Pieces of Ancient Earth May Be Hidden On the Moon

swestcott brings us a story from Space.com about the possibility of finding evidence for ancient Earth life on the moon. A team of scientists has published work confirming that meteorites originating from Earth could have remained sufficiently intact while colliding with the moon to allow the survival of biological evidence for life. Quoting: "Crawford and Baldwin's group simulated their meteors as cubes, and calculated pressures at 500 points on the surface of the cube as it impacted the lunar surface at a wide range of impact angles and velocities. In the most extreme case they tested (vertical impact at a speed of some 11,180 mph, or 5 kilometers per second), Crawford reports that 'some portions' of the simulated meteorite would have melted, but 'the bulk of the projectile, and especially the trailing half, was subjected to much lower pressures.'"

Comments

That's no moon...

[Kagura]

It's a... oh, right.

Re:That's no moon...

[Anonymous Coward]

...ridiculous liberal myth?

Re:First

[ozmanjusri]

I spent so much time thinking of something witty

Don't be too hard on yourself.

At least you got halfway there.

Let's start with the obvious

[Weaselmancer]

Why the hell would you model an asteroid with some improbable shape like a cube?

Re:Let's start with the obvious

[reset_button]

Physicist jokes...

A group of wealthy investors wanted to be able to predict the outcome of a horse race. So they hired a group of biologists, a group of statisticians, and a group of physicists. Each group was given a year to research the issue. After one year, the groups all reported to the investors. The biologists said that they could genetically engineer an unbeatable racehorse, but it would take 200 years and $100 billion. The statisticians reported next. They said that they could predict the outcome of any race, at a cost of $100 million per race, and they would only be right 10% of the time. Finally, the physicists reported that they could also predict the outcome of any race, and that their process was cheap and simple. The investors listened eagerly to this proposal. The head physicist reported, "We have made several simplifying assumptions... first, let each horse be a perfect rolling sphere..."

Re:Let's start with the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

A cube is pretty much the worst shape possible when it comes to distributing the force of an impact evenly across the entire object. So simulations show that cubes can survive crashing into the moon, then its fairly safe to say that other shapes can survive too.

Re:Let's start with the obvious

[Tablizer]

Why the hell would you model an asteroid with some improbable shape like a cube?

Tetris killed the dinos!
   

Re:Let's start with the obvious

[layer3switch]

some improbable shape like a cube?

why is cube improbable? That's like saying, an asteroid looks more like a baseball than a lego brick. I would say, sphere is more improbable than cube.

To find a perfect model for an irregular shaped object, cube is as good as any. Sphere would be the least likely and desirable shape to model after.

Re:Let's start with the obvious

[Roliel]

The investor responded: "Why would we do that? Its not a sphere, its a horse!" To which the physicist responded "Have you ever tried to integrate over a horse?"

Looking for a reason...

[Ceriel Nosforit]

Here's a good reason to go back to the moon if there ever was one. Or at the very least a better excuse than we've had so far.

Though the survival of the species is always a good reason...

The next planetary scandal

[heroine]

Can just see the reaction to this. Life can't survive elsewhere in the solar system. It's all pieces of Earth that got blown out.

Re:The next planetary scandal

[Tablizer]

Can just see the reaction to this. Life can't survive elsewhere in the solar system. It's all pieces of Earth that got blown out.

That's why a study of the DNA etc. is important if life is found on another body. If the basic "alphabet" of the newly-discovered life matches that of Earth's, then most likely its a form of contamination from a central source.

We wouldn't necessarily be able to tell where the original source is if such was the case. Other bodies in the solar system were stable while Earth was still smoldering such that perhaps life formed on a different body that cooled faster and then spread to Earth after it cooled. Identifying the original "seed body" may be tricky.

Re:The next planetary scandal

[jd]

Given there are multiple solutions to the DNA unwinding problem (but on Earth only one was used) and given that life on Earth has tended to convert symbiotic organisms into organelles with minimal DNA (or nothing) and migrate the rest into the nucleus (ie: a monolithic design, which isn't necessarly the only design nature could have opted for), and given there are other factors that probably became selected because of the specific prevailing conditions on Earth, if the contamination was far enough back, we'd be able to tell by the divergence. Earth had very specific conditions, and there are multiple solutions to many microbiological problems. Organisms on Earth may have tried several and adopted the one that suited Earth conditions best, or Earth conditions may have made multiple experiments impossible.

(The cell itself probably post-dates the first 'true' life by a few hundred million years - long enough for any Earth fragments to be blasted onto nearby worlds - and the cell is only one way of building structured life. Assuming you have structured life. Pre-cellular life might be fine for some worlds, and mono-cellular life could potentially do much better than multi-cellular life in the atmosphere of a gas giant. You don't want complexity under harsh conditions.)

However, this leads to a major problem. Given that the bases that exist on Earth probably are the bases that would be used elsewhere, anything that is too simple cannot be distinguished from a parallel line of evolution. Given the level of sophistication you can pack onto a tiny space probe, the level of sophistication you can distinguish at in practical terms is far greater than the level that you could distinguish at in textbook theory.

Groening has the argument against

[catmistake]

We're whalers on the Moon

We carry a harpoon

But there ain't no whales

So we tell tall tales

And sing our whaling tune

Good

[Tablizer]

Tax the little buggers up there!

Re:Krypton

[mazarin5]

A cube is pretty much the worst shape possible when it comes to distributing the force of an impact evenly across the entire object

Not true; What about those crystalline spacecraft that the Kryptonians use to send their infants to Earth in? They have all sorts of jutting and produding suraces.

Crumple zone, duh!

But what about how they got up there?

[Peter Harris]

Presumably the collision needed to splash a bit of rock off the Earth, through its atmosphere, up its gravity well to the moon would be at least 6 times as forceful as the collision with the moon.

They'd have to show that bits of organic material would survive both collisions to make it plausible.

Then explain how you would go looking for the few unlikely surviving chunks on something the size of the moon. Which by the way keeps getting hit all over with rocks from everywhere else, hence all the dust and craters.

Good luck with that.

Or is this just one of those things like string theory where you get to make up a hypothesis that you can't possibly actually falsify?