Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cassini Peers Into Titan's Haze

Posted by michael on from the reply-hazy-please-try-again dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports that the Cassini spacecraft in orbit around Saturn has peered closer at the moon Titan to reveal two thin, outer layers of haze high in its atmosphere."

31 comments

  1. Titan's atmosphere by justkarl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is therefore thought that the kind of chemistry occurring on Titan today may be similar to that which created the conditions for the appearance of life on Earth.



    Do the math.

    Actually, this could mean a couple of things.
    A: There is the possiblity of history repeating itself on Titan in a few million years.

    B: There is already primitive or primordial life on Titan.

    C: There is intelligent life on Titan, and all our base belong to it.

    I'd be interested to see what the satellite may uncover as it nears the moon more.

    1. Re:Titan's atmosphere by ajax0187 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Any sort of life that would develop on Titan would still be something we'd probably have trouble recognizing as life. IIRC, the role of water is replaced by methane, and so any sort of life that develops on the moon will probably be using that like we use water. Either that, or they'll be something like the tube worms that live next to the methane vents on the sea bottom. But even then, those worms have evolved for extreme pressure and extremely high temperature, the exact opposite of the atmosphere on Titan.

      If there is life, it'll be...weird.

      --
      "By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth." - George Carlin
    2. Re:Titan's atmosphere by avgjoe62 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If there is life, it'll be...weird

      I think we've already proven that here on Earth...

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    3. Re:Titan's atmosphere by Aerion · · Score: 1

      If there is life, it'll be...weird.

      But of course, we should be expecting that for any alien life we may find. I think it would be much, much weirder if we found extraterrestrials who resembled anything terrestrial, especially if they came from such drastically different environments as Titan.

    4. Re:Titan's atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      If there is life, it'll be... weird


      You say that like life down here is normal...


      I'll wager they aren't the ones reading /. all day!

  2. Life?? Not as impotant as by blankinthefill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the actual molecules that they believe may be forming. One of the biggest questions in biology is where the building blocks of life came from. I'm talking complex amino acids, strings of nucleotides, and such. This could very well answer that question, and finally settle the debate between the evolutionists and creationists. (Not that the creationists were ever near right, but one of their main arguments against evolution was the origination of the complex molecules needed to support life.)

    1. Re:Life?? Not as impotant as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOH! Creationist moderators! Whoda thunkit?

      You won't settle any arguments with creationists (such as whoever modded you Flamebait) no matter what evidence you find. Their arguments just morph into new ones whenever the old ones are disproved. Its a hallmark of fanatics.

    2. Re:Life?? Not as impotant as by pavon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think it's funny that every couple months someone posts on slashdot about how X will finally end the debate between the creationists and the evolutionists. This new finding wouldn't settle the debate between evolutionists and creationists any more than Dr. Miller's 1953 experiment (recreating this environmnent in the lab) did.

      Most creationists acknowledge that the low level aspects of our bodies operate according the laws of chemistry. They acknowledge that natural selection is real and happens. And they acknowledge that there have been macroscopic and DNA changes to species over time (although most contend about the length of time). What they don't acknowledge is that natural selection is what caused new species to come about. And there is nothing short of having a first hand view of millions of years of life that will ever prove that to thier satisfaction.

    3. Re:Life?? Not as impotant as by Ayaress · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Like the AC said, it wouldn't solve anything. Henry Morris said if we could find one instance of helpful mutation actually occurring, it would severely impair his entire theory on origin of life, but that we never would find it.

      Anyway, enter a common college lab experiment. In just about any bacteria, if you damage the gene that produces a neccessary enzyme in a population of bacteria, then the population will very often manage to recover and repair the gene, and sometimes it comes out slightly different - change in an amino acid in a nonactive point in the string, or different codons for the same amino acids - sometimes recognizeable fragments of completely different genes - eliminating the possibility that some of the bacteria escaped the original transformation.

      After that, the creationists backpedaled and said that such mutations weren't irreducibly complex, and at least one creationists said that we'd have to find proof that a leg could turn into an arm or a leg or wing - a problem which is "irreducibly complex," and THEN evolution would, unfortunately win.

      Enter the T-box genes, which did just that, and the debate has only gotten worse. Then it was bombadier beetles, but all the strucutres of their biochemical gun exist in all other insects, and all other insects use the same chemicals used in bombadier beetle's reaction, but only a few species of ant and beetle mix the two chemicals intentionally as a defense. Then it was the flagellum of bacteria, and even now nanotechnology is hinting at how such structures could be spontaneously self-assembled from simpler molocules.

      We could litterally observe the moment that the spark of life kindles on Titan without quelling the debate. Even if it means falling back onto a wildly fantastic explanation that raises questions about their own beliefs (the creationists have never had problems taking positions in stark disagreement with most of the bible just to defend the first ten verses), there will be a fallback position somewhere.

    4. Re:Life?? Not as impotant as by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      After that, the creationists backpedaled and said that such mutations weren't irreducibly complex, and at least one creationists said that we'd have to find proof that a leg could turn into an arm or a leg or wing - a problem which is "irreducibly complex," and THEN evolution would, unfortunately win.

      And the worst thing of these arguments is, that even if there was something that the current theories of evolution can't explain, the so-called "theory of creationism" isn't anywhere near credibility. It'd mean we might have to look for some other theory, but there's no reason at all to think that creationism would even be a candidate. No evidence at all, totally incomplete (how did God create arms?)

      Scientfically, there just is no "evolution vs creationism debate". That's like saying there is a general theory of relativity vs. Flat Earth debate.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    5. Re:Life?? Not as impotant as by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      No evidence at all, totally incomplete

      Not quite incomplete, but very unrewarding intellectually. The entire Creationist "theory" stands on a set of pillars:

      1. God is God, God can do anything he wants to.
      2. Gods thoughts and actions are so much above ours that we can never even understand them anyway.
      3. Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test. So just take our word for it and stop asking questions.

      Logically, it's a prefectly sound argument (albeit with premises that are not universally accepted), and can explain anything. The problem is, it explains things so well that there's no point in ANY scientific questioning, since the God card makes any questions of "How does that work?" "Why did that happen?" or "Where did that come from?" pointless, as the obvious anser is, "God made it work like that," "God made it happen," and "God put it there." Having self-asnswering questions like that isn't good for science.

    6. Re:Life?? Not as impotant as by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      Yes, well I know that's what they say, but in my opinion that's just not a theory.

      In my view, science since the period of Enlightenment is basically based on saying "Yes I know that book X here says it's this way, but now let's check if that's actually true."

      That "theory" cannot be checked, there's no test that could invalidate it (like "string theory", which is also not a theory yet, just a mass of maths (as far as I know!)).

      And if anything, science is a process of figuring out how things work. Saying "we can't understand this ever" and "stop asking questions" just isn't science. It's exactly the opposite!

      So as long as the theory doesn't explain how God can do anything he wants to do (in detail), it's not a scientific theory, let alone close competition for the theory of evolution, which has gaps, but is holding up so extremely well that it's basically unchallenged.

      And logical consistency... saying "I'm all that exists, everything I sense is an illusion" (solipsism) is hard to attack logically, too. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with science.

      Regardless of how badly some Christian nuts want people to believe otherwise.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    7. Re:Life?? Not as impotant as by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you're saying. My point is that Creationists have built themselves into a fortress that can't be penetrated so long as you play by the rules, but has gaping holes as soon as you look around the corner.

      They can't afford any allowances for evolution. Even when Henry Morris incorporated a blatantly Darwinian model of natural selection into his OWN flood-catastrophe theory, he not only continued to attack evolution on every point, but effectively turned around and called scientists plagiarists for using "his" theory of natural selection as part of evolutionary theory.

      The problem of Creationism goes even deeper than its scientific nonexistence. About eighty years ago, when the Christian Fundamentalist movement really got started, they made a very bad mistake. They tied the moral teachings of Christianity to Genesis 1, despite the fact that Genesis 1 - a poetic masterpiece with a million interpretations of its own - makes no moral offering, and said that they must stand or fall together. An attack on Genesis 1, by Creationits own ideas, becomes an attack on everything else Christianity teaches, and the acceptance of evolution logically follows as the rejection of all things holy.

      So that open fortress is built on the razors edge between a slippery slope and an abyss. Compromise with science weakens their position on moral matters, and if/when they fight it out to the final, bitter end, the entire Christian system falls to pieces.

      There's an easy out for them. Theistic Evolutionists have already taken it (and indeed gone so far that they've made real and substantial contributions to scientific understanding). Just admit they were wrong. Genesis 1 is not the crux of Christian morality. As (I think it was Polkinghorne) said, "Genesis was written by man, not God. Imperfect man cannot write perfect history," and their moral position will stand on its own. Science can steamroll Creation, but Christianity remains intact, immune from any scientific advancements.

      But, that's just the problem. There's no way out that doesn't involve admitting they were wrong. Their own stance has been too heardline, and they've espoused the idea that, since science hasn't always been 100% reliable on everything, it must be completely wrong on everything. Its impossible for them to get out without fundamentally weakening their entire platform and credibility.

      It will eventually come down to Creationists calling the last thousand years of discovery nothing but an elaborate lie by an army of satanic straw men out to take away your tinfoil hats, because they just can't aford to admit fault on such a miniscule and irrelevant point.

  3. Delayed Gratification by Rand310 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is interesting how delayed my [the public's] gratification for research like this is. I remember when they shot this thing up there. And here we have news of it again, but we won't get anything really interesting until December when the probe detatches itself.

    There was talk that there were very special requirements of the probe so as not to contaminate Titan with life from Earth...

    I personally have little doubt that if Titan is made the way they say it is, than it probably has some kind of simple life.

    How will the probe be able to probe for this kind of information? Any particular sites to keep an eye on while this goes down?

  4. Purple Haze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    'Scuse me while I kiss the sky!

    Who would have figured that Hendrix was into astronomy?

    1. Re:Purple Haze by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Ultraviolet Haze actually. But purple's close enough I suppose.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  5. Methane? by Cragen · · Score: 1
    If there are no noses on Titan, does the methane not stink? (err...does frozen methane stink? No experience there. yet.)

    1. Re:Methane? by Jeff+Duntemann · · Score: 3, Informative

      Methane does not stink; it's completely odorless. Natural gas is in fact methane, but what makes natural gas (as burned in your stove) smelly is a substance named ethyl mercaptan, which is added specifically so that when gas gets out of the stove or the pipes, you can tell before the whole place goes up.

      --73--

      --JD--

    2. Re:Methane? by Ayaress · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That aside, if there's life on Titan advanced enough to have a sense of smell, it probably wouldn't be able to smell methane if it did have a smell. Just like we don't smell oxygen and nitrogen. Its part of our atmosphere, so we're always exposed to it. If we could smell it, we'd have a constant sensory input interfering with any other smells.

    3. Re:Methane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Methane doesn't stink period.

      Mercapitan is added to the methane to MAKE it stink otherwise you could be in a gas filled room and not know it.

  6. Titan's Temperature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Titan is too far from the Sun to receive much of its heat, so what keeps this planet "warm"? Does Saturn, as a gas planet, give off heat? Or does it tie into radiation keeping things "warm"?

    I just curious as to why Titan's atmosphere is not completely frozen.

    1. Re:Titan's Temperature by Chuck1318 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wouldn't exactly call Titan "warm". Even with a small greenhouse effect, the temperature gets up to -180 C. The atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, which has a boiling point of -196 C (at 1 atm pressure).

  7. Too bad it wasn't a purple haze by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Otherwise we'd probably have to rename the moon Hendrix

  8. Not to wreck a perfectly good joke, but... by Ayaress · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the off chance that we actually do share the solar system with another intelligent species, all its base are most likely belong to us. We've already got weapons capable of global devistation if deployed in sufficient numbers(easier on a smaller world like Titan), and so far, we haven't seen or heard them moving around. If they were within a century or two behind us, you'd expect some radio transmissions, or even an artificial satellite or two. If we ever do run into actual Europans, Titans, or Martians, the'll be lucky to be out of the stone age before we finish dressing them up in Nike shirts for TV commercials.

    1. Re:Not to wreck a perfectly good joke, but... by torpor · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be great to find life in the solar system that is so resilient, it can withstand nuclear attack?

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    2. Re:Not to wreck a perfectly good joke, but... by Retric · · Score: 1

      Most lifeforms on earth would servive a gobal nuclear war. Then again most lifeforms on earth are single celled life forms that don't mind radiation the same way us multi celled life forms do.

    3. Re:Not to wreck a perfectly good joke, but... by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      As the other reply said, most life on Earth will survive a nuclear attack, but my particular post was regarding intelligent life, particularly intelligent life with some level of civilization. Multicellular organisms, espeically ones with complex and/or delicate structures, would get torn apart by the forces involved in a nuclear blast, even if their individual cells aren't overly damaged. And even if they do survive, their material accomplishments, if they have any, wouldn't. In which case, to continue the theme, all their base would be blown to hell, and they wouldn't have much left to threaten us with. Never underestimate the human ability to come up with ways to kill stuff. If we run into intelligent life in our own solar system, we'll find a way to eradicate it in fairly short order - the test of character comes when we actually do or don't. We'll have to wait until we go beyond our solar system (or somebody else wanders into ours) to find anything that can compete with us, and then we'd probably be more likely to find something more at least as advanced, if not moreso, than us, since even one high-tech civilization could spread, either themselves or at least their technology, accross a very great distances and many worlds, where with a low-tech civiliazation still confined to a single planet, or short trips to other planets in their same solar system, we'd litterally have to stumble accross their home to find them. And in the event that they find us, then they will obviously be well in advance of us.

    4. Re:Not to wreck a perfectly good joke, but... by justkarl · · Score: 1

      all its base are most likely belong to us.

      Only on slashdot is this a valid sentence.

      But, you're right.

  9. [OT] SlashDot getting SlashDotted by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    From your tagline:
    How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
    They did the day some idiot trained on Microsoft software used the World Trade Center towers as runway markers.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  10. (sorry, correction) by Ayaress · · Score: 1

    Logically valid argument. Sound means all the premises and conclusions are true or at least generally accepted. Valid means the conclusions follow logically from the premises, but says nothing about the accuracy of the premises or conclusions. Dumb mistake on my part.