Slashdot Mirror


Life on Pluto?

EccentricAnomaly writes "The BBC is reporting that new models of icy moons in the outer solar system predict that oceans (as in liquid water oceans) may be much more common than previously thought. Even Pluto and Neptune's moon Triton now appear to be good candidates for a liquid ocean under their ice. This is exciting because life has been found on Earth in environments similar to these icy oceans at Antarctica's Lake Vostok."

10 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. Is it just me... by Proquar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    or do we (the human race) go...

    ohhhh... on this strange planet there is this bizaare anamoly... i bet it's life!

    and it is just me, or is that rather naive.

    For me, you want to prove to me there is life somewhere else... don't say, look at the strange gases on Venus (well, der)...or look at the ice-cold water on Pluto... show me a digital watch (and not one Neil Armstrong left on the moon, or a little robot that NASA forgot on Mars)... Or give me an ET encounter... or something that makes you go "Man, that's got some organic extraterristrial backing!"

    In space, strange things happen that we just don't understand.. It's been happening for such a long time without human approval or knowledge... it is such a long leap to go "Wow! This is strange! I bet a life-force is behind it!"

    And please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there aren't aliens out there - I'm just saying it's a lot like whale-watching:
    "Wow, is that a whale?!" "No... it's a rock"
    "Wow, is that a whale?!" "No, it's a wave"
    "Wow, is that a whale?!" "No, it's a weed"...

    Somebody please wake me when there is either a whale or life out there!

    --
    ---- *dog sitting next to a computer, with his beady eyes shifting left to right*
  2. Re:Um by Alexis+Morissette · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is exactly what I was thinking. If I remember correctly, the main requirements for the creation of life were large amounts of methane, carbon dioxide, and other gasses, as well as sustained electrical discharges over a long enough period of time to form complex proteins. While there may be sufficient pressure and heat far beneath the surface of these places to maintain existing life, I can't imagine the initial requirements existing there now or, considering the vast distance from the Sun, in the past either.

    --
    This is a special excite .sig
    This
  3. A minor tangent by nugneant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've always been amazed at the arrogance of the human race, the arrogant logic that dictates that because "we" need liquid formed from two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, that automatically this is a pre-requisite for life. When it comes down to it, who are we to dictate which planets contain life and which do not? We can only percieve things along three, possibly four dimensions. I'm no mathematician, nor can I spell the word properly, but seems to me there's a lot more than just three, maybe four numbers in the numeric alphabet (contradiction intended). Just because we cannot percieve a dimension, does that mean life cannot occupy it?

    And anyone who makes a "tree falling in a forest" reference in this thread is an annoying idiot.

  4. Mankind's preconceptions of life... by marleyboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    are naive inherently. So we've confirmed that water and oxygen are required for sustaining our own carbon-based lifeforms on this tiny planet called Earth. There's eight other plants in our solar system that may utilize something like, for example, methane in a completely different way that we never would have thought of. Sure we need a place to start looking, but let's also stay open to the possibilities that our conceptions of what life requires may not be the same in every solar system, much less every planet.

    --
    Neutiquam erro
  5. Re:Not so methinks by ender81b · · Score: 5, Insightful
    While I agree, in principle, with what you say the simple fact is we have no way of knowing how life on earth started. By all rights earth was a horribly inhospitable place 4 billion or so years ago. Using earth as an example we can say the following things are needed for life to start (here at least):
    • Water, liquid
    • Amino acids
    • Some sort of energy supply - be it chemicals, sunlight, etc
    And that is it. You say life on pluto would never had a chance.. how do we know? We can't go back in time 4 billion years or so ago. Perhaps conditions on pluto where mightly different back then. Also the possibility of life 'landing' on pluto must be considered - in the form of bacteria spores, etc. Right now all that is needed on pluto for life would be a geothermal vent system and some liquid water. Really that's it. Remember in the deep ocean vent communities where bacteria live in water that's above the boiling point? Life adapts and quickly, we have no way of knowing how life started on this planet and to blanket rule out hte possibility of life on pluto just because the conditions aren't exactly like earths is a bit shortsighted in my opinion.
  6. Re:So what happens when we find life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The bible also does not say that the earth is the center of the universe, yet they harrassed galelio for thinking such. (They should have harrassed him for being hard to spell, not 4 his astro views).

  7. Microbes would be ... depressing. by pantropik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Recently there's been a lot of talk about life on other bodies in the solar system. Yet even the most hopeful proponents of these theories don't truly expect to find anything much more advanced than algae. The upper reaches of Venus's atmosphere, Europa, Ganymede, Triton, maybe even somewhere in Jupiter's atmosphere where the pressures and temperatures are "just right", whatever that is.

    I've read theories that of all places in the system outside Earth, Europa is the most promising. So, maybe there are "hot spots" in the Europan ocean and maybe there is life around those hot spots. Yet, look at Earth's version of those deep-ocean hotspots. The life there is interesting, to be sure, and spectacularly resilient in the face of extreme pressures and temperatures, but it's not spectacularly advanced and there's not a lot of room for evolution in such a system. Tubeworms have been tubeworms for geologic ages, after all.

    So, what if we do move out into the solar system and find life is "everywhere"? Not literally everywhere, but everywhere in the sense that life, after a fashion, will generally show up pretty much anywhere it can. There are organisms (waterbears, for one) on Earth right now that could survive a trip through the vacuum of space. So we might even find that life on other bodies in the system is shockingly similar to life on Earth, perhaps even distant "cousins". Simple life, and abundant; clinging to existence in every nook and cranny where it's managed to take hold.

    How depressing is that? We go to the planets with arms open to greet ... algae and paramecia. Maybe Fermi's Paradox isn't much of a paradox at all. "Where are they?" They're everywhere, maybe. "They" just won't be making any radios or FTL starships any time over the next few billion years.

    Imagine a universe full of lichen and amoebas, riding their respective planets to whatever oblivion awaits in some far-distant future. Imagine humanity spreading, in some distant future, into the galaxy, ever searching for others like themselves. They find instead world after world where any of a hundred (thousand? million?) variables was off by just enough to doom the life there to brainless simplicity. What if we are the aberration? It seems silly, to think all that real estate out there is just a big petri dish, doesn't it? Silly that there isn't someone out there ... somewhere.

    But the universe is big, time is broad, and we as a species are disheartingly tiny when viewed against such a scale. Maybe there were, or will be, beings much like us riding their little worlds round and round some other star ... But how far away in space and time? Long dead, not yet born? In some impossibly distant galaxy speeding away from us at a significant fraction of C? It would need to be only a tiny time differential in the grand scheme of things. The entire sum of human existence isn't even an eyeblink on such scales. It seems silly to think that in all the universe (even the galaxy) we are alone. But does it really matter? We may not in fact be alone, but those "others", if they exist, might well be forever out of reach, perhaps even unknowable. I think that's what we fear the most, that notion that we might pass, not forgotten but simply unknown, out of existence. Why do we really want to find others anyway? Maybe just to shout, "We exist!" at the universe and for the first time know that we are heard. Now that I think about it, it seems that the search for aliens isn't really all that different from humanity's never-ending quest for "god" ... maybe the two are merely differing expressions of the same inherent need -- to be known, acknowledged, and (dare we hope it!) validated.

  8. Those nasty elements keep us alive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When plants started producing free oxygen they nearly wiped themselves out before animals came along to turn it back into good old CO2.

    What about those micro-organisms (and not so micro) that live in 70C dilute sulphuric acid or at incredible pressures? What is good for us isn't good for them and vice versa. Personally I don't a fancy a week free diving in a volcanic vent at the bottom of the Mariner Trench.

  9. Life. by rew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Life develops if there are cycles. Earth has cycles: waves in the seas: 1-10 seconds. Tides: 0.5 days. days: 1.0 days, weather: 3-7 days. moon shine: 28 days, Seasons: 1.0 years, solar cycles: 11 years, climatic cycles: 10000 years. (I probably forgot a bunch!)

    For life to develop, cycles are very important. A cycle at around every "order of magnitude" is almost compulsory.

    Once life is "bootstrapped" in the most ideal place of all those cycles, it will suddenly be able to survive in the weirdest of conditions.

    On pluto, the year cycle is WAY too long, the planet is WAY too far from the sun to experience lots of the influences of the cycles of the sun. etc etc. Nope, Pluto is going to be lifeless, unless we (or someone else) bring(s) it some seeds.....

    Roger.

  10. Re:Um by mikerich · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Studies of the outer bodies of the Solar System suggests that they are rich in organic (in the chemical sense) compounds. It isn't just water ice out there - but ammonia and methane ice and more complex molecules.

    Carbonaceous chondrite meteorites show that very complicated organic molecules were present in the very early period of the Solar System - so there is no reason to believe that Pluto would not have had its share.

    Provided it remained partially molten for long enough, there would have been dilute solutions of all these chemicals slopping round.

    And you can form more complicated compounds such as amino acids without lightning - ultraviolet light and heat can do the same job.

    The question is, is Pluto still partially molten? it wouldn't have much of the radioactives that heat the inner planets - we can see the larger moons of the outer planets have frozen solid and they aren't much smaller.

    The alternative is that Pluto's relationship with Charon pumps tidal energy into the planet - as in Europa and Io. Now these are smaller bodies by far, so the energy would always be much less than those moons - but would anyone like to suggest if tides could keep Pluto warm?

    Best wishes,
    Mike.