BD says: I gues we are both wrong JPL news release says 2008. Here tis:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002_219.cfm

Alex writes:
No, you were wrong. You specifically stated "...NASA is finally considering sending a life science lander in 2003." The JPL release above refers to the proposed Mars Volcanic Emission and Life Scout, or Marvel mission, which would be, if selected, a Mars Scout orbiter mission, not a lander mission. Perhaps you were referring to the proposed Mars Scout lander Phoenix, which would be more a volatiles and climates survey and not really a "life detection lander" per se. That said, however, Phoenix would carry "[i]nstruments sensitive to minute quantities of organic molecules [that would] enable us to assess the habitability of the [near surface] icy layer for microbial life, past and present."

I still stand by my earlier statement. The only "definite" plans NASA has for landers beyond the 2003 Mars Exploration Rovers, which are geology missions, is something they refer to as MSL (Mars "Smart" Lander or Mars Surface Laboratory), which in some iterations carries either a long range or short range rover in addition to a lander stage, both with science instrumentation. The MSL strawman science payloads were recommended by a recent Science Definition Team report, and some variants proposed "life detection" instruments; however, nothing has been settled on by NASA. We'll have to wait for the AO to be released. At any rate, the timeframe for MSL has been pushed back. 2007 was the first window, then that went down the drain due to the flux in the Mars Exploration Program and difficulty in Mars sample return. From what I understand at the moment, 2009/2011 is the earliest timeframe, perhaps even later. Again, we'll just have to wait and see.

BD wrote:
I have not read any LPI or SPIE abstracts by Hoagland or Don for that matter.

Alex writes:
Irrelevant. Just because virtually anyone can submit an abstract to these conferences has nothing to do with those who do not. LPSC and SPIE abstracts have no "magical' quality in and of themselves. While they may be informative, and in many cases lead to "publication," in the opinion of the vast majority of scientists these abstracts are certainly inferior to works that pass peer review and are published in regular scientific journals.

Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii