Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cassini Shatters Titan Theories

Posted by timothy on from the ok-now-give-me-my-money-back dept.

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."

19 of 461 comments (clear)

  1. NASA Funding by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    1. Re:NASA Funding by blue+trane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We elect Congress. It's ultimately our fault.

    2. Re:NASA Funding by gilroy · · 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
    3. Re:NASA Funding by Waffle+Iron · · 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.

  2. Ethical questions by Anonymous Coward · · 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).

    1. Re:Ethical questions by mikejz84 · · 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.

    2. Re:Ethical questions by Almost+A+Knave · · 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.

    3. Re:Ethical questions by Shihar · · 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.

    4. Re:Ethical questions by AKAImBatman · · 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
    5. Re:Ethical questions by mindstrm · · 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.

    6. Re:Ethical questions by mikerich · · 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.

    7. Re:Ethical questions by lightknight · · 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.
  3. 2001 by dirtmerchant · · 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.

  4. building blocks of life.... again... by Doppler00 · · 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.

    1. Re:building blocks of life.... again... by Sven-Erik · · 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
  5. Re:holy crap!!!! by linzeal · · 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
  6. Europa vs Titan by Delta+Vel · · 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.
  7. Put a NASA Donation box on the Tax Forms by Vandil+X · · 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
  8. RTFA: "may" contain building blocks of life by Anonymous Coward · · 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.