gbaike said "....either past fossilized, and or existing bacterial life will be found on Mars beneath the ancient surface of sediment."

Do you believe that there will past signs of life on the Moon, Venus, Mercury, etc.

I believe that there is about a 60% chance of finding life on Mars- by which I mean 40% chance of no life on Mars, anywhere.
I don't think there is much of a chance of NASA ever finding life. And I think it's more likely to find life that is living rather than fossilized life.

I find NASA's focus on finding life on Mars a waste of tax payer's dollars. One reason being is I doubt NASA will find life on Mars, and I believe there is a greater chance of NASA finding life somewhere other than Mars. Another more aspect is that think that search for life shouldn't be a top priority for our Space agency. And if I'm wrong about this and it was a proper priority, I think looking on Earth for this life is more a sensible course.

Let's say that NASA discovers Martian rock varnish- is that worth a billion dollars [not to mention tens of billions of dollars?]. Scientist can clap another on the back, drink some champaign, and some them might get a plaque- but it's not worth a billion dollars of tax payer money.
The *why* of why we go into space may include finding alien life, but it's *low* on this list. Joe six pack doesn't care, and Joe six pack isn't wrong or stupid with the scientists being better and smarter human beings. If Martian rock varnish will cure cancer *then* it would worth something, otherwise the scientist are just a bunch of...

it was okay up to that point. if you'd have stopped there, it would have been a good and relevant contribution, but oh no, the Alzberger's syndrome had to kick in.

Let's keep it CLEAN and on-topic, even if the topic is about inflated claims and selling science like second-hand cars...