Slashdot Mirror


Earth Bacteria May Hitch A Ride To The Stars

An anonymous reader writes "Space.com has an article on how old rocket stages are carrying bacteria from Earth to interstellar space. For example, four upper rocket stages were used to boost deep space probes Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Pioneer 10 and New Horizons. The spacecraft were sterilized, but the rocket stages were not, and they now carry the bacteria of the engineers who handled them. If the rocket stages hit a habitable planet, and the bacteria survive the journey, they would be able to reproduce and colonize the planet ... not that there's a high liklihood of that. 'In 40,000 years, this wayward 185-pound (84 kilogram) lump of metal will pass by the star AC+79 3888 at a distance of 1.64 light-years. ... Given the sheer expanse of time that lies ahead of the four discarded rockets, at least one is likely to eventually encounter a planet. But even if that planet's environment is conducive to life, the long dormant bacteria will not just gently plop into some exotic ocean. No soft landing can be expected.'"

221 comments

  1. Don't worry... by tttonyyy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...we'll send all the telephone sanitisers after the discarded rocket stages to clear up any unwanted bacteria. Get 'em loaded in the arc!

    --
    biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    1. Re:Don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      succcess is highly improbable. in fact, infinitely improbable!

    2. Re:Don't worry... by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, I'm thinking that there was at least ONE engineer who didn't wash his hands after using the restroom, and how THOSE bacteria will become the overlords on some planet...

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:Don't worry... by oliverthered · · Score: 1, Informative

      urine is sterile. I should hope everyone washes their hands after taking a dump.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    4. Re:Don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      urine is sterile. I should hope everyone washes their hands after taking a dump.


      Beyond the obvious point that very few people urinate directly on their hands, the delivery device is often not sterile. Hand washing afterward is certainly recommended.
    5. Re:Don't worry... by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      Where did you get the ridiculous idea that urine is sterile?

      Even if it were sterile in the bladder (which it isn't...otherwise there would be no such thing as a bladder infection), it wouldn't remain sterile as it passes through your plumbing and out of your body. Ask your doctor what kinds of critters they see in urine samples sometime.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    6. Re:Don't worry... by ls+-la · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where did you get the ridiculous idea that urine is sterile?
      From medhelp.org:

      is human urine sterile????

      ---
      Dear Clint,

      Yes, urine is considered sterile in the sense that it normally should not contain bacteria. Bacteriuria is the presence of bacteria in the urine, that is not attributed to contamination from the skin, foreskin, or vagina. Although urine produced freshly by the kidneys is sterile (unless the individual has a kidney infection), it can become infected with bacteria or yeast in the presence of a urinary tract infection. Sometimes an individual may have bacteria in the urine in the absence of symptoms of a urinary tract infection (asymptomatic bacteriuria). I hope this answers your question regarding the sterility of urine. Wish you the best.

      This information is provided for general medical education purposes only. Please consult your physician for diagnostic and treatment options pertaining to your specific medical condition. More individualized care is available at the Henry Ford Hospital and its satellites (1 800 653 6568).

      Sincerely,
      HFHS M.D.-JJ
    7. Re:Don't worry... by oliverthered · · Score: 4, Informative

      urine is sterile, unless you have some kind of abnormal infection up there in which case it's not (obviously)
      "What are the causes of UTI?

      Normally, urine is sterile. It is usually free of bacteria, viruses, and fungi but does contain fluids, salts, and waste products. An infection occurs when tiny organisms, usually bacteria from the digestive tract, cling to the opening of the urethra and begin to multiply. The urethra is the tube that carries urine from the bladder to outside the body. Most infections arise from one type of bacteria, Escherichia coli (E. coli), which normally lives in the colon."

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    8. Re:Don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I guess you missed the article about NASA putting living bacteria in one of the Mars Rovers. We've already polluted one of our neighboring planets, why are we concerned about rocket stages drifting in space?
      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/articl e544976.ece

    9. Re:Don't worry... by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just to add to this: The habit of washing your hands after going to the bathroom has nothing to do with needing to clean off residue from going to the bathroom. The primary reason it was originally encouraged was because people weren't washing up on a daily basis, at all. As a public hygine issue it was decided to encourage people to wash their hands regualary, and bathrooms normally have running water, so that was a good time to do it. (People do use them every day, and the resources for washing were avalible.)

      This is not to say you don't need to wash your hands after wiping your ass. But most people would do that anyway: They'll smell that they need to wash that off. The original public hygene campain that created 'wash your hands when you leave the bathroom' was unrelated to that, and was during the Renaissance, when medicine was re-discovered in Europe.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    10. Re:Don't worry... by markov_chain · · Score: 0

      Forget about washing hands, what if one of the technicians rubbed one out to immortalize his genetic heritage?

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    11. Re:Don't worry... by loganrapp · · Score: 2, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our galactical pee-born bacterial overlords.

    12. Re:Don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close, but not quite. HEALTHY urine is self-sterile.

    13. Re:Don't worry... by slofstra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ahh! So I should actually be washing my hands in my urine.

    14. Re:Don't worry... by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Ah Golgafrinch I miss you! And how about hair stylists, nail manicurists, etc.

    15. Re:Don't worry... by Howserx · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm more inclined to think that bacteria and viruses won;t be overlords. More likely they'll go into marketing, politics, and management. There's a McBride gonna-be floating out there right now.

      --
      I support the troops. I pay f'ing taxes.
    16. Re:Don't worry... by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      While it's sterile when it comes out, bacteria will grow in it if it lingers and they can get to it.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    17. Re:Don't worry... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      For the record, it's (near) sterile when it's still in the bladder but there are bacteria, protozoans, or whatever the host animal has living around the urethra and quite likely somewhat within it, that'll contaminate the urine as it leaves the body, and some of them will survive the high urea concentration and begin multiplying in the urine after a while. Likewise, there are scads of bacteria on the body, particularly in That Area, and physical contact with That Area is going to transfer stuff to your hands.

      But it's all a distraction anyway: the stuff living under your fingernails is vibrant and very nearly impossible to wipe out, even with serious medical-quality washing. A three-minute multiple-pass wash, that doctors do between seeing patients, kills about 80% of the viable bacteria living in the under-fingernail environment (source: personal research done while getting my microbiology degree, also discussed in Atul Gawande's book "Better" with similar numbers) so if they weren't using gloves, there's plenty of stuff getting through.

      Interestingly, apparently despite significant bacterial presence in the bladder the urine remains sterile until the bacterial population rises to acute levels. The bacteria apparently cling to the walls of the bladder and invade the epithelial cells, and probably create favorable microclimates via metabolism, much like H. pylori in the stomach.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    18. Re:Don't worry... by aztektum · · Score: 3, Funny

      "...urine ... does contain fluids..."

      I should hope so. I rue the day my urine (possibility of a kidney stone not withstanding) comes out "solid." Ooof

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    19. Re:Don't worry... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      We get the ridiculous idea that it's sterile because....it IS sterile in most cases. I first encountered the idea in some survival training when we were told that we could drink our own urine in almost any instance except when you're in a desert dying of thirst because the urine you give off then is dark yellow and completely full of toxins that your body is trying to rid itself of to keep you alive, and in essence you'd be killing yourself by drinking it.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    20. Re:Don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me, the urine stuff is 'down there'. When it's 'up there' I generally avoid having to piss.

      Most of us avoid touching the urine. The general area 'down there' is not that sterile, since if you got at least some aim, the urine never gets there.

      I hope your sense of 'up' and 'down' restores soon and wish you all the best.

    21. Re:Don't worry... by aacool · · Score: 1

      Yes, and then rubbing them over every upper-stage rocket you can lay your hands on - in 40,000 years or so, you'll be Galactic Emperor, or wait,... the Sixth Cylon?

    22. Re:Don't worry... by Stellian · · Score: 1

      The habit of washing your hands after going to the bathroom has nothing to do with needing to clean off residue from going to the bathroom.
      I'm of the George Carlin mentality that, unless I pissed all over my hands I don't necessarily think I should wash them. What the hell, my dick is clean and very sensitive to infection so I should wash my hands before touching it.
    23. Re:Don't worry... by Old+Benjamin · · Score: 1

      Maybe thats why Mars has global warming too. Or maybe its the sun.

      --
      "The quickest way to end a war is to lose it" -Orwell
    24. Re:Don't worry... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      And dying your clothes in it.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    25. Re:Don't worry... by someguyfromdenmark · · Score: 0

      All you do in the restroom is urinate? Hm.

      --
      I change my sig often.
    26. Re:Don't worry... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      You do know that Martian global warming is related to the fact that one of its ice caps is frozen water and the other is frozen CO2 and so Martian global warming can't be related to Earthly global warming, right?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    27. Re:Don't worry... by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      ...I rue the day my urine (possibility of a kidney stone not withstanding) comes out "solid." Ooof
      And I shudder at the possibility of a kidney stone. I've been told that those things can really cause pain.
      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    28. Re:Don't worry... by G-funk · · Score: 1

      "I'm sugarfree bitch I wash my hands before I touch my dick"

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    29. Re:Don't worry... by SAABMaven · · Score: 1

      That's not the real problem. The real problem is that when someone scoots out (relatively faster) to pick it up, there's no telling whether it winds up in the Smithsonian, on eBay, or in a student dormitory.

    30. Re:Don't worry... by bwd234 · · Score: 1

      "Ahh! So I should actually be washing my hands in my urine."

      No, you are confusing the difference between sterile and disinfecting. While urine is sterile, that doesn't mean it kills germs, just that no germs are present.

  2. Justification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given the sheer expanse of time that lies ahead of the four discarded rockets, at least one is likely to eventually encounter a planet. I don't see the justification with this statement. Why can't a discarded rocket be locked into a stable orbit around a star instead? Or hit an asteroid? Or go into a star? I think they're being a little too optimistic that one of these fragments is going to land on a planet.
    1. Re:Justification? by GodInHell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's part fo the "space is infinite so all things which can exist do exist" line of (incorrect) thinking.

      Two thumbs down for cliched half-truths on this article.

      -GiH

    2. Re:Justification? by Ngarrang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My thought drifted more towards the fact that space is HUGE. The likely hood of impacting ANYTHING but dust is remote.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    3. Re:Justification? by Tofystedeth · · Score: 1

      maybe by encounter they meant, be anywhere within gravitational influence of. That opens it up a little bit more. Space is still pretty damn big though. And ever so much of space is 'empty' space.

      --
      "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
    4. Re:Justification? by griffjon · · Score: 1

      ...or not be sterilized/killed by the extreme heat of entry into this other planet's atmosphere?

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    5. Re:Justification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, it would still be difficult to travel across the galaxy on an arbitrary vector and not get caught in some gravity well. I don't know about landing on a planetoid (that's still pretty tough), but I think the probabilities are at least in favor of an eventual star encounter.

    6. Re:Justification? by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 1

      Indeed

      The failing in the logic is not the vastness of space but the smallness of the number of rockets carrying bacteria. If we were to send a suitably large number of rockets up then the probabilities start to fall to reasonable numbers. However the definition of 'a suitably large number of rockets' would almost certainly be many, many orders of magnitude beyond what we could produce, let alone have produced.

      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    7. Re:Justification? by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's the real problem here. It's not just moving at interplanetary speeds; it's moving at interstellar speeds. When it approaches a star, it's going to be accelerated towards it. The kinetic energy of impact will be crazy-high. Plus, 40,000 years of ionizing radiation on a thin-hulled body? Not exactly an environment conducive to life.

      On the other hand, it doesn't take human launched stages to get bacteria from Earth to other planets. In fact, odds are, we've already had bacteria from Earth touch down alive on Titan. The K-T dinosaur-killing impact alone launched about 600 million rocks from Earth into space. As we now know, Earth rocks tend to be infested with microorganisms, and most rocks that are ejected won't kill the bacteria on the inside (spalling has already been demonstrated to be gentle enough). The sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars bear the brunt of the impacts. Mercury and Mars impacts are harsh, due to tenuous atmospheres. Venus impacts are more gentle, but obviously, Venus is a hellish inferno. However, Jupiter can eject fragments further, and that's where things get interesting. About 100 objects strike each Galilean satellite However, with their weak to nonexistent atmospheres, they hit very hard -- 8-40 km/s. You'd be lucky to have even proteins survive. However, Titan has a huge atmosphere, ideal for aerobraking. From this one impact, about 30 Earth meteorites hit Titan within a few million years. They enter the atmosphere at 5-20 km/s, brake, break into fragments, and the fragments hit the surface intact.

      Summary:

      "That's food for thought -- could Earth have seeded Titan with microbial life? If Gladman's simulations are correct, the material has definitely gotten there in the past. Gladman added, in conclusion, that "if you ever had atmospheres on any of the [presently] airless satellites, they could have acted as aerobrakes" just like Titan's would today."

      --
      When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
    8. Re:Justification? by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Informative
      Why can't a discarded rocket be locked into a stable orbit around a star instead?

      Orbit capture is an extremely improbable event. In a pure two-body situation it can't happen at all: the approaching body will either hit the primary body or zing by it in a hyperbola. Something has to decelerate it during a critical period as it's arriving, and that means there has to be a third body in the right place at the right time. A wandering rocket would have to experience thousands of encounters to have a realistic probability of being captured in one.

      rj

    9. Re:Justification? by Manchot · · Score: 1

      Well, it's extremely unlikely that any rocket will enter a stable orbit around a star. Because it was launched outside of the gravitational well of all other stars, if it approaches any of them, it will automatically have more than enough energy to escape. It may be deflected, but it probably won't be captured. Having said that, if it encounters enough resistance while near that star (e.g., due to solar wind), it might be possible, assuming that it is enough to lose all of its initial kinetic energy.

    10. Re:Justification? by john83 · · Score: 1

      In a pure two-body situation it can't happen at all: the approaching body will either hit the primary body or zing by it in a hyperbola... Why not? Sorry if I'm being dense here, but if an object is travelling at the right speed to begin with... or does it accelerate in some sort of (argh, resorting to star trek terminology) sling shot manoeuvre?
      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    11. Re:Justification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is conservation of energy. The star creates a gravity well. It takes a certain amount of energy to climb to a certain distance from the star, a certain height up the gravity well. Thus the gravity well translates directly to an energy well. Since the object was far away from the star and moving it has at least that much energy. Since energy is conserved, if it falls down the energy well, that energy will be converted into kinetic energy, as it swings around the star it will thus have extra kinetic energy, more than is required to stay at that point in the energy well, thus it will fly outwards until it has used this kinetic energy up again. Since the object started with some though it will end up back at the distance it started with (nearly) the same velocity (probably not the same position). As a result if it starts "Very far away" and with some kinetic energy, then it has too much to be captured by a single body. The only way to be captured is to transfer that energy to another body, a concept feasible in a 3 body system, but not with only 2.

      I say nearly the same velocity because technically some energy is lost, of course, just think thermodynamics, but that amount will be small enough that it's not really relevent here. In fact, that small amount also means that such a thing as "stable" orbit doesn't actually exist, since bodies in orbit always decelerate and fall towards the body it orbits around. This is an affect though on a very very large timescale - note that the earch hasn't hit the sun yet, so it's not really very interesting here.

    12. Re:Justification? by onemorechip · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The two-body case (i.e., ignore all other objects in the universe) means that either (a) it has too much kinetic energy to be captured in an elliptical orbit; or (b) it doesn't. In case (a), the trajectory will indeed by hyperbolic, and the objects will make only one close pass. In case (b), the objects are *already* gravitationally entangled in an elliptical orbit (albeit highly eccentric).

      The problem I see with GP is that I don't think a multibody system would change the outcome of case (a). If the traveling object encounters a system of, say, 5 stars, and has an initially hyperbolic trajectory about their common center of mass, then when it approaches Star #1, that star will have more influence than the other 4, changing the direction but not reducing the total energy of the traveling object. With the same total energy (and assuming no collision), the approaching body would still be able to escape, no matter how many close approaches it makes to the bodies in the system. I don't think capture can occur unless the gases near the stars provide enough braking to reduce this total energy. But that could also happen with a single star.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    13. Re:Justification? by onemorechip · · Score: 1
      The only way to be captured is to transfer that energy to another body, a concept feasible in a 3 body system, but not with only 2.

      . Thanks AC, you cleared up my confusion (expressed in my post just after yours) about how orbital capture works in a 3-body system.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    14. Re:Justification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's very informative. Thanks.

    15. Re:Justification? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's part fo the "space is infinite so all things which can exist do exist" line of (incorrect) thinking.

      It is not necessarily incorrect. If the probability is generally known but small, we can fairly safely extrapolate that to lots of planets and stars. However, vastness of space does not necessarily increase the likelyhood that say unicorns or fairies will exist somewhere. This is because we don't know the probability of those in the first place, and multiplying an unknown probability by a known expanse (the size and age of the universe) still gives you an unknown result. (Kinda like dealing with SQL nulls. One unknown factor "spoils" the results.)

    16. Re:Justification? by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      It is not necessarily incorrect. If the probability is generally known but small, we can fairly safely extrapolate that to lots of planets and stars. However, vastness of space does not necessarily increase the likelyhood that say unicorns or fairies will exist somewhere. This is because we don't know the probability of those in the first place, and multiplying an unknown probability by a known expanse (the size and age of the universe) still gives you an unknown result. (Kinda like dealing with SQL nulls. One unknown factor "spoils" the results.)But there is no standard measurment of potential existence. A thing exists or it dosen't. The existence of things can be more or less plausible, but potentiality is immaterial to an instantiated system. There are a set number of stable configurations for matter. The combinations may seem inifinte, but that's just because they are a vast set - they can be named and numbered. They are not infinite. And the probability as proof thesis requires infinite instantiation to function.

      Or to put it another way - if we live in a finite universe, then it has finite objects, and extrapolating from potential to probable fails.

      -GiH
    17. Re:Justification? by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      /quote failure. I am humiliated. :(

      -GiH

    18. Re:Justification? by Torvaun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many numbers are there between 3 and 4?

      Now, how many of those numbers are 7?

      Infinite possibilities and all possibilities are very different things.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    19. Re:Justification? by sjames · · Score: 1

      In a 3 body system, say a star, a planet, and the expended stage, the stage could possibly "reverse slingshot" with the planet. That is some momentum is transferred from stage to planet. The planet is barely affected but the stage could then enter an eccentric orbit.

      It's also worth considering that in space, the stage and a star alone are not a pure 2 body system. Space, especially near a star is not a perfect vacuum. Drag could also possibly allow a capture into a VERY long orbit.

    20. Re:Justification? by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      You are correct, and I caught the AC post (sibling to mine) that pointed out the same thing about energy transfer. I did mention the possibility of drag in my post, however.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    21. Re:Justification? by kst · · Score: 1

      Stars are much bigger than planets, and have much deeper gravity wells. A body floating through interstellar space is far more likely to hit a star than a planet.

      Presumably the bacteria would not survive the experience.

    22. Re:Justification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capture can happen in a two-body event. The approaching rocket will radiate gravitational waves, lose energy, and be captured by the star (provided the star is quite heavy). It will then fall into the star. If it passes far enough away from the star, it will swing in a hyperbola like comets do.

    23. Re:Justification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or zing by it in a hyperbola


      "or zing by it in in a parabolic trajectory" (assuming classical Newtonian dynamics, or interactions only at the weak field limit of GR)

      Parabola - a symmetrical open plane curve formed by the intersection of a cone with a plane parallel to its side.

      Hyperbola - a pair of such curves formed by the intersection of a plane with two equal cones sharing the same longitudinal axis on opposite sides of a common vertex

      Except that in reality we have GR and close enough approaches to stars take one away from the Newtonian-like domain of the weak field limit. Both bodies (star, projectile) will radiate gravity waves and lose energy, and a sufficiently close pass to a sufficiently massive body will cause our wandering projectile to lose sufficient energy to be pulled into what we see as an elliptical orbit about a barycentre very close to the centre of the massive body.

      The energy loss affects the velocity of the projectile much more than the velocity of the projectile, both relative to an observer in an independent inertial frame of reference. The projectile still experiences a linear trajectory past the star, just across non-Minkowski (non-flat) spacetime, and at a slower speed. The (negative) acceleration causes the projectile to experience a radically different trajectory relative to other astronomical bodies, however.

      Since spacetime deformations are invisible to human eyes, and since we tend to project curved spacetime into flatspace as a result, we will tend to think of the event as the projectile settling into an elliptical (Keplerian) orbit, or (much more likely) a complex semispiral orbit characterized by substantial precession of the apastron (>> microradians / pass) [apastron : aphelion ; >> : much greater than ; pass : revolution].

  3. Screaming by kevinbr · · Score: 3, Funny

    In space, no one can hear bacteria scream

  4. Sounds improbable... by Lawn+Jocke · · Score: 1

    The chance of a bacteria surviving out there is 1:2 to the power of 276,709. Then again, the bacteria does have 30 seconds...

    --
    Maybe if this sig is witty or clever enough, someone will love me...
    1. Re:Sounds improbable... by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I was kinda thinking, what are the odds it will survive all the gamma and solar wind it's going to encounter?
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:Sounds improbable... by ls+-la · · Score: 1

      The chance of a bacteria surviving out there is 1:2 to the power of 276,709. Then again, the bacteria does have 30 seconds...
      I think you're confusing bacteria with humans. Bacteria can indeed survive the vacuum of space. If anything, it will be re-entry into some planet's atmosphere that is most likely to kill them.

      Google it
    3. Re:Sounds improbable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I think you are confusing his/her Hitchhiker's reference with a serious critique.

    4. Re:Sounds improbable... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Skin has hundreds of millions of bacteria per square inch. It all depends on how clean the guys where and how much contact they had with the parts. A couple of billion bacteria drifting through the void is a couple of billion chances to survive.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  5. Future S.O.S by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 5, Funny

    And then some poor alien life forms will contract an illness from the bacteria. This in turn kills off the only other sentient beings besides humans. We will learn of this tragedy from messages recieved from SETI with aliens cursing humans. Oh the irony. Smallpox blankets in space. :P

    --
    My humor is probably your flamebait
    1. Re:Future S.O.S by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      And then some poor alien life forms will contract an illness from the bacteria. This in turn kills off the only other sentient beings besides humans.

      And this could happen to us suddenly. It's not like we are t

  6. Forget sanitizers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. why couldn't we have strapped Dells telesales team to the darn thing? 40,000 years of corporate peace sounds like bliss.

  7. Not looking forward to that letter by brejc8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Mr Johnson, We are contacting you from the planet Xunxu as you owe twenty five million dollars in child support charges for your population of contribution to our planet.

    1. Re:Not looking forward to that letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They use dollars in space now?

    2. Re:Not looking forward to that letter by aiabx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dispute it. You have 80,000 years before they can serve the papers on you.

      --
      Just this guy, you know?
    3. Re:Not looking forward to that letter by Supurcell · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're right, he should have said "space dollars."

    4. Re:Not looking forward to that letter by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Dear Mr Johnson, We are contacting you from the planet Xunxu as you owe twenty five million dollars in child support charges for your population of contribution to our planet.

      A similar letter from a more primatively-evolved planet:

      "Ogg son get big bonk bonk from sky rock. Son no see and no hear after bonk. Ogg mad. You give Ogg family many moons of Sibaar meat or Ogg hire mean lawyer from Xunxu. He no smile."

    5. Re:Not looking forward to that letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "25 million of your Earth dollars."

  8. But... by thousandinone · · Score: 1

    Being exposed to the near-vacuum of space for an extended period of time, aren't the bacteria likely to be "pulled apart" at the molecular level?

    1. Re:But... by BurntNickel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being exposed to the near-vacuum of space for an extended period of time, aren't the bacteria likely to be "pulled apart" at the molecular level?

      No, contrary to popular opinion, vacuum does not suck

      --
      And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them...
    2. Re:But... by MarkByers · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Being exposed to the near-vacuum of space for an extended period of time, aren't the bacteria likely to be "pulled apart" at the molecular level?

      No.

      http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answer s/970603.html

      Vacuums are basically harmless. There isn't much difference in the forces involved between being in a vacuum and being at twice ordinary Earth pressure. In fact, humans can survive being unprotected in space for short periods of time, with no permanant damage:

      You will of course die if you don't get some oxygen fast. Don't even try holding your breath to get an extra few minutes - the pressure will damage them. Just let the air escape and hope for rescue.

      --
      I'll probably be modded down for this...
    3. Re:But... by daeg · · Score: 2, Informative

      For an easier reading about human exposure in space, check out Damn Interesting's article. It's the same facts as the NASA link but written with the idea that you don't need everything phrased in the form of a question and answer.

    4. Re:But... by digitaldestiny · · Score: 1

      Not by vacuum perhaps, but that little lump would be exposed to some heavy interstellar radiation.

    5. Re:But... by MarkByers · · Score: 1

      OK, that made dying in a vacuum sound a lot worse than the article that I linked to, but I think we can agree that the molecules aren't ripped apart. If a bacterium can survive being frozen and defrosted then maybe it could survive the journey.

      --
      I'll probably be modded down for this...
    6. Re:But... by vertinox · · Score: 2, Funny
      FYA (From your article)

      on Aug. 16, 1960. Joe Kittinger, during his ascent to 102,800 ft (19.5 miles) in an open gondola, lost pressurization of his right hand. He decided to continue the mission, and the hand became painful and useless as you would expect. However, once back to lower altitudes following his record-breaking parachute jump, the hand returned to normal.

      Isn't that what they call "a stranger"?
      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    7. Re:But... by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

      True, but many types of microorganisms are hardy enough to withstand the conditions of space-and not just exotic ones, either. Bacterial endospores (like from Clostridium and Bacillus bacteria, for instance) can be exceptionally tough, and they can preserve DNA in a dormant state pretty much indefinitely. And the famous extremophile Deinococcus radiodurans can at least intermittently withstand irradiation at 5000 gray- about a thousand times the dose sufficient to kill a person.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    8. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      TNPUAUAOTWIOIF
      (There's no point using an unknown acronym once then writing it out in full)

      PSDI
      (Please stop doing it)

    9. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spore and Capsule forming bacteria can survive in adverse conditions for a ridiculously long time... Go Eukaryotes!!!!

    10. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then one could breath thier breath multiple times, you'll just have to breath slowly, so the gases don't get blowen to far away from your face.

  9. And in 5 million years, will there be a new by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    civilization? Perhaps, we should consider GAing some bacteria with more of our genome (and other plants/animals) and sending them to the stars.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:And in 5 million years, will there be a new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      civilization? Perhaps, we should consider GAing some bacteria with more of our genome (and other plants/animals) and sending them to the stars.

      It might be how we survive. The odds are sooner or later someone, somewhere is going to do something real stupid hear on earth. Perhaps making earth uninhabitable. Maybe this is also how life started on earth.

    2. Re:And in 5 million years, will there be a new by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      That same plan may have been applied to Sun and Earth.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    3. Re:And in 5 million years, will there be a new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we're nothing more than bacteria now? And for survival, let's just start all over from scratch (with nothing learned or gained from it)? Funny how some (not you necessarily) who cling to no hope or purpose beyond the stretch of their own arm (yes, you atheists) are all too quick to preserve something which (by their own definition) is ultimately without purpose or worth preservation (when broken into its constituent parts or origins), except to say that we can and therefore should - much akin to fashioning a rock and calling it a pet. Yaaaaaaawn...

    4. Re:And in 5 million years, will there be a new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the mitochondria in us has bacterial DNA, which is pretty solid evidence that it was a very simple bacteria at one time. As to preserving, I think that this is a good way to re-start life elsewhere. It may work, it may not. Heck, it may create dinosaurs all over again. But it will be interesting for some others.

      As to no hope, Just about ever atheist has hope for the future. They just do not think that it belongs with a deity.

  10. Counterattack! by tb()ne · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hopefully, the bacteria won't be deemed a biological attack by the technologically advanced (yet extremely vengeful) inhabitants of whatever planet the rocket stage hits.

    1. Re:Counterattack! by ObiWanStevobi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, there is always a chance that they may miscalculate the scale of us Earthings and get swallowed by a small dog upon arrival.

  11. Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by Ruvim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If planet is habitable, it got to have the atmosphere. Here is a pretty good chance that the stage will just burn-up on entry. I doubt that any bacteria will survive the temperature at which the metal burns.

    1. Re:Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In 40K years, we will either be in the same realm or we will be extinct. Either way, it does not matter.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by hardburn · · Score: 1

      There's a famous account of bacteria surviving on an unmanned probe on the moon. They didn't have to survive reentry, of course, but it demonstrates that bacteria can be surprisingly resilient. On Earth, bacteria can be found thriving in the harshest conditions where the most minuscule traces of liquid water can be found. If the rockets do manage to find a planet with liquid water, I wouldn't bet against the bacteria.

      But it's extremely unlikely they'll find one. More likely, they'll go into stable orbit around some object, fall into a star, fall into a gas giant, or float in deep space until the universe dies.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    3. Re:Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it'll hit hard, explode, and like the shuttle pieces that fell over texas, settle to the ground relatively lightly - or at the least seed the atmosphere itself. I'd expect much of a light craft (light in comparison to a solid iron meteorite at least) to burn, but some to disperse in pieces.

    4. Re:Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by Bodrius · · Score: 1

      Although we know of bacteria adapted to very extreme conditions on the planet, I doubt these are the same bacteria adapted to human hosts on temperate environments. The variations in environment conditions is most likely what would kill them, not the extremity of those at any particular moment.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    5. Re:Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      After thousands of years of radiation, there's no way the bacteria could have any DNA intact. Alive, bacteria can repair damage or simply reproduce those who survive radiation. These bacteria on space objects are dormant, so the damage just builds up.

    6. Re:Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      At least when we get there, we will be immune to the bacteria and will have weakened or wiped out tlhe alien life forms. We could just move into their houses, etc.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    7. Re:Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Interestingly, bacteria kinda anticipate that; the sporulation process contains some protections for DNA. Spores have some fairly sophisticated DNA repair machinery that begins operating very early in the germination process, and they use a lower water content and SASPs (small, acid-soluble proteins) to lock their DNA into a more A-like configuration during the sporulation process. A reasonably large population of bacterial spores can probably remain viable in outer space for a surprisingly long period of time. If you're interested in the subject, I recommend the paper "Resistance of Bacillus Endospore to Extreme Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial Environments" in Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. This paper refers to meteor impacts rather than transfer via rocket components, though.

    8. Re:Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by Sqweegee · · Score: 1

      Some live experiments survived reentry when the space shuttle exploded. (worms maybe?) Bacteria probably have a chance at survival, but they'll likely be going much faster than the space shuttle was if they ever hit a planet.

    9. Re:Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Yes, several experiments with living contents survived the Columbia crash, including several simple cans full of nematode worms that survived 2300G impacts. Consider that the most likely sterilizing agent will be heat, and the fragments will, as you say, be going much faster than Columbia was: the heat on the leading edge extremely high (vaporizing) but the heat in crevices much lower because of the thermal conductivity of the material. If it's going fast and makes it to ground without burning up, they're more likely to survive than when it's on an initially surviveable glide path.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    10. Re:Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Some live experiments survived reentry when the space shuttle exploded.

      But the shuttle was fairly close to landing at that point, so already burned off a lot of speed in a controlled entry. Plus, orbital speed is much slower than most interstellar drifting speeds.

    11. Re:Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Think of the time differences.
      This rocket stages will _miss_ the next star in 40.000 years. They wont even get _close_ (i.e. a few AU) to one the next millions of years.

      entropy is a bitch, and thats a long, long time.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    12. Re:Can bacteria survive the re-entry temperature? by fireylord · · Score: 0

      Maybe the bacteria could keep Marvin company

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Fools! by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

    Don't they know that a fiery explosion is what the bacteria need to escape!

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  14. I For One... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I, for one, welcome our future alien bacteria overlords.

  15. Just four.... by sholden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More likely for them all to end up in a star/black hole than a planet, or a huge gas giant than a nice habitable planet with water oceans.

    It's unlikely to just happen to pass through the "disk" around a star where the planets are at near parallel angle, more likely to come from "above" so to speak and hence unlikely to hit much - of course my understanding of astronomy approaches zero.

    Not to mention sterilized by close encounters with a radiation source (like say a star)...

    1. Re:Just four.... by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 0

      "More likely for them all to end up in a star/black hole than a planet, or a huge gas giant than a nice habitable planet with water oceans."

      I'd think even more likely than that would be drifting out into intergalactic space and floating around until the eventual heat death of the universe.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    2. Re:Just four.... by Excelcia · · Score: 1

      A large gas giant isn't necessarily uninhabitable. It has long been posited that life could evolve in the upper layers.

  16. I doubt it by peterprior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To quote the late Douglas Adams:

    "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

    1. Re:I doubt it by jam244 · · Score: 1

      To quote the late Douglas Adams: ...
      To quote Philip J. Fry:

      Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and the gorilla starts throwing barrels at you.
    2. Re:I doubt it by Himring · · Score: 1

      So was earth's oceans barely 500 years ago....

      As the ancient Greek said who could only dream of going to space: "Always upwards...."

      I think, one day, our descendants will read such statements as, "space is just too big" and mildly smile....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    3. Re:I doubt it by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1

      I prefer:

      "The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination."

      Regards
      elFarto
    4. Re:I doubt it by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      More likely, they will comments like yours and think:
      "hey, how condecending those ignorant fools were throwing around idiotic analogies!".

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  17. towel? by Google85 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will the bacteria hitch-hike to the stars by sticking to towels? After all, a towel is the most important thing for anyone hitchhiking thru the galaxy

    1. Re:towel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to bring a towel!

  18. Not A Worry by logicnazi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First of all the probability that these rockets hit a habitable planet rather than a star or jupiter like object is going to be extremely low no matter what the article claims. The vast maority of bodies in the universe are not habitable and when you add this to the fact that the really heavy (hence gravitationally powerful) ones aren't habitable the odds become really low. Add in the requirement that the planet not only be habitable but actually habitable by earth bugs and that they land safely after a long radiation filled interstellar journey and it starts to get really unlikely.

    But even if this is the case what's the big deal. The big reason we want to prevent contamination of mars and similar bodies is for our scientific interest (don't mess up our later experiments). If these organisms colonize some distant planet why is this a bad thing? Now some planet that didn't have any life at all now does. Maybe in a billion years it will evolve spaceships and explore the universe (hell maybe that's how we happened :-) ).

    Either life is common in the universe in which case we just foster a little bit of microbacterial competition (our diseases aren't going to infect complex multicellular aliens) or life is uncommon and we seed a planet with life that might not have otherwise had it. Either way whats the problem?

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

    1. Re:Not A Worry by everweb · · Score: 1

      I totally agree - for all we know, one of the particle accelerators on planet earth may blink us all into non-existence before I finish typing this. Our 'selfish genes' would be most disappointed if they didn't at least have a distant cousin to continue the 'life' experiment.

  19. Um by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    We should be actively sending microbes/bacteria etc to the other planets in our system with every mission. Survivors will only make the terraforming process faster and easier.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Um by Notquitecajun · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, the next time we go to mars the lander should plant something hardy, like a cactus, to see what happens.

    2. Re:Um by Eagleartoo · · Score: 1

      Actually, the next time we go to mars the lander should plant something hardy, like a cactus, to see what happens.
      A cactus would be a good start but what about a Mesquite Tree, the tap root of a mesquite tree can burrow up to 175 feet in search of water. We can teraform any planet we want with the help of the almighty Mesquite Tree!
      --
      -You have been modded appropriately-
    3. Re:Um by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Plus be ready to barbecue when we get there.

  20. Hardly qualifies as a science article... by ogre7299 · · Score: 1

    The writers of this article forget that space is mostly empty. It's obvious that something escaping our solar system will come within a few light years of a star. On average there is about one star per 3 light years cubed (1 star per cubic parsec). Even if the rocket stage passed very close to a star, the likelihood of impacting a planet is very slim since a solar system is again, mostly empty space.

  21. Trial By Fire by catdevnull · · Score: 1

    If (and I mean "if") the bacteria survive an interstellar trip across the great vacuum of space *AND* they survive the immense heat of re-entry *AND* the explosive impact they deserve to live. It's highly unlikely that the bacteria are even still alive in the cold and after the heat of the rocket. Those earth bacteria are pussies.

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
    1. Re:Trial By Fire by djp928 · · Score: 1

      Those earth bacteria are pussies

      Actually, they're far from it. Apollo 12 landed near one of the old Surveyor probes, and the astronauts took cultures from the probe that had been sitting on the moon for three years. Surprisingly, there were still Earth bacteria living on the probes, after three years of exposure to the vacuum, the freezing/burning cycle of the Lunar day, and the harsh radiation from the Sun. Here's an interesting article on the subject.

      I also recall reading an article recently (can't find it now, unfortunately) about a scientist who worked on some of the Mars probes. He said that there were bacteria that actually evolved in their clean rooms to thrive through all the crap they were trying to do to sterilize the probes before launch. The things actually evolved to eat some of the cleansers they were using or something like that, as I recall. When asked if he thought those bacteria were still ont he probes, he said something like "Oh yeah, they're up there now, on Mars. We couldn't get rid of them."

      -- Dave

  22. What about while still on the rocket booster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are the changes that the bacteria and such will start growing while on the booster itself and maybe even evolving some there?

    1. Re:What about while still on the rocket booster? by NayDizz · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they'll just start a civilization on Bender. All hail the Great Metal Lord.

    2. Re:What about while still on the rocket booster? by hkgroove · · Score: 1

      God Needs Booze

  23. Not the place for this... by tygerstripes · · Score: 1
    I can appreciate that this is interesting speculation - a possibly new if unlikely angle on an established set of facts - but... well, isn't that our job? This isn't science, or a new discovery, or a new application of knowledge, or...

    Look, it's just a random throwing-it-out-there speculation. That's what comments are for in Slashdot, surely - not actual stories!

    [rant]

    --
    Meta will eat itself
    1. Re:Not the place for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Articles like this being posted here are warning signs for upcoming government waste and special interest group troublemaking. Now that you have been warned you can recognize efforts to increase bogus unneccessary expenses for NASA and the private space companies and perhaps have some references to nip some of it in the bud. Work with anyone that supports some of those special interest groups by chance? In particular where those groups are made up of well meaning people with sometimes whacko ideas they can be influenced one well meaning individual at a time by cool, calm, collected scientific reasoning. Corporate profit influencing special interest groups are however another thing, here you need to keep your elected officials straight on the facts and warned that they are being watched. Something influenced the author to write this article and something influenced the website editors to publish it, find out who/what and likely you will know why.

  24. Anthrocentricity strikes again... by gotgenes · · Score: 1

    The spacecraft were sterilized, but the rocket stages were not, and they now carry the bacteria of the engineers who handled them.

    And what of the 99.999999999...% of the other bacteria in the environment (which includes the Stratosphere and beyond)?...

    --
    It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.
  25. Too late now. by ase · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where's your prime directive when you really need one?

  26. How do you think we got here? by kennylogins · · Score: 1

    nt

  27. Hitch A Ride To The Stars by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    Maybe they'll write a "guide" book.

    --
    What?
  28. Oblig... by styryx · · Score: 1, Funny

    I, for one, hope that they welcome their new rocket-dwelling, bacteria overlords.

  29. bacteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After 40,000 years the bacteria will have super mutant powers and come back to earth to rule us all!

  30. what's the bid deal? by sAFETY909 · · Score: 1

    What's the big deal? How do you think we got mushrooms?

  31. A debt owed to Columbia; by B5_geek · · Score: 3, Informative

    As all great discoveries start with "gee that's weird.." we can thank the Space Shuttle Columbia for proving to us that bacteria can survive an atmosphere entry and planet impact. http://www.cmu.edu/magazine/03fall/wormsurvive.htm l

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:A debt owed to Columbia; by Excelcia · · Score: 4, Informative

      The worms were in canisters, the canisters were in a spacecraft designed to (even if it didn't actually) withstand the stresses of reentry. The spacecraft had already endured most of the heat of reentry and was torn apart by atmospheric stresses, not thermal. The canisters would have rapidly decelerated to their terminal velocity after the orbiter's breakup. In short, the survival of those worms is not so much a demonstration that organism can survive reeentry, than it is a demonstration of stupidity on the part of the scientists who used the fact they survived the accident to posit that organism can survive reentry.

      I'm not suggesting than no organism can surive reentry, just that this isn't a valid precedent.

    2. Re:A debt owed to Columbia; by dan+dan+the+dna+man · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nematodes are bacteria?

      I must have slipped into an universe with an alternate taxonomy...

      --
      I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
  32. Digg parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah... Wrong site. NM. Digg him down then.

  33. who cares? by drukawski · · Score: 1

    We have 40,000 years before even one of them come within 2 light years of a planet. I'm sure within 35,000 years some homeless space man will take his space shopping cart full of them to the recycling center for the 10 cent return for us.

  34. Re:Justification? Sun must hit planet then right? by markk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If chances are that these probes will hit a habitable planet are good then the Sun must surely hit a habitable planet as it moves about the galaxy. In fact every Sun must hae a good chance - they are all moving at roughly the same interstellar speed as the stages, they are much bigger so they have a much bigger change of hitting something ... doesn't seem so likely now? the chances of those stages hitting any planet are ... well astronomical in the best sense. Love that line - space is very big.

  35. The Earth sheds rocks... by mbone · · Score: 1

    The Earth (and Mars) shed rocks over time, due to meteor strikes, and some of those will escape the solar system, so it's not like this hasn't been happening over geologic time. Some of the rocks from Mars were ejected gently enough that bacteria would have survived inside. While inefficient, I bet that literally megatons of biologically active rocks have been ejected in this fashion.

    By the way, they missed one. Pioneer 10 and 11 were identical spacecraft, both had upper stages that have left the solar system.

    1. Re:The Earth sheds rocks... by JCOTTON · · Score: 1

      mod parent up. I was going to say the same. It pays to read thru.

  36. You must be kidding by FrankSchwab · · Score: 0

    Intense cold can't be good for them
    Intense vacuum should just about completely desiccate them.
    Intense radiation should destroy any genetic material in the bacteria

    Exposure to all of these for how many years?

    pfft. /frank

    --
    And the worms ate into his brain.
    1. Re:You must be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This paper suggests that, with two to three meters of meteorite material shielding them from radiation, a significant fraction of an intial spore population could still be viable after 25 million years in space. You're correct in thinking that naked spores don't live very long, though.

  37. How about... by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    ... in 40K years, we'll have the technology to retrieve those discarded items from our distant past thus nullifying any hypothetical outcome we are already discussing here.

    1. Re:How about... by yellowdragon · · Score: 1

      ONLY if we can make the religious fanatics stick only to religion.

  38. wishful thinking or just stupidity? by phreakv6 · · Score: 1

    Given the sheer expanse of time that lies ahead of the four discarded rockets, at least one is likely to eventually encounter a planet.

    how did they come up with that?
    thats like saying, am throwing up 4 balls in the air, am sure one of them will hit the moon.

    space is curved, there are gravitational fields everywhere. chances are that the rockets would be locked in an orbit of some sort or crash somewhere due to the fields.

    --
    fifteen jugglers, five believers
  39. Re:Justification? Sun must hit planet then right? by Bandman · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space.

  40. 1.64 light years? by thewils · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought the nearest star (after Sol, of course) was Proxima Centauri at 4.2 light years? Is this one closer?

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    1. Re:1.64 light years? by C0y0t3 · · Score: 1

      I read that to mean how close the object will pass in relation to the star.

    2. Re:1.64 light years? by thewils · · Score: 1

      Dang. Serves me right for scanning the GP. Ain't the English language wonderful when we can use the term "close" for 1.64 light years. next time my approach misses the green by about 75 yards, I'll be happy that I was relatively "close".

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    3. Re:1.64 light years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do a google. AC+79 3888 is moving quickly toward Earth. In ~40k years it will be ~3 light years from Earth and ~1.6 light years from the bacteria laden chunk.

    4. Re:1.64 light years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My preferred units of measure are geological time and astronomical distance. As my highschool physics teacher said, "if you draw your dots big enough you will get the expected results."

    5. Re:1.64 light years? by thewils · · Score: 1

      Cool, so we don't have to travel to the stars. If humans can wait long enough, they'll come to us!

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    6. Re:1.64 light years? by alba7 · · Score: 1

      :omg

      It's a Soviet Russia joke turning reality.

      --
      Post tenebras lux. Post fenestras tux.
  41. Chances and pipedreams by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    C'mon, be serious and look at the chances. There's space. It is huge. It is mostly black. And all that black is a big nothing. And in between of those big areas of nothingness there are a few tiiiiiiny little stars. And those few tiiiiiny little stars have even tiiiiiiiiiiinier little planets.

    Now, let's be generous and say that this piece of space junk somehow gets into the gravity of one of aformentioned minuscle pieces of light. Let's take this almost improbable chance into account. Now our piece of space debris has a good chance to either get too close to said light source, goes poof and increases the metallicity of the star by some unmeasurable percentage. If (and only if), said piece of junk comes close enough to one of those stars, this is actually what would happen with almost certainty.

    Now, let's be even more generous and say that this doesn't happen. It actually hits a planet. There are those big gas balls, in which our space brick goes not poof but crunch, 'cause those balls tend to be heavy and have a gravity that matches that of Oprah. Survival unlikely.

    But I have my really generous day today when it comes to probabilities and thus we're gonna hit a rocky piece of space ball. Said ball should have at least something resembling an atmosphere or at least a gentle star or the rays from said star might be too much for our poor, stressed bacteria to handle.

    Now, a bacterium, to live, wants to eat. And when bacteria have the munchies, they either resort to photosynthesis or eating other crap. To eat crap, crap has to exist. And that requires other stuff that lives to exist. Or at least something that once lived. Or at least any kind of source for carbon, nitrogen and oxygen and all the other little goodies that make life worthwhile. And, of course, in some useful organisation, I for one wouldn't be too happy with some carbon dioxyde and a bit of NO2.

    For photosynthesis, you'd need light, but not too much or you get burned. Too little and you starve to death. Juuuuuust right is what it should be! And of course that's not all, that's just the energy source, now you also need some carbon, oxygene...

    In other words, I think NASA and all the other space faring organisations can rest assured that their pollution will not cause too many interstellar wars.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Chances and pipedreams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two words. space quinine.

    2. Re:Chances and pipedreams by FingerDemon · · Score: 1

      I agree the original post has poor wording and these are crazy low chances. But your use of the words "space ball" got me thinking. If there is an Oort cloud of comets around our Solar System. What if this is a common thing around other solar systems. There may be a small (like impossible to calculate small) chance that the junk could hit one of these comets first, prior to any really high radiation exposure. It's density might be low enough so the impact doesn't kill the bacteria. It might even be moving in the similar speed and direction (towards the star) lowering the impact velocity. The dirty ice consistency might have enough raw materials to allow the bacteria to thrive and make a big old bacteria laden snowball that swings right on down to alienville.

      Then some light years later we get an interstellar CSI team knocking on our door with a picture of a rocket stage with an American flag on it, asking us if we know anything about this.

      But I'm not losing any sleep over it.

      --

      "Contrarily the lookaside buffer might not be the panacea... "
    3. Re:Chances and pipedreams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Amusing, but...

      For photosynthesis, you'd need light, but not too much or you get burned. Too little and you starve to death


      For the most part, when it comes to simpler photosynthetic organisms, too little light and you don't grow. That is very different from starving to death.

      Many (but not all) complex plants require substantial energy even when not growing, so they can starve to death.

      Many other photosynthetic organisms (plants and others) are do not need maintain active homeostasis or any other energy consuming activities, and can spend centuries in a dormant state if there is insufficient light.

      And when bacteria have the munchies, they either resort to photosynthesis or eating other crap. To eat crap, crap has to exist. And that requires other stuff that lives to exist. Or at least something that once lived.


      No, there are terrestrial bacteria and archaea which have chemosynthetic electron transport chains and will quite happily live in otherwise entirely sterile environments. They are fully autrophic. Most reduce abiogenic sulphur and iron compounds.

      They still require access to water (and sometimes molecular hydrogen) and simple carbon compounds (CO, CO2 usually) for metabolic purposes, however. They also need simple nitrogen and phosphorous compounds (and/or molecular forms of both), and a variety of trace metals, in order to reproduce. Chunks of rock often contain sufficient material for slow metabolism and glacial reproduction in complete isolation from any sort of wider environment.

      Such a rock passing through some molecular clouds in interstellar space (Bok globules, for instance) would probably accrete enough raw material for substantial growth of a cold-adapted chemoautotroph population. The major requirement is an anticrystallization mechanism in the organism's bioplasms (some of which have been observed terrestrially).

  42. Killing Cylons by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Funny

    You don't have to hit a planet to kill a Base-Star full of Cylons. They only have to intercept your probe in space. That would seem to increase the odds of doing damage by sending out unclean derbies from Earth.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Killing Cylons by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      That was a neat plot prop, but would a seriously intelligent race go around picking up strange objects floating in space without any thought given to a quarantine. There is a reason that all the space movies where the aliens show up on Earth begin with guys in white hazmat suits showing up to erect a tent. I suspect any species that has made it to the point of space travel will be paranoid enough not to take ridiculous chances like taking the strange artifact directly to their leader.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  43. God by FungosBauux · · Score: 0

    ....then will born a entirely new _intelligent_ specimen that will worship a _GOD_ that created them , but what they never will figure out is that this god was a pile of human spacial-junk. Now the poll, what created us? I bet about some kind of fecal or a;n;a;l bacteria from another specimen.

  44. It's a Non-Issue by weinrich · · Score: 1

    As the booster enters the atmosphere of the planet it will burn up into dust. If any chunks do survive, they will have already reached the same temp needed to sterilize it.

    Best-case scenario is some poor sod on a distant planet gets the hover-car in his driveway crushed by a chunk of a booster, with the NASA logo on it, and getting noted in the local paper as the guy that found the space debris with the fossilized bacteria attached to it.

    ---
    ** Error 0

    --
    Error: .sig not found, using /etc/passwd instead
  45. habitable to bacteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "First of all the probability that these rockets hit a habitable planet rather than a star or jupiter like object is going to be extremely low no matter what the article claims. The vast maority of bodies in the universe are not habitable and when you add this to the fact that the really heavy (hence gravitationally powerful) ones aren't habitable the odds become really low."

    Well, we're talking bacteria here, gravity won't make the slightest difference. It's quite possible that some Earth bacteria could live on a Jupiter-like planet (maybe one that's a bit warmer - as most large extrasolar planets we've found are - and perhaps with different composition). It's also possible that life could evolve on such a planet and be pissed off at meeting Earth bugs.

    Still, some other poster got it right. Probability of going close to a star and getting melted >> probability of hitting a planet.

  46. We may really be Martians by peter303 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is likely that Mars become more hospitable to life earlier than early by solidifying sooner. Dozens of Martian meterites have been discovered on earth. Perhaps there have been thousands or millions Martian meteorites over the eons. Bacteria have been found living five miles deep in earth where they may have been cut off from the surface from tens of millions of years or longer. They either live extremely slowly or metabolize other nutrients inside rocks. Rocks are excellent insulators from the heat and pressure of bombardment. Some meteors hitting earth are cool inside, even though their out layers have evaporated away from the heat.

    Some these all together and you can make a case for bacteria first evolving on Mars and then infecting earth through meteroic hitchhiking, this happening billions of years ago. then they evolved on Earth while Mars became hostile to life.

  47. Space radiation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..woudlent that kill the bacteria ???

    1. Re:Space radiation... by Marnok · · Score: 0

      I think it killed your spelling skills though....

  48. Raised Hopes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly, sir. Bravo!

  49. Correction to article by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

    I thought the nearest star (after Sol, of course) was Proxima Centauri at 4.2 light years?

    Actually, the article is incorrect. Pioneer 11 will get within 1.65 light-years of the red dwarf AC+79 3888. That will happen sometime around 42,400 AD. Currently, it's about 16.6 light-years away from the sun.

    Interestingly, by the time Pioneer 11 reaches AC+79 3888, the red dwarf will only be about 3 light-years away from us (as it's hurtling through space in our general direction).

    1. Re:Correction to article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Currently, it's about 16.6 light-years away from the sun.
      Light-hours maybe...
    2. Re:Correction to article by EricWright · · Score: 1

      Watch those dangling participles... in this case, the "it" would be red dwarf AC+79 3888, not Pioneer 10/11.

  50. This, from Space.com? by El_Smack · · Score: 1

    Have they turned it into a blog where any moron can write a story and get it on the front page?

    The only way this improbable event will ever happen is if there was a nice cup of really hot tea powering those boosters.

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
  51. Escape velocity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do any of these actually have enough energy to get far outside the solar system? Even if they did, would they get outside whatever the next level "cluster of stars" is (I assume there's something between our solar system and the galaxy as a whole)? Escape velocity is pretty fast I thought - how much "fuel" (of whatever sort) did they put on these things?

  52. Panspermia by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    Bacteria isn't really the matter, spores are a much greater threat to contaminating the rest of the universe and can happen easier than through space launches.

    See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

    Spores can survive in space for a fari amount of time as they are resistant to much of the radiation they might encounter there. Furthermore, is is supectec that they already are capable of floating in the air to the upper atmosphere and leaving earth's gravity well. If that is the case then we have been spraying spores all over the universe for millions of years. At worst, it would require a meteor strike that would eject planetary material out of the gravity well. Some people suspect that Earth and Mars contaminated eachother in such a way, even speculating that life originated on a young Mars which contaminated Earth later.

  53. Uhhh... by berenixium · · Score: 1

    Oops.

  54. Obligatory Dumb and Dumber quote... by Given+M.+Sur · · Score: 1

    So you're saying theres a chance?!

    --
    nil
    1. Re:Obligatory Dumb and Dumber quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2^267709:1 against.

  55. They don't have to survive re- entry temperatures by T00lman · · Score: 0

    They only have to get to the Altara nebula before Khan fires the genesis device. But sadly the Klingon's will poke their eyes out in the next movie. Nobody appreciates good bacteria anymore.

    --
    0x7279727972797279
  56. DNA is thermodynamically unstable by gregor-e · · Score: 3, Informative

    Aside from all the aforementioned problems, we have a small design flaw in our form of organic life: DNA is inherently unstable. Thymine dimerization is energetically favored, and is catalyzed by UV and other forms of radiation. But even apart from radiation, these dimers will form given the passage of time and non-absolute-zero temperatures. Our DNA-based life requires constant molecular upkeep to repair these problems. Any putative bacterial hitch-hikers would have had to sporulate to be able to continue existing without any metabolism, so no upkeep will be possible. Even if they become detached from the booster and are able to avoid a fiery re-entry onto a hospitable planet, they still have to hit it within a few centuries or their information will be irretrievably corrupted.

    1. Re:DNA is thermodynamically unstable by Sqreater · · Score: 1

      A great comment and one not infected with the scientific equivalent of "irrational exuberance." I say back to science and away from manipulations for fund raising reasons.

      --
      E Proelio Veritas.
  57. Re:asdf by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, and the advanced life that got them into space was who? Oh, and who got into space to make the one that made them, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum. Panspermia is a horrible theory, somewhere life had to sprout for it to get spread around, all the hand waving in the world wont make that go away, and if it evolved someplace else, it is no more or less likely that it evolved here.

    Sera

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  58. Pasturized? by sherriw · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the deep freeze of space plus the burning re-entry effectively "pasturize" the space debris?

    1. Re:Pasturized? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      many spores can survive deep freeze and radiation, re-entry will be somewhat of a problem however.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  59. Think of the Xenomorphs, you insensitive clod! by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

    In space, no one can hear bacteria scream Yeah, real funny - but think of the poor Xenomorphs, would ya? How is a facehugger supposed to latch on to a bunch of bacteria, huh?
    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  60. share our stinky feet by Hobb3s · · Score: 1

    So basically, when we finally do arrive at planet x-379a the aliens there will have just as stinky feet as we do. Time to invest in odour eater stock.

  61. How life came to earth - accidental by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 1

    To assume that earth is home of the first beings in the universe is quite an odd assuption.

    If you assume that other beings have intentionally or inadvertently sent objects into space then the likelyhood of spreading life surpases that of evolution from scratch.

  62. As a gift from planet Ert, we sned you... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    ...Space Boogers!

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  63. With out luck... by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

    it'll be Earth that it will hit and any bacteria will overcome all immune defenses...

    --
    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  64. This article shouldn't have ever made it by mknewman · · Score: 1

    Slashdot editors shouldn't let lame speculative BS like this get posted in the first place. There is not a serious response.

  65. Pre-emptive Strike by rnmartinez · · Score: 1

    Its just like the War of The Worlds, only sending it to our potential enemies. This way, Earth shoots first ;-)

  66. Umm OK... Who cares? by m6ack · · Score: 1

    Why do I care if my bacteria end up on another planet or not? Does it make any difference? Is it that we might not be able to tell if "life" we found on some other planet is indeed "extra-terrestrial?" Quite honestly, I don't care. This is a big "whoop-de-do" over nothing.

  67. AC+79? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope the bacteria rolls a natural 20.

  68. noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if it impacts a distant planet does it still make a noise?

  69. Blasphemy! by Dareth · · Score: 1

    God always washes his hands before handling rocket stages.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Blasphemy! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      God always washes his hands before handling rocket stages.

      He forgot on the day he created you :-)

  70. Re:asdf by durin · · Score: 1

    Perhaps most of our deadly diseases came here in the same way...

    Just think about what the missionaries brought to the "savages".

    --
    Why, yes! I AM new here.
  71. THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok enough of the scare mongoring.
    Scientists have known for a long time that the wind currents,in our atmosphere are capable of moving micro organisms to the outer limits of the atmosphere. From here, they get picked up by the solar winds and distributed through out the solar system and quite possibly beyond.
    If we are so worried about infecting other planets, then lets start by sterilizing our own planet. Otherwise, don't worry about it because nature does a fairly good jopb of exporting our micro organisms already.

  72. Re:Postulate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

  73. Yeah, but what would *you* do? by rholland356 · · Score: 1

    Oh, sure, it's easy to dismiss three slow-moving rocket boosters, even if the engineers who worked on it were known to add their own "special payload" to the payload, if you know what I mean. 'Cuz, yeah, they were *rocket scientists* who figured out long ago that these boosters would carry their juice into the stars.

    But enough of that. Time for a thought exercise:

    What if tomorrow's /. carried the story that astronomers have observed an unidentified booster-shaped lump of metal drifting through our solar system? Would you lobby for a mission to intercept it? Would we bring it to earth, or park it in orbit and send robots to do experiments? Would we study it then toss it toward the sun?

  74. hitching a ride... by ssintercept · · Score: 0

    infecting a universe near you...SOON!

    --
    "You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton
  75. Gas Giants and Infections by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    First of all the probability that these rockets hit a habitable planet rather than a star or jupiter like object is going to be extremely low

    But if it does hit a gas giant, it is fairly likely to survive because of the thick, fluffy atmosphere. I think hitting a gas giant is more likely than a star because anything entering a star's solar system will still likely have angular momentum and thus orbit the star. This is where Jupiter-like objects will snag it.

    Now, it may be possible that once Jupiters are infected, the bacteria may find a way to hitch a ride to a rocky earth-sized planet. The problem is that gas giants are gravity wells and stuff would have a hard time escaping. Except, what about something that merely grazes the atmosphere of a gas giant (GG) and picks up hitchikers? For example, a comet could partially melt due to a close encounter with a GG, the atmospheric "bugs" hop in, and then it refreezes after passing GG. Then it may slam into the rocky planet (and kill alien-dinosours?). But, the probability of this is probably shakey. However, it increases the number of pathways to infection of rocky planets. The bottom line is that infecting (initially) only a gas giant may not end the story.

  76. Message in the Stars by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I think they evolved and already are trying to contact us.

  77. Don't forget Darwin! by bushwahd · · Score: 1

    Given 40,000 years, the bacteria will have time to evolve to at least the level of the average Republican congressman. Then, they'll assume power over the guidance system of the craft and promptly steer it into the nearest star. Problem solved!

    1. Re:Don't forget Darwin! by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Maybe one of them will evolve to at least the level of Ted Kennedy, and drive the craft into a pond.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    2. Re:Don't forget Darwin! by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Maybe one of them will undergo a hideous mutation into Ted Kennedy and drive the craft into a pond.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  78. Lucky Bacteria by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

    With the luck of Teela Brown, some will manage to survive.

    --
    Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
  79. Yes, actually. The cat does "got my tongue." by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > least one is likely to eventually encounter a planet.

    Not unless there are thousands of things headed starward. Given stars have thousands of times the cross section of a planet, the likelihood of hitting a star is thousands of times greater than a planet. Therefore statistically you could expect thousands to hit stars per single one hitting a planet.

    Now throw into the mix just getting near a star would heat it so much it would be sterilized, and you're up to hundreds of thousands or millions or even billions of star "near misses" per legitimate planet hit.

    Now let's presume that we must hit a planet going in our general direction (i.e. away from Earth, not towards it) to stand any chance of surviving re-entry (well, entry, as it never left that planet!) You've cut it down by half, if not quartered it.

    Now plug in some of the Drake Equation variables, like percent of planets that are Earthlike and percent of planets that are in Earth's "sweet zone" (which would be required for Earthlike bacteria to survive), and so on, and you're really looking at god knows how many billions of rockets/booster modules/probes needed per successful "touchdown".

    It's wishful thinking, far worse than hoping that you, and exactly you, win the lottery.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  80. just another stage of life by dakta · · Score: 1

    We all know the purpose of life is to reproduce, so it looks like we (the planet) has just done it fellas. Now where were we? Ah yes, nuking ourselves to oblivion. Now without the guilt.

  81. No soft landing? by nilbog · · Score: 1

    Of some foreign chunk of obviously alien manufactured metal came flying towards earth, I think we would guarantee it gets a soft landing. We should have written something cool on the discarded rockets, like "Make your time. All your base are belong to us."

    --
    or else!
  82. Intergalactic germ warfare? by MayorDefacto · · Score: 1

    Nice. Let's wipe out whole civilizations we don't even know about yet!

  83. Horses on mars by pfortuny · · Score: 0

    This has already been filmed.

    And a good one, that is.

    www.horsesonmars.com

  84. Prove it! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    [denial on]
    Prove it! They ain't my children !
    [denial off]

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  85. Washington, DC by SAABMaven · · Score: 1

    That explains the bacteria that have become the overlords in Washington DC, but not the tacit agreement of the fools who follow this bacteria.

  86. Keep your rubbish to yourself! by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

    "In 40,000 years, this wayward 185-pound (84 kilogram) lump of metal will pass by the star AC+79 3888 at a distance of 1.64 light-years. ... "

    I *live* at AC+79 3888, you unsensitive clod!

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
  87. Lab experiments? by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    Ever get the feeling the universe is a vast lab and all the petri dishes have been very carefully separated to preserve the integrity of the results?

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  88. oh .. I am sorry .. was that yours? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1


    oh, was that your network plug ?

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..