Slashdot Mirror


Earth Life Possibly Could Reach Titan

dylanduck writes "New simulations show that big asteroid impacts on Earth could have sent about 600 million boulders flying into space. About 100 have reached Jupiter's moon Europa - but they landed at 24 miles/sec. 'This must be rather frustrating if you're a bacterium that survived launch from Earth,' says a researcher. But 30 boulders from each impact reach Titan - and they land gently." From the article: "'I thought the Titan result was really surprising - how many would get there and how slowly they'd land,' Treiman told New Scientist. 'The thing I don't know about is if there are any bugs on Earth that would be happy living on Titan.' Titan's surface temperature is a very cold -179C and its chemistry is very different from Earth's."

237 comments

  1. Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lawyers.

    They can survive anywhere.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by dpreston · · Score: 4, Funny

      Keith Richards and cockroaches my favorite quote (I forget who), "Keith will look over at the cockroach and say, 'You know, I smoked your uncle...'"

    2. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      --Lawyers.
      They can survive anywhere--

      Great...
      when do we ship them off?

    3. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Lawyers.

      They can survive anywhere.


      If they're trial lawyers you need at least two of 'em or they'll starve.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    4. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Coldeagle · · Score: 1

      You are quoting Robin Williams from Live on Broadway

    5. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by jo7hs2 · · Score: 1

      Just remember, when lawyers were writing the Declaration of Independance and the American Constitution, doctors were using leeches and scraping pus INTO wounds, and computer scientists were just a twinkle in some copper deposit's eye. Maybe lawyers are the origin of all life on earth.

    6. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can survive anywhere except Pol Pot's Cambodia. By the end of his reign there were only 6 lawyers left in the country and if his rule had lasted a little longer I'm sure he would have found and eliminated them as well.

    7. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by MindStalker · · Score: 1
      Lawyers are still
      <strike>using</strike>
      leeches and puss, what are you talking about..
    8. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Well, first you have to arrange for an international conference of lawyers, then you have to modify the path of a big orbiting rock so that it lands with pinpoint accuracy. .....

      Of course, there's the problem that there are a couple of lawyers that I actually like.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    9. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Yeh, let them reproduce in Titanic proportions over there, hehehe

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    10. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Unnamed+Chickenheart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, don't lawyers require other lifeforms to suck from?

      So if Titan was lifeless, the lawyers would die. If not, well then poor Titanians.

      --
      urd
    11. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lawyers can't reproduce, since they're all dicks.

    12. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny
      The contents of my fridge.

      It's very cold and its chemistry is very different from Earth's.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    13. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you think Heinlein's "Puppet Masters" originated? They're lawyers!

    14. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Lispy · · Score: 1

      What's 1000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?
      A good start.

    15. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can survive anywhere except Pol Pot's Cambodia. By the end of his reign there were only 6 lawyers left in the country and if his rule had lasted a little longer I'm sure he would have found and eliminated them as well.

      Yup. A great example of a country without lawyers. Pol Pot's Cambodia. Just where we all want to live. Cause or effect? Hard to say, but in a country without laws, you don't need lawyers. Lawyers are typically found in greatest numbers where there is healthy commerce and a respect for the rule of law.

      Coincidence? I don't think so. A necessary, but underappreciated element of society? Yes. Sort of like BOFH.

    16. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by ruiner13 · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for Earth life to survive in Washington, DC.

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

    17. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny. I'm in Washington, DC right now ... seems like I'm both from Earth and, given the fact that I as a thinking feeling thing am posting this, that I'm also surviving.

      Prejudice takes many forms. Here on slashdot we are seeing a few of them today.

    18. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny. I'm in Washington, DC right now ... seems like I'm both from Earth and, given the fact that I as a thinking feeling thing am posting this, that I'm also surviving.

      I wonder if it might have just been a joke, then, asshole.

    19. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by Apathist · · Score: 1

      Then Robin Williams must be paraphrasing Bill Hicks... because the idea that Keith Richards and cockroaches would be the only survivers of a nuclear holocaust is straight out of one of Bill's skits about how drugs cannot be dangerous, because, see, Keith Richards is still alive.

    20. Re:Its life Jim, but not as we know it. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Uh-oh. It's like anti-biotics: If you quit before the bugs are gone, you'll just breed a super-resistant strain.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  2. Airborne bacteria? by Bahumat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Leads to the interesting possibility of xenophilic bacteria and algae impacting Jupiter and having their entry slowed greatly by the thick atmosphere. The deeper it goes, the warmer it gets, and there are bands in Jupiter's atmosphere that are comparable to Earth's atmosphere, past and present.

    Might be interesting to one day discover man was far from the first Earth-borne species to begin colonizing other planets in the solar system.

    --
    "To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
    1. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Leads to the interesting possibility of xenophilic bacteria and algae impacting Jupiter and having their entry slowed greatly by the thick atmosphere.

      On the other hand, the Earth was apparently seeded by xenophobic bacteria that was kicked off their home planet.

    2. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Agreed,

      I always wondered if inside Jupiter's atmosphere there are layers with sufficient heat, and low pressure, to be able to support life. IRC, Carl Sagan did some specullation about it, and created an imaginary ecosystem that could exist inside Jupiter's atmosphere.

      Just look at our oceans, there are lots of life there, even complex organisms as fish, living at extreme pressures.

    3. Re:Airborne bacteria? by AnonymousPrick · · Score: 1, Interesting
      On the other hand, the Earth was apparently seeded by xenophobic bacteria that was kicked off their home planet.

      Wouldn't that be something if we've evolved from bacteria that was orginally the cause of some cold/illness of life on another planet?

      --
      Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
    4. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      As someday our triumphant ancestors, finally making First Contact, are killed by their cold remedies.

    5. Re:Airborne bacteria? by AnonymousKev · · Score: 4, Funny
      s/ancestors/descendants/g

      Unless, of course, time travel is also involved.

      --
      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997
      (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
    6. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Wouldn't that be something if we've evolved from
      > bacteria that was orginally the cause of some
      > cold/illness of life on another planet?

      Sci-fi authors are decades ahead of ya already. Someone wrote a story a long time ago where all life on earth evolved when an alien spacecraft stopped by a barrene, lifeless planet, and let the doglike creature out for...a poop. Bacteria in the p00p took a foothold and started evolving.

      Now wouldn't that be something! The ultimate slap in the face to the Bible thumpers. Not only are you evolved from simple organisms, you are essentially a doop00pchugger at heart.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting idea... Although anything that survived a trip from earth would probably be deep inside the boulder/rock. I'd think that whatever bacteria inside would have to exit pretty quickly before the rock fell into the dense layers of the atmosphere. :)

    8. Re:Airborne bacteria? by isomeme · · Score: 5, Informative
      there are bands in Jupiter's atmosphere that are comparable to Earth's atmosphere, past and present.

      There is certainly a broad layer where the pressure and temperature are roughly Earthlike. However, there is nowhere in Jupiter's atmosphere where the composition is more than vaguely similar to Earth's primal (prebiotic) atmosphere, and nowhere similar to Earth's current atmosphere at all. There is effectively no free oxygen in Jupiter's atmosphere, and only tiny traces of anything other than hydrogen and helium. Most of the traces are simple alkanes and water.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    9. Re:Airborne bacteria? by linguizic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be something if everyone stopped dodging the most likely possibillity that life started on this planet?

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    10. Re:Airborne bacteria? by ArkonChakravanti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First off, I tend to agree with you and I think life did start here, but...

      Given how hard it is for life to start on a planet, how can you say this is the most likely possibility?
      Maybe it is (talking about the odds) more likely that we evolved from some bacteria that somehow found it's way here...

    11. Re:Airborne bacteria? by pizpot · · Score: 1

      Time is not a dimension. Memory is in your head not the universe.

    12. Re:Airborne bacteria? by linguizic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Panspermia is just a dodge. For some reason people can't believe that here on earth, where life as we know it has done better by far than anyother place that we know of, could possibly have been where life originated. The probabillity of life evolving somewhere else and then being magically whisped away to earth is even MORE improbable than life originating here. Just because something that we know has happened is improbable doesn't mean we have to completely throw all of the most probable scenarios for it to happen out the window.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    13. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried telling that to my landlord. Got bitch-slapped. It hurt.

    14. Re:Airborne bacteria? by modecx · · Score: 1

      Oh, so you just believe in your own theory with "probability" sitting on your shoulder, and wonder why the heck everyone else doesn't think like you do! *gasp!* *oh the horrors* That line of thinking is no better than the dogma that existed during the time of the Spanish Inquisition. To many people the idea that life wasn't created by some intelligence is an impossibility, to some, the idea that life wasn't created by a giant white dude with a white beard and white clothing somewhere up in the heavens is also an impossibility.

      So, you'll pull Sherlock Holmes out of your hat and say "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."... And that's when I'll say "I fail to see how either contingency is any more or less plausible, probable, or reasonable than any other conjecture."

      The true, demonstrable fact of the matter is, that it just doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks or believes about things! Even if it were possible to learn the true origin of life on this planet, be it extraterrestrial, ethereal, accidental, or whatever, it doesn't change anything. We still are that which we are, where we are, and when we are. Therefore, the only things that matter are discernable, tangible truths! Everything else is hearsay!

      And besides, "There is a theory which states that if ever for any reason anyone discovers what exactly the Universe is for and why it is here it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable." (Douglas Adams) So, my opinion is that the pursuit of and argumentation about useless information is a waste of time. When and if it's possible that this sort of information would become useful then by all means, go nuts!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    15. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. We have a very, very workable theory for how life arose right here on earth, in the days of the reducing atmosphere, where proteins and nucleic acids would have generated spontaneously with a little sunlight or lightning.

      Life falling to earth is more of a flight of fancy than a theory -- it throws away the most workable theory we have, and doesn't really answer the question about the chemical origins of life -- it just moves them somewhere else.

    16. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the POSSIBILITY though, does it? or are we threatening some "intelligent design" concept that you treasure by merely discussing it?

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    17. Re:Airborne bacteria? by CCFreak2K · · Score: 1

      Having once saw a Discovery Channel program (hence making me an expert*), I learned that one contributing factor to intelligence was the fact that we have a moon. Unfortunately, it's been a while since I saw it, so I don't know WHY this is anymore. Based on this, wouldn't it make it difficult for intelligent life to develop on a planet without a moon, much less a moon itself?

      * Sarcasm.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    18. Re:Airborne bacteria? by linguizic · · Score: 1

      Dude, that was just cheap.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    19. Re:Airborne bacteria? by aiyo · · Score: 1

      discussing pansermia is like discussing god: stop pulling insane ideas out of your ass. stick with the concept that the most simplest solution is probably what happened. that is: life began and evolved on earth. there is no fossil or genetic evidence that life came from god or another planet. if life was alien to earth, then why is it so well adapted to this environment and why is there no evidence of adaptation to it's previous environment?

    20. Re:Airborne bacteria? by cruachan · · Score: 1

      A few years ago I'd have agreed with you. However since it's become apparent that a) life was present on earth very very early in it's history - microfossils have been found 3.5Ga old, and b) Mars use to have a thick atmosphere, lots of water and probably moved out of it's Hadean phase at an earlier date, then I think the possibility that life started on Mars and then seeding Earth has to be taken seriously.

    21. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1
      I don't know WHY this is anymore.

      Two things come to mind immediately: 1) the possibility of Moon being once part of the Eart but broken of in early development stage of the Earth by huge meteor-impact. The increased radio-activity near or in the Earths crust making surface-life-mutations more possible. 2) Also the tides that keep the crust moving, and water flowing also enhaced the possibilities. And Moon shields as well, being an umpbrella against metors, especially the big ones.
      I might have read it in a SF-book, I certainly wasn't there at the time.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    22. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Pembers · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree that panspermia smacks of argument from incredulity - "We can't think of a mechanism for life to start on Earth, so we'll say it started somewhere else and hitched a ride on a meteor to get here." Not really much different from "God did it," or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it." It doesn't propose an answer for how the life that came from somewhere else started. Until we have a better idea of how widespread life is in the universe, and how similar any of it is to us, we can't say for sure that the theory is wrong.

      But one reason that the theory is appealing to some is that the fossil record seems to show that life appeared on Earth not long after the planet became capable of supporting life. If life originated here, you have only a small amount of time and space in which to get all the chemistry right. Advocates of panspermia would have you believe that the odds of getting it right are low. But if you accept that life might have started elsewhere, that allows more space (other planets, or even dust clouds) and more time (stars older than the Sun) for that origin to occur. The odds of life starting at least once in that larger time and space are much better than the odds of it starting on one specific planet in one specific period. It only has to happen once. After that, by definition, life will spread.

      I'm not saying I believe it myself; just trying to explain why some people do. And this simulation doesn't prove that the theory is right, just that it's possible.

    23. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm anerobic bacteria for the win?

    24. Re:Airborne bacteria? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      In fact, I think that it is much more easy to life to occur out of Earth ang fall here by luck (disclaimer, IAN a biologist, or geologist, or something like it). For a start, the Solar System is much bigger than the Earth, bigger chance of something unlikely happenning. Also, several places at the Solar System cooled much earlier than the Earth, so the chemical reactions that may create life started first.

      I think that probably exogene life have hit early Earth and created a gray goo (that latter turned into green goo...) scenario and made Earth born life impossible. As a previous poster said, life evolution on Earth is very weard otherwise.

    25. Re:Airborne bacteria? by linguizic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes the fact that there is more surface area if we add up all the solar bodies does increase the probabillity of the right events happening. But for life to happen elsewhere and then get transported here is where I have the problem. The solar system is mostly empty space, for a special lump of matter containing the beginnings of life to just so happen to impact on a planet that is REALLY good at supporting it seems unlikely. Life is on earth is VERY weird to begin with, (don't believe me go here: http://loom.corante.com/archives/2006/02/02/the_wi sdom_of_parasites.php). The fact that the conditions to support life should exist for so long on earth should say something about earth's fertillity as a possible starting point. None of this really matters, but it seems like people really want to believe that life isn't just a random arrangement of matter that could by chance form complex replicators. People keep finding ways to mystify it away from material causailty. They end up doing this in absurd ways. This goes for people who believe in evolution too. They anthropomorphize evolution saying things like "evolution wants this or that". The simple fact is that the universe, evolution included, does not have the capacity to want anything or to care about anything, or to say "man that's weird, I better not make the universe that way". Life originating on earth is weird, life originating anywhere is weird. Just because it's weird doen't mean that we should indulge in gross speculation. We know life exists. We know that earth is the only planet we've studied with complex organisms (and so far any organisms at all!). Look, as an evolutionary biologist, it's hard to get funding at all. Spreading crazy ideas makes it harder for the most probable ideas to get funding.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    26. Re:Airborne bacteria? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      There is plenty of biochemical materials out there at the Solar System, it spreading through some rocks at the early times (when there where more rocks and more hits) isn't so hard to imagine. And when it hit Earth it maybe got an ideal environment to grow. The biggest problem I have with the origin of life on Earth was that it was fast, and that only one type of it had a chance of surviving. It could be fast because the planet is big, and there where plenty of places to life happen, but if it was the case, there should be more types of it. Otherwise, it should take a long time.

      But you got the point, we shouldn't fund research on that. That is more because biology have much less to gain by studying panspermy than the origin of life itself. Once we have a better idea on how life started, we can start seriously asking where.

      Anyway, the fact that we didn't see it anywhere else isn't that hard. Life is simply too hard to see (unless it start broadcasting its presence), I remember a probe that was aimed to Mars that was tested on Earth that couldn't find any conclusive traces of life. Well, maybe now we can detect life on Earth (from space, of course, and without those very powerfull lenses), but I never saw anybody claiming that they can.

    27. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a counter-thought for you. There's bacteria living in deep sea vents where the water is hot enough to boil any other critter on the planet in seconds. There's bacterias that survive in places where it is never above 0 Celcius. It's really kind of amazing what a couple billion years of evolution can manage on things that measure there generations in hours/days.

      I don't know (or really care) if life evolved here or elsewhere. I do know that there's a huge ass variation on what a species considers a normal enviroment.

      Anythings possible, and most things considered implausible depend on humanities perspective.

    28. Re:Airborne bacteria? by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      Memory is in your head not the universe.

      Unless of course memory is in the universe and your brain is simply a storage and retrieval interface.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    29. Re:Airborne bacteria? by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1

      You mean, "What if someone sneezed at escape velocity"?

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    30. Re:Airborne bacteria? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Supposedly, about four billion years ago something the size of Mars hit the proto-Earth. Their metal cores (mostly) merged and the rocky outer layers flew all over the place and mostly coalesced into the moon. Earth ended up with a relatively thin rock crust, where the moon is mostly rock and if it's got a metal core, it's pretty small.

      If that hadn't have happened, Earth's crust would be like Venus's crust, would be too thick to have plate tectonics to release stress, and every hundred million years or so huge lava flows would cover the planet, rendering life as we know it impossible.

  3. Life on earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible life on earth could have started this way? An astroid destroys a planet in another solar system. Matter is ejected into space (with hearty bacteria buried inside). It just so happens to land on life sustaining primitive earth. Enter in Evolution fast foward to today.

    1. Re:Life on earth? by jtorkbob · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, what a novel idea! I think we've got an awesome new theory here.

      Let's give it a name. How about panspermia?

      Or, you could just RTFA.

      --
      AC: Only on slashdot... could the sentence "My hovercraft is full of eels." be moderated "+4, Insightful
  4. Evolution at work- if the bacteria survive- trip by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Or rather more likely a COLONY of bacteria can have a few members survive the trip, then I'd say it's highly likely that they are mutating fast enough to adapt to local conditions. The bolders would have been radiating heat the entire way out, so temperature wouldn't bother them. They'd land softly enough. And from there on out, it's just survival of the fittest.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  5. HG Wells was Wrong by sarlos · · Score: 1

    And all along, we were watching Mars as the source of attack...

    --
    Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
  6. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about this:

    Named the World's Toughest Bacterium by the Guinness Book of Records, the large red spheres of Deinococcus radiodurans (translation: strange berry that withstands radiation) can not only endure acute radiation doses of up to three million rads but more remarkably, can actually grow when exposed to radiation continuously.

    You really don't want to meet this in a dark alley, however with that much radiation, I doubt it would be dark for long.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  7. Colonise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not send a bacterium from one of Earth's more extreme climates to Europa or Titan to see if will survive?

  8. Panspermia by exi1ed0ne · · Score: 1

    Panspermia, but with Earth as the originator. Sounds like the old chicken and egg to me.

    --
    Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
    1. Re:Panspermia by warrigal · · Score: 1

      Almost every body in the Solar System shows evidence of large impacts. So if Panspermia is fact then it's probably a case of cross fertilization. Life adapting wherever it eventually finds itself. That also implies that, like evolution, it's still going on!

    2. Re:Panspermia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, the REAL question is where, and how, life BEGAN?

      And no, Panspermia is not the answer; saying life came over here from a different place is about as helpful as pushing some dog crap from your lawn to your neighbor's.

      Incidentally, the Bible provides a clear answer to both:
      1) How did life begin? God made life
      2) Who made God? God always existed, and by His nature is Unknowable.

    3. Re:Panspermia by adtifyj · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your comment advocates a

      (x) theological (x) philosophical ( ) scientific

      theory for life. Your theory is not acceptable. Here is why it's useless. (One or more of the following may apply)

      ( ) It has been proven to be inaccurate
      (x) It contains unprovable statements
      ( ) It doesn't propose any additions to knowledge
      (x) It is not repeatable
      ( ) It can not be used to make predictions
      (x) It purports to contain sufficient knowledge to live

      Specifically, your theory fails to provide answers for

      (x) When the universe first came into existence
      (x) How the universe started
      (x) How long will the universe exist
      (x) Why life began
      ( ) Where life began
      ( ) How life began
      ( ) When did life begin
      ( ) How did life start on earth
      (x) When did life start on earth
      (x) Can extraterrestrial life exist
      (x) Does extraterrestrial life exist
      ( ) What happens when we die
      (x) Can we create life
      (x) 42.

      and the following philosophical objections prevent it from being taken seriously:

      (x) The work this theory is based on is hotly contested by its many proponents and your position is not clear.
      (x) This work is too vague to be useful
      (x) This theory fails to acknowledge that the scientific method is constantly explaining acts previously attributed to gods
      (x) Predictions made using this theory are usually wrong
      (x) People who have supported this theory have also strongly denied theories now accepted as fact

      Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

      (x) Sorry dude, but you need to look up the definition of 'knowledge'.
      ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
    4. Re:Panspermia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ordinarily I would have said historical events are by definition not repeatable... That Chinese cookie thing comes to mind: "You never enter the same river twice"

      Other than that, you are quite right. I was just pointing out the fallacy of Panspermia "theory", as the Bible, a book on MORALITY, seems to give better answers to origin of life than this supposedly SCINTIFIC theory.

      I am no Bible-freak, but there are things in the book that ARE good... things about loving neighbors, helping poor, not killing and having sex with animals, that sort of thing.

      How does that apply to science? Probably nohow
      How does e=mc^2 apply to morality? Probably doesn't either :)

      Great joke though, I am conna "clip" that :)

      As to "sufficient knowledge to live", well, things like Aplysia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_sea_slug seem to have sufficient knowledge to live with all of its 700 neurons. Entire memory stored in maye 1000 bytes!!!!

    5. Re:Panspermia by adtifyj · · Score: 1

      I am glad you have taken my comment in the spirit it was intended. I have read the Bible cover to cover a number of times, and have very few problems with its content. I was brought up as part of the Charismatic movement to believe the evolution was wrong, and find it very important to dispel the ignorance and/or arrogance amoungst Christians that propogates this myth.

      btw, history may yet be proven to be repeatable or reversible, but that is currently beyond my comprehension. In this case I was using repeatable to mean humans creating or simulating a universe to a level of detail that it resembles our own universe, and results in life.

      One of the key principles in science is that a theory must be repeatable, in order that others can verify the experiment or otherwise arrive at the same conclusion via action rather than thought. This is why Intelligent Design based theories of life are irrelevant -- they doesnt further the body of human knowledge.

      Personally, I do philosophically agree with Intelligent Design, because even if the big bang theory and universal common descent theory are refined sufficiently that they become fact, the first cause of all this wonderful chaos is still not explained. To my mind, the more science shows the intricacies of this universe, the greater the creator must be.

      There are many metaphysical alternatives to the existence question, and one I do like, Idealism, was summed by George Berkeley: "To be is to be perceived". Even this seemingly humanistic statement does not negate the Bible, it merely implies that our existence as we know it is not ruled by the physical properties we experience, but that our (global) perception is the underpinning of the physical laws we are still coming to understand. This then implies that science does not need to underpin theology. For all we know everything is physically a sludge of energy that has always existed, and has a brilliant imagination utilising extremely complex laws to ensure it's dreams are interesting. Or, we are just a
      simulaation.

      In all of this, it is important to recognise that the Bible does not provide scientific answers to the to origin of life. So no matter what theological or philosophical theories are used to answer this question, scientific investigation is still worth pursuing and ultimately provides the only answers that will be universally accepted. For example, most religions have come to accept that the Big Bang is a plausible explanation of the origin of life, and have consequently aligned their respective concepts of God by reducing or increasing the level mysticism such that it doesnt conflict with our physical experience, often having profound benefits to humanity.

      Panspermia may not directly answer the origin of life (as we know it), but it could be significant as it implies that pursuing that question using knowledge obtainable here on earth is a waste of time, and that we need to seek the answers elsewhere in the cosmos.

  9. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, I'll bite, how do they know they came from Earth rather than, say were asteroids?

    Because they're talking about in the simulation, not in the real world. But, if their simulation models physics exactly, then an asteroid strike exactly like that they simulated would have put about 100 boulders on Titan.

  10. Temperture in Europe by pacroon · · Score: 1

    The way Scandinavia is freezing in at the moment, and this close to spring, Titan would be no problem for us! :(

    --
    It's all fun & games until someone loses the game.
    1. Re:Temperture in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell??? It is +1c here in Helsinki, I would not call that freezing. On the other hand, Finland is not part of scandinavia, so it might very well be freezing over there but not over here. :)

    2. Re:Temperture in Europe by taursir · · Score: 1

      Oh pooh, it's nearly t-shirt weather over here in Helsinki. ;)

  11. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by linguizic · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bacteria survived several years on the lens cap of a camera left on the moon. It's resilient stuff!

    --
    Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
  12. R.T.F.A. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "The team ran computer models of such giant impacts, estimating that each would send about 600 million boulders into space to orbit the Sun. Some of those launched at relatively high speeds - faster than 6 kilometres per second - got as far as Jupiter and Saturn in about a million years.

    In the simulations, about 100 of the boulders from each impact reached Jupiter's moon Europa. "

    UNFOUNDED I TELL YOU!!! They're just pulling these numbers out of thin air!! Ludicrous!!!

    The whole thing was a simulated what-if, something made abundantly clear from start to finish. They "Know" these impacts happened and at precisely what speed because IT WAS A FEKKING SIMULATION, DAMN IT!

    Sheesh.

    1. Re:R.T.F.A. by Karzz1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The whole thing was a simulated what-if, something made abundantly clear from start to finish. They "Know" these impacts happened and at precisely what speed because IT WAS A FEKKING SIMULATION, DAMN IT!"

      This is true, but also stated in the article "The cause of such impacts would be comets or asteroids between 10 and 50 kilometres wide, Gladman told New Scientist: "The kind of thing that killed the dinosaurs."" meaning that these numbers were not just pulled out of an orifice but rather based on actual historical earth impacts. Is it proof that these rocks made it to Titan (and in the numbers estimated)? No. But it is probable. The last line of the article sums it up nicely; "Gladman agrees that life may be unlikely to survive once on Titan. But he says major impacts may have happened "tens of times" throughout Earth's history and that these could have sent Earth rocks to other solar system bodies. "I just set out to answer this question: is it possible to get something there?" he says. "The answer is yes."". Draw your conclusions from there.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
  13. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's some more anecdotal evidence that damage to DNA in humans can be repaired, leading to a greatly extended lifespan, I hope. At least it's some kind of proof-of-concept.

  14. Water Bears by 7Ghent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Tartigrades, otherwise known as Water Bears might survive such a journey. They're the cutest microscopic animals ever!

    1. Re:Water Bears by Abreu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Was I the only one imagining gigantic versions of it?
      With radioactive fire coming out of their mouths?
      Destroying Tokio and New York?

      Anyone?

      Hello?

      Oh bugger...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    2. Re:Water Bears by Assassin+bug · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but I never did find them for my invertebrate collection back in my undergrad days. What about nematode cysts? Or yeast, yeast is everywhere all the time!

    3. Re:Water Bears by ndogg · · Score: 1

      They're so cute and lovable. I want one as a pet. I'll hug it, feed it, and love it all the days of my life.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  15. The Bug Speaks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    'This must be rather frustrating if you're a bacterium that survived launch from Earth'

    On behalf of the League of Sentient One-Celled Organisms, I would like to assure you that it is nowhere near as frustrating as your high-handed, primitive, and anthropomorphic notions of bacterium emotion.

    Actually in many of our cultures (and I use that term advisedly), being hurtled through a vacuum and smashing into a rock is considered to be a transcendent spiritual experience, and required as an initiation rite into our shamanic traditions.

    Blow that into your Kleenex.

  16. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by platypuszero · · Score: 1

    Hmm... so basically we are inoculating bacterial franchises?

  17. Your points are moot. by technoextreme · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That's a tough bug. The temperature isn't such a big deal and time isn't either, as there are bacteria found in Antarctica which were left over from when it was more temperate. Tough bugs, sure, but traveling through space also means withstanding the full bore radation of Mr. Sun, with no atmosphere to protect you. I'm not sure I want to meet one of these in a dark alley. From the article: "'I thought the Titan result was really surprising - how many would get there and how slowly they'd land,' Treiman told New Scientist. 'The thing I don't know about is if there are any bugs on Earth that would be happy living on Titan.' Titan's surface temperature is a very cold -179C and its chemistry is very different from Earth's."
    http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_saltlovers _050721.html First thing I searched for is bacteria and radiation lovers. They are life forms on earth that can survive this type of conditions. Also, it is a fact that bacteria survived on the moon for three years during the Apollo missions.
    Ok, I'll bite, how do they know they came from Earth rather than, say were asteroids? A lot of asteroids look like they broke away from something as they're irregular in shape, perhaps there's other likely origins. But this has gone from 'could have' to did without convincing me. After all, we see supposed martian rock on earth. Who's really to say that those martian rocks broke from Mars, rather than are the stuff Mars is made up of and some of it landed on Earth, or some other theory.
    Ummm.. It's a simulation. They didn't actually discover the rocks. They didn't see any evidence. They just did the math. All they said is that they know that this stuff got shot into space and they figured out that it can reach Titan.
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  18. Obvious by eclectro · · Score: 3, Funny


    At -179C, the bacteria are gonna need parkas.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  19. Maybe it's a Water Bear by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1
    From BoingBoing:
    Now here's the thing I really like about tartigrades. They are apparently the World's Toughest Animal. You can shoot them into space, take them to the deepest ocean depths and let them go, deprive them of air, water, and food for years and they don't care. Send them into the core of nuclear reactor. They'll be fine.
    1. Re:Maybe it's a Water Bear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. OK Fine, Tardigrades can survive the trips.
      And -179 * is not an issue also.

      But, for how long... even if it years, there is no situation when they can come back from cryptobiosis.

      So in the end, no use for them reaching there.

      Instead, I would be questioning their logic on why they chose Titan and that too with such low impact possibility (10Km Craters are quite rare occurences).

      With the same simulation of impact which produce say 1 Km crater, which wil have a much higher probability of happening, there might be life that could have reached Mars.

      But the amount of materials that can get the kinetic enrgy to be ejected from earth would be much lesser.

      But this means, there is a probaibility of life on Mars, from Earth.
      cool

  20. I'm scared by ericdano · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So, since we have determined that these things DO HIT EARTH, how about we start PREVENTING this from happening.

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
    1. Re:I'm scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, who's liv tyler dating these days?

    2. Re:I'm scared by Expert+Determination · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that we have determined these things hit Earth makes them no more likely to hit Earth. I say we carry on ignoring them like we did before anyone had any clue such a thing could happen.

      --
      "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
    3. Re:I'm scared by x2A · · Score: 1

      Actually we're relying on them hitting earth to colonise the outer moons... we're gonna get a bunch of scientists armed with solar powered drills to sit in touch capsules, wait until an asteroid hits close by, sending them hurtling into space. Some of them will reach jupiters moon's, and if they survive the 24mile/sec landing without too much of a headache, they can start building civilization.

      We're just playing the waiting game!

      --
      plug: LCD TV's / Monitors (UK)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  21. I'd Give em two weeks by TK2K · · Score: 1

    A while ago on slashdot, someone posted an artical about how fungi could survive in hard vacume and solar radiation on the side of the ISS for.... two weeks. Now, lets give the little buggers credit and say maybe a month and a half in space... and how long did it take our probes to reach jupiter?

    yep, thats about it

    1. Re:I'd Give em two weeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it is possible to travel to Jupiter in a day. Now I am not somesort of Warp-Drive nut. The reason it takes our probes years to get out there is that we are using Hohmann transfer orbits, but if you were to take an extreme hyperbolic orbit close to the sun you could get to Jupiter really quickly. But your probably right that if the bacteria got to Jupiter in two weeks (without getting boiled by the sun) It would take years for Jupiter's gravity to pull the rock out of its hyperbolic eescape orbit it an orbit that would collide with Europa.

    2. Re:I'd Give em two weeks by EZLeeAmused · · Score: 1

      They survived in the sense that they went dormant and when placed back into their normal environment they revived. They certainly weren't reproducing in space, and probably wouldn't until returned to someplace at least a little like home.

      --
      Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
  22. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
    About 100 have reached Jupiter's moon Europa - but they landed at 24 miles/sec.

    This bit seems wrong. The escape velocity of jupiter from the surface of Europa is not 24 miles per second. Not even close. IIRC the escape velocity from the surface of Jupiter is less then 60 km/s. Rocks should be able to arrive on elliptical orbits with zero relative velocity at Jupiter.

    Even so, without an atmosphere to slow them dowm, rocks will make quite a bang at Europa. Much less on Titan.

  23. Was Europa Always Airless? by Ranger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It looks like Earth's pecker tracks could be all over the solar system. What if Europa had an atmosphere early in it's life? Was it always relatively airless? So even if we discover life elsewhere in the solar system, there's a good chance it'll resemble Earth's. Even if Europa was airless what about this scenario? Big Earth rock hits Europa, vaporizes millions of tons of ice and creates a temporary atmosphere. Then a second rock hits Europa in this brief interlude. It could have survived. Unlikely, but possible.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:Was Europa Always Airless? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What if Europa had an atmosphere early in it's life?

      Sounds reasonable to me. Earth life at the time may have been better suited to Jovian environments than it is now.

    2. Re:Was Europa Always Airless? by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What if Europa had an atmosphere early in it's life? Was it always relatively airless?

      It's very unlikely that Europa ever had more than a trace-atmosphere at any time. You need a certain amount of mass to generate enough gravity to hold one, although the colder it is, the less you need. I don't have the physics to calulate if Europa's mass is enough, but if it ever did have one, it probably still would.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:Was Europa Always Airless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad we can't attempt a landing there to find out.

    4. Re:Was Europa Always Airless? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's very unlikely that Europa ever had more than a trace-atmosphere at any time. You need a certain amount of mass to generate enough gravity to hold one

      Titan has a pretty thick atmosphere, although it is based on conditions that may not exist near Jupiter. However, if Europa used to belch up a lot of water and water vapor, then it may have had self-replenished an atmosphere for a while.

      Maybe it was bigger billions of years ago, but the water vapor it kept belching ionized into space over time, reducing the total mass of the watery moon until it was small enough to stop having heavy tidal heat, stopping the water volcanos. In other words, its very size caused it to reduce its size. Big watery moons belch away matter until they are no longer big enough to belch.

    5. Re:Was Europa Always Airless? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Titan has a pretty thick atmosphere, although it is based on conditions that may not exist near Jupiter.

      I considered that. However, not only is Titan considerably larger than Europa, it's much colder, making it easier for it to maintain an atmosphere. You'd expect moons farther out to have one as well, but as far as I know, Titan is the only moon with more than a trace of atmosphere. If our moon were that far out, it'd probably have one as well, but it's just too near the Sun as it is.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    6. Re:Was Europa Always Airless? by Ranger · · Score: 1

      The sun was much cooler billions of years ago, so it's possible that Europa had cooler conditions to allow an atmosphere of some type. Jupiter may have been warmer also. But it's interesting to think about, regardless.

      On another note, I'd have to say this is the Golden Age of planetary exploration. There what 4 orbiters around Mars? An orbiter around Saturn and a probe on it's way to Pluto. Not to mention the recent probes to asteroids and comets.

      --
      "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  24. One obvious implication by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

    Mars probably had live at some point, either transmitted to Earth via ejecta or received from Earth via ejecta. In fact, it might have gone back and forth over the last few billion years.

    1. Re:One obvious implication by ObjetDart · · Score: 2, Funny
      In fact, it might have gone back and forth over the last few billion years.

      Yikes, that's one helluva commute.

      Maybe that explains why so many modern day humans don't seem to mind driving 2 hours each way to work every day. It's in our genes!

      --
      I read Usenet for the articles.
    2. Re:One obvious implication by barefootgenius · · Score: 1

      Second would be the religious implications of the first life on another planet having some of the same DNA as us.

      --
      /. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
  25. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Ok, I'll bite, how do they know they came from Earth rather than, say were asteroids?
    Because they said they came from earth when they created the computer model the article is talking about. One of the nice things about computer models is it's relatively easy to control external effects, like asteroids.

    Solar Billiards - v1.3.11
    Please input the following earth-impactor parameters for your simulation

    Impactor diameter (m): 5000
    Impactor velocity (m/s): 12000
    Ecliptic Declination (deg): 7.3

    Please input the following solar system parameters for your simulation

    Target diameter (km): 4000
    Target solar altitude (AU): 15
    System asteroid density (objects/AU^3): 0

    Click start to begin

    Calculating Trajectories...Done

    Results:
    Total impacts of earth origin: 107
    Impacts of non-earth origin: 0

    Congratulations! Impact count greater than 100! Click here to redeem your free iPod!
  26. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by Decaff · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tough bugs, sure, but traveling through space also means withstanding the full bore radation of Mr. Sun, with no atmosphere to protect you. I'm not sure I want to meet one of these in a dark alley.

    You probably already have. There are bacteria that can survive and even grow exposed to levels of radioactivity found in some parts of nuclear reactors. It looks like some of these bacteria also live in the human stomach.

    The thing is, harsh environments and to things like drying out can cause DNA damage, and the same incredible repair mechanisms that help some species to survive those allow them to survive intense radiation.

    Incidentally, bacteria surviving to reach Titan is not that interesting - far more exciting is the possibility of them reaching another moon of Saturn - Enceladus, which probably has liquid water.

  27. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Addressing two points. The reason Mars meteorites can be identified as such is because of the ratios of the elements found within them... they differ from the rest of the meteorites, AND match Mars. Every major rocky body in the solar system has such a unique "signature".

    As for surviving hard radiation... we already know of microbes that did it for years when later Apollo crews found them from the exposed exteriors of equipment left behind by the earlier crews. One you stress a microbe into a "spore" state, it's really hard to kill them.

  28. That's the point. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    It is proof of possibility, not proof of actuality. The article was quite clear about this.

    "Would," "Could," "Possibly," "May Have." PERHAPS they MIGHT be saying that this is POTENTIALLY SPECULATIVE.

    1. Re:That's the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you need to chill out... take a holiday or eat an orange. It is fact that some of us have broader imaginations than those others who take each word and limit their conclusions to that.
       
      So, how do you suppose life began on earth?
       
        Life didn't begin on earth because the simulations tell me the probability is very low and all theories are speculative at best.
       
      We're here aren't we? How did we get here? Who knows!!! We aren't ever going to find out if we hide behind science. We must at some stage push the envelope. There is still a lot we don't know and our science cannot tell us.

  29. Crash differs from explosion to escape velocity? by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    ... but they landed at 24 miles/sec. 'This must be rather frustrating if you're a bacterium that survived launch from Earth ...

    And the decelleration and temperature resulting from the crash landing is substantially different from the acceleration and temperature resulting from an explosion that caused the rock to exceed escape velocity in the first place?

  30. K'Breel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, it is found that on this moon, a loser named MasterTripMonk writes lame ass stories about an Earthling named K'Breel. MasterTripMonk even wrote a lame article about himself for Wikipedia, but it was later deleted as a vanity piece.

  31. Re:Crash differs from explosion to escape velocity by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
    And the decelleration and temperature resulting from the crash landing is substantially different from the acceleration and temperature resulting from an explosion that caused the rock to exceed escape velocity in the first place?

    If you start with a big rock under the surface close to an impact point on Earth, most of the rock will be damaged while being ejected into space but a few small bits in the centre may survive intact. But these bits won't be able to survive an impact on Europa.

  32. Re:Crash differs from explosion to escape velocity by idonthack · · Score: 1

    Yes. It has probably been slowed by gravity from various objects, and if they're lucky, they might be moving at a small relative velocity to thier impact site due to orbit directions and such.

    --
    Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
  33. Well... by AWhiteFlame · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, as long as they had an intel processor with them, they've got plenty of heat to survive.

    --
    "Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
  34. Could be problematic if we ever got there by GroeFaZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean, if we ever got there and searched for native life forms, these findings would just add another factor of uncertainty. Say we send up robots or even taikonauts (probably won't be astronauts any way), and they really do find DNA/RNA-based life (except lawyers, as someone else suggested). How would one tell a archaebacterium which hitch-hiked the vessel from an archaebacterium that hitch-hiked an asteroid boulder from a bacterium that has been created there?

    --
    The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
    1. Re:Could be problematic if we ever got there by tehdaemon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ribosomes. If they are the same, or similar to one of the few types in earth-life, then it is almost impossible that they came from elsewhere. If they are different....

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    2. Re:Could be problematic if we ever got there by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Sorry to destroy that, but on procariontes have ribosomes. But we could use genetics anyway, we should be able to know if we "leaked" genetic material on the last bilion years, and how much.

    3. Re:Could be problematic if we ever got there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're saying that prokaryotes don't have ribosomes (procariontes is Spanish for prokaryotes, yes?), then you're the one who's mistaken. The ribosome is universal to known life, and is the apparatus by which mRNA is transcribed into a protein. Perhaps you were thinking of a nucleus or organelle?

    4. Re:Could be problematic if we ever got there by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      You are right. I was confused (I was thinking mitochrondriae, if it spells like that). And I tryed to guess how to write procaryte, tanks for the correction.

  35. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by Tedium+Unleased · · Score: 1

    They just should have and could have kept using "could have" in the rest of the sentences. This is representative of the poor level of journalism today. And since everyone is yelling at you for pointing out this misleading error, which indeed it is, it seems they can't even tell the difference anymore.

  36. Simulation == thought experiment by CarpetShark · · Score: 1
    Ummm.. It's a simulation. They didn't actually discover the rocks. They didn't see any evidence. They just did the math. All they said is that they know that this stuff got shot into space and they figured out that it can reach Titan.


    I don't want to sound like a tinhat type here; I'm sure their findings are close if not correct. In the interests of truth though, we should mention that they could be wrong in their maths. Simulations aren't much more than computer-assisted thought experiments, after all.
    1. Re:Simulation == thought experiment by x2A · · Score: 1

      They're only saying that it's mathmatically possible that fragments ejected from the earth could reach these destinations.

      In the interests of truth though, we should mention that they could be wrong in their maths.

      Implying that it is not mathmatically possible?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  37. Wow... by GmAz · · Score: 1

    Man, what a load of what-ifs.

    --
    Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
    1. Re:Wow... by Teetow · · Score: 1

      That pretty much sums up our existence.

      --
      Teeworlds - it's Super Mario Quake!
    2. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, what a load of what-ifs.
      Seriously, I'm on your side, I mean if this is true, where is the evidence?

  38. Metric system one spoon at a time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ok this time we compromised! We converted the 40 km/s of the article into 24 miles/sec, but kept the -179C unconverted.

    For our next science article we will do the opposite. When we think you are ready -- but only then -- we won't convert anything and you'll be on your own.

  39. One point I haven't seen mentioned. by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    The rocks being ejected from our atmosphere are going to be heated red-hot or more on the way out. How likely is it that bacteria that can survive that can also survive the cold on Titan? It seems like it's asking a bit much for them to be resistant to both red-hot heat and freezing cold. Does anybody know how likely that is?

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:One point I haven't seen mentioned. by user24 · · Score: 1

      bacteria evolve much faster than (any?) other lifeform(s?).

      by the time they get from hot to cold, the ones who survived the heat would be long turned into bacteria myth, then bacteria religion, then that bacteria civilisation would die and new bacteria-heros be born under a new regime, and so on and on and on, until even the bacteria who forgot the old stories about extreme heat had themselves been forgotten.

    2. Re:One point I haven't seen mentioned. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Launch isn't like reentry.

      The mass of material lifted from beside the strike and above what will be the crater goes up with the atmosphere surrounding it and doesn't experience the sort of extreme heating you're supposing.

      It's still pretty abrupt accelleration (which bacteria handle pretty well, especially if embedded in something of a similar density). But the rock isn't plowing through dense air that is at a speed differing from its own by something in excess of escape velocity. The air gets launched, too.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  40. Neat idea...wish it were more probable. by posterlogo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I hadn't heard before this article about hard evidence that Earth debris could reach other planetary bodies or moons -- it's a really fascinating idea. I would first want to know, however, how many impacts correspond to relatively recent timeframes, and how many were predicted to have occured prior to life evolving on Earth. Also, one would think there would be evidence on our own moon of Earth-based debris (post-formation of the Moon of course, since that is thought to be one large chunk of Earth debris).

    As far as life as we know it, there is no evidence that microorganisms could grow at -179C. There is some evidence that hardy spores can survive in extreme conditions (even naked space as is the case for some mold spores that briefly enter the upper atmosphere of Earth and come back down to spread long distance), but I find it difficult to believe that anything could grow and divide at such low temperatures. That seems chemically and thermodynamically impossible with the microorganisms that we know of now. The leaves the possibility of evolution to some type of life we don't know about, but again, evolution requires geological time scales, and the trip from here to Titan, presumably in a dormant state, would not allow sufficient time or for that or the multiple rounds of natural selection. Neat idea none-the-less, but not enough incidents to play the probability game properly.

    1. Re:Neat idea...wish it were more probable. by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1
      there is no evidence that microorganisms could grow at -179C

      I don't think anyone is suggesting that they could. The point is that there could be hot spots on Titan or elsewhere where they could take hold. The last I read about Titan was that the surface may be water ice. There may be hot spots below this that bubble up methane - thereby explaining the methane atmosphere that must be regulary replenished. It may actually be warm under the ice from tidal forces and/or radioactive decay.

      Imagine a big chunk of rock, heated up via its passage through the atmosphere, landing on the ice and penetrating it some distance to where water is in a liquid state due to pressure and some warmth.

  41. Bravo! by robogymnast · · Score: 1

    This has to be one of the most interesting articles I have read on slashdot in a long time. Kudos!

    --
    unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; find ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; fsck ; umount ; sleep
  42. Purpul Sulphur Bacteria by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >chemistry is very different from Earth's.

    There are some Earth life forms with some pretty weird chemistry. One example is purple sulphur bacteria. Instead of using water as a reducing agent, they use hydrogen sulfide. This is oxidized to elemental sulphur and sometimes on to sulphuric acid. Heck with this water/oxygen thing. These are a very old group of organisms.
    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  43. Dinosaurs in Space by truckaxle · · Score: 2, Funny

    Could there possible be bits of dinosaur DNA orbiting around in the deep freeze of the solar system? or would high energy particles quickly destroy the DNA? Well if anything sounds a like a great mechanism for a movie. Man finds chunks of frozen desiccated dinosaur. Man brings back Dino DNA to earth and splices DNA with that of frogs, Man recreates Dinosaur species, Dinosaur eats Man. Appologies to Ian Malcolm...

    1. Re:Dinosaurs in Space by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I could imagine something like a geode crystal managing to stay warm and moist in outer space, hell we could discover at the very heart of Halley is an entire ecosystem which comes alive once every 76 years like flowers in the desert.

      We just never get close enough to see it bloom.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Dinosaurs in Space by pizpot · · Score: 1

      ... "dinosaur DNA" ... go read the latest Discover magazine. A biologist actually looked at a t-rex fossil with a *gasp* microscope and found tissue. Tissue that was thought to decompose in weeks and surely not there so why look. She found lots of stuff like blood cells and didn't want to say the DNA word yet, but they have fingers crossed.

  44. Re:Crash differs from explosion to escape velocity by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And the decelleration and temperature resulting from the crash landing is substantially different from the acceleration and temperature resulting from an explosion that caused the rock to exceed escape velocity in the first place?

    Yep.

    Not "the explosion" itself, but the environment felt by the launched rock, which could be lifted relatively gently by the rocks and soil under it, as the atmosphere above it is lifted out of the way / along with it by it and the neighboring material.

    It isn't the stuff that gets HIT by the asteroid/comet/whatever that get's launched. It's the stuff on and near the top of the ground nearby that gets lifted by the violence spreading out below it.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  45. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by Kingrames · · Score: 1

    They must have run the experiment when Enceladus was on the other side of saturn. :)

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  46. Poorly summarized or poorly understood by HorsePunchKid · · Score: 4, Informative
    About 100 have reached Jupiter's moon Europa...
    Of course, that's 100 simulated Earth rocks reaching a simulated Jupiter's simulated moon Europa. Usually I'd rag on the New Scientist for yet more crappy, sensationalist reporting, but this was clearly the submitter's fault.
    --
    Steven N. Severinghaus
  47. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Riiiiight... and by "moon" you mean a soundstage in Nevada. ;-)

  48. If fungus can grow on the outside of Mir... by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...why shouldn't bacteria from Earth be able to grow on Titan? Microbes are amazingly hardy organisms, they can thrive as chemotrophs at the bottom of the ocean near volcanic vents or in other incredibly hot temperatures (one such microbe has an enzyme that lets biologists amplify DNA for legal and research purposes). If they can survive the extremes of air, ocean depth, and heat, why not those of cold and darkness?

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
    1. Re:If fungus can grow on the outside of Mir... by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      If you take a random bacteria and dump it next to a sulfur vent it will probably die. The process needs to be gradual enough to allow the bacteria to adjust or enough bacteria need to get there for one to randomly survive. On Earth both of those could happen, while an asteroid transfer would have neither really.

    2. Re:If fungus can grow on the outside of Mir... by EZLeeAmused · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget that the microbes that live in extreme conditions got there by gradual adaptation. There were once a bunch of microorganisms that could survive in a zone 100 yards to 500 yards from a volcanic vent. Some of those were a little hardier, so they could survive 90 yards from the vent, and so on. But move some of those to a tidepool and they will almost certainly die. For Earth bacteria to live on Titan, they must have lived somewhere with conditions at least a little like Titan, close enough that at least one could survive the differences. And differences in environmental chemistry aside, a microbe from Antarctica (coldest temperature -89 degrees celsius, and that's a record, not an average) would have a hard time thriving on Titan at around 90 degrees colder. Not impossible, but I'd feel safe betting the family fortune against it.

      --
      Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
    3. Re:If fungus can grow on the outside of Mir... by supabeast! · · Score: 1

      "If they can survive the extremes of air, ocean depth, and heat, why not those of cold and darkness?"

      First they have to survive the sudden blast of extreme heat and pressure caused by an asteroid impacting with enough force to send chunks of rock large enough to not burn up on the way out of the atmosphere flying away at speeds greater than escape velocity.

  49. Prepping excuses for finding life by What+is+a+number · · Score: 0, Troll

    Maybe this will just help prep religious fundamentalists to have a way to accept life on other planets without losing their belief that life started on earth (6000 years ago, of course...)

    ---
    I type this every time.

  50. Re:But they would need an AMD.. by craznar · · Score: 1

    If they wanted to turn Saturn into a sun.

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
  51. C.A.F. by x2A · · Score: 1

    It doesn't seem hugely different from me posting a story about how waterfalls can power 90% of a large city, occording to my last game of SimCity :-/

    It's Computer Assisted Fantasy

    --
    plug: Digital camera's/camcorders (UK)

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  52. One thing - by Kittie+Rose · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People are also only pointing out animals we know exist being on those boulders. It's entirely possible there were many more species hundreds of millions of years ago that were as resiliant as the "Water Bear" towards harsh conditions, but suffered some other short coming that lead to their extinction on Earth.

    --
    EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
    1. Re:One thing - by x2A · · Score: 2, Funny

      but suffered some other short coming that lead to their extinction on Earth

      like being blasted out into space *lol*

      --
      CD/DVD Duplicators (UK)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  53. Re:I'm scared (not) by rapidweather · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Anyone remember an asteroid story where we did not know about the thing until after it passed Earth, and was going away?
    So, if one is going to hit, we probably, and should not, know in advance.


    Something much smaller, but terrifying nonetheless, was Katrina. I remember seeing grandmothers, children fleeing up the highway the next day, knowing from the looks of them that they would not last another mile without dropping in their tracks. Their transportation that got them here ran out of gas, apparently, and they got out and started walking. Power was out, all I had working was my scanner, hooked to a car battery. Several men had been swept off their roofs during the storm, trying to fix roofs damaged by falling trees. Broken backs. Much worse further south toward the Coast. The only bright side: Good thing we had bicycles, no gasoline anymore.


    Knowing in advance would not be good, from what I have seen, if we are to be hit with a giant asteroid.
    If another Katrina comes around, we are going to have a lot of problems based on what Forbes.com discusses here:


      Victims who are rescued from the horrors of the flood-ravaged city of New Orleans may have frequent and intense psychological problems similar to those that plague troops returning from Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam--problems that could spread to the rescuers as well. Up to a third of the victims of the Gulf Coast catastrophe might be affected


    (Sorry I did not link to the story, they had an advertisement page ahead of it.)

         

  54. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by Urza9814 · · Score: 0

    Could the bugs not hide INSIDE the meteor? Who needs an atmosphere when you're surrounded by solid rock? And can't spores survive some pretty harsh conditions?

  55. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by dthx1138 · · Score: 1

    1. Just because the escape velocity at Europe might be less than 24 km/s doesn't mean that's your orbital velocity at that altitude above Jupiter; such would only be the case if the object's initial velocity (w/ respect to Jupiter) was 0 at the edge of Jupiter's sphere of influence.


    2. It's possible their simulation was for a retrograde impact on Europa, which would enable a much higher impact velocity (Europa's mean orbital speed is over 13 km/s).

    --
    I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
  56. Mir was a good example... by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting
    And NASA carried out a related experiment not too long ago, plastering microbes on a surface they then exposed to the hard vaccuum & hard radiation of space. The microbes stopped growing in space, but went into a suspended state. When returned to Earth, they revived and did not appear to have been harmed any by the experience.


    (Given that gigantic, green tentacled monsters haven't been stalking NASA bases recently, we can also assume that not only were they not killed off, they did not suffer significant mutation from the radiation. Actually, the study indicated that no obvious mutations had occured of any kind, implying that the DNA was highly resiliant to the effects of ionizing radiation.)


    On the basis of Mir and the NASA experiment, it can reasonably be concluded that microbes can survive interplanetary travel, more-or-less intact, at least within the solar system. Deep space is far, far nastier and the present experiments don't show that interstellar microbial travel is possible... but it doesn't rule it out, either.


    We believe that microbes can remain in a suspended state for tens of thousands of year (or perhaps millions), on the basis of studies of microbes discovered in ice core samples. It's not easy to rule out contamination, but the experiments seem repeatable. It is possible to imagine that microbes may be present in some geodes. They would certainly be present inside rocks that have fissures caused by flowing water or ice cracking.


    Once you're talking of microbes on the inside of rock, then impact velocities would be much less important. The rock would absorb much of the impact, and the shattering of the rock would be a very useful way for the microbes to be released. In the case of interstellar travel, it would also provide better shielding. Ideally, you'd want rock from the Peak District in the UK - some places have a nice mix of galena (lead ore), calcite and blue feldspar. I could easily imagine a meteorite with such a mix containing microbes in amongst the calcite, and lead casing would improve the odds of surviving the millions - if not billions - of years needed to travel between systems.


    (This is not to say this has happened, and I'm sure I'm going to get my wrist slapped by a geologist who will point out all the flaws in my reasoning. However, if in the year 3000 we finally reach Alpha Centauri and find a planetoid with bird flu on it, they'd better damn well name the planetoid after me.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Mir was a good example... by Decaff · · Score: 4, Informative

      Once you're talking of microbes on the inside of rock, then impact velocities would be much less important. The rock would absorb much of the impact

      Actually, microbes are so tough that there is little need to absorb impact stresses. Some experiments have involved bacteria put inside a rifle bullet and fired at rock (to see if they could survive the decelerations of a meteor impact). The bacteria survived and could reproduce.

      This is why there is little need, as this article suggests, to have the rocks containing bacteria travelling slowly.

    2. Re:Mir was a good example... by modecx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Totally... I've even seen a clip where scientists have exposed some bacterium to radiation, so to scramble their DNA... Some bacteria can survive, actually repair DNA that was very signifigantly damaged, and then go on about their normal lifecycle. The little bastards are tough!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    3. Re:Mir was a good example... by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      An interesting post. I am not familiar with the tests you refer to but a few things strike me as odd.

      implying that the DNA was highly resilient to the effects of ionizing radiation.

      Isn't one of the points of evolution (and I'm way out of my field here) that DNA is affected by radiation and that is, at least, one of the reasons why species change?
      Just because a small test is conducted and no changes were observed does not imply that DNA is "resilient" at all, right? It only shows that under the conditions of the test, which were obviously very limited, no changes were observed.

      Deep space is far, far nastier and the present experiments don't show that interstellar microbial travel is possible... but it doesn't rule it out, either.

      Why is deep space "nastier"? It's certainly colder, if that is what you mean. Is the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity really that much different in deep space than it is around Earth? (sure, we see modulation but that does not imply significantly less intensity right?, granted we really don't know). Inside the heliosphere we have not only the GCR problem but we are also, by definition, fairly near to the Sun, I ~ 1/R^2

      Why would some little-microbe-dude, partying inside a little rock, many light years from any star have a "nastier" environment than one inside our heliosphere?

      No one really knows the lifetime of these "dudes" but (humor me) if it's ~ millions of years then why could they not arrive (in tact) at a distant star? And the obvious question is, why then could our planet not have been populate in a similar scenario?

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    4. Re:Mir was a good example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


            The heat is the problem much more then acceleration. If the rock vaporises on impact... poor little microbes :) If not, chances are they'll survive.
            Don't know about the bullet. It should have gotten pretty hot when it hit the rock, but i guess the buggers are pretty tough too...

    5. Re:Mir was a good example... by Eivind · · Score: 1
      You fail to understand the magnitude of these impacts. Hint: rifle-bullets do not impact at 24 miles/second, they leave the muzzle with something between 0.2 and 1 miles/second (old pistol to kinetic-kill armour-piercing), the impact-speed is even lower due to air-resistance. (depends on distance though)

      24 miles/second is roughly 50 times that speed, so the impact-energy would be roughly 2500 times higher.

      So, it's sorta like saying that humans are hardy creatures, they can easily survive a fall of 1 foot, so falling 2500 feet and landing safely should be no problem.

      As astronomical distances and velocities go, bullets are really amazingly fucking slow.

    6. Re:Mir was a good example... by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      DNA replication is affected by ionizing radiation, that is known. What those experiments found is that DNA itself is resilient. So if the bacteria is not reproducing, it is ok. Some can even fix their DNA and reproduce on a hight radiation evironment.

      And the evolution is much more dependent of genetic recombination* than on mutations. That is why all known life forms (and virus too) do it (as far as I know at least, IAN a biologist).

      * On our case, sex. But different creatures use different strategies, bacteria simply send their DNA out.

    7. Re:Mir was a good example... by ajpr · · Score: 1

      The rifle analogy isn't really appropriate.

      Firstly, it's of several orders of magnitude lighter.

      It also doesn't travel at tens of km per second like an asteroid does.

      These two factors contribute to the friction of the impact into the atmosphere of a planetoid. Even Mars' weak atmosphere is enough to prevent the "air" from being able to move out of the way of the asteroid. This results in the asteroid heating up as there is nowhere for the energy from the friction to escape to ("air" is a bad conductor).

      The final point is that the angle of incidence to the planet can affect the deceleration and therefore the amount of heating the asteroid experiences.

      I don't think the problem ever was the impact force, just the heating the asteroid experiences. Also, any asteroid that heats up too much becomes a nuclear bomb, as happened in Siberia last century.

      So basically there is a constraint on the variables that allow bacteria to survive. I'm guessing that bacteria can probably make the journey to all parts of the solar system as there have been enough asteroid impacts to make it likely.

      i think the real question is: how long can they exist in space and still reanimate? It could take thousands of years, even with many asteroid ejections, to hit another object in the solar system. So to answer that you need to model the solar system from a starting configuration of many N body gravitational systems. This could then be used to work out the probability of an asteroid hitting the Earth, ejecting various chunks into space and at least one hitting another planet(esimal) with the right constraints on the asteroid and the planet etc.

    8. Re:Mir was a good example... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      You fail to understand the magnitude of these impacts. Hint: rifle-bullets do not impact at 24 miles/second, they leave the muzzle with something between 0.2 and 1 miles/second (old pistol to kinetic-kill armour-piercing), the impact-speed is even lower due to air-resistance. (depends on distance though)

      The rifle bullets in the experiments weren't fired from a rifle - they were fired at much higher speed.

      24 miles/second is roughly 50 times that speed, so the impact-energy would be roughly 2500 times higher.

      No, it won't, as there is atmospheric braking.

      So, it's sorta like saying that humans are hardy creatures, they can easily survive a fall of 1 foot, so falling 2500 feet and landing safely should be no problem.

      No, it isn't, as the experiment was specifically designed to test meteor impact decelerations.

    9. Re:Mir was a good example... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      The rifle analogy isn't really appropriate.

      There was no rifle analogy - the rifle bullet was simply the mechanism for delivery of bacter

      Firstly, it's of several orders of magnitude lighter.

      Which is irrelevant - what matters is force, not mass.

      It also doesn't travel at tens of km per second like an asteroid does.

      I was talking about meteors, not asteroids. Smaller meteors can get substantially slowed by the atmosphere.

    10. Re:Mir was a good example... by ajpr · · Score: 1

      I think mass is more important than force. The force isn't in question, the friction and therefore mass is. A heavier object causes more friction as it takes more energy to slow down. Bacteria are more resitant to force than they are to high temperatures.

      And also, meteors are asteroids that have simply started raining down onto the Earth. Generally small asteroids the size of rifle bullets won't make it through the atmosphere due to the friction. And of course if the asteroid is too big then there's an airburst or a impact into the ground. Both of which could easily kill cells due to the extreme heat and pressure.

    11. Re:Mir was a good example... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      I think mass is more important than force. The force isn't in question, the friction and therefore mass is. A heavier object causes more friction as it takes more energy to slow down.

      No, this is poor physics. The friction is nothing whatsoever to do with the mass. It is to do with the roughness of the surface. Also, smaller meteors don't get hot because of friction - they get hot because they compress the air in front of them, and compressed things heat up. Larger meteors get hot because the energy of motion get changed to heat when they hit the ground.

      Bacteria are more resitant to force than they are to high temperatures.

      True.

      And also, meteors are asteroids that have simply started raining down onto the Earth. Generally small asteroids the size of rifle bullets won't make it through the atmosphere due to the friction.

      The only point of mentioning rifle bullets was because that was the delivery mechanism for bacteria onto rock in an experiment to test how much deceleration they could survive. No-one is suggesting that bacteria can only travel between planets on pieces of rock the size of rifle bullets. Providing the meteor is the apropriate size, it will get slowed down by the atmophere and can deliver bacteria to a planet. The 'rifle bullet' test showed that even meteors that hit a planet's surface with quite a bang can still deliver bacteria.

      And of course if the asteroid is too big then there's an airburst or a impact into the ground. Both of which could easily kill cells due to the extreme heat and pressure.

      The point of the 'rifle bullet' experiment was to show that ground impacts aren't necessarily fatal to microorganisms.

    12. Re:Mir was a good example... by ajpr · · Score: 1

      "No, this is poor physics. The friction is nothing whatsoever to do with the mass. It is to do with the roughness of the surface. Also, smaller meteors don't get hot because of friction - they get hot because they compress the air in front of them, and compressed things heat up. Larger meteors get hot because the energy of motion get changed to heat when they hit the ground."

      I really don't think you understand basic physics. Tackle the problem like this: K.E.=.5m(v^2)
      Most of the K.E. has to be transferred into heating, unless you have some other idea of where the kinetic energy is going? As you said compression of the air causes heating, I mean friction of air against air. With very fast moving objects hitting into an atmosphere, the air doesn't have time to move out of the way.

    13. Re:Mir was a good example... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      I really don't think you understand basic physics. Tackle the problem like this: K.E.=.5m(v^2)
      Most of the K.E. has to be transferred into heating, unless you have some other idea of where the kinetic energy is going? As you said compression of the air causes heating, I mean friction of air against air. With very fast moving objects hitting into an atmosphere, the air doesn't have time to move out of the way.


      I'll ignore the insult and explain. Compression heating is not friction. It is called 'adiabatic heating' - technically the work done on the air by compression is transferred to internal energy. That is where the kinetic energy goes. The heat does not have time to escape, so the air heats up. In the popular media this is often called 'friction', but it really isn't.

    14. Re:Mir was a good example... by ajpr · · Score: 1

      I think you've lost track of the point i have been trying to make. That is, the kinetic energy mostly is transferred into heating the object, and therefore the mass is directly related to that. YOu go off on a tangent explaining something related but not actually a relative to anything I've been trying to get across.

    15. Re:Mir was a good example... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      I think you've lost track of the point i have been trying to make. That is, the kinetic energy mostly is transferred into heating the object, and therefore the mass is directly related to that. YOu go off on a tangent explaining something related but not actually a relative to anything I've been trying to get across.

      You were the one mentioning irrelevant terms like 'friction'.

      Actually, little of the energy goes into heating the rock, as there is insufficient time (this is why the air gets hot, as there is no time for the heat to leak away, including into the rock).

    16. Re:Mir was a good example... by Nivag064 · · Score: 1

      Mir had mold growing on the outside of the space station, despite the vacuum and extremes of temperature!


      -Nivag

    17. Re:Mir was a good example... by ajpr · · Score: 1

      If only the air gets hot and not the rock, then how do you explain this quote:

      "The heat generated by compression of air in front of the meteor as it travels through the atmosphere is immense, and most meteors completely burn up or explode before they can reach the ground." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event - scroll down to Meteor Airburst

      So obviously a significant amount of energy goes into heating the meteor, enough to cause a devastating kiloton+ explosion. The heavier and less dense the meteor, the larger the potential airburst. And as the quote says most meteors burn up completely or [if they are large enough], they explode.

      Oh no wait, wikipedia is wrong according to you? Sorry my mistake.

    18. Re:Mir was a good example... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      "The heat generated by compression of air in front of the meteor as it travels through the atmosphere is immense, and most meteors completely burn up or explode before they can reach the ground." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event - scroll down to Meteor Airburst

      We aren't talking about most meteors. We are talking about meteors large enough to deliver microorganisms. Also, contrary to your assertion, it is larger meteors that can do this, as they can get through the atmosphere without exploding. You need meteors large enough so that they can resist the pressure change of impacting the atmosphere.

      Remember, large meteors get through the entire atmosphere in a matter of only a few seconds. If you think that this is enough time for heat to penetrate to the centre of a reasonably sized meteor, you don't know physics.

      Proof that it is not is given by the fact that scientists study the interiors of meteors that have hit the ground in order to investigate their original state. Remember the Martian meteorite with apparent forms of life that was discovered in the 90s? Well, that had delicate iron and carbon compounds inside.

      Oh no wait, wikipedia is wrong according to you? Sorry my mistake.

      Ah - this from the guy who assumed air got hot due to 'friction'.

      Actually, as I am sure you well know, Wikipedia is not always definitive.

    19. Re:Mir was a good example... by ajpr · · Score: 1

      So now you are agreeing with me? It started with me saying that there were constraints on the meteor due to varying masses altering the probablility bacteria could survive. And now you say exactly the same thing.

      Look at this statement you just wrote:
      "Remember, large meteors get through the entire atmosphere in a matter of only a few seconds. If you think that this is enough time for heat to penetrate to the centre of a reasonably sized meteor, you don't know physics."

      You said it was force that mattered, not mass. But now you keep talking about "larger meteors". It's nice to know that you have changed your mind without even realising it. So my original point about the rifle bullet analogy being irrelevant still stands.

  57. If material from Earth seeded other bodies by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    Then it's entirely plausible that life on Earth came from places other than earth.

    Of course this plays right into the hands of the fundamentalists. In their view we were put here by their God. But I'm not one of His people - I'm one of the others mentioned in the good book. But I'm talking extraterrestrial here, not metaphysical.

    1. Re:If material from Earth seeded other bodies by Kittie+Rose · · Score: 1

      It's pretty likely! Maybe it does indeed mean our conciousness is a building block of society then, and it came from a very strange place with all kinds of weird mad physics type things going on.

      --
      EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
    2. Re:If material from Earth seeded other bodies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course this plays right into the hands of the fundamentalists.

      Get over yourself.

  58. They are not still relative to Jupiter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rocks will be arriving on elliptical orbits with considerable velocity relative to Jupiter. Their motion around the Sun is much, much less than Jupiter's, which is why Jupiter has enough centripetal acceleration to stay in orbit at that distance, while the rocks are going to turn around and drop back through Earth's orbit.

  59. Offtopic by mctk · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Knowing in advance would not be good, from what I have seen, if we are to be hit with a giant asteroid.

    I'm wondering how your story led you to this conclusion.

    --
    Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
  60. You are correct by jd · · Score: 2
    There's all kinds of weird bacteria on Earth, including extremophiles that consider boiling water to be a little on the chilly side. Cold-water corals can survive quite nicely in the North Sea and I've heard of them off the coast of Alaska. Although not a bacteria, the "ice worm" discovered in Washington State can only live in below-freezing conditions. They explode at higher temperatures, apparently.


    Combine all this with being able to digest unconventional materials - your example was sulpher - and you've the makings of a beastie that would consider Titan the ultimate in luxury resorts.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  61. What are the odds of the bacteria surviving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Now I know that everyone and his dog likes to point out how hardy bacteria are. They turn into spores and can survive insane periods of time, etc. However the article said that 100 rocks arrive at Titan in a million years.

    A million years.

    That's long enough for some really slow chemical processes to become significant. Like the ones that cause replacement of organic tissue with minerals - aka fossilization.

    OK, if they arrive at that rate, the first one is likely to arrive in 5-15,000 years or so. Go bugs! You have a chance!

    But these aren't rocks that just flew straight to Jupiter and landed on Titan. They are ones that went into an elliptical orbit that touches Jupiter's orbit and stayed there for a while. So those rocks are going to be going out to Jupiter (nice and cold) then coming in close to the Sun. How close? Venus? Mercury? I don't know (though I could probably work it out). But regardless, it is going to be a lot closer than Earth. Which means that it will be pretty toasty. Think autoclave.

    Oh, let's add hard radiation. Solar storms produce enough radiation that it was a real concern that the Apollo astronauts might encounter one. And here we are, experiencing half of every solar storm for thousands of years. (Depends which way the rock was facing whether a bug gets hit or protected.) That's going to add up.

    I'd put pretty dim odds on the bacteria surviving to land on Titan.

  62. Encino Man 2: Pauly in Space by refriedchicken · · Score: 1

    Imagine a impact in a frozen tundra ejecting a chuck of ice containing, yup you guessed it, a frozen Caveman. Caveman makes the trip to Titan and remains frozen. The earth sends bots to terra form the moon and then astronauts. Upon landing and exiting their space craft they meet Brendan Fraiser after he thawed out do to the terraforming. Hilarity insues...

  63. It's life Jim, but not as we know it. by Heembo · · Score: 1, Funny

    Lawyers..

    It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead, Jim, dead, Jim;
    it's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead, Jim, dead.

    --
    Horns are really just a broken halo.
    1. Re:It's life Jim, but not as we know it. by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      Wow. I'm not the only one with that tune in my head!

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  64. Re:Purple Sulphur Bacteria by sukotto · · Score: 2, Funny

    I saw a movie about that. Ripley escaped with the cat, but none of the other did. ;-)

    --
    Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
  65. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by sukotto · · Score: 1

    I wonder what super powers you'd develop if you were bitten by one.

    --
    Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
  66. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1
    'They just should have and could have kept using "could have" in the rest of the sentences. This is representative of the poor level of journalism today.'

    It's not just journalism but Slashdot itself, a once "alternative" website coming full circle to new levels of unprecedented hypocrisy.

    Much as they condemn religious faith for its non-science, "could have" suddenly applies to everything they hope for towards their own political values -- from global warming to life on other planets.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
  67. talk about waste by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    stopped by a barrene, lifeless planet, and let the doglike creature out for...a poop.

    Expending billions of joules of energy just so that your pet could drop a lump on a rock....

    You'd think that such an advanced culture would have invented the self-cleaning litter box by now....

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:talk about waste by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      You are obviously not a cat owner. Oh, wait! Cats don't have owners, they have staff !

      --
      C|N>K
    2. Re:talk about waste by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how this turned into cats, but I would hope they would've figured out how to keep the damn cat from wiping its smelly ass all over everything.

      If only there was an eject button...

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    3. Re:talk about waste by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      I consider myself to be caretaker for 1.5 cats. I have my official cat, which is an indoor/outdoor cat. The 1/2 cat is a semi-ferral that lives under the back stairs. It will almost never come inside, but it'll sit just outside the back door and wait until I get around to feeding her.

      All I can say, is that if you're going to go for interstellar travel with a cat, it had better be an indoor-only variety, or you're gonna be very unhappy.

      -- darkonc

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  68. Don't Colonise yet! by symbolset · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Deliberately contaminating the environments of our neighboring celestial objects with our mutagenic biomatter might be considered an unfriendly greeting by the local populations.

    But we'll keep doing it anyway. It seems unlikely that human spacefaring will be found in the long term to be a significant vector for the spread of life -- not because we don't do it but because life has been littering the solar system for much longer than we've been exploring it.

    In addition to the rocks that smote the dinosaurs which might have spread life to other planets there are:

    • Rocks that bounce off our contaminated atmosphere billions of times an year, each of which could become tainted with at least bacteria or mold spores.
    • The original source of life, which might not have been Earth after all but a different planet around a sun that died cosmic ages ago, blessing us with it polluting progeny.
    • Solar radiation. During a number of magnetic pole-swapping events in geologic time the protection of the magnetosphere was absent. In addition to promoting mass mutation, the solar winds were strong enough to strip off much of our once-much-larger atmosphere and take with it our genetic contribution to everything downwind.
    • And of course, FSM may animate any matter he chooses with his noodly appendage.

    The better question is not "does life exist elsewhere?" but rather "if not, why?" We just have to probe around as best we can to get some preliminary results on the first question before we explore the second.

    The question I want answered involves the asteroids -- who will be the 49'er to figure out how to capitalize on that unimaginable wealth? The investment is significant, but if you could get a reasonable amount of water, a nuclear power plant and about 50 people to the asteroids, in thirty years you could own everything outside the moon's orbit. Of course at that point closing the deal on the rest of _everything_ would be trivial.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Don't Colonise yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The question I want answered involves the asteroids -- who will be the 49'er to figure out how to capitalize on that unimaginable wealth? The investment is significant, but if you could get a reasonable amount of water, a nuclear power plant and about 50 people to the asteroids, in thirty years you could own everything outside the moon's orbit. Of course at that point closing the deal on the rest of _everything_ would be trivial."

      Which would work wonders, until the United Earth Collective (or whatever we end up calling ourselves once we shrug off this archaic nationalism) decides they can't be bothered buying into your monopoly on the Universe and someone in a position of power accidentally slips during negotiations and makes your colonies go boom. I'm pretty sure much as we love to think of ourselves as an economically controlled world, if a small population laid claim to the universe beyond the moon, I don't think we'd hear much from them ever again.

    2. Re:Don't Colonise yet! by symbolset · · Score: 1
      A considerable treatment has been done in SF about the leverage afforded by being in possession of large amounts of mass at the top of a gravity well. It's a superior negotiating position.

      For all practial purposes, any 50 ton asteroid is equivalent to a nuclear weapon if it were tipped into an earth-intersecting orbit. There are many many asteroids. Altering the trajectory of an asteroid of that size in that way is trivial if you're on the spot and have water and power.

      Challenging an established population in a region so vast, up such a steep hill, would be difficult at best. I don't think it could be done.

      I, for one, welcome our rock-tipping overlords!

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  69. Mods by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1, Informative

    Howdy,

    Can some mod who has extra points please mod parent up. He got slammed on his first post by one down mod. Thanks to the wisdom of the powers that be, and their wonderful algorithms, he is now qualified to post at 0 for the rest of his existence.

    Look at the post that caused the problem. He asked about .NET and marketing crap. I develope .NET for a living, and 95% of what is out there IS marketing crap.

    No reason for this guy to have been down modded. No reason for him to be in the 0 realm. If you want to mod this offtopic too, great. I left my karma bonus on so you could take an extra swipe at me.

    Thanks,
    Have a nice day.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Mods by linguizic · · Score: 1

      As a non-moderator, it is good to see that the moderators care about this kind of thing.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
  70. Life finds a way by SlappyBastard · · Score: 2, Funny

    Put a bitch in heat on Titan, and I guarantee a dog will stud Titan into being a giant kennel in no time. Life is incredibly persistent.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  71. Re:Airborne bacteria? Capsaicin by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    must not have taken hold early enough. I imagine terrorformers of other planets will use stuff stronger than Capsaicin, though...

    ET would be phoning its ASS OFF trying to get back home from Earth if taken to some types of dinners here.

    (I wonder what is the ET equivalent for Digel, Pepto, Tums... (A human, maybe?))

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  72. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    After Apollo crews found them from the exposed exteriors of equipment left behind by the earlier crews

    WTF? are we talking about crews sneaking over to other apollo landing sites on the moon?

  73. Stupid question about stuff hitting earth by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So the theory is that meteors hit the earth, and this somehow kicked up *boulders* to fucking *leave the atmosphere*? Think about how much force it takes to push things we *want* to go out of the atmosphere? And the escape velocities involved.

    Is it just me, or does the idea of meteors kicking stuff *off the earth* not pass the laugh test?

    --
    Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    1. Re:Stupid question about stuff hitting earth by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Is it just me, or does the idea of meteors kicking stuff *off the earth* not pass the laugh test?"

      Only a tiny fraction of the original mass need reach escape velocity to allow bacteria to escape (they're fairly small compared to some of these objects after all). If the moon formed from ejecta from a large impact (as seems to be the case), is it so hard to believe that objects a tiny fraction of that size reached escape volocity?

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    2. Re:Stupid question about stuff hitting earth by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      I understand that, but the story summary specifically says these collisions sent *boulders* off the earth. If you want to consider any particle leaving the atmosphere, I can see that (or at least not know enough to find it ridiculous), but the scientists seem to be violating Occam's Razor by positing that they were also boulders. And yes, it is hard to believe even tiny objects went *from the ground*, straight into space due to a collision, rather than usual dust formation. Remember, objects fry up coming *into* the atmosphere, but we're supposed to believe they don't *when leaving*?

      If you want to propose a theory about particles leaving the earth, you don't need to bring in meteors or boulders, which seem to be the least likely cause.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    3. Re:Stupid question about stuff hitting earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The next time a 15km wide chunk of rock bounces off the planet, I'll be sure to get pictures of the size of the ejecta for you.

    4. Re:Stupid question about stuff hitting earth by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Hm, okay. But I'll make double sure the photo wasn't doctored!

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    5. Re:Stupid question about stuff hitting earth by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1
      "And yes, it is hard to believe even tiny objects went *from the ground*, straight into space due to a collision, rather than usual dust formation. Remember, objects fry up coming *into* the atmosphere, but we're supposed to believe they don't *when leaving*?

      Sure:
      • Many objects survive to hit the surface, and subsequent investigation shows that conditions within the objects would not have necessarily sterilized them. Apparently they ablate more than they fry.
      • Many objects have been found on Earth that were ejected from other planets like Mars by other impacts, demonstrating the principal very clearly.
      • As I said before, the moon very likely formed from impact ejecta. Its composition and orbit are very difficult to explain without it being the result of a very large impact early in Earth's history. The moon is huge, comparable in size to the large gas giant moons and bigger than some planets. Is there any reasonable way to discount smaller impacts doing something similar on a smaller scale?

      Obviously, it is uncommon for large amounts of material to be transported around in this way, and something like the Moon is probably rare in the universe, but smaller impacts are more common. Given the physical evidence and theoretical support, it doesn't make sense to dismiss the idea out of hand.

      There's
      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    6. Re:Stupid question about stuff hitting earth by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Many objects have been found on Earth that were ejected from other planets like Mars by other impacts, demonstrating the principal very clearly.

      heh, you gotta love scientist wannabes.

      "Meteors knocking stuff from earth is plausible because meteors have knocked stuff from other planets." "And how do you know that happened?" "We just do."

      I'm sure you have some reason to believe that the meteors knocking stuff of other planets was also plausible, but that should have been your answer to the original question!

      Kid: do you seriously think scientists could give a boulder escape velocity by colliding another object with the earth?

      Or think about it this way -- given random directions for the boulders, about 1 in 10e15 boulders (approximate average view factor from earth to the moon where they supposedly landed) will go from earth to the other planet. Given the number of boulders they claim made it, that would imply the total number of ejected boulders should be huge, and we should see it happening all the fucking time.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    7. Re:Stupid question about stuff hitting earth by AJWM · · Score: 1

      It's just you.

      Some of those big rocks can hit the Earth at about 4 times escape velocity, kicking some rocks up into orbit or beyond is easily imagined. (Even rocks 10ft across. That's small as far as debris from a major impactor goes, which can leave a crater tens of miles across.)

      Heck, we have plenty of evidence that some of the "splash" goes at least suborbital (raining down on the other side of the planet), and that rocks from the Moon and Mars have been "splashed" to Earth. Yes Earth has a higher escape velocity but it's not insurmountable.

      --
      -- Alastair
    8. Re:Stupid question about stuff hitting earth by AJWM · · Score: 1

      "Meteors knocking stuff from earth is plausible because meteors have knocked stuff from other planets." "And how do you know that happened?"

      We know because chemical and isotopic analysis of some of the meteors that have landed on Earth indicated that they originated from the Moon or Mars, because they match the chemical and isotopic ratios of moon rocks in the one case and gases trapped in the meteorite matched the chemical and isotopic ratios of Martian atmosphere the other. (Analysis of most meteorites shows they probably originated in the asteroid belt. For some classes of meteorites we can confidently ID the parent asteroid, as determined by its spectrum.)

      Or think about it this way -- given random directions for the boulders,

      That's not a given. The ejecta pattern from an impact isn't random, and what gets out of the atmosphere at all will fall within certain geometric constraints. The Sun's gravity and the general orbital motion of objects close to the plane of the ecliptic further constrain (indeed, tend to focus) trajectories, as does the gravitational influences of the planets. These things follow physical laws, which Newton mostly figured out hundreds of years ago.

      You're making the same mistake that lots of folks who try to prove something couldn't happen by invoking incredible odds against it -- that the event chain is random. It isn't, it's influenced by natural forces. I mean, what are the odds that enough dust particles and gas molecules randombly drifting in space could coincide to form a single planet, let alone a whole solar system? Damn small -- but it isn't random, they're acting under mutual gravitation.

      --
      -- Alastair
    9. Re:Stupid question about stuff hitting earth by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      "Kid: do you seriously think scientists could give a boulder escape velocity by colliding another object with the earth?"

      Given a sufficiently large and fast asteroid, yes.

      "Or think about it this way -- given random directions for the boulders, about 1 in 10e15 boulders (approximate average view factor from earth to the moon where they supposedly landed) will go from earth to the other planet.

      Low odds don't make it impossible, but your estimate of the odds is also deeply flawed. Your estimate of the odds ignores gravity. A simple guess based on the angular size of an object isn't sufficient, particularly we're talking about the chances of a collision with something as massive as the moon, Mars, Titan, etc. Moreover, much of the debris ejected at higher than escape velocity from a collision on Earth will enter into an orbit around the Sun (as solar escape velocity is higher), and the chances of a collision with something are much higher over billions of years.

      "Given the number of boulders they claim made it, that would imply the total number of ejected boulders should be huge, and we should see it happening all the fucking time."

      Strange, isn't it? You'd almost think that the number of asteroids now is smaller than it was in the past. As if there was something causing attrition. As if they were being used up somehow.

      What do you think could reduce the number of asteroids available for collisions if collisions do happen sometimes? Any guesses?

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
  74. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I stand slightly corrected. Apollo 12 did pick up pieces of Surveyor III. I'm still waiting to be convinced about Apollo crews picking up something left by a previous crew.

  75. Re:That Would Be A Very Tough Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    out of this 600 Millions tons, how much matter does reach Mars?
    Quite, quite more than the amount that reaches Titan ( even taking to account, the gravity of jupiter).
    Now what is the possibility of the life reaching safely then?
    Much much more .. indeed, esp since the travel time is reduced by 1/200th

    So, I feel, that is what people should be looking at, rather than Titan.

    Even then, this is just my opinion

  76. Its not a dodge! by neoshroom · · Score: 1

    Its not a dodge at all. Our current sample size of worlds thoroughly surveyed for life is 1. Its not a very statistically signifigant sample.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
  77. Re:But they would need an AMD.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, for Saturn AMD would be enough. Intel would be required for Pluto.

  78. Therefore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we can cease fretting about contaminating stuff in our own solar system.

  79. Oblig. by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 1

    All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there.

  80. Bingo. That's the point. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    It was just a speculative explanation of the possible and the OP implied that it was a definititve proof in the positive of the actual. My point was precisely your point. What's the problem?

  81. Re:no first page mention of HEMP? by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

    Looks like Stitch from Lilo and Stitch.

  82. Yet another stupid question: by Hosiah · · Score: 1
    Every time I see discussions over whether life could exist on other planets, it always comes up about how much oxygen and water they have. But couldn't life evolve to, say, breathe helium and drink alkaline, for instance? I grant that temperature extremes are an inhibitor, but I don't know if there's a rule that says, "Anything in the universe that's alive has to breathe (carbon dioxide|oxygen), drink water, be carbon-based, etc."

    *shrug* Guess I should have studied more science and read less science fiction...

    1. Re:Yet another stupid question: by ultranova · · Score: 2, Informative

      Every time I see discussions over whether life could exist on other planets, it always comes up about how much oxygen and water they have. But couldn't life evolve to, say, breathe helium and drink alkaline, for instance?

      No, because helium is a noble gas, and as such chemically inert. The reason oxygen is so usefull is that it is very highly reactive; while it is certainly possible for an organism to inhale helium and not be harmed by it - indeed, even a human can survive that - it won't do it any good either.

      Waters role is as a small-moleculed polarized liquid. Since water molecules are polarized, there's a strong attractive force between them, giving water very usefull properties - surface tension, high boiling point, etc.

      I grant that temperature extremes are an inhibitor, but I don't know if there's a rule that says, "Anything in the universe that's alive has to breathe (carbon dioxide|oxygen), drink water, be carbon-based, etc."

      What, didn't you get the memo ?-)

      I suppose it would be possible to build life from anything that can form complex enough structures, but would we recognize it as life is another matter.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Yet another stupid question: by cagle_.25 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Generally speaking, you need to move electrons around in order for chemical processes to take place inside a cell. That requires oxidizers and reducers; oxygen is one such, with nice properties that make it suitable for sustaining life:

      • When reduced in the presence of acid (H+ ions), it forms water.
      • It has a relatively strong oxidizing potential (more energy than, say, copper ions or nitrogen), but not so much that it rips molecules apart at room temperature (like fluorine).
      • The fact that O2 is gaseous seems to improve its availability, but I haven't run numbers on that one.

      Oxygen is the simplest substance around that has those characteristics.

      But couldn't life evolve to, say, breathe helium and drink alkaline, for instance?

      Definitely no on the first one. Helium has no chemical properties whatsoever. Hydrogen isn't a good candidate either, since H2 is a reducer rather than an oxidizer. I would imagine that a cell that relied on an outside reducer would need to have free oxidizers sitting around inside itself. It would probably rip itself apart.

      Drinking alkaline is more reasonable, depending on the concentration.

      I don't know if there's a rule that says, "Anything in the universe that's alive has to breathe (carbon dioxide|oxygen), drink water, be carbon-based, etc."

      The "carbon requirement" is simply this: only carbon can form large, stable, complex molecules. Sulfur and nitrogen can form polymers, but not complex ones. Silicon can form large complex molecules, but they tend to fall apart because of the availability of d-orbitals.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
  83. 2010 by dodobh · · Score: 1

    About 100 have reached Jupiter's moon Europa - but they landed at 24 miles/sec

    All these world's are yours, except Europa. Do not land there.

    --
    I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
  84. other possible sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If large comets/asteroids can cause boulders to be launched off the planet. What about volcanic eruptions? Is it possible that large eruptions could also cause earth material/organisms to be launched into space? if so, I wonder if the chances of material from earth reaching other planets is even higher.

  85. Main Concern by eebra82 · · Score: 1

    My main concern about this theory is not the fact that it may or may not be possible for micro organisms to travel, but probability.

    First, something must force these organisms out in space. Then, when that "easy" job is done and without burning the organisms too much, they have to undergo years of travelling through space and supposedly surface on a planet which is habitable and warm enough. Then there's also an impact - a great amount of energy released when the dust, rock or meteor hits the ground.

    I think you have a better chance of dropping a large object from space and hit a whale. After all, space is rather big and at least twice as big as anyone's living room.

  86. And my head is where? by xeno-cat · · Score: 1

    but I know what you mean :)

    --
    "A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
  87. Real science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What ever happened to Occam's razor? We haven't been able to adequately explain the jump from chemical compounds to self-replicating organisms, so we delay the hard work by moving it off-world - an hypothesis that is essentially impossible to disprove. It's biology's version of the multiverse.
    Bollocks.

  88. Excellent point by jd · · Score: 1
    There presumably comes a point where microbes couldn't survive a direct impact, but it is clearly a much higher velocity than I'd thought. So whilst my speculation isn't completely useless, it is clear that in many cases it would be unnecessary.


    Thank you for your reply, I think it is extremely interesting and informative.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  89. Ionizing radiation, et al. by jd · · Score: 1
    First, we must look at the way ionizing radiation affects DNA. By far the largest impact appears to me (and I'm not a biologist) to be the creation of "free radicals" - hydroxides, for example - that are highly reactive and do nasty things to DNA strands. When a microbe is dormant, everything is shut down. There are no free-floating chemicals that can become reactive. This reduces severely any possibility for damage.


    Now, when a cell is fully active, I imagine that it would be much more vulnerable. However, reading some of the replies, I am beginning to think that they have enough other protective mechanisms to make damage very unlikely.


    You are correct that evolution works through DNA damage. Well, partially. It also works through failures to copy correctly, and may even occur through the (very) occasional retrovirus proving beneficial.


    As for deep space - the heliopause deflects galactic background to a very high degree. It literally forms a shockwave, which the Pioneer probes may or may not have reached - nobody seems quite certain. I believe one of the Voyagers has, though. Just outside of the shockwave, however, I imagine things'll be really rough, as you'll not only be contending with the normal background but also with everything the heliopause has redirected in that direction.


    Added to that, the extremely thin gasses within the solar system (it's not perfect vaccuum) and the ice/dust that make up the various surrounding belts will presumably provide limited shielding. The planets will, as well, to a degree.


    So, yes, interstellar space is going to be truly nasty, compared to merely interplanetary travel.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Ionizing radiation, et al. by Evil+Pete · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You might be interested in D. radiodurans which can survive 1.5 million rads whereas 500 - 1,000 rads can kill a human. However this item explains the repair mechanism.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
  90. Sniff Sniff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor baby spilt some milk. Waa Sniff Waa

  91. Water... by Shark · · Score: 1

    I probably fail to take a lot into account, but it would seem to me like water is a pretty nice place for life to begin.

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  92. Can I... by jd · · Score: 1

    ...build a biological computer out of D. Radiodurans? That's about on-par with top-of-the-line rad-hardened space hardware, and microbes are much cheaper.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  93. Why are you arguing? by Decaff · · Score: 1

    You said it was force that mattered, not mass. But now you keep talking about "larger meteors". It's nice to know that you have changed your mind without even realising it. So my original point about the rifle bullet analogy being irrelevant still stands.

    Of course mass matters! I mean, a meteor the size of a grain of sand is going not to get through the atomosphere is it? What I meant was that above a certain size, mass is, of course, irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the so-called 'friction' (which is actually adiabatic heating), which was what you were stating.

    The point about the rifle bullet is only that it indicated that bacteria can survive tremendous decelerations. You brought up the irrelevant matters of heat and mass. I don't know why. Do you have some philosphical objection to the idea of meteor delivery of microorganisms to planetary surfaces?

    I fail to see why you are arguing - everything I have stated is perfectly clear. The fact that the centres of meteors retain their original structures provide conclusively that there is no major heating of their centres - there simply isn't time. And this effect (above, of course, a minimal size) is not affected by mass.

    1. Re:Why are you arguing? by ajpr · · Score: 1

      "Of course mass matters! I mean, a meteor the size of a grain of sand is going not to get through the atomosphere is it? What I meant was that above a certain size, mass is, of course, irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the so-called 'friction' (which is actually adiabatic heating), which was what you were stating."

      The mass (and composition and trajectory) determines if a meteor explodes, burns up, or slams into the surface. To improve the chances that a meteor hits the surface, it needs to have a fairly steep trajectory and be made of heavier materials. If the object has a large percent of volatiles and skims through the atmosphere then it is more likely to burn up or airburst (like tunguska). And I don't know what your obsessions is which "adiabatic heating". As far as I can tell all meteors leave a trail of very hot gas, so the energy is not in a closed system. Don't you mean Ram Pressure instead of 'friction'?

      "The point about the rifle bullet is only that it indicated that bacteria can survive tremendous decelerations. You brought up the irrelevant matters of heat and mass. I don't know why. Do you have some philosphical objection to the idea of meteor delivery of microorganisms to planetary surfaces?"

      I said that the shock from deceleration was not the important factor in wether bacteria could survive, and a small rifle bullet doesn't even show that bacteria can survive meteor type decelerations. I originally said that we need to use a supercomputer to model the solar system from the protoplanetary disk onwards to calculate the hit rate of meteors (their characteristics) and the time frames. So I don't think that is philosphical.

      "I fail to see why you are arguing - everything I have stated is perfectly clear. The fact that the centres of meteors retain their original structures provide conclusively that there is no major heating of their centres - there simply isn't time. And this effect (above, of course, a minimal size) is not affected by mass."

      I'm arguing because you insisted on saying that mass was irrelevant and that it was a question of force and not heating. I have shown you that it's been a factor of heating and therefore mass/velocity/density/composition that has put a large constraint on the size of meteors that could get to the planet surface. If you do a bit of digging around you will see that most asteroids are stoney and that under 100m they burn up or explode. Only around 5% are thought to be heavy metals, which would hit at a smaller size. http://idisk.mac.com/mpaineau-Public/paine_tsunami _asteroid99.pdf

      Asteroids larger than 1km can cause global damage. So there is a fairly small window of asteroid size and composition that can make it through intact. For all the millions of asteroids that hit our skies only a few will have the right features to have the chance of transporting life here.

      Then of course the impact into the ground itself varies for many reasons. I'm sure this limits things further. I think the only ones we can count on being suitable are those that "fall into people's back yards". They are usually a few kg in weight by the time they land, having eroded during the fall, due to ram pressure. So really the mass is very important, depending on the composition.

    2. Re:Why are you arguing? by Decaff · · Score: 1

      I said that the shock from deceleration was not the important factor in wether bacteria could survive, and a small rifle bullet doesn't even show that bacteria can survive meteor type decelerations.

      And I totally disagree. A small rifle bullet if fired at high velocity at a rock target under conditions intended to simulate impact of a meteor simulates the conditions of impact of a meteor. It does shows that they can survive meteor type decelerations. When a large meteor hits the ground, a considerable amount of material is stressed and heated - there are all kinds of interesting ejecta. However, you can also often find bits of unchanged material from the meteor - indicating neither intense heat or phenomenal deceleration.

      I'm arguing because you insisted on saying that mass was irrelevant and that it was a question of force and not heating. I have shown you that it's been a factor of heating and therefore mass/velocity/density/composition that has put a large constraint on the size of meteors that could get to the planet surface.

      You were arguing that heating was a result of mass. Well, when a meteor hits the ground, it is. But through the atmosphere (which is what we were talking about, it isn't. It is a result of things like angle of attack and cross-section hitting the atmosphere. Above a certain size (providing the thing doesn't explode due to the pressure or surface stress), the centre will be hardly touched - there is not enough time for heat to be conducted in. You can get damage from abrasion, sure, and rocky meteors are fragile. But rock meteors are a different thing. As I said, interesting chemical analyses can be done on the centres of meteors, which would be impossible if they had been subject to substantial heat.

      Which is why I believe that what matters is deceleration, not heat. And projectile experiments with bacteria have shown beyond doubt that they can survive phenomenal decelarations.

    3. Re:Why are you arguing? by ajpr · · Score: 1

      Thats just plain wrong. The rifle bullet doesn't even get close to the 20km/s+ of a meteor impact. The fastest speed I know about is around 4km/s for large guns. Even these guns don't really simulate an impact . It's like comparing a car hitting a wall at 10mph and then saying well all cars will survive relatively intact. Maybe your rifle bullet travels at 1 km/s. Then its about 10 to 80 times off the velocity of a meteor. Looking at existing meteorites is the only way to confirm or deny the chance of bacteria surviving. And that has only weak evidence so far of being confirmed.

      Mass and density are far more important. Its these two things that determine largely wether a meteor will explode, burn up, or impact. A stoney object is much more likely to burn up/explode as it isn't as dense as resistant to breaking up as a metallic one. I only think that chemical analysis can be done on meteors that are within a small window of mass depending on their composition, density and trajectory. I'm sure the centre of many meteors are intact, but how many of these have held life? There are many thousands on Earth that are intact, but they are fairly small. ONly the martian ones apparently may have life in them, but that life has long been fossilised.