Slashdot Mirror
More Water Out There — Ice Found On an Asteroid
Matt_dk writes "For the first time, astronomers have confirmed that an asteroid contains frozen water on its surface. Analysis of asteroid 24 Themis shows evidence of water ice along with organic compounds widespread across the surface. The scientists say these new findings support the theory that asteroids brought both water and organic compounds to the early Earth, helping lay the foundation for life on the planet."
And it makes me wonder where we were looking a few years back.
Where did all that water come from originally if we were "seeded" by meteors and such?
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
Farts contain water and organic material, too.
God wears a gown, you moron. Those farts aren't going anywhere.
There is no scientific evidence that the universe resides in outer gown space.
And anyways, Barak Obama is getting world peace price and you are nitpicking about gown-theoretic questions ? Is there any connection ?
The Augustine commission reporting to President Obama recommended that we skip LANDING on the Moon and Mars and instead consider progressively deeper space voyages (first to L1 earth moon point, then perhaps L2 earth sun point, then Mars flyby/orbit or asteroid visits). For example astronauts in Mars orbit could send robotic probes to land on Mars which could be much more effective without the 10 minute time lag to earth. (Can you say telepresence?). Visiting comets and asteroids would be a major goal not just for scientific knowledge (and the knowledge as to how to eventually prevent them from hitting us) but ultimately in-situ resource exploitation.
They feel that this approach would lead to "the most steady cadence of steady improvement." and keep us from inconsistent achievements in space (like not leaving earth orbit for 40 years!). Some would say that this approach would be lacking in the photo-ops necessary to maintain interest in the space program (no footprints on Martian soil) but I think there would be plenty of cool vistas (rendezvous with a comet or even orbiting one of the moons of Jupiter assuming they figure out radiation shielding) to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing. The science return would be much greater because it would hopefully utilize both man and machine at their best (robots on one way trips down a gravity well while the humans provide the intuition and flexibility from orbit). If you can figure out radiation shielding and bone loss from zero-g, we could go just about anywhere in the solar system (with a good ion drive and nuclear power plant). Now with the presence of water confirmed on at least (some) of these smaller bodies, they could stay there for long periods of time.
...evidence of water ice along with organic compounds...
Chilled beer, anyone?
Smivs on the intertubes!
String theory is part of this gown theory, i guess.
In his 200X books, Arthur C Clarke suggested that China would do space travel on the cheap. But he always had to imagine a (nonexistent) nuclear drive to overcome the energetic considerations of getting to Mars and beyond.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Water and organic material scattered across the universe happens when God sneezes.
God bless you!
You mean when the Great Nose sneased??
Regards,
Humma Kavula
Call me again when it's raining beer.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
... then so would earth when it formed so why do we need to look to the asteroids to "seed" this planet with water? All the solar system bodies apparently condensed from the same dust cloud so I don't see this need to discover where earths water came from. It was already here , albeit probably as steam.
Let's not get overwashed with this - water is just one thing that we need for life. Other things are just as equally important. Not least a stable temperature that is condusive to growth. Things like the moon can be ruled out becasue of the large differences in temperature due to the lack of atmposphere. As the poster above says, with the new ion rockets that are available, we should be looking for deeper space planets that are more likely to be able to host life because of their constant temperature (where water is actually water and not ice or steam or whichever other state it can be in).
Nuclear propulsion can easily move us to the furthest points of our Solar System with ease. Gravity produced by rotation can solve the bone loss problems. A Nuclear energy source can also provide enough power to build an electromagnetic shield around the spacecraft (make the spacecraft a large dynamo, just like Earth) and enough power for smaller craft that can be used for landing to planets.
It would cost a lot to build such a big spaceship, and it could only be built in space, but there is no alternative, really. Such a ship would allow mankind to go near each and every solar system body and also land in Mars and other rocky planets.
Although it's an important discovery, the real importance lies on finding water on objects that we may one day need to live on. We're never going to set up facilities on an asteroid. But on a moon we certainly could, and finding water ice there would be significantly more revelatory.
Only g-string theory.
I think we can stop looking for water now.
Seeking more water. Water equals fuel, right? The livestream should be here
It has nothing to do with the 'usual hippies' and everything to do with the '63 Partial Test Ban Treaty. It's against the law until we re-write, ratify that treaty.
I get hating 'the other guy' but try to hate them for things they've actually done rather than irrationally applying every perceived slight to them.
All this "we found water out there" news along with those "NASA budget cuts" and the "no space minning so soon" ones suggests me that we (cool people that would love to see another space race) should secretly start a worldwide campaing to render unusable all water here.. (Or maybe someone already started..)
NASA has been focusing on searching for signs of extraterrestrial life for some time now.
I don't think we should be focusing on that at this point in human development. I think our resources would be better spent in efforts to explore and colonize space. The only chance for the long term survival of the human species is for us to get off this rock. It's not if Earth is going to face an ELE (extinction level event) but when.
We raced to our moon and then abandon it when we got there! I hope NASA follows through with their plans to establish a moon base. This seems like an obvious first step in humanities efforts to establish a human presence beyond our home planet.
We have done a thorough enough exploration to know that there is no intelligent life within our reach with of our current state of technological development. I don't see why it so important to see if we can find some bacteria hidden away on Mars. Especially when I'm sure there is since such basic life forms likely traveled there from Earth hitchhiking on the many landers and rovers we have sent to the surface of mars not to mention all the probes and satellites we have crashed into it. Finding proof of microbial life on an extraterrestrial body is not going to make me feel any less alone in the universe.
Plus, don't you think that it is a little closed minded and very much arrogant for us to assume that since we require water for life that any life beyond Earth would also depend on it? There could be an alien civilization that is aware of our presence but who avoids entering our solar system because our planet is covered in H2O, the most poisonous element in the Universe (because all kinds of microbial life thrives in it!). I would hope that if we did find life of any level it would be like what Bones on Star Trek said "It's life Jim, but not as we know it!" Now, that would be interesting.
Instead of spending billions of dollars to remotely search for microbial life on Mars wouldn't it be more productive to try bombarding the surface of Mars with microbial life from Earth that thrives in similar harsh environments on Earth? Or even engineering such lifeforms to not only survive on the surface of Mars but also start the process that would allow us to continue to introduce more and more advanced life forms there? Even if we fail in our attempts to terraform Mars, imagine how much we could learn just by trying! If we take these first steps now then maybe before some cosmic events destroys our species we will have learned enough to start colonizing other worlds for us to live on.
I am really disappointed in our space program. Mir was a cheap and dirty bachelor pad version of a space station. The ISS is brand new and kept cleaner but doesn't provide much more functionality than Mir did. I would rather have the Russians in charge of our space program. A good example of why is that NASA spent over 2 Billion dollars to design and build a ball point pen that would work in zero gravity while the Russians brought a pencil. The ISS is the largest and most expensive venture undertaken by humanity and it doesn't have proper crew quarters, a hydroponics bay, nor does it even try to explore any of the theories our scientists have about creating artificial gravity beyond strapping astronauts down to a treadmill!
Lets build a real space station on our moon and star learning how to make ourselves more self sufficient on an extraterrestrial body. Instead of spending billions on a tube frame jeep that looks like it could topple over attempting to traverse a modest elevation give the contract to build dump trucks and excavators that operate on the lunar surface to Caterpillar who could design something 20 stories tall, we've all seen these monsters on Modern Marvels! Then we could start serious investigation on the composition of our moon and what could be mined and refined to expand our footprint there and make life easier to the human colonist there. We are pretty confident that there is metallic ore and even parti
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
The test ban treaty covers nuclear weapons in space, not nuclear reactors.
I was just overwhelmed by the image of a classic flying saucer pulled up next to the asteroid. There's a ramp extending from an open door, and at the bottom of the ramp is a little green guy taking a leak.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Isn't Pluto a big ball of ice?
First, the test ban treaty covers nuclear detonations. The ban doesn't address 'weapons in space' it covers further testing of detonations in any medium other than underground (ie water, surface, atmosphere and space).
Secondly a nuclear reactor is an excellent mechanism for generating heat, not an overly good mechanism for generating propulsion in space. Nuclear propulsion in space is via 'pulse propulsion', essentially a series of nuclear detonations which unfortunately are directly covered by the Partial Test Ban Treaty.
The scientists say these new findings support the theory that asteroids brought both water and organic compounds to the early Earth, helping lay the foundation for life on the planet.
Uhhh... I have a hard time necessarily accepting this. Another perfectly plausible hypothesis is that water and simple organic molecules are fairly common in the solar system (and perhaps beyond), and therefore it is not surprising for it to be everywhere. Earth formed in the right place and under the right conditions for a lot of it to condense into oceans, oceans that are hypothesized to have once covered the entire surface of the planet. These findings equally "support" this hypothesis, as do the findings of amino acids and water in some comets.
It seems to me that the best they can say is that these findings do not refute the hypothesis that asteroids brought water and organic compounds to Earth. There is plenty of geochemistry on Earth to make its own organic compounds and turn them into biochemistry. Citation provided.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Whoa, you can make what now? Are you sure you aren't thinking of anti-gravity?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Nuclear reactors are not only a good method for generating electricity which the electrical systems of the ship but via the electricity can also power ion engines and engines that work against planetary magnetic fields. And last time I looked pulse propulsion didn't use a nuclear reactor. Try and get your facts straight.
Nuclear energy plus plasma rocket equals nuclear drive.
There's a good chance given the history of Chinese information gathering that they have enough details to get it done. Now the question is, do they want the prize badly enough?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
A more cynical person might see this as an attempt to bribe him into not bombing the shit out of Iran for their constant flaunting of their nuclear arms program and for constantly making genocidal threats to obliterate a UN member state, and to also bribe him to not honor his campaign promise to recommit to winning the "forgotten" war in Afghanistan. As long as you're only talking and not doing, you will be adored by European politicians. And as we've come to learn, there's nothing more important to Obama than being liked. The problem is that the person who strives to be loved by all instead winds up being hated by all.
Way to go to piss out the aliens...
By the way, where do NASA or US get the permissions to bomb whatever out there?
Can I ask one of my more scientifically oriented friends here on Slashdot; could this discovery potentially tell us more about how a water cycle initially starts, now that we've got another example of it happening, besides our own?
...the day before the rocket and satellite guys are about to slam an $80M hunk of metal into the moon - to find water. Isn't that conveeeeenient. Someone worried about being slighted on next year's budget maybe?
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
"The scientists say these new findings support the theory that asteroids brought both water and organic compounds to the early Earth, helping lay the foundation for life on the planet."
Well, it seems to me that whatever the processes were that would have generated/collected water and organics on these asteroids, would just as likely have SIMILARLY generated/collected water and organics on the debris that accreted to form the earth in the FIRST place, no?
I mean, I understand that the accretion process from dust>>>planet was traumatic and probably involved a great deal of heat, but
a) the crashing of meteorites to earth is easily just as traumatic
b) while all the "envisionings" of early-forming protoearth illustrate it as a molten hellhole, I'm curious why? I could see a great deal of energy being generated by the collision/compression of the dust/debris cloud, but wouldn't most of this be in the gravitational center of mass? The outer surface would both suffer less compression heating AND be able to quickly radiate heat away, no? Further, this process would have taken at least hundreds of millions of years, and so not necessarily resulted in really high (ie molten lava) temps at any given point...?
In any case, it seems logical that the process of accumulating water/organics didn't simply *poof* start AFTER the Earth was formed, there were a good 6-8 billion years prior to that, and the pre-earth debris would likely have been just as covered.
-Styopa
I don't know a single person who wasn't told this when they were 8 years old, in the late 1950's. It's troubling to see the amount of effort that "brings fourth no life" by those who parent NASA. The amount of science that we could learn, and understand, by placing a permanent colony on the moon would dwarf this "new" discovery to a foot note in a child's primer. NASA! Go to work.
In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe it was created by some sort of God, but the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI firmly believed that the entire universe was, in fact, sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who lived in perpetual fear of the time they called "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief" were small, blue creatures with more than fifty arms each. They were unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Even though I summarized one of the conclusions of the Augustine report I'm sorry to say that I haven't read it through myself. However I think that the approach of going further into deep space and only "landing" (perhaps docking would be a better turn) on minor bodies might be cheaper than you think.
Think of it, no need to develop:
1) a costly lander capable of re-entry on bodies if they have a significant atmosphere, ability to slow via parachute/retro-rockets and have a controlled landing (the mars rover bouncing balloon doesn't scale well to manned vehicles!). This thing will be BIG, we're not talking about a short stay of two guys for a few days; instead how about a crew of four staying for months. Of course the flight control/landing system has to be just about flawless.
2) some sort of habitat capable of keeping out the extra-terrestrial elements like wind, dust storms which may be corrosive (martian soil I understand is pretty nasty), precipitation (frost or carbon dioxide ice buildup), soil movement due to melting of "permafrost" etc. etc. Don't forget that instead of deep space there is that little thing called the day/night cycle which can really make thermal control and solar power generation a real pain. Then there is the fact that space suits need to be designed to handle all this stuff as well as any motorized vehicle. It probably needs to deal with a partial gee environment unlike the zero-gee/micro-gee environment our current space station/space suits already handle (so no astronauts pushing around multi-ton structures with their fingertips). Also, space suits are heavy!
3) now you've got to get the astronauts back UP the gravity well. You have to have a high specific impulse engine that has to be absolutely reliable with real-time flight control systems (otherwise you'll crash) instead of very gently drifting back to the comet/asteroid. So out goes the super-efficient ion/VASIMIR engines (like the 200KW version to be tested on the ISS next year). Instead you'll need to use a chemical engine that can survive the transport and landing (as well as sitting around for YEARS). Of course the engine as well as the ascent vehicle needs to be designed (and one hopes tested) for the aerodynamic forces on liftoff and docking with the orbiter which will take them home. (The orbiter which may have been sitting up there unattended for a long time will have to be completely autonomous; no repeat of the Apollo program with one guy left in orbit).
So basically, by just going into deep space WITHOUT landing in significant bodies, you are cutting out a HUGE portion of the costs. If the ISS was made a little stronger and had radiation shield (magnetic shielding perhaps? or just a "storm shelter"), you could almost just attach an ion drive (and a nuclear power plant) and it could go anywhere in the solar system! Think of it in terms of airplanes, the two most dangerous times are: landing and taking off. Maybe we shouldn't bother.
If there is so much water to be found all over the universe, then why do all the alien invaders keep coming to Earth to steal the water?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Oh wait, there's one more little hurdle they have to cross to prove earth's water came from asteroids. It'd take about a million asteroids to bring 1% of the water we have right now. I don't think 10 mile long chunks of ice have enough water to fill a 10,000 mile like area let alone make any remotely important addition to even the smallest seas.
I have a different, much more sensible theory: Hydrogen lit on fire.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
a probe into it like we did with the moon today?
The fact is that the pros and cons skew wildly in both directions, but scientific progress must come at a price. And finding water is certainly a major scientific imperative. But still, the skeptic in me always worries about operations like the one happening today on the Moon. It's hard for me to embrace the science and let go of my inner worrywart.
As this article puts it: "The plan has generated a lot of outrage among people who shop at Whole Foods and grind their own coffee beans. However, there are a host of reasons we should irreversibly alter the shape of the moon with explosives, and finding water is just the easiest one to fact-check."
Wouldn't the many thousands of degrees on the asteroid during its decent through the atmosphere and hundreds of thousands of degrees when it hits the ground destroy any organic chemicals?
No, he is thinking of centripetal force.
Uh, no. He is talking about rotating the ship in flight to induce a gravitational force.
China is notorious for being risk adverse.
erm, no. Our only hope of beating China to Mars and beyond is that their leadership is even older, more hidebound and less imaginative than ours. They are not in the least unwilling to risk ten lives or a million to achieve a worthy goal. They just don't see it yet.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
...might then have actually wiped out all life on earth. Then one of these comets that would have been populated with some of these "organic compounds" could have crash landed somewhere off in the deep ocean and those little critters found the warm waters quite nice and thrived.
D'oh! We're all aliens after all :P