Slashdot Mirror


Naphthalene Found In Outer Space

Adam Korbitz writes with an excerpt from his blog on an exciting discovery in space: "A team of researchers led by Spanish scientists has published their discovery of the complex molecule naphthalene in an interstellar star-forming cloud, indicating many prebiotic organic molecules necessary for life as we know it could have been present when our own solar system formed. According to the new research — published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters — the naphthalene molecules were discovered 700 light-years from Earth in a star-forming region of the constellation Perseus, in the direction of the star Cernis 52."

180 comments

  1. This is evidence of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Naphtalene--or better known as the primary ingredient in MOTHBALLS
     
    At last. We know the secret coordinates of Mothra. (S)he lies in the constellation Perseus. This may lead us to discover the origins of Godzilla.
     
    My girlfriend brought over brownies...

    1. Re:This is evidence of life. by DrMrLordX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Great, now all we need to do is stick it in my car's gas tank to improve fuel economy! Yay!

    2. Re:This is evidence of life. by jd · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the name of a rock group, y'know, like Disaster Area. Or maybe some giants out of the Old Testament. Something exciting. Mothballs are exciting only to moths.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:This is evidence of life. by AnomaliesAndrew · · Score: 5, Funny

      So not only are the universe and my grandparents both extremely old, but they both smell the same now... great.

      --
      Move all sig!
    4. Re:This is evidence of life. by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Mothballs repel moths. Mothra's in the other direction... or hiding on Earth.

    5. Re:This is evidence of life. by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Naphthalene? In MY outer spaces?

      It's more likely than you think!

    6. Re:This is evidence of life. by Whiteox · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mothballs are exciting only to moths.
      A moth without balls is a eunuch.
      I would say that mothballs are extremely important to moths.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    7. Re:This is evidence of life. by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1
      Naphtalene--or better known as the primary ingredient in MOTHBALLS At last. We know the secret coordinates of Mothra. (S)he lies in the constellation Perseus. This may lead us to discover the origins of Godzilla.

      Mothra? Godzilla? Don't be silly, now. All we really know is that Rebellion will have to do without Mon Mothma's leadership in that area of the galaxy.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    8. Re:This is evidence of life. by Laser+Dan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mothballs are exciting only to moths.
      A moth without balls is a eunuch.
      I would say that mothballs are extremely important to moths.

      This is Slashdot so I can see I need to explain something.
      I apologise for using a term you may be unfamiliar with, but a moth without balls is called a female moth.

    9. Re:This is evidence of life. by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      but a moth without balls is called a female moth.
      I take your point. At the time I wrote that, I was thinking of Ned Nederlander in 3 Amigos when a Tiger Moth flies overhead.
      [Dusty Bottoms and Lucky Day thinks Ned Nederlander is saying "mail" plane]

      Dusty Bottoms: What is it doing here?
      Ned Nederlander: I think it's a male plane.
      Dusty Bottoms: How can you tell?
      Ned Nederlander: Didn't you notice its little balls?

      And in case this needs explaining, the little balls he was referring to was the undercarriage of the Tiger Moth.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    10. Re:This is evidence of life. by winphreak · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new moth ov...

      Oh wait, they don't like the smell.

      --
      "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
    11. Re:This is evidence of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess, they are extremely excited about them too.
      Never seen a moth with balls, tho.

    12. Re:This is evidence of life. by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Throw down your guns!

      Not you, Dusty.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    13. Re:This is evidence of life. by db32 · · Score: 1

      That isn't true at all. It all depends on the previous relation of the balls and the moth. If the moth previously had balls, and now does not, that is eunich (or transexual).

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    14. Re:This is evidence of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the secret ingredient in the brownie recipe is?

    15. Re:This is evidence of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mothballs are exciting only to moths.

      A moth without balls is a eunuch.

      I would say that mothballs are extremely important to moths.

      This is Slashdot so I can see I need to explain something.

      I apologise for using a term you may be unfamiliar with, but a moth without balls is called a female moth.

      A moth without balls is a 'myth'.

    16. Re:This is evidence of life. by treeves · · Score: 1

      ...and URINAL PUCKS. Yay.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    17. Re:This is evidence of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a bridge to sell you for a grea price .. but it's on a star only 700 light years away .. i'll give you all a great deal on it.

  2. me no RTFA by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How exactly does one detect specific molecules, 700 light years away?

    1. Re:me no RTFA by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:me no RTFA by icegreentea · · Score: 4, Informative

      They found the absorption spectrum of the naphthalene cation in the light. \
      ""We have detected the presence of the naphthalene cation in a cloud of interstellar matter located 700 lightyears from the Earth", says IAC researcher Susana Iglesias Groth."

    3. Re:me no RTFA by Kagura · · Score: 0

      Nice try, but the farthest man-made objects, the Voyager spacecraft duo, have barely left the solar system, let alone fly a spectrometer 700 light years away! Hell, where do you think they would even plug it in?!

      Humor attempted, seems failed.

    4. Re:me no RTFA by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is a better link.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    5. Re:me no RTFA by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 1

      Probably based on some kind of spectral analysis.

      --
      Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
    6. Re:me no RTFA by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, in my hurry I was wrong again. These articles cover the astronomical uses of spectroscopy:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    7. Re:me no RTFA by omeomi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Humor attempted, seems failed.

      Indeed. I wasn't even sure if you were kidding...I was about to mention that Spectroscopy can be done just fine at a distance...

    8. Re:me no RTFA by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      How exactly does one detect specific molecules, 700 light years away?

      Using Google, of course

           

    9. Re:me no RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      With one of these.
         
      .
       
      .
       
      .
       
      times 1E17

    10. Re:me no RTFA by Kardos · · Score: 5, Funny
    11. Re:me no RTFA by Walkingshark · · Score: 0

      The biggest fucking microscope in the Universe. Where do you think all that Haliburton money went?

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    12. Re:me no RTFA by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1
      How exactly does one detect specific molecules, 700 light years away?

      With these.

      And these.

      Or maybe there are folks who live there and have

      this.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    13. Re:me no RTFA by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      By looking at the spectral bands and finding ones for the cation of it?

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    14. Re:me no RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, naphthalein. I thought they said "methamphetamine". Hey Billy-Bob, y'all kin stop buildin that rocketship now! Trip ain't worth it.

    15. Re:me no RTFA by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      They found the absorption spectrum of the naphthalene cation in the light.

      I don't like cats. Let me know when they find the naphthalene dogion in the light.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  3. Unbeknownst to many by Trails · · Score: 5, Interesting
    An early draft of Arthur C. Clarke's 2001:A Space Odyssey contained the line

    My God, it's full of mothballs

    which was changed during editing, but further reinforces the prescience of Mr. Clarke.

    1. Re:Unbeknownst to many by DrMrLordX · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess you could say the original draft of 2001: A Space Odyssey was mothballed? Hur hur!

    2. Re:Unbeknownst to many by belmolis · · Score: 3, Funny

      The next thing they'll find is that that region is where all the defunct spaceships are kept.

    3. Re:Unbeknownst to many by jbridge21 · · Score: 1
  4. Naphthalene who? by skeeto · · Score: 0

    Naphthalene Found In Outer Space

    Did they at least offer him a ride back home?

    1. Re:Naphthalene who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Napthalene Ned. Polythene Pam's other brother.

  5. No moths in outer space! by kybur · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always wondered why there were no moths in outer space. This explains everything!

    1. Re:No moths in outer space! by omeomi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I always wondered why there were no moths in outer space. This explains everything!

      I've always wondered why the elderly are so keen on mothballs. Were there more moths around 75 years ago?

    2. Re:No moths in outer space! by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've always wondered why the elderly are so keen on mothballs. Were there more moths around 75 years ago?

      Natural fibers are more susceptible to them than synthetics, which we use more of now.

    3. Re:No moths in outer space! by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Natural fibers are more susceptible to them than synthetics, which we use more of now.

      A plausible answer, but a wrong one. It's not just moths that are more scarce inside our homes, but other flying insects too. Few homes have fly paper hanging in various rooms anymore. And young people today panic if they get a bumblebee inside the house -- they simply don't know how to deal with it, because they almost never have to.

      The reason is simply that insects had an easier time flying through an open window or chimney than an air conditioner or electric/gas powered heater. The window screen is pretty new too -- even where available earlier, the windows were usually side-hinged and not sliding, and window screens had to be much bigger, and it was a hassle to add and remove them.

      These days, you only get large flying insects entering when a door is open.
      Cockroaches, ants and other crawling insects, you still get. And fruit flies, which people bring in with plants and produce.

    4. Re:No moths in outer space! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And fruit flies, which people bring in with plants and produce.

      Except fruit flies aren't actually attracted or related to fruit in any way. Believe me, I looked it up in my gut.

    5. Re:No moths in outer space! by Kagura · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say, "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.

      Also, I am AC.

    6. Re:No moths in outer space! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I've had wool clothes nibbled by moths, but never polyester.

    7. Re:No moths in outer space! by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I've had wool clothes nibbled by moths, but never polyester.

      Yes, but chances are that you don't have only synthetics. Not only clothes, but rugs, curtains and much else are made with fibers.

      Think of it this way: If you don't eat fish, and there's a smorgasboard in front of you where some plates are fish and some are meat, you're not going to starve. Not even if 3/4 of them are fish.

      In my house, there are almost no synthetics at all, due to allergies. Plenty of wool, though. But no moths. Because they don't gain entrance. The restaurant is closed.

    8. Re:No moths in outer space! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC stands for a crackhead in this case, I'm assuming?

    9. Re:No moths in outer space! by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but most of what you describe is not true for those homes I know, European homes that is. Most people I know don't use AC and open a window all the time unless it's freezing outside (or even then, though it's a terrible waste of energy). I hate sleeping with a closed window, in fact. And I don't know any city-dweller with a window screen...

      I still haven't got many insects in the house, except for an occasional (fruit or other) fly. Certainly never had a moth or a cockroach (gross!) or even an ant...

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    10. Re:No moths in outer space! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we can submit this dispute to Myth Busters for testing, eh?

    11. Re:No moths in outer space! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      You post on slashdot ... with a five figure user Id ... and you've had clothes that weren't polyester? Hand in your card!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:No moths in outer space! by kesuki · · Score: 1

      well, you see, here's the kicker, modern chemistry has gotten cheaper. farmers spray their crops to kill insects and fugal spores, a popular food of insects. this runs off into the fresh water stream, making that water have less fugal matter and fewer insects, furthermore many municipal governments spray for insects that carry dangerous disease like mosquitoes. this causes fewer insects to be born, not just mosquitoes and as a result bats, and some birds which are not sprayed for, get to eat their fill on a smaller and smaller crop of insects. also, modern cities have little or no green space, and most of that is sprayed, and there are few places where standing water can stand, since it's designed to flow away from the city to stop floods. and what little standing water is very close to asphalt which is loaded with deadly petrochemicals that kill just about anything trying to breed in the standing water.

      so yes, there are less bugs. when my parents were little anyone who drove at night time had to clean windshields every few miles, from all the moths and bugs they ran into. now drivers cuss if they run into a buggy area and fill their windshield with dead bugs.

      oh yeah, and as for bees/hornets etc... pollution has damaged their sense of smell, making them unable to smell for miles the way they used to, which has actually gotten so bad that there was a problem finding enough honey bees for agricultural pollination usage not too long back, or at least a scare, if not an actual shortage.

      i live in a small city, and the level of bugs here is minuscule compared to a small country town with a lot of swamps near by. they spray here, but out there they didn't spray for bugs it makes a huge difference, for instance i had a small gap in my AC foam that i didn't notice for 2 months, when i was in the small town, i noticed the very first night when my AC (wasn't using AC foam them) wasn't solid enough to block the bugs.

    13. Re:No moths in outer space! by Cragen · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. I just moved from Virginia to Stuttgart, Germany, where there are no screens (window or door) and air-conditioning is almost unheard of. Summers are short. (The old 2 Seasons joke - Winter and July - applies here.) They do have bugs here, but not, thankfully, like they do back home. Windows open most of the time here, except when it is frigid cold. Interesting how different cultures work.

  6. Spiffy spacesuits by dominique_cimafranca · · Score: 1

    Great! That means our spacesuits will always be free from molds.

    1. Re:Spiffy spacesuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not moUlds. They'll be free of moUths.

    2. Re:Spiffy spacesuits by popesnarky · · Score: 1

      Hail Eris!

      I really get why you choose to be anonymous.

      --
      All Hail Discordia!
      Snarky
      "To have too much and not enough is like a boat person with sideburns."
  7. "It came from outer space" by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    That's just Chinese milk processors' excuse for Naphthalene in the milk.

  8. Another win for panspermia theory by symbolset · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Literally "the origin of life is everywhere," panspermia theory posits that the seeds life exist all over the universe. A related but separate theory called "exogenesis" posits that life began somewhere other than Earth and was delivered here.

    We've observed vast clouds of organic material far larger than our galaxy in the reaches of space. Now we've discovered prebiotic chemicals there. It's not that much of a stretch to guess that life-as-we-know-it is not uncommon. Intelligence (such as it is?) may be less common. Given the vastness of space and time it's not unreasonable to hope that we're not alone.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Another win for panspermia theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You sound like the type of person that's just ITCHING for the opportunity to say "panspermia" to a girl on a date.

      (Don't.)

    2. Re:Another win for panspermia theory by symbolset · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dewd. The girls that eat up panspermia are teh hawtness.

      Now escape mom's basement, k?

      /Some elements of post may be parent specific.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    3. Re:Another win for panspermia theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To hope?

    4. Re:Another win for panspermia theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, you have to fry it up for them now? I'm soooo out of touch with the young generation!

    5. Re:Another win for panspermia theory by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dewd. The girls that eat up panspermia are teh hawtness.

      Eww, I hope that's not the part specific to your parents. TMI.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    6. Re:Another win for panspermia theory by six025 · · Score: 1

      If we were able to identify a pattern of distribution of various organic materials throughout different galaxies, we might discover that galaxies can be classed as male or female (or similar).

      Meaning, when two galaxies collide they are effectively mating which if successful, based on the available organic materials, seeds or at least primes the newly combined galaxy for the formation of life.

      I am aware that the Milky Way is on a collision course with Andromeda galaxy some time off in the future (!!!) but perhaps there was a collision in the past. Has this possibility been ruled out by astronomers / astrophysicists?

      Peace,
      Andy.

    7. Re:Another win for panspermia theory by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      > It's not that much of a stretch to guess that life-as-we-know-it is not uncommon

      Yes it is. It's like saying that Mars has molecules on is surface, brains have molecules inside, therefore there must be intelligent life on Mars. Organic molecules are trivial things compared to organisms. Don't get confused because they both start with o-r-g.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  9. OIL! by sanman2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Time to invade

    1. Re:OIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      massive oil dude!?

    2. Re:OIL! by linumax · · Score: 5, Funny

      Time to invade

      Time to Liberate(TM).

    3. Re:OIL! by Vetrik · · Score: 0

      Time to be Ignorant! Oh wait...

    4. Re:OIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Correcting somebody on the internet? Gasp! Why, you must be a grammar nazi! I am shocked and appalled!

        If there's any gasoline in your garage, then I am gonna liberate the shit outta you.

    5. Re:OIL! by Lord+Lode · · Score: 4, Funny

      Woot, just 1400 years of flying there and back and it's all ours on Earth!

    6. Re:OIL! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      We are liberating a sneeze?
      Yes!
      Why?
      Our cars can run on Sneezes!
      Get Cheney back here!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    7. Re:OIL! by bluecrux · · Score: 1

      Of course it would only take that long. We can totally fly at the speed of light.

      --
      "As near as I can figure, the shit is supposed to hit the fan!" -Richard K. Feynmann
    8. Re:OIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the presidential cheat-sheet:
        Suspicion of communism = invade
        Suspicion of oil = liberate

      - Peder

  10. Misread that one by Cylix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At first I thought it said Neanderthal.

    This would be so much cooler then Naphtalene.

    My first thought was something along these lines.

    Exactly how did he get out there?

    I suspected it was a crude version of this... http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002387.html

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    1. Re:Misread that one by game+kid · · Score: 1

      ...or an overly-successful mate toss.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  11. There's a giant cloud of Naptha in space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So? All that means is that somewhere out there, in the deep regions of space, someone FINALLY had the decency to blow up a Walmart.

  12. isn't that the stuff they use in mothballs? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    so some idiot doesn't know moths can't survive in space

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:isn't that the stuff they use in mothballs? by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      Of course they can't.

      And now we know why!!

  13. So... by baby_robots · · Score: 1

    Space has been mathballed?

  14. simple molecule by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Informative

    napthalene is a simple aromatic hydrocarbon, basically one benzene ring fused with another. molecular formula C10H8. hydrocarbons can be cracked under certain conditions to produce various aromatic hydrocarbons so finding it in space could be fairly common if there are hydrocarbons near a source capable of cracking them.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:simple molecule by symbolset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      napthalene is a simple aromatic hydrocarbon, basically one benzene ring fused with another. molecular formula C10H8. hydrocarbons can be cracked under certain conditions to produce various aromatic hydrocarbons so finding it in space could be fairly common if there are hydrocarbons near a source capable of cracking them.

      Great. Now you need to explain why by accident vast quantities of the organic material hydrocarbons were converted to napthalene in sufficient quantity to be detected at a range of 400 lightyears, and then explain how this event is locally unique so that it didn't happen in every corner of the universe. Good luck with that. May I offer you a noodle? You need only let it touch you to feel its effects.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:simple molecule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great. Now you need to explain why by accident vast quantities of the organic material hydrocarbons were converted to napthalene in sufficient quantity to be detected at a range of 400 lightyears, and then explain how this event is locally unique so that it didn't happen in every corner of the universe. Good luck with that. May I offer you a noodle? You need only let it touch you to feel its effects.

      TFA implies it did happen in every corner of the universe.
       
      Aromatic hydrocarbons tend to be much more thermodynamically stable than nonaromatic hydrocarbons, so it's not really a surprise (to me) that they've been detected. Show me a cloud of straight-chain hdrocarbons with comparable molecular weights, and I'll be uch more impressed.

    3. Re:simple molecule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Organic chemistry describes the chemistry of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and a few more elements. Since carbon and hydrogen is present in space it appears likely that organic molecules are formed. Nothing more magical about that than inorganic molecules forming in space. The step from - in this case - napthalene to living organisms is not to be underestimated and in my mind this reports adds very little further weight to the panspermia theory.

      In my mind the recent news that simple living organisms - water bears http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade - can survive a journey in space and come back to life when conditions permit adds much more weight to the panspemia theory.
      http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14690-water-bears-are-first-animal-to-survive-in-space.html

    4. Re:simple molecule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like dark matter rhetoric always blaming the crackers.

    5. Re:simple molecule by ardle · · Score: 1

      Maybe aromatic hydrocarbons + some thermodynamic cycle -> straight-chain hydrocarbons? I've forgotten most of my chemistry...

    6. Re:simple molecule by Trull · · Score: 1

      Nice FSM reference

      I'll change into my Pirate Costume now then shall I?

      --
      -- NSY - SY OOT - Doric signs on local shop doors.
    7. Re:simple molecule by Biff+Stu · · Score: 1

      Great. Now you need to explain why by accident vast quantities of the organic material hydrocarbons were converted to napthalene in sufficient quantity to be detected at a range of 400 lightyears, and then explain how this event is locally unique so that it didn't happen in every corner of the universe.

      OK. I'll have a go at it.

      The theory is that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are end-of-the-food-chain survivors in the photochemistry that is thought to occur in certain types of nebulae where interstellar dust clouds are illuminated by hot stars. If a nearby star is hot enough, it's spectrum will extend deep into the UV, and it will generate a considerable flux of high energy photons. Some organic molecules will efficiently fluoresce when excited into specific states following absorption of UV photons within certain energy ranges. When these molecules fluoresce, most of the energy goes away. However, if fluorescence doesn't occur, all the energy from photon will eventually end up in the ground electronic state, heating the molecule vibrationally. In space, the molecules can only cool through IR radiation and this is slow. In many cases, the molecule will dissociate before it can cool through radiation of IR photons.

      PAHs are unique because they are robust and large. Every carbon atom has multiple carbon-carbon bonds. Even if the photon energy is sufficient to break one or two of these bonds, the molecule won't fall apart. (If it looses an H atom, that's OK. It will find another one since hydrogen is the most abundant thing out there.)

      Finally, these UV photons can also ionize these molecules, which is potentially a good thing for helping them grow. With the low densities in these clouds, random collisions are infrequent, and the charge can increase the cross-section leading to more collisions with uncharged species such as H, H2, and C2. It's been a while since I have studied this stuff, but there's probably at least one dissertation out there covering the balance between ion-molecule reaction rates leading to PAH formation and the photodissociation rates in nebulae with nearby hot stars.

  15. new discovery by Moblaster · · Score: 0

    Mothballs in spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace!

  16. I didn't know anybody lost it by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    nuf sed

  17. I don't believe it! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Moths don't actually have balls! And they can't survive in vacuum!

    This must be a mistake.

    1. Re:I don't believe it! by ufoolme · · Score: 4, Funny

      You obversely haven't played spore.

    2. Re:I don't believe it! by NotmyNick · · Score: 1

      You obversely haven't played spore.

      That would actually make sense with the addition of a single comma. On the face of it anyways.

      --
      Notmysig
    3. Re:I don't believe it! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Haha. Very good.

  18. deserves a tag by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

    This article deserves a "mothballs" tag. :)

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  19. abiogenesis is cool! by purpleraison · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those not familiar with the field of abiogenesis, it is a truly remarkable field of study. The search for the first origin of life on our planet, or rather when organic matter achieved 'life' as we understand it.

    I find it quite interesting personally, how the primordial sludge brewed into our very first ancestor.

    Excelsior!!

    --
    I am open source, and Linux baby!
    1. Re:abiogenesis is cool! by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Good video explaination of abiogensis, from the museum of science. No gods, no aliens, no impossible improbability, no fungus covered comets, no lightning striking mud puddles, just chemistry and physics! Nice soundtrack too....enjoy!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:abiogenesis is cool! by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

      Though the whole point of this thread is that life didn't emerge from the 'primordial soup' (unlikely event) but emerged out amongst infinite fields of complex hydrocarbon (almost infinitely more likely). Considering the sheer amount of space & time proposed by the exogenesis theory, and lack of any experiment evidence and improbability of life emerging here. It make a lot more sense that the origins of basic organic molecular life are in space.

    3. Re:abiogenesis is cool! by johanatan · · Score: 1
      There's a couple problems with that:
      • Vesicles seem a little more organized than have arisen by chance (and I'm no chemist or microbiologist so I could be wrong about this, but lipids themselves seem to be fairly complex molecules).
      • Nothing about the animations of nucleotide polymers indicated any self-replication. [That's quite a gap to just gloss over like that]. Self-replication is more than just 'growing' by assimilating new monomers. Self-replication requires nearly verbatim information preservation between generations.
    4. Re:abiogenesis is cool! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes lipids are complex AND they arise spontaneously in nature all the time (IANAC/MB either).
      It's a given that many details will be "glossed over" in a 10 minute introduction. Having said that, I thought the video did a good job of addressing your second point by pointing out that proto-cells do not need the complexity of modern cells. A proto-self-replicator can make millions of "duds" but it will still be "successfull" as long as it makes just ONE non-dud.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:abiogenesis is cool! by johanatan · · Score: 1

      Yea, but one of these primitive types which simply eats monomers at a very high rate will 'dominate' the primitive type that you happen on by chance because, though it can self-replicate, it is not as big as the others (let's call them binge eaters).

      And, if you think that self-replication is easy to come by, you should take a look at what von Neuman came up with in the unrestricted world of mathematics (an entirely intellectual environment unrestrained by the laws of physics). The minimal machine he came up with has something like 200-300 moving parts (there are several variables though--width of instruction set being the most important I would presume).

      Anyways, I'm sure the numbers could be crunched to find out just how many iterations it would take (and I'm betting the number is astronomical), but the simple fact remains that a brute-force [i.e., dumb] eater is going to dominate the intelligent self-replicator [at least until such time as the self-replicator can also be a brute-force eater].

    6. Re:abiogenesis is cool! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Coincidently, mathematical self-replication was the thing that first got me interested in programming back in the 80's. Had Von Neuman been alive in 1970 I am sure he would have dropped his complicated replicator and tipped his hat to Conway's elegant answer to the problem.

      It would be just an educated guess if I tried to answer your "big-eater" objection, but if you have a better theory than abiogenisis - I'm all ears.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:abiogenesis is cool! by johanatan · · Score: 1

      Coincidently, mathematical self-replication was the thing that first got me interested in programming back in the 80's. Had Von Neuman been alive in 1970 I am sure he would have dropped his complicated replicator and tipped his hat to Conway's elegant answer to the problem.

      It would be just an educated guess if I tried to answer your "big-eater" objection, but if you have a better theory than abiogenisis - I'm all ears.

      The problem with Conway (and even von Neuman) though is that their artificial environments are overly simplified.

      I do think there's enough specified complexity in 'life' to allow for the appropriate numbers to be crunched to determine the required amount of time for it to have evolved. Obviously, if that number is greater than even the most liberal estimates of the universe's age, then mainstream science should reconsider. I also think that design should not be excluded a priori with respect to the origin of life when it is a perfectly valid explanation in other fields (cryptography, forensics, etc).

      If you bring the multiverse into play at this point, then yes mathematically speaking, it becomes much more possible (it's essentially bringing another degree of aleph [or infinity] into play). However, I still think that's quite a stretch (per Occam's razor) when there's a much more obvious answer (though personal beliefs and preconceptions can get in the way of seeing the obvious sometimes).

  20. I don't understand by Nimey · · Score: 1

    moths don't have balls?

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:I don't understand by lrbays · · Score: 2, Funny

      It doesn't make a bit of difference, guys. The balls are inert.

  21. The reason why this is important by spineboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Napthalene is a conjugated benzene ring compound. This then somewhat shows that complex ring compounds can be made in space. If these, then, can be made, then the jump to the DNA bases, and amino acid bases is not too far away.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:The reason why this is important by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps, then, the Star Trek vision of the future, where all life forms are similar, could be correct, at least to the extent that they're all DNA and carbon based? Also, wouldn't this push the chances of life evolving on a suitable planet close to 100%?

    2. Re:The reason why this is important by Kagura · · Score: 4, Funny

      The chance of life evolving on a suitable planet is already 100%. ;)

    3. Re:The reason why this is important by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless I'm misreading your comment, you're mistaking observed rate for overall chance.

    4. Re:The reason why this is important by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Silicone based lifeforms in ST.org is a bit different.
      ST2 had intelligent microbial lifeforms.
      Which ST are you talking about?

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    5. Re:The reason why this is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If alien life is organic, what are the odds we can breed with them? If we can, I'll volunteer first for a piece of space ass!

    6. Re:The reason why this is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless I'm misreading your comment, you're mistaking observed rate for overall chance.

      No, it all depends how you define "suitable" :)

    7. Re:The reason why this is important by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, but what's the chance of intelligent life evolving?

    8. Re:The reason why this is important by JaumPaw · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now, now, no need to be cynical.

    9. Re:The reason why this is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Now if only we could prove INTELLIGENT life could form on a suitable planet we'd be set.

    10. Re:The reason why this is important by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Funny

      Star Trek had silicon-based lifeforms. Silicone-based lifeforms are a bit more like this.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    11. Re:The reason why this is important by Whiteox · · Score: 1
      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    12. Re:The reason why this is important by David+Gerard · · Score: 2, Funny

      That was the sixties! The breasts were real then!

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    13. Re:The reason why this is important by WgT2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A PhD in Biology once posed this to me:

      Suppose you can get all the ingredients for live together in one 'soup' but how do you 'accidently' get a lipid membrane to surround it?

      Thus, it won't matter whether the primordial soup ever existed until it can be shown that said soup could become surrounded by a hydrophobic membrane on its own.

    14. Re:The reason why this is important by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      If it hasn't happened yet, how do you assign chance?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    15. Re:The reason why this is important by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Is that an empirical statement? I suppose you have hands on experience about that?

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    16. Re:The reason why this is important by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      If alien life is organic, what are the odds we can breed with them?

      An alien life form is unlikely to be remotely similar in form or biology to a human. You've probably got a better shot at breeding with an ear of corn than an alien life form.

    17. Re:The reason why this is important by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      The membranes are required for more advanced cells, but look at the components of our cells... most biologists I know believe that the things like the mitochondria, etc. just got "trapped" together in a membrane. Besides, if the lipids exist, they're hydrophobic in and of themselves, and will form into spheres automatically. And then there are conjectures about mechanisms like viruses and such (they don't have any lipid membranes) modifying the cells themselves. There's no magic random chemicals->life step. But there are a number of plausible paths that it could have taken. And it only takes one to survive and start dividing.

    18. Re:The reason why this is important by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i think i saw this discussed in a TV program or documentary. if i remember correctly, there are already labs working on this problem. i think one university researcher has even successfully created such hydrophobic membranes using basic chemical reactions that could spontaneously occur under the right conditions.

      obviously there are many different pieces of the puzzle that need to be solved, but the discovery of Naphthalene in space, like the lipid membrane problem, are just one more key element that we've gotten out of the way.

      i mean, without the primordial soup, the hydrophobic membrane would not matter either. so it doesn't make sense to dismiss this just because there are still other important issues. otherwise we'd never learn anything unless all of the pieces suddenly materialized all at once.

    19. Re:The reason why this is important by WgT2 · · Score: 1

      It's not a dismissal of 'the soup' it's a redirection to a very important requirement to life as we know it.

      But, I'm very skeptical of someone telling me that they KNOW a complex molecule (or, I would hope, a lot there of) exits 4,200 trillion miles away because the light that took 700 years to get to us is pristine and unaffected by any thing between us and there produces a particular result we were looking for.

      And I say that they are 'looking' for a particular result because they don't even claim to have proof: only that it 'could' be what they THINK it is.

      This is worse than the Catholic Church.

    20. Re:The reason why this is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed:
      It is not that suitable planets grow on trees, its that somehow the need for a tree must be established in order to bring about the eventual ocurance of WHAT?
          This IS the only problem I have with the THEORY, YES, STILL A THEORY of evolution.
          For all other Theories, that became laws, The LAWS of Thermodynamics, The LAWS of Physics, The LAW of Gravity, the LAW of Relativity etc., we are describing FOUNDATIONAL processes and precepts that predate all other fundamental systems, these LAWS ARE the basis and most basic
      expression of natures rules and we have to build atom smashers like the LHC to get to their eventual meaning- fine-we do NOT know everything about the laws, but they have been subject to scientific process and have not as yet been proven wrong in the known Universe-but-we keep looking.
      EVOLUTION has the vague appeal to the angry sense: It has become the throne of science BUT who gave it the crown,...???
          Adaptive evolution, genetic defect or anomaly, species differentiation that would and did normally occur, and mutation have been merged to justify a thing called evolution. A bird supposedly 10 MILLION years old that had hairy legs, could NOT have been a hairy legged bird ( and, the people who find these things always show ONLY ONE- as if this thing was the beginning and got killed crossing the street to get to the girly-hairy-legged-birds, and the whole species went into mourning until they cried to death!)no it was trying to become a mammal OR it was a mamma-to-bird wannabe.
          Many people want to just squeeze any concept of design out of the discussion, but, when one asks "..what is evolution's point..." seeing as it took and takes billions of years to make the first cell, the fossil record needed millions of years of bones to make the creatures we think evolved into something else. The plodding lethargy+lack of timely adaptability would have decreed death to all life on this planet after ANY calamity! It all HAD to be faster and more ROBUST than our 'theory' says. This is Especially true if the objective was to make' the man-super beast!
          Life on other planets- that is okay- evolution everywhere doing the SAME THING under the influence of mothballs, hummm?!?
          Evolution, just may not be what we think we want it to be!

    21. Re:The reason why this is important by canuck57 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, then, the Star Trek vision of the future, where all life forms are similar, could be correct, at least to the extent that they're all DNA and carbon based? Also, wouldn't this push the chances of life evolving on a suitable planet close to 100%?

      Did you know what you said is profoundly intelligent but less than 2% of the people on this planet have a concept of what you said?

      There is life out there boys and girls. Why are we wasting time here with stupid conventional armies fighting a cultural war when we could be out there finding it? I would so much like to be alive and be a witness to first contact.

    22. Re:The reason why this is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but what's the chance of intelligent life evolving?

      MOTHBALL PAAARRRRRTTTTTAAAYYYYY

    23. Re:The reason why this is important by popesnarky · · Score: 1

      Hail Eris!

      There's always a need to be cynical. Good for a laugh, at least.

      --
      All Hail Discordia!
      Snarky
      "To have too much and not enough is like a boat person with sideburns."
    24. Re:The reason why this is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In an environment where molecular oxygen is scarce, oxidative damage to nucleotide polymers (and the daughter products they encode) is low-risk. Encapsulation into cells is therefore not necessary on the early Earth. It is entirely possible that there were quite a few free protein-complex species floating about before the Oxygen Catastrophe, although the presence of encapsulated species is what is preserved in the fossil record to our level of access.

      Membrane encapsulation is useful for mobility and other uses of deliberate against-the-grade energy expenditure; essentially all the various somal bodies in eukaryotes enable the concentration of scarce materials into workable amounts. Where this favours the production of viable offspring, the trait is conserved.

      However, even today most Archaeans lack membrane-bound organelles, substituting features which are cheaper to compose and sufficiently effective to work at the concentrations available in the cytosol. Given that the gradients of various materials between the cytosol and the native environment of Archaeans is very small, it is entirely possible that only weakly, partially or un- encapsulated varieties might still be found in some O2-poor environments on (in...) Earth, where pH parturition is not a strong requirement for reproduction and efflux is unnecessary. A discovery of any of these would validate some hypotheses about the biome before the Oxygen Catastrophe.

      Finally, as someone else has noted, there are reasonable (and testable) abiogenesis hypotheses with the expectation that water surface action can lead to lipoprotein bubble formation independent of life; some of these formation models are amenable to natural selection, particularly in the presence of protein and sugar "contamination" that would accompany unencapsulated metabolism. (Fernando & Rowe did so in Journal of Theoretical Biology and Biosystems; Segré et al.'s 1999 Lipid World is more famous).

      There is a lot of work in this area in computational evolutionary biology; the "abiogenesis layer" of the Earth had a huge volume and a long history, which means the upper bounds on complexity is very high. This "4-volume" also may have narrowed and expanded through earlier and less successful catastrophes caused (and exploited) by the efficient electron transport chains analogous to those we see in O2-producing photosynthesizers (chloroplasts et al). The space for experiments in obligate anaerobic biochemistries is only now clearly very small (it is not time-bounded though).

    25. Re:The reason why this is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just hope they havent been slashdotted yet ...

    26. Re:The reason why this is important by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Woooshhh.

      Bonus points, though, for fooling the moderators into modding you as "insightful" just because you used technical sounding terminology.

    27. Re:The reason why this is important by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Star Trek's silicon-based life forms looked like this.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    28. Re:The reason why this is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points, you would be getting a Flamebait right now. You obviously know less than epsilon about mass spectroscopy, if you think that somehow random cosmic dust in between Earth and the observed site could somehow nudge the spectral lines so that they were in the exact frequencies that correspond to naphthalene. Hint: it is less likely than the odds of you being an Obama supporter.

    29. Re:The reason why this is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chance of life evolving on a suitable planet is already 100%. ;)

      Brilliant comment!

    30. Re:The reason why this is important by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      Well, we'd also have to figure out how to get to said suitable planet, 'cause it sure ain't this one.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    31. Re:The reason why this is important by WgT2 · · Score: 1

      As soon as you mentioned 'the Oxygen Catastrophe' I chalked up the rest of your post as a work of fiction.

      Sorry that's so harsh but I'm not spending my time on it.

    32. Re:The reason why this is important by WgT2 · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article or the /. summary?

      I ask because the article makes it clear that they 'think' it is naphthalene but that it's not enough to state that it is conclusive.

      If 'thinking' is enough to be conclusive then what they think is no better than institutionalized, dead religion.

    33. Re:The reason why this is important by treeves · · Score: 1

      Drake equation, or just guess.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  22. ummmm /confused by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 0

    we have just recently developed the technology to detect planets, and most of them are "too big" relative to earth...

    yet we can detect microbes 700 light years away?

    hmmmmmm

    --
    sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
    1. Re:ummmm /confused by usul294 · · Score: 4, Informative

      When a electron leaves an excited state it emits a photon. Every element and molecule has a unique set of frequencies for these transfers. So by looking at the light coming off of it, you can figure out whats in it. Its called spectroscopy. If in high school chemistry you ever burned chemicals and used a cardboard thing over your eye to see lines, you've got the basic idea.

    2. Re:ummmm /confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you don't know the difference between microbes and molecules, you should probably go read some science books.

    3. Re:ummmm /confused by pavium · · Score: 0

      It would have been a lot more informative with a better description than "a cardboard thing over your eye"

    4. Re:ummmm /confused by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 2, Funny

      When a electron leaves an excited state it emits a photon.

      Thus explaining the origin of photon-crusted socks in the hamper.

  23. another alternative answer would be by louden+obscure · · Score: 1

    termites.

    --
    Serenity now, insanity later.
  24. slashdots gettin old.... by gearloos · · Score: 1

    submit a story... yawn.....

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  25. E.T. Run Away by berenixium · · Score: 0

    I don't think we should discover life in solar systems outside our own. We'll only go over there eventually and ruin everything for them (like here).

  26. Naphthalene in space. by pjy · · Score: 1

    And that shows why there aren't any moths in space.

  27. Naphthalene Found by alxkit · · Score: 0

    so alies all had arthritis? or was it tendonitis? if they found naphthalene, are there any remnants of burning bushes? cuz that would be totally AWSOME.

  28. Hi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hi :)

  29. You had to invoke by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Pandora.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  30. Would it really be that hard? by tjstork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While the production of naphthalene is rare, I doubt it is unique. They are only looking 700 light years out.

    You figure that there's some set mixing, temperature and pressure that coupled with the right raw materials, kicks out different kinds of organic chemicals. Park the right cloud of raw good next to the right kind of star and in the right kind of gravity area, and, it seems reasonable that all sorts of organics might be found eventually all over the universe.

    For all we know, our solar system just whipped right through a cloud of stellar cooked organics, and we practically just have life rained down on our little world.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Would it really be that hard? by symbolset · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For all we know, our solar system just whipped right through a cloud of stellar cooked organics, and we practically just have life rained down on our little world.

      And since all the stars we can closely observe have planets, to expect that the star that went supernova and gave us all the elements above Iron did not also have them is perhaps silly.

      So... Is the "stuff of life" common or not? Further study is needed and is under way. We may discover in the Oort cloud the seeds of life. If we do, that should lay the question to rest.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:Would it really be that hard? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0, Troll

      You dumbass, stop with the science. We all know you want to say that Jesus did it.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:Would it really be that hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You heathen! The FSM did it! Jesus is a false god.

    4. Re:Would it really be that hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christian de Duve wrote a book called Vital Dust that outlines the theoretical pathways from prebiotic chemistry to organic life. He won a nobel prize. The book is extremely dense, but highly provocative. It made me cry.

      Somehow, in learning about electron transfer chains, I read something pretty kinky between the lines.

      Its seriously a must-read if you care about these things.

  31. no moths by overcaffein8d · · Score: 0, Redundant

    at least we know that there aren't moths up there

    --
    Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
  32. Eega Beeva! by Neoncat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This just proofs that Eega Beeva is out there, somewhere...

  33. OMG, they're here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our napthalene-spawned extraterrestrial overlords! Even if they are anonymous and cowardly!

    1. Re:OMG, they're here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are not anonymous and cowardly. Our names have no translations in your language, and your phonetic ability is too inferior to pronounce them.

  34. To hope? by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Second response

    Perhaps you're right. "To hope" ignores that you should be careful what you wish for.

    Maybe "To expect" is a better term.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  35. Zippo fuel by ichbineinneuben · · Score: 1

    I'm relieved to know that even in deep space, I'll find fuel for my Zippo.

  36. oh great - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just what we need! Space Termites.

  37. Again? by DynaSoar · · Score: 3, Informative

    The same observatory reported the same thing 15 years ago: www.iac.es/folleto/research/preprints/files/PP08019.pdf

    "And we're going to KEEP discovering it until you get it right!"

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  38. Pournelle's church explanation by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Newer technologies in telescopes determined that the Mote in God's Eye is in fact the Moth in God's Eye,

    All the naphthalene out there are there because God's will, to see if can get rid of that pest.

  39. that explains it by zoid.com · · Score: 2, Funny

    I knew I smelled something...

  40. I'm not sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I think the original post may have intentionally, but satirically mocked and nullified the significance of the discovery... I mean look at the paraphrase of the blog:

    "organic molecules necessary for life as we know it could have been present when our own solar system formed..."

    So, I will continue the satire by saying this: Wait a minute, you mean to tell me that there's a reason earth has life on it? And all this time I figured it was a combination of magic and living in geocentric solar system where the sun is our bitch.

  41. Sounds like an alien race...so by sigzero · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new Naphthalene overlords.

  42. How can they be so sure it's naphthalene? by houbou · · Score: 1

    That's pretty far from here, no probes, nothing, so, how can they be so sure that it is naphathalene to begin with? That's a lot of mothballs, I tell ya, no insects there uh? :)

  43. who cares about napthalene? by krystar · · Score: 1

    Let me know when they find some naquadah so I know when to start designing my own stargate.

  44. From Iraq to Mars by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Not to defend the Iraq war (a major exercise in self-delusion) but note that it's cost us $500 billion so far. That much money is beyond any normal person's imagination, and sounds like it could buy anything. But compare it to the Apollo program, which cost about $150 billion in 2008 dollars.

    I suppose that if we had three times the Apollo program, we could do a Mars equivalent, that would put a few people on the Martian service for a few days and bring them home. But what's the point? You can do a few things that you couldn't do with automated probes, but is that worth a half-trillion?

    People talk about all the positive things we got from the Apollo program. But its biggest effect was the convince politicians and taxpayers that manned space travel is money pit of astronomical proportions. Repeating Apollo with an even more expensive target would be a major mistake.

    If you find a half trillion dollars under your seat cushions and decide to use it to conquer space, please don't spend it on a silly trip to Mars. Spend it on technology that will further a permanent human presence in space, and give private entities some hope that serious space colonization will pay big bucks. That means boring stuff, like reusable vehicles that don't cost a billion dollars per launch.

  45. Startrek was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soo startrek was right then, all advance cultures speak English and NAZI ideologies dominate the universe ?!?!?

    Space capitans are lonely, poorly understood, and over sexed ?!?!?

    All super advanced aliens like to put Humans in their zoos ?!?!?!

    1. Re:Startrek was right by popesnarky · · Score: 1

      Soo startrek was right then, all advance cultures speak English and NAZI ideologies dominate the universe ?!?!?

      Hail Eris!

      No. Watch out for Daleks.

      --
      All Hail Discordia!
      Snarky
      "To have too much and not enough is like a boat person with sideburns."
  46. Space smells like mothballs? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    Now I know why aliens wear wool.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  47. Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock smoking twitter!