence of past life.