Cassini Shatters Titan Theories

Interesting by dark404 · 2004-07-04 05:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Interesting that we search far away places looking for signs of life, and there may be some in our own back yard.

Re:Interesting by CodeMonkey4Hire · 2004-07-04 15:47 · Score: 3, Informative

The probability of this happening is extremely low. The amount of extra energy required for an asteroid to achieve a delta orbit from Earth all the way out to Saturn is huge. It is much more probably, though still unlikely, [if life were to exist on Titan] that a life-bearing asteroid would travel from Titan to Earth.

--

Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!

NASA Funding by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-04 05:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:NASA Funding by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-04 06:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Why are we not giving them more funding?
Easy, I'm Canadian
Re:NASA Funding by maggeth · 2004-07-04 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Interesting" is not really enough for all the big investors out there (especially Congress). They need something they can rape, divide, and conquer, then you will see a huge increase in space funding.
Admit it, it's true.

--
Slashdot in 5 Paragraphs
Re:NASA Funding by Hank+Chinaski · 2004-07-04 06:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because more money does not equal better work.

--
IAAL
Re:NASA Funding by blue+trane · 2004-07-04 06:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

We elect Congress. It's ultimately our fault.
Re:NASA Funding by gilroy · 2004-07-04 06:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Blockquoth the poster:

Because more money does not equal better work.

Interestingly, the converse is true: Too little funding does prevent good work.

In principle you're right: throwing money at something doesn't guarantee success. But in the technical fields, throwing money does up the odds. And while there might be a point when NASA is getting so much funding that its productivity suffers as a result, no rational oberserver could state we're at or even near that point.

--
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Re:NASA Funding by servognome · 2004-07-04 06:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why are we not giving them more funding?
Its always hard to justify givng money to pure science. Its a noble endeavour, but how can you calculate the ROI of knowing the composition of rocks on Mars? Would most people care? If Cassini didn't go to Saturn until, 30 years from now, would it make any difference.
We should always have a well funded space agency, but don't get outraged when there are cuts to the program.
NASA still gets $15.5 billion this year ($91M less than last year). And where is that money going? Well NOAA is getting a $190M increase in funding. Different scientists, but still science research, with more likely more immediate impact.

--
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Re:NASA Funding by cnkeller · 2004-07-04 06:36 · Score: 3, Informative

Because the un-manned exploration of space is run through JPL not directly through NASA.
JPL is part of NASA, it's just run by the folks from UC (yes, that's an anomaly and in this case it seems to work very well). They get their funding from the same places the rest of us do, ie the overall NASA budget which has slightly increased this year if I recall correctly.

--
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
Re:NASA Funding by Rinikusu · 2004-07-04 07:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because we'd rather keep spending inordinate amounts of cash to fighting wars we cannot possibly "win" (drugs/terrorism), and we have starving people in our own country who keep having their jobs outsourced somewhere else, and because it's just not profitable in the traditional, monetary returns sense. Once someone figures out and actually implements low-cost launch solutions and someone else figures out how to do something like actually create manufacturing bases in orbit, in inter-plantetary space, and/or in the asteroid belt and shows it to be immensely profitable (billions, I tell ya, billions are in them thar rocks), then you'll see a push for space exploration that you've never seen the likes of. Look at what appears to be 90% of the payload going into space now: Communications satellites. How...exciting, right? (actually, the research that goes into building efficient, space-tolerant communications systems is a science into itself and is immensely valuable for any inter-planetary work we might ultimately undertake). But, there's profit in those satellites. Companies are raking in cash providing better services for their companies. Once someone can build a wafer fab in orbit (probably 99.9% automated with just a technician or two lifted on rotation to watch over things and do modular switchouts), and do it cheaper than the Malaysians, I'm pretty sure Intel and the others would jump right on board, eh?

However, with the short-term mentality most corporations have these days and the desire to immediately satiate stockholder desires, putting money into long-term investment (which is what orbit manufacture would require) will never happen, so it falls to the "public" sector to fund the development/launch of projects, which are constantly undermined by the need for military funding to fight wars for blood or oil or land or whatever it is we're fighting for

--
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Re:NASA Funding by Waffle+Iron · 2004-07-04 07:05 · Score: 5, Funny

The only difference between Democrats and Republicans regarding budget cuts is tense. Republicans say they will cut the budget, and then they increase it. After the budget has increased, Democrats say that it has been cut.
Re:NASA Funding by RayBender · 2004-07-04 07:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Because the un-manned exploration of space is run through JPL not directly through NASA.
JPL is part of NASA, it's just run by the folks from UC
Actually, JPL is run by Caltech for NASA. Funding for JPL comes from NASA.

--
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Re:NASA Funding by Jahf · 2004-07-04 09:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Much to the dismay of the others who replied to your post, I agree.

Look at what happened to Apollo ... Apollo 11? Everyone was watching. By Apollo 14 the public was disinterested.

Similarly with the Shuttle.

The only things that got people reinterested were calamity (Apollo 13, Challenger, Columbia) or aberation (John Glenn).

Congress is only treating NASA and similar topics with the same general disdain that the majority of the public want. That's how a democracy works. Until/unless we discover -life- out there, not just the possibility, or have some new massive breakthrough that invigorates the public, these programs will continue to fight for their lives.

Let's face it, if you counted the number of people who were watching the Mars rover landings live on TV a few years ago and then subtracted everyone you had 3 degrees or less connection to, you would probably have wiped out 90% of the viewers.

If you watched live the recent Burt Rutan plane make it into space a couple of weeks ago and subtracted anyone who reads Slashdot or knows someone who does, you'd probably have wiped out 90% of -those- viewers.

We simply are not in anywhere near a majority when it comes to exploration enthusiasm.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Re:NASA Funding by MarsDefenseMinister · 2004-07-04 12:11 · Score: 3, Funny

Robber: OK MISTER. You have two choices: shot or stabbed. Which is it?

Blue Trane: Well Mister Robber, what you are presenting to me is a logical fallacy known as a "false dichotomo". It is a fallacy, because in this situation there are actually several options besides the two you gave. For example, I could plead for my life, or I could...

Robber: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! (and he runs away, leaving you alive)

Hmmmm, I suppose you are right. +1 insightful.

--
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
Re:NASA Funding by Pharmboy · 2004-07-04 14:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Maybe we should stage one then. Fooling the average Joe would be easy, but how do we fool NASA...

Surely with the combined brainpower(tm) of all slashdotters, we should be able to come up with something.

Lets see, by combining all the brainpower of Slashdot, we have a database of hot grits, natalie portman, goatse, monty python, simpson, south park, Soviet Russia, and 3. Profit!! references, plus hundreds of trolls, thousands of single, educated men who actually own (and use) pocket protectors, and a few dozen people who simply go around correcting everyone elses grammar and spelling. Oh, and 500,000 pot smokers.

We might not be up to the task. I'm afraid half would quit, mid-task, and return to their online game and half would go back to building their "girl" robot. And the other 10% are too stoned to do basic math...

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Ethical questions by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-04 05:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

I think this brings up huge ethical questions. If we are right, and there are the building blocks of life down there, do we have any right to interfere with that process? Undoubtably we are going to do something while "studying" this that causes the process to go all wrong (or not happen at all) like a satellite hitting the surface and contaminating the moon, causing these building blocks to not form (flash backs of the last episode of ST:TNG).

Re:Ethical questions by mikejz84 · 2004-07-04 05:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not really. Titan is stuck in way out in the cold of space. Everyone believes that Titan is WAY to cold for life to ever exist. This however changes in about 5 billion years when the sun goes red giant and Titan might possibly enter a period of a few 100 million years where it gets earth-like tempatures. The question of course is if titan will survive for another 5 billion years.
Re:Ethical questions by mOoZik · 2004-07-04 05:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

There could very well be underwater vents, similar to here, that would provide warmth and chemical nourishment. We can't speculate, because there is a whole lot we still don't know. I am looking forward to the landing of the probe next year.

--
A blog like any other.
Re:Ethical questions by wjsteele · 2004-07-04 05:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!
Re:Ethical questions by Almost+A+Knave · 2004-07-04 05:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Ethical questions by Shihar · 2004-07-04 05:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Ethical questions by techno-vampire · 2004-07-04 05:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:Ethical questions by AKAImBatman · 2004-07-04 05:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

It isn't quite that easy. To date, we haven't seen a single form of life (save for microbes) that can survive that deep into the Solar System. Even Mars is downright balmy in comparison to Titan, but there is little sign that life does exist there or ever will.

The core of the problem is that life needs one thing above all else to survive: Energy. The star we call our Sun pumps terrawatts upon terrawatts of power into the Earth each day. Plants and some forms of microbes are able to take this energy and convert it into fuel stores. These fuel stores are then used to power all other life on the planet.

The problem with Titan is that it's probably lacking the energy necessary to sustain life. While the soil may be rich in "organic compounds" (i.e. the elements and minerals necessary for life as we know it) those compounds are of zero use if there isn't a sustainable energy source. And the Sun can't be that energy source since barely a few kilowatts of its energy reach Titan. That's not to say that Titan doesn't have some other energy source at its interior, but it is somewhat unlikely. In the end, it may be that Titan would make an excellent place from which to acquire raw materials as man expands into space. Difficult to find materials such as Nitrogen could be hurled from high up in the Sun's gravity well, to lower points such as Mars.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Ethical questions by gl4ss · 2004-07-04 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Ethical questions by shigelojoe · 2004-07-04 06:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Hey, only Europa is forbidden. They didn't say *anything* about Titan.
Re:Ethical questions by Have+Blue · 2004-07-04 06:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Ethical questions by mindstrm · 2004-07-04 06:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

The same place it is in the arctic, where the surface temperature is 60 degrees below the freezing point of water. Under the ice.
Re:Ethical questions by Jesrad · 2004-07-04 07:55 · Score: 4, Informative

The Earth receives 164 Watts per squared meter of light power from the Sun, and Titan's illumination is 1/90 that of earth, so it receives 1.82 Watts per squared meters. This heat power is sufficient to sustain a methane cycle which is comparable to the water cycle on Earth, with methane evaporating in the atmosphere, condensing to form clouds then dropping back to the ground in raindrops or snowflakes. I don't think anyone can say for sure whether it's enough power to sustain or develop life.

--
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Re:Ethical questions by BillyBlaze · 2004-07-04 08:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Depending on Titan's geology, some energy could also come from the heat in its core. On earth, we have life that uses only heat and chemical energy from deep-sea vents. And some theories say life started there with autocatalytic enzymes, with cell walls, DNA, and chlorophyll coming later.
Re:Ethical questions by mikerich · 2004-07-04 08:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Speaking of that, I could never figure out why scientists would assume such a thing. Certainly there fluids, materials and chemical reactions which can result in life like properties, but exist at very low temperatures. Why do people always assume that you need an earth like environment for life to exist. Maybe all the life-forms we've seen require an earth like environment because we've only seen life-forms on earth. I think that scientists who believe that there's no way life could exist on Titan, simply lack imagination.
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.
Re:Ethical questions by gl4ss · 2004-07-04 08:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Ethical questions by lightknight · 2004-07-04 09:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Ethical questions by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-04 12:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!

2001 by dirtmerchant · 2004-07-04 05:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Does anyone else find it interesting that in the original draft of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the craft is bound for one of the moons of Saturn as opposed to Europa as was portrayed in the movie. Now after some preliminary exploring Europa we find that Europa's a dud and the easy-bake life mix is in fact on Titan.

Re:2001 by Jeremy+Erwin · 2004-07-04 06:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

Europa's a dud? Where did you get that idea? Sure, a number of astronomers have hypothesized that Europa's ocean is acidic, but confirmation of this hypothesis will rest on the observations of a as yet undesigned mission. Besides, low pH is not an absolute barrier to life, as evidenced by the variety of extremophile bacteria here on earth.

As for the "Easy Bake Oven Mix" theory, what you Nomeites don't seem to realize is that most terrestrial style life prefers a slightly warmer climate. Nasa elides over this small matter, though, as mentioning the word "life' seems to be a good way of attracting favourable media attention and its attendant appropriations.
Re:2001 by ReciprocityProject · 2004-07-04 10:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Does anyone else find it interesting that in the original draft of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the craft is bound for one of the moons of Saturn as opposed to Europa as was portrayed in the movie. Now after some preliminary exploring Europa we find that Europa's a dud and the easy-bake life mix is in fact on Titan.

In the book of 2001: A Space Odyssey, they do go to Saturn. The plot is more or less the same as the movie, with Arthur C. Clarke's bonus technical details, except that the monolith is located on the surface of mysterious Iapetus, which the book clearly indicated was an artificial satellite built for the purpose of housing the monolith. When Dave Bowman emerged from the other side, there was an identical moon with an identical monolith.

You might want to read it.

I, for the record, predict that past or present life exists on every massive body in the solar system that has or ever had a reasonably dense atmosphere and geological activity. I wouldn't be surprised if self-replicating molecules inhabit most comets, although I guess they freeze to death pretty quickly after leaving the inner solar system.

--
Upstairs Dog, Downstairs People.

building blocks of life.... again... by Doppler00 · 2004-07-04 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:building blocks of life.... again... by howlatthemoon · 2004-07-04 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why? Because of the imperfection of the funding model. To get the funding even basic science, pure knowing for knowing sake, needs to do something that captures the imaginations of the congress people and the press. Saying that they might be finding the building blocks gets publicity, and publicity equals dollars.

BTW, oversight is a good thing, but it just goes to show what a bad job we are doing in science education that research agencies need to do flashy publicity to keep the public's and congress' interest.
Re:building blocks of life.... again... by Sven-Erik · 2004-07-04 05:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nobody is expecting to find life on Titan! The search is not as much a search for life, but how life started here on Earth. The conditions on Titan is thought to be similar to how it was here on Earth just after it was created. And since the temperature out there is so low, most of the chemical and bio-chemical conditions is still intact and will provide valuable knowledge about the conditions in the newly created solarsystem, aand on how life started back home on Earth.

--
- "Every demand is a prison, and wisdom is only free when it asks nothing." Sir Betrand Russell
Re:building blocks of life.... again... by Esion+Modnar · 2004-07-04 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is more to space exploration than finding life.
I agree. But finding life on another planet will finally let us "get over it." It's as important as (well, maybe not quite as) finding and verifying an extra-solar Earth-like planet.
It'll shut up all those people trying to say there's nothing out there worth the trip.
As for interstellar exploration, we need a financial incentive, much like the X-Prize. Only, in this case, first company sponsoring a colonization mission to an Earth-like planet, claims it. Besides obvious objections from the natives, are there any international treaties which would bar such a claim, assuming that someone who has just traveled 700 light-years will give a flying rip about international treaties of a planet he left umpteen hundred years ago?

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Re:building blocks of life.... again... by jabberjaw · 2004-07-04 06:00 · Score: 4, Informative

I suggest that you read more about the Cassini-Huygens mission. The mission objective is to study Saturn as a whole. Searching for life is not the mission's purpose.

Re:holy crap!!!! by linzeal · 2004-07-04 05:45 · Score: 5, Funny

I say we send them a huge nuclear powered fruitcake, for like a, "Hello Neighbor" thing.

Hello Neighbor!

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty

Temperature to Support Life? by artlu · 2004-07-04 05:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Temperature to Support Life? by kfg · 2004-07-04 05:57 · Score: 3, Funny

What type of organisms can sustain life under such low tempartures?

Sapmelas.

KFG
Re:Temperature to Support Life? by xigxag · 2004-07-04 06:22 · Score: 4, Funny

if organisms truly are found on Saturn, the space race is going to really pick up speed within the next few years.

Three possible beneficiaries of Titanian space race:

1) Big Pharma - Think of the patents, man!
2) Defense Industry - There must be some way to "weaponize" a microbe that survives at -180C.
3) Big Oil -- Excuse me, did you just say hydrocarbons ?

Of course, your tax dollars will bankroll any exploration. Don't expect to see any of the profits, though.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.

Send organic matter for company by Cyberhwk · 2004-07-04 05:54 · Score: 4, Funny

I suggest we send our own organic matter down there and see what becomes of it. Ok everyone who is the head of a political office raise their hand! Now everyone working for these people raise your hand. Every who has your hand raised get on a rocket cause we're shipping you out! I know we are starting low but consider it even we grew from one celled organisms so what we can send isn't much lower is it? Well at least we'd get rid of a few problem individuals.

"rain down liquid methane" by zeropointentity · 2004-07-04 05:55 · Score: 4, Funny

oh dear god! It's raining farts!

Not just life, understanding planetary environment by TrevorB · 2004-07-04 05:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually I think the big question is the next question: "Why didn't live evolve like it did on Earth".

Suppose we find evidence of fossilized life on Mars, and that Mars was once a warm, wet world. What went wrong? Was it simply that Mars was colder, or is something more subtle going on?

On worlds where "life may once have been", we also have an excellent opportunity to examine worlds in many ways like Earth that failed to produce life. Mars, Venus, Titan... These could potentially be what Earth looks like millions of years from now. Exactly what nudges a world in that direction? Carbon Dioxide? Hydrocarbons in the air? Something else we don't even know about yet?

I believe that examining the chemosystems and environments of non-Earths is immensely valuable. And in my opinion, the knowledge gained far outweighs the (negligable) risk of using nuclear RTG for the trip, something we've all happily forgotten after Cassini passed Earth for the last time. If understanding Titan gives us a better knowledge of our own environment, we need to use this argument next time someone protests using an RTG on a launch vehicle.

Cassini Shatters Titan Theories by kfg · 2004-07-04 06:00 · Score: 3, Funny

Damn, I hope NASA remembered to keep up with its insurance premiums.

KFG

There is no prime directive... by John+Seminal · 2004-07-04 06:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think we have every right to determine who/what we are, and if that means examining every corner of the universe for our history then I say do it. For those who have not noticed, it is a cold cruel world out there. And nobody is in agrement like the fabled Federation of Planets (look at the UN where power varies by country might; it is not a division of power where every voice is equally important). 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?? The logic which says to not disturb/influance others natural rights does not exsist in nature, where animals eat one another. Why should we act in an un-natural way, personifying some amino acid?

Second, was there a big bang? How did it all happen? These questions are relevent in how we think about our life and morality. Did life form on earth based on what was on earth, or was there some comet which had a fragment with the building blocks of life fall down to earth? What does it mean in terms of our religious beliefs? Perhaps science can bring all people together.

--

Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

subsurface life by Gothmolly · 2004-07-04 06:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Europa vs Titan by Delta+Vel · 2004-07-04 06:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Can someone explain why NASA was so concerned about contaminating Europa that they smashed a spacecraft into Jupiter that could otherwise have lasted a lot longer, but where Titan is concerned no one seems to think about contamination?

--
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye. Then it's fun and games without depth perception.

Re:Europa vs Titan by Larthallor · 2004-07-04 06:29 · Score: 4, Funny

All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there.
What part of this confuses you? :)
Re:Europa vs Titan by CDS · 2004-07-04 08:05 · Score: 4, Informative

it's because they sterilized the probe they are sending to Titan, but the spacecraft they sent into Jupiter was NOT fully sterilized -- they couldn't guarantee there would be no contamination, so they took the safe approach.

With Huygens, they can be much more confident they will not accidentally contaminate anything.

a quibble and some other comments by barakn · 2004-07-04 06:20 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

These certainly are not the first infrared images taken by Cassini, not even the first of Titan, which were taken in mid April.

It was the earlier images, earth-based images, and the errant idea that the dark areas were ethane oceans which convinced the Cassini-huygens team to choose this landing ellipse. Now that they know different, one wonders whether they'll modify the plan.

--
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show

Re:Please drop the human == BAD viewpoint by orangesquid · 2004-07-04 06:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

Oh, it's just that... Humans are just notorious for causing a LOT of radical change very quickly. Native Americans are typically considered to have lived in harmony with the planet. Does that mean they never killed anything?

What, are you kidding? A man's gotta eat, and you can't just walk around letting whomever and whatever take advantage of you and/or get in your way.

Consider this analysis of the Wiccan Rede. You can't get too much accomplished if you never break any rules (like the Prime Directive, or the local ordinances of your town, or social mores), but minimizing any "harm" that is done is always wise. (written in quotes because what is "harmful" is very subject to interpretation!)

The point is, it's never good to set in stone what you should or should not do. Many have tried to write a "complete code of ethics" that covers every situation, but such a thing will never exist, because there are new twists to every situation, and nobody can think of every possibility.

Should we interfere with developing life in the Universe? Well, quite possibly, yes! Wouldn't you be disappointed if the SETI project failed for no other reason than all the other life out there had decided not to fuck with us because, well, maybe we were still "developing?"

But then again, nobody should go aronud stomping blindly where they might be important developments occuring underfoot.

Humans are powerful creatures, in the sense that we have the capability to do an awful lot of change very quickly, if we so desire. With great power comes great responsibility, to quote a recent blockbuster release...

--
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive

Just wanted to extend my appreciation, Cassini... by tizzyD · 2004-07-04 06:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

for taking me to a place that sadly I will never be able to go. Growing up on sci-fi, Star Trek, and Space 1999, I dreampt of standing on Titan's shores. Now I know a bit more about what is really there. So, from one explorer born about 500 years too early, I just extend my thanks to the Cassini team. Congratulations, and keep the science coming!

--
...tizzyd

Re:If there IS life out there... by forkazoo · 2004-07-04 06:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Java, naturally. Run anywhere, and all that... Of course, if their brains are completely different from the brain of a human, they might use perl...

Put a NASA Donation box on the Tax Forms by Vandil+X · 2004-07-04 06:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've been saying for years that the IRS needs to replace the "Contribution to the Presidential Campaign Fund" box on tax forms with a "Write in your desired donation to NASA" box.

If this were made possible I'm sure thousands of people would gladly donate money every year.

--
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START

What good would that do? by ArsSineArtificio · 2004-07-04 06:55 · Score: 3, Informative

If this were made possible I'm sure thousands of people would gladly donate money every year.

Supposing "thousands" did donate money every year... let's be amazingly optimistic and say that 10,000 people donated $100 apiece (which is probably an order of magnitude too high).

That would raise $1,000,000 for NASA. Which is absolutely peanuts. That's enough to replace a few space shuttle tiles, or complete half of a small mission feasibility study.

NASA is a government agency. Government agencies waste a titanic amount of money in bureaucratic overhead. Donating money to a government agency is a waste of money.

--
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.

Stupid metric system by ojg · 2004-07-04 06:59 · Score: 3, Funny

What does this mean? "clouds the size of Victoria and Tasmania"?

Are these units part of the metric system?

Can somebody please translate into more familiar units such as size of Texas or Volkswagen bugs?

Lets try realistic numbers. by WindBourne · 2004-07-04 08:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

There are more than 300 million in the states. If 1% donated, that would be 3 million. If the average was $10 each, that would be 30 Million. It would help

The real issue is that the current admin (and probably other ones) will fight this. They want total control of how money is spent.

We have a similar check-off here in colorado for a number of things as well as we have passed bills that says that the state is to put x dollars into education (we were once one of the tops, now in 7 years we have slid to a level == to Texas; Pretty bad). Now that Owens can not put the money where he wants to, he is upset and try to get the bill repealed, but the citizens are fighting him.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Lets try realistic numbers. by ArsSineArtificio · 2004-07-04 08:25 · Score: 3, Informative

There are more than 300 million in the states. If 1% donated, that would be 3 million. If the average was $10 each, that would be 30 Million. It would help

To start with, the population of the United States of America is approximately 293 million as of July 2004. The number of individual taxpayers is significantly less, because large portions of that 293 million do not file a federal personal income tax return (because they are minors, because they have no income, or for some other reason). Your figure of 300 million potential donors is thus unrealistically high.

But, let us say for the sake of argument that your figures are correct, and that this donations campaign raised $30 million. How much would that "help"?

Well, it would fund 1% of the annual cost of the Shuttle program. Or about 0.92% of the Cassini mission. Or about 0.3% of a space elevator. As I said, peanuts.

The real issue is that the current admin (and probably other ones) will fight this. They want total control of how money is spent.

I would earnestly hope that this or any other Presidential administration would have 'total control' over how its employees were spending their budgets. Wouldn't you?

--
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
Re:Lets try realistic numbers. by ArsSineArtificio · 2004-07-04 09:12 · Score: 4, Informative

The President is not in charge of NASA's budget, Congress is.

Congress is in charge of allocating NASA's budget. The President is in charge of overseeing its expenditure. That's the difference between the legislative and the executive functions.

--
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.

This just in by bgeer · 2004-07-04 08:03 · Score: 4, Funny

Cassini has picked up an unusual radio transmission from the surface of Titan, message follows:

that's such BS man. first off, do you have ANY idea how close earth is to the sun?? it's HOT there, we know life cant survive above 10C and it gets as high as 40C there!!! even if it has so-called clouds they're much too thin to protect from the UV rays of the sun. so your 'space probe' theory is a lot of bull, the metal thing heading toward saturn is just a meteor. next thing you'll be telling us is space aliens from earth are giving you anal probes.

what is life anyway? by BigGerman · 2004-07-04 08:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

We define it today, simply, as sometings that is made of complex organics (proteins), eats, poops and (optionally) moves. But this is definition of just one form of life we know of today.
When arguing about life on Titan we must first remember what we know about life in general. The only thing that comes to mind - life is omni-present, once it takes hold there is no stopping to what it evolves.
I am always sceptical reading about possible ET life as bunch of miserable bacteria somewhere under the ice of Europa or rocks of Titan. Make no mistake - if there is life on Titan, it will be teaming with it.
And it is very possible. I would be very surprised if Titan is life-less. It would be a major "for" argument for the Creationism.
Titan is the most Earth-like place in the Solar system. Titan has complex organic muleculae, heat from tectonics and athmosperic electricity. They talked about surface features not caused by meteoric bombardment. It means: mountains, rivers, erosion (soil),etc.
How much we would learn about life on Earth by taking couple of hazy pics from 300000 km out? Keep your eyes open and I think we will be in for a big surprise come October (flyby) and January (probe).

RTFA: "may" contain building blocks of life by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-04 09:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Only if you're Valid... by theendlessnow · 2004-07-04 09:27 · Score: 3, Funny

For those hoping to visit Titan someday.. remember, only Valids need apply.

Sincerely,
Jerome
Navigator

Error in headline ... by Eru-sama · 2004-07-04 09:39 · Score: 3, Funny

Should read: "Cassini Shatters Titan; Theories."

Red Giant = No Atmosphere by ink · 2004-07-04 13:13 · Score: 3, Informative

Except for the fact that Titan's atmosphere will be destroyed by the sun when it becomes a red giant. Titan doesn't have enough mass to sustain an Earth-like atmosphere at Earth-like temperatures; the only reason it has one now is becuase of the extremely low temperatures keep the kinetic engery under control.

--
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.

I knew it! by cjellibebi · 2004-07-04 13:38 · Score: 4, Funny

Now we know that Mars is the location of NASA's top-secrtet film-studio. Every time those middle-managers at NASA want to pocket those government grants for themselves (or occasionally to show that the Americans are better than the Soviets), instead of spendiung billions on sending spacecraft out to deep-spcae, they just spend millions on sending spacecraft to Mars, take some photos, and Photoshop them to look like any other celestial body they chose. In fact, I even suspect that the Apollo Moon landings were filmed on Mars.

Slashdot Mirror

Cassini Shatters Titan Theories

72 of 461 comments (clear)