If they found actual life on Mars the NASA budget would multiply many times, so I don't understand your thinking.

I think the opposite - unless the discovery of life was preceeded or coincidental with the discovery of some other hyper interesting thing (for example, if Martian life has some sort of utility for medicine, maybe) then I think that would be that for Mars exploration missions. Of course there would be many announcements and excited political agreements around "continuing to explore the new frontier" but I think that no more money would appear.

I suspect that NASA knows this full well, as do Mars scientists, and I suspect that they are being very careful to make sure that definitive proof does not appear until they understand all sorts of other stuff about the planet.

▲

nkrisc 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But why? Why would there be no money for that but there’s money now when there’s no conclusive evidence of life, past or present, on Mars? It makes no sense.

▲

sgt101 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Because looking for life on mars sells.

"Why are we not spending that money on more social housing?" : Because this is the greatest mystery of our time... (nods all round)

"Why are we doing science?": I don't know and I don't care, cut my taxes! (Cheering and mocking comments about nerds.)

▲

nkrisc 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If life were found on Mars then the greatest mystery of our time would be whether life originated at least twice independently, or if we share a common origin. Both of which have significant implications, to put it mildly.

▲

tsunamifury 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is where we are at on HN.

Conspiracies that NASA already found alien life and is suppressing it to continue funding.

Or you know the far more likely case:

No one has ever found any evidence of life anywhere and exaggerating tiny findings adjacent to it keep funding flowing.

No it couldn’t be that.

▲

sgt101 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, Viking carried an experiment that tried to detect life. Now, the consensus is that it failed, and that the experiment was incapable of creating a useful result given the chemistry of the soil. Some people argue about that, but I am in no way qualified to take part in the debate, so I would back the consensus here.

What is odd is that there hasn't been a single other mission that's carried any experiment that has the objective of creating that result.

If the objective is to find life, why isn't anyone actually looking?

Tell me if what I've said above is in any way factually incorrect.

	▲	nephihaha an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The Viking results were at worst, inconclusive and at best positive. And yet in both cases we have been led to believe they were negative. They are far from the only pointers to life on Mars either, since we've seen pictures of what look like fossilised stromatolites and algal mats, seasonal methane emissions, and discolorations in seasonal flows & ice. Even the rusty coloured surface of Mars may be due, in part, to organic oxidisation processes. We aren't talking about Richard Hoagland style cities here (although that Face on Mars is a lot less easy to explain away that some people claim).

▲

GolfPopper 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You have to admire the discipline, willpower, and solidarity of all those scientists. Any one of them could prove the existence of life on Mars at any time, win a Nobel Prize, become the the most famous scientist since Einstein, put themselves on the gravy train for life... but they all hold out, keeping their decent, upper-middle class jobs, hiding one of the greatest discoveries in history, so that their colleagues don't have to find potentially slightly less lucrative or interesting jobs. That's dedication!

	▲	sgt101 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>>Well, Viking carried an experiment that tried to detect life. Now, the consensus is that it failed, and that the experiment was incapable of creating a useful result given the chemistry of the soil. Some people argue about that, but I am in no way qualified to take part in the debate, so I would back the consensus here. >>What is odd is that there hasn't been a single other mission that's carried any experiment that has the objective of creating that result. >>If the objective is to find life, why isn't anyone actually looking? >>Tell me if what I've said above is in any way factually incorrect. So... you tell me. Why no experiment? Not one in 50 years? In the meantime we've learned a lot about the Martian atmosphere, it's climate, it's history, it's geology, the evolution of it's surface. I would argue that if a Viking 3 had flown with a revised kit that produced a definitive signal we wouldn't have got any of that.