It's certainly a problem when the spacecraft's job is to detect life on other planets. If the spacecraft is contaminated with Earth microbes then it will get a false positive which is a huge problem.
One interesting theory is that life originated outside the Earth (say on Mars) and was transported to Earth at a later time. This theory would explain why LUCA [0] is so complex and why life appears almost as soon the Earth had liquid water [1].
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor
from the wikipedia article:
>LUCA should not be assumed to be the first living organism on Earth
However tiny the spacecraft's contamination is going to be right next to the sensors making false positives easy. Longer term they will likely all die out, but they could still contaminate samples taken over huge areas for the next decade.
So there's potential there I would imagine in regards to testing that hypothesis. However what mainly bothers me with it is that it doesn't explain the origin of life and why Earth couldn't have original life begin on it.
Unless we can rule out that early Earth conditions would have been too inhospitable for life to start but was sufficient to sustain it I see no reason to think an extraterrestrial origin to Earth life is more likely.
Actually, information is stored as RNA, with DNA as long-term storage (mnemonic: RAM nucleic acid vs disk nucleic acid) and then amino acids are assembled into proteins (hardware) based on that information. Proteins only function as information storage in pathological cases like prions.
But yes, if 'alien' life used the same 20 amino acids, and especially if it has the same mapping from 64 nucleic acid triplets to 20 amino acids, then that's confirmation that it's actually just a earth microbe that escaped or was left behind.
Therefore, yes, life would have diverged sufficiently that scientists should be able to tell the difference.
An extremely expensive although effective approach would be to "seed" the spacecraft with isotopically enriched and documented solvents and food sources such that all the oxygen or carbon or both on the spacecraft, if any contamination DOES exist, would be a peculiar and documented isotope ratio that is different than Mars ratios.
I think we know the natural ratios for Mars in bulk material, so anything immediately found to be growing that matched the documented "salted" isotope ratios obviously was a spacecraft contaminant whereas anything mars ratio was local. Of course bacteria can reproduce fast, so Earth bacteria eating Mars material would rapidly revert to Mars isotope ratios. Still for the first hour on the ground this would likely be usable for life detection experiments. Although it would probably be unimaginably expensive.
Why do you assume so? It's possible a sattelite in the Solar System was contaminated by Earthling bacterias via asteroids and somehow miracalously adapted that environment. If this is true, scientists would find a group of bacteria branched off of bacteria here on Earth a billion year ago or so.