At first, the title of the post made me think that we killed all (possible) life on Mars, not just in the samples taken, just by having landed there and contaminated the planet. Now that would have been a true tragedy.
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
125 points (87.9% liked)
Astronomy
3719 readers
2 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, to be fair, it would be quintessentially human if we did.
It's kind of our thing to fuck up thriving ecosystems for no good reason.
We've even managed to turn our once vacant exosphere into a high velocity garbage dump, now that's commitment to pollution.
[deleted]
If there was life there 50 years ago there's good chances it has survived til today. Afaik there hasn't been any change in mars that would eradicate whatever life there is. We mightve killed the single organism we found but if we found one we can find more.
There are stories that I wish would go away because they are just completely unsubstantiated. This is one of them.
The article offers an explanation of the Viking test results, why do you think it's unsubstantiated?
Because it's without substance. I has no substant to be aited. This claim is actively harmful to science.
You didn't answer the question.
It's interesting how the article you linked presents the conclusion
microbial life is not ruled out by the new results; but the fact is that the original Labeled Release results make sense with the chemistry of Martian soil as it's now understood, no microbial life needed.
Meanwhile the paper it references concludes
the chlorine component of the chlorobenzene is martian, and the carbon molecule of the chlorobenzene is consistent with a martian origin, though we cannot fully rule out instrument contamination.
Which would seem to be the same thing but with opposite probability biases. Your link is twisting its source material.
This claim is actively harmful to science.
This is hyperbole.