Slashdot Mirror
Cassini Shatters Titan Theories
Dozix007 writes "The Herald reports: Cassini pierced
the haze around Titan, Saturn's biggest moon, revealing details
that have shattered theories about its composition. It has
atmosphere and soil similar to primordial Earth and may contain the
building blocks of life. Scientists believed bright patches
on its surface seen earlier were pure water ice. But the first infrared
images
taken by Cassini revealed water ice as dark patches because it is mixed
with material that may be organic, raining on to the surface."
Interesting that we search far away places looking for signs of life, and there may be some in our own back yard.
It's interesting that we keep cutting NASA's budget, saying there's nothing possibly interesting out there. Then we look at a space probe and it says we may learn about the origins of life. To me, that seems to be incredibly important. Why are we not giving them more funding?
Here we go again with NASA concetrating on trying to find "life" on other planets. What ever happened to the science of simply exploring and learning about our solar system and how it formed instead of this quest of focusing on trying to find life on other planets. There is more to space exploration than finding life.
What type of organisms can sustain life under such low tempartures? What would be the mean temperature of Saturn's surrounding neighborhood? It seems that if organisms truly are found on Saturn, the space race is going to really pick up speed within the next few years.
Damn, we need "warp drives."
GroupShares Inc.
-------
artlu.net
Two points. One, we're already planning on contaminating the planet, err, moon. The EU's Huygens probe will decend in a few months to study the atmosphere and surface features. (By the way... If Titan wasn't captured by Saturn, it would be considered a planet.)
Point two... you seem to think that our ethics apply to other worlds - remember, they are our believes/values. Applying them to another world doesn't make sense. What we should really do is study from afar, and if we can determine that our efforts can be non intrusive to the development of the natural processes, then we should take every opportunity to do such and learn all we can.
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
Our curiosity will probably get the better of us. Ask yourself: would you consciously decide to ignore life forming on Titan because of Star Trek-inspired fears of contaminating it? I know my answer is no.
I fail to see the 'ethical' question that you point out. Let's say that there is indeed a pool on Titan where the basic building blocks of life are about to form. In order for a satellite to really screw it up it needs to both hit that pool and hit that pool at the right time. You are more likely to win the lottery three times in a row then hit such an exact spot and time with a satellite smaller then truck.
The real danger is that we crash something with bacteria on it that manages to find a way to proliferate and kill existing life. This is a danger probably with considering, but more for the purposes of making sure we don't contaminate such a bed of science. It would be nice to know if life exists somewhere else that isn't from Earth. Spreading around Earth microbes will inhibit our ability to pick out life from earth and life that originated from elsewhere.
This all leads to a much bigger ethical question. Is it our duty to spread life throughout what could potentially be a dead galaxy, or do we let it take its natural course, which might very well mean a complete lack of life. Personally, I think that it is foolish to magically exclude humans from the grand design of the galaxy simply because we are human. Suns exploding and planets forming are no more or less natural then humans jumping into space ships and spreading life around. Humans are a creation of this universe, it seems silly to exclude ourselves now that we have a chance to influence the universe.
I personally think that we should fling life to every part of the galaxy until it is teeming with life. Certainly look for life that is already there and try and avoid ruining the life that might exist, but if after a reasonable search it looks like some place is devoid of life, I think we should go spread the seed of life to that barren and dead place. A Mars or Titan teeming with life is a far more interesting place then a chemical laboratory.
Just because there are some building blocks of life on Titan (if there are) doesn't mean that they're going to come to life. They've had about three billion years so far, and if they haven't managed it yet, they probably won't. It takes more than just the right chemicals. It takes energy. The main source of that is insolation, and that's pretty weak by the time you get out that far. I won't say that no form of life could ever evolve out there, but I will say that no life as we know it could. If nothing else, all indications are that life first appeared in the ocean, and there's almost certainly no liquid water there to form the background matrix. Yes, there might be a few forms of bacteria that could adapt to it, but if so, they'd have come into being somewhere more hospitable. If, as and when we start exploring Titan, I don't think we'll have to worry about native organisms, but we will (or should) worry about contaminating it with Earth evolved bacteria then mistaking them for native.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
If there's water, and carbon, and heat (hello molten core of Titan, I'm Saturn, I'll be your tidal gravity generator today), then there's probably life. This could be VERY much like the 2001 series, where isolated pockets of extremophiles lived in the sea under Europa while it was frozen.
If we bacteria living in 100+ C, H2S environments, or in liquid brine solutions at the bottom of the ocean, or in outer space (fungus on Mir), then there's no reason that they COULDN'T be living on Titan.
I wonder if Winston Niles Rumfoord lives there?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Why do you consider humanity's potential efforts "interference" and "contaminating"? Humanity is just as much part of this universe as a supernova that desstroys the solar system would be.
huh.. why would humans spreading the life be 'unnatural'?
we're life after all, a lot of people seem to forget that.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The USA founding fathers conquered the indians. Are we better off for it, or should we never have left europe and stayed under the rule of Kings??
Why only a binary choice? We could have come here and treated the American Indian more fairly, humanely: honoring treaties, treating them as equal human beings, etc.
On Titan if we are careful we can observe, measure, analyze without significantly changing the overall environment...then later we could make more informed decisions about its possibilities for colonization...
Those who say that we should not disturb the "natural course of life" ignore the fact that the natural course of life is to multiply and expand into its environment. If any Earth animals other than humans found themselves somehow on another planet and in a hospitable environment, they would not hesitate to "colonize" it to the best of their ability. It's what life does. The human being is simply the first organism capable of transplanting members of itself over such long distances.
FYI: Just temperature alone isn't enough to determine the freezing (or boiling) point of water or any liquid. Pressure has a lot to do with it. With a low atmospheric pressure (such as some of these moons and planets) the boiling point lowers, as well as the freezing point. Water can exist as a liquid at much lower temperatures when the pressure is low.
It is possible that liquid water cannot exist under these conditions, it depends on where the triple point is. The solid water may just sublime to a gas.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Actually, water can exist as a liquid at lower temperatures when the pressure is *high*, not low. Take another look at that website you referenced; the phase diagram for water is printed farther down the page. the negative slope of the solid-liquid interface shows that the freezing point increases as the pressure decreases.
The problem with Titan is that it's probably lacking the energy necessary to sustain life.
Do you realize how much radiation is being pumped out of Saturn and onto its moons at every moment of every day?
It's this type of thinking that has driven the "westernize everybody" philosophy throughout the last several hundred years. Before Europeans arrived in North America, the Indians had created complex political and social structures that worked as well or better than what was forced upon them by colonists. By "taming the savages" without stopping to actually look at how they interacted with each other and, more importantly, nature, colonists damned the Indians along with themselves to the wasteful, filthy existence that has reduced this beautiful planet to a dirty brown globe.
Tell that to the natives of the south American rainforest, who I believe get rather annoyed when do-gooder environmentalist hippies come along and tell them they should be living traditional lives in harmony with nature instead of enjoying modern conveniences like, e.g., decent healthcare and a life expectancy of more than thirty years.
Most people appreciate progress, I'm sorry you don't. But I'd like to know what you're doing in front of a computer, which by anyone's standards is only contributing to the dirt, waste, and filth. Go join the Amish and leave the rest of us to appreciate the modern world.
A common rule of thumb is that the rate of chemical reactions doubles for every 10C increase in temperature. Going the other way, that means they halve for every 10C decrease.
A place as bitterly cold as Titan would see chemistry taking place at a crawl - if at all. There may not have been time to assembled complex molecules at such temperatures.
Furthermore, there are precious few solvents that could dissolve complex molecules that remain liquid at Titanian temperatures. Life as we know it requires polar solvents (those that dissolve ionic compounds (such as salt) or covalent compounds that ionise in solution) - I'm trying to think of any that are liquid down there - liquid ammonia perhaps.
But you still run into the lack of energy.
Best wishes,
Mike.
wrong? what's wrong about admitting that we're an animal among others? that the cities we build are nothing more than giant ant colonies and if we don't anticipate future then we'll be dead just as numerous other species before us?
humans are animals wanted you it or not, we're not the first (and most probably not the last) species to 'change' our environment either. we just happen to be quite adaptable thanks to the big chunk of brains we have.
but the point is this: for an outside observer everything man made is 'nature'.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
look at the UN where power varies by country might; it is not a division of power where every voice is equally important ... if you think that the people of a tiny nation like Lesotho should have just as much sway over things as a populous nation such as Russia or Canada, I'm not sure what you're thinking. When the UN decides something, the effort to make it happen is going to come from global powers, not minor republics.
Um
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Damn it, people. An article gets posted that says scientists are "puzzled" about Titan, and then it goes on to offer bunch of speculation about what MIGHT be there (rivers, mountains, water), including that it "may contain the building blocks of life," and people here just go NUTS talking about what this is telling us about the origins of life on Earth?? Get a grip. I for one would have enjoyed a bit more (read: any) information about what the probe ACTUALLY found, because (IAA Scientist) maybe it might be interesting in its own right, apart from the "religious" furvor some people have about hoping to find life in outer space.
The probe can't tell the difference between mountains and rivers, and yet you want to believe it's found the "building blocks of life" --- what are "building blocks of life" to mean? The savvy science-journalist doesn't say, because even atoms (heck, even protons and electrons) are "building blocks of life". Think about it, if they found amino acids, they'd just say so. Get a grip, people.
This would likely not force any budget changes unless a really popular movement got underway to unfund some project or other. Of course, groups would be calling for this all the time (Jessie Jackson comes to mind as someone who would likely be quite vocal about suggestions I would think).
But it would let people feel good about stiffing their pet peeve projects and would give government new data they could use to track citizen concerns.
It would be quite easy, have a list of all government projects, agencies, etc. with unique identification numbers. Post it on the Internet and at public schools and libraries. Let people write in as many as they wish.
While I don't think this would ever make any proposed budget invalid, vetting a proposed budget against the wishes of the taxpayers would likely be incredible computation.
Rights do not exist in nature, and nature has only one rule: survival of the fittest.
And what if that life did turn out to be (subjective) better than ours? What of it? Should we all say "Oh well, they're better, let's go kill ourselves"? What I find odd about people who make statements like these is that they hate humans. They view them as a virus, not as a natural inhabitant. Self-loathing creatures.
So humans are intelligent, that makes us special? Great. The way I view it: nature decided that it got tired of constantly going back to the drawing board (dinosaurs, whatever) to build a lifeform that could withstand extreme conditions. Nature said "Screw this, the next lifeform is going to be smart enough that I can go on vacation, and not have to worry about some stray asteroid/ice age obliterating them".
So you lose a few species along the way. Stuff happens, even with us not around (see above). Hell, we're not even responsible for the worst stuff. We change the environment to suit our needs (kill off predators, domesticate the rest). Happens with all species.
Your view seems to be: humans destroy the 'natural' environment around them, and need to be destroyed/smacked-down/whatever. My view: the surrounding environment serves as a temporary infrastructure for nature's greatest accomplishment (to date): a thinking machine: man. Everything else is expendable.
In 100 million years (or whenever our sun expands), it will be the humans that carry life (our own human lives, plus other species) forth from this planet, to show the universe what has been accomplished. Breaking down our homes, living among nature, serves no purpose when there is a higher calling.
Keep in mind I do not condone wonton destruction of our environment (or others). If Titan has life, we'll be careful there as well. But as far as nature goes, we are the benchmark. No other creature has the ability to create and destory as we do. I'm only pointing out the obvious, and as we learn more about our environment, we learn to enhance it and mitigate our effects. You'll notice that smoke stacks are less numerous these days (see Industrial Revolution). Humans learn, "Hey, we're poisoning our air, let's do something about that". We learn, we move on. Deal.
I am John Hurt.
Excellent point. Most people are unaware that NASA mission have had a direct impact on our understanding of Earth. The theory of global warming came about in part because of our Mariner and Pioneer missions to Venus. We had to figure out how to explain what happened there, and from that we started to realize what could happen HERE.
Which is why it always drives me nuts when people cry "We should fix things here on earth before wasting money on space exploration."
If it turns out that global warming is true, and we have had enough of a heads-up to try to stop at least some of the negative effects from it, then those missions have been some of the best investments humans will have ever made.
Comparative planetology is very valuable.
This space available.
Rights do not exist in nature, and nature has only one rule: survival of the fittest.
I think the idea is that the concept of rights, of justice, of fairness, of liberty helps increase our survival fitness.
In other words, other systems may contain knowledge that can help us. There is a good chance we may benefit from a policy based on Star Trek's "Prime Directive"; it may actually help us to survive better.
Knowledge is good for survival. The more we know the better we can predict and prepare for sudden catastrophic environmental changes. If we can gain knowledge by observing untouched systems on other worlds, the "survival of the fittest" concept would dictate that that is what we should do.
Of course if after observing for a time and giving a foreign system a chance to develop we determine that it would be in both their and our best interests to intervene, then we should do that. But once again that intervention should take into account the ideas of justice and right, because those concepts allow for more rapid accumulation of knowledge than when they are ignored...
The terracentrism of the Slashdot crowd is disgusting and disheartening to me.
Slashdot is supposed to be the nexus, the singularity, the haven of geekdom. Where thoughts and ideas are as open as the source you constantly support with your contributions and hours.
Heat? Who says that life needs heat? Have you taken part in an extended tour of the solar system and all points beyond making a survey of all life from the humblest single celled organism to the most fantastic species of methane-breathing halophiles?
Life comes in many shapes, sizes and forms living in environments which are just as or more diverse. From reading this thread I'm under the assumption that you're expecting to dig a few feet under the soot and ice of Titan in hopes of finding pixies living in communes. Would it be so bad if humanity's first contact is with creatures who live on a timescale that is slower than our own, creatures who live in an environment hostile to earthly life?
Viva la difference!
Colorado elects to work with them, not against them.
Improvement-based pay would help greatly: students that are above-average in a class should cause the previous year's teacher to get a bonus. (this being fair to poor areas)Colorado implemented it 15 years ago. It was one of the first states to do so. In addition, each year, one teacher from each district is bought out. The lowest performer is offered a chance at early retirement.
You need to fight the teaching of junk (... French...)Let me guess, you are from Texas. French and many other languages are important subjects for us. We would do well to teach not only Frnech and Spanish, but also Chinese, Arabic, etc.
that displaces important stuff (Calculus, Statistics, Chemistry, Physics, Economics, Business Law...).You would teach Business Law in high school BEFORE teaching a langauge. I think not.
You need to grant teachers to right to effectively discipline their students. (Texas allows spanking)Have you seen the test scores and trash coming from texas these days?
Reduce classroom noise from air conditioning and echoes. (hint: hard 90-degree walls are bad) Get the bullies out of the regular schools by sending the worst 30% to reform school, starting right in the 1st grade.This has merit. Good Suggestion.
Colorado is a state that once had good funding and a great educational system. Over the last 7 years, it has been run by a Texan Republican who has run it into the gound. Fortunately, that changes in the next election.