Complex Life Found Under 600 Feet of Antarctic Ice

Chroniton writes "NASA ice scientists have found a shrimp-like creature and a possible jellyfish 'frolicking' beneath 600 feet of solid Antarctic ice, where only microbes were expected to live. The odds of finding two complex lifeforms after drilling only an 8-inch-wide hole suggests there may be much more. And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?"

Comments

Oceans too

[sopssa]

60% of the Earth is filled with oceans. In some parts they go down as much as Mount Everest goes up. That means over half of our planet is still not searched. Some of the found fishes in there are really weird as well and look like aliens.

Imagine the land amount all those oceans would free if tried up.

Re:Oceans too

[MoralHazard]

Are you feeling OK?

Re:Oceans too

[MightyMartian]

Sounds like an ideal place to build a secret base or lab.

Then hold the world ransom for ONE... MILLION... DOLLARS!!!!!

Re:Oceans too

[John Hasler]

> Imagine the land amount all those oceans would free if dried up.

Imagine all the land that would become uninhabitable if the oceans dried up.

Re:Oceans too

[mrsteveman1]

Do the fish look like aliens, or do aliens look like fish?

Re:Oceans too

[Arimus]

"Some of the found fishes in there are really weird as well and look like aliens."

How many aliens have you seen to confirm that the fish look like them?

Re:Oceans too

[Anonymous Coward]

In some parts they go down as much as Mount Everest goes up.

yeah, like your girlfriend!

Re:Oceans too

[Cryacin]

To little? OK ONE... HUNDRED... BILLION... DOLLARS!!!! caps text capts text geez. Don't you hate it when you have to keep writing rubbish just to get around a stupid filter. Where's the Dr. eeevil exception?!?

Re:Oceans too

[trouser]

So how do you know what aliens look like anyway?

Re:Oceans too

[hackerman]

[citation needed]

Re:Oceans too

[Joe Tie.]

One. I can verify that he looked like a fish. But he warned me of traps, so I turned back and never saw any ever again.

Re:Oceans too

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In addition to the trick of somehow keeping all that water vapor aloft, endless salt pan, as far as the eye can see, isn't exactly a pleasant habitat....

Re:Oceans too

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There is a sure-fire test: If you hook one, and pull it up, and it just sits there gasping and looking stupid, the fish look like aliens. If its angry compatriots descend upon you and give you a thorough anal probing, the aliens look like fish...

Re:Oceans too

[MrNaz]

I'd provide a citation, but my source was taken away in the middle of the night by guys in a black van.

Re:Oceans too

[pclminion]

Imagine the impossibility of the oceans drying up.

For the ocean to "dry up" the water would have to be removed from the planet. That requires two energy inputs: first, enough energy to boil all the water in all the oceans. Second, enough energy to raise the velocity of each molecule of water vapor to the escape velocity.

I won't bother calculating the energy required to reach escape velocity, but the energy required just to boil the oceans into water vapor is around 3e27 J. Using another value I calculated earlier this morning, this is the equivalent of moving the moon's orbit outward by more than 15,000 km. Or, it would be like directing the entire energy output of the sun (not just the fraction of it which hits the Earth) into the oceans for ten seconds. It's a HUGE amount of energy.

Re:Oceans too

[oztiks]

Zoidberg!!!!

http://mirror.servut.us/kuvat/meinung/zoidberg_real.jpg

Re:Oceans too

[Martin Blank]

It will happen. The Earth will, barring some major perturbation of its orbit, become a dry, desolate world as the sun ages and expands. The water will not boil off, but will instead simply evaporate. As the water circulates to the upper atmosphere, it will be subject to reactions that break it apart into hydrogen and oxygen, and the hydrogen will simply fly off into space, too light to be held by the Earth's gravity. The oxygen will remain, but with little hydrogen to bind it, there will be less and less water over time.

Re:Oceans too

[FlyMysticalDJ]

The water will not boil off, but will instead simply evaporate.

Personally, I think it will neither boil off, nor evaporate. I predict it will turn into a gas.

Re:Oceans too

[rossdee]

Imagine the sun becoming a red giant in a billion years or two. Its what astrophysicists expect anyway.

Re:Oceans too

[CorporateSuit]

the hydrogen will simply fly off into space, too light to be held by the Earth's gravity

That's not how gravity works...

Re:Oceans too

[Martin Blank]

Boiling is the vaporization that takes place when the vapor pressure of the liquid is equal to the surrounding atmospheric pressure. It is different from evaporation in that boiling involves a substantial portion (usually all) of the liquid mass while evaporation involves only that portion at the surface.

Re:Oceans too

[Dutchy Wutchy]

Think of individual molecules or atoms. They bump around and what not. Fans work by lessening the bounce back of air molecules on one side, and by increasing the bounce back on the other. Particles at the edge of the atmosphere have very little to collide with in order to change direction. As such, some particles do fly off into space.

Re:Oceans too

[John Saffran]

You're too slow, bankers have already held the world to SEVEN ... HUNDRED ... BILLION ... DOLLARS ransom!!!

Forget Dr. Evil, he's so 1970's .. all the cool evil dudes are in the banking industry.

Re:Oceans too

[BitZtream]

Doubtful.

It might become uninhabitable to the existing life forms that live there, but you utterly failed to get the point of this discovery.

Life exists in lots of places and ways that we thought weren't possible.

Its really silly to much such an absolute statement as yours. If the oceans 'dried up' whatever that actually means then life may die out, but its more likely it would continue on in another form. Just like the life 30k under the surface of the ocean in volcanic vents, 600 feet down in ice, or high altitude lakes that would kill anything you would be able to recognize right off the start as life without a microscope.

We know life changes, species come, evolve, and die out, but observation of the past tells us that regardless of what extreme situation happens to the planet, some life form somewhere survives and carries on to repopulate based on the new environment.

Really, from a scientific perspective, we have as much evidence that life on earth can cease to exist as we have evidence that gravity can be turned off. We've never observed either of those situations directly, but I agree life on Earth ceasing to exist is entirely possible.

I also think you have a lack of appreciate for life's ability to survive thanks to its diversity. We nor anything else is going to 'destroy life on Earth' at any point in time that we're going to find relevant.

Human life or life as we know it may end, something will carry on and evolve to survive.

Re:Oceans too

[clarkcox3]

But they have the Earth's Gravity to change their direction. An atom of hydrogen, or a ton of bricks, will follow the same path around the Earth in orbit. How light something is is irrelevant.

Re:Oceans too

[Martin Blank]

An atom of hydrogen getting hit by, say, an oxygen molecule will be accelerated to a greater degree than a nitrogen molecule. The nitrogen molecule will be influenced to a greater degree than the hydrogen atom by Earth's gravity, as gravity reduces its velocity to a greater relative degree than that of the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom goes flying off into space, while the nitrogen molecule arcs back into the atmosphere.

Re:Oceans too

[clarkcox3]

The nitrogen molecule will be influenced to a greater degree than the hydrogen atom by Earth's gravity, as gravity reduces its velocity to a greater relative degree than that of the hydrogen atom.

No. All matter is equally affected by gravity. The amount of force that gravity applies to a given bit of matter is directly proportional to that bit of matter's mass. Yes, more massive things require more force to be pulled down to Earth, but more massive things are pulled on more strongly by gravity. This is why all things fall at the same rate in a vacuum, and why a nitrogen atom in space will be pulled towards Earth at the exact same rate as a hydrogen atom, and at the exact same rate that a VW beetle or the Moon would be. Differences in mass only come into play within the atmosphere, where lighter gasses rise above heaver gasses, but even at the edge of the atmosphere, a hydrogen would still have quite a ways to go before being able to escape Earth's gravity well.

Re:Oceans too

[sonicmerlin]

You must be great at parties.

Re:Oceans too

[Dreaming in R'lyeh]

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

Re:Oceans too

[Jeremi]

If the oceans 'dried up' whatever that actually means then life may die out, but its more likely it would continue on in another form.

Of course, if the sun goes red-giant and becomes so large that it encompasses Earth's orbit, it's unlikely that life would continue in the expanding cloud of plasma that used to be Earth.

We nor anything else is going to 'destroy life on Earth' at any point in time that we're going to find relevant.

True, but not really relevant -- what's important to us humans is not whether life can exist in some form, but whether the Earth will continue to be a place where humans can live with (roughly) the same quality of life that we enjoy now.

Human life or life as we know it may end, something will carry on and evolve to survive.

That's not very comforting... it's not enough for 'something' to carry on -- I want to carry on. (okay, my descendants actually, but you get the idea).

Re:Oceans too

[Jeremi]

my source was taken away in the middle of the night by guys in a black van

A lousy black van? What, their black helicopter was repossessed for lack of payments? God, this economy sucks!

Re:Oceans too

[srjh]

But the average kinetic energy of a gas molecule depends on the temperature, but not the mass of the molecule.

For a lighter molecule to have the same kinetic energy as a more massive molecule, it has to be moving faster.

If the molecular speed exceeds the escape velocity of the earth, the molecule will escape from the atmosphere. Helium is one of the most common elements in the universe and it's constantly being replenished on earth due to radioactive decay, but there's practically none of it in the atmosphere because it escapes so quickly.

Re:Oceans too

[j00r0m4nc3r]

That's why I've been hoarding hydrogen. When there's none left to make water, I'm going to be rich, rich! RICH!

Re:Oceans too

[TheLink]

Given a particular temperature (sufficient to maintain gas form), heavier gas molecules tend to have a lower average velocity than lighter gas molecules, and a corresponding distribution curve for the velocities.

So in areas with lower gravitational pull and higher temperatures, the lighter gas molecules are more likely to achieve escape velocity.

Re:Oceans too

[mcvos]

Imagine the impossibility of the oceans drying up.

For the ocean to "dry up" the water would have to be removed from the planet. That requires two energy inputs: first, enough energy to boil all the water in all the oceans. Second, enough energy to raise the velocity of each molecule of water vapor to the escape velocity.

Why escape velocity? Just boil them up, and you've got your dry ocean beds. And the extra water in the atmosphere amplifies the greenhouse effect in order to keep them dry. Think Venus.

Re:Oceans too

[Hurricane78]

Imagine all the 3D space we could live in if all the land would become flooded!

MUHAHAHAHAHAA

Your sleeping winged and tentacled overlords of the future

Re:Oceans too

[Toze]

So, what you're saying is, we'd come out even?

Re:Oceans too

[0100010001010011]

Don't you think we should ask for *more* than a million dollars? A million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. Slashdot alone makes over 9 billion dollars a year!

Re:Oceans too

[0100010001010011]

Good news, More Oxygen for everyone!

Re:Oceans too

[Martin Blank]

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for putting it so concisely.

Re:Oceans too

[rockNme2349]

I tend to find if the filter is yelling at you, it's time to look back at what you typed. Is it REALLY necessary to format your message the way you did?

Re:Oceans too

[TheLink]

Well maybe your explanation or someone elses might actually work better.

Some don't get it when I put it concisely. And when I make it longer, others don't get past the first few sentences... IIRC, I've been flamed by people because they didn't even read past the first half of the first sentence and thus thought I was saying something else :).

Re:Oceans too

[CorporateSuit]

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

that article even says that the combination of Earth's mass and magnetosphere keep particles from flying away -- except at the poles where they can get knocked away by solar winds. Atmospheric escape is a problem for celestial bodies that aren't Earth.

Re:Oceans too

[LuminaireX]

Finally,a use for hellajoules.

I doubt this

[Anonymous Coward]

A more likely explanation is that the samples were contaminated by the instruments. If we look in the Bible there is no mention that God made this lifeform, therefore the most logical explanation is contamination.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Re:I doubt this

[easyTree]

Additionally, there's no mention in the Bible of anyone taking core samples - therefore this whole story is likely a fake!

Re:I doubt this

[gsslay]

Sorry, "contamination" is a scientific explanation, and we all know they are just a theories.

The plain truth about this is that the devil put them there to mislead us. We must ignore them.

Re:I doubt this

[TheTurtlesMoves]

There is also no mention of the American Continent. Therefore Americans, Canadians etc where sent here from hell to test our faith. All of you are the spawn of the dark lord.

Re:I doubt this

[Hurricane78]

If we look in the bible, there is on mention of God being made, therefore the most logical explanation is that it’s all made up.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

*disappears like a bursting bubble*

Re:I doubt this

[MiniMike]

There is no mention in the Bible of Slashdot, therefo0$%#$I)%^%)#%

NO CARRIER

Europa?

[madpanic]

I thought we were not allowed to explore Europa?

Re:Europa?

[dotancohen]

I thought we were not allowed to explore Europa?

You are aware that those Yuropeeins discovered America, right?

Re:Europa?

[nebaz]

All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landings there.

This year, even.

Re:Europa?

[Nidi62]

Thought the first American continent colonizers came from the West, not the East.

Re:Europa?

[chill]

This is so sad it doesn't even deserve a "whoosh". Just go out and rent 2010. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086837/

Re:Europa?

[FelixNZ]

I have 60% off a pill to help that!

Re:Europa?

[Jeff-reyy]

An American accusing a European of being trash and having no culture. Cute.

Re:Europa?

[aBaldrich]

And I thought Slashdot would inform me on these topics before my country's printed media.

Re:Europa?

[dadelbunts]

Do you think when Lucifer appears we can get rid of daylight savings?

Re:Europa?

[dotancohen]

It's funny when Eurotrash tries to make an American look uneducated and only succeeds in revealing their own lack of culture.

Here's a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010:_Odyssey_Two

1) I'm neither European nor American.
2) The 2010 quote is not to land on Europa.
3) I got the 2001 quote. I noticed the 2001 album in A Clockwork Orange. I still think that Saturn was the "right" planet. I've got a monolith on my doorpost.
4) You confuse my lack of culture for your lack of integrity in your own.

Re:Europa?

[dotancohen]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/terminology.png

Ice scientists?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ice scientists? Wow! I thought the only one was Jan of the Wonder Twins. ("Form of, an Ice Scientist!")

The real question.

[mosb1000]

How does it taste?

Re:The real question.

[Locke2005]

It tastes a lot like frozen chicken.

Re:The real question.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Antarctic Frozen Chicken... At least the shelf life will be more favorable, so you don't have to worry whether it will be fresh when you pay them your next visit.

Re:The real question.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Well, if you're really interested . . . here's a place that will serve it up for you:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/15/california.whale.meat.apology/?hpt=T2

Straight up, or on the rocks.

Re:The real question.

[Chelloveck]

That's all global warming is, really -- It's the global freezer running its defrost cycle. No worries, we'll be back to normal in no time after that pesky accumulation of ice is gone from the coils.

only problem

[khallow]

And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?

Because Europa is not Antarctica. We get it. Life can live in ice-covered oceans and it can even be complex. This is all idle speculation until someone actually probes Europa to see what's under there.

Re:only problem

[Mindcontrolled]

Of course this is just speculation. However, this broadens the range of environments where we know that complex life, and even self sustaining ecosystems can exist. And that is the true purpose of the Drake equation. Not giving us a probability for life elsewhere, but rather defining the parameter envelope we think is able to sustain life. Every discovery of more extreme ecosystems broadens that envelope - and that is interesting in itself. Now let's get our arse to Europa and Drill, Baby, Drill!

Re:only problem

[MozeeToby]

If you're going to point out that Europa is different from Antartica at least take the time to point out how it's different. Namely, the complex life in Antarctica evolved in different, more comfortable conditions. Complex life under hundreds of feet of ice on Earth says nothing about whether or not it's possible for life to begin or become complex in those conditions. It just says that once started, life is very adaptable.

Re:only problem

[linzeal]

The question is where did life evolve first in the solar system or did it evolve somewhere else first and was transported here. If panspermia is correct and life can be transported over past the ISM between star systems it is likely any place in the galaxy that is hit by this ' stuff ' will have life.

Re:only problem

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Life can live in ice-covered oceans and it can even be complex. This is all idle speculation until someone actually probes Europa to see what's under there.

I just had this image in my head of humans building a colony on Mars, then ET's come by and say "Whoah! This means sentient life could have evolved on barren worlds like Mars!"

Re:only problem

[johncadengo]

If you're going to point out that Europa is different from Antartica at least take the time to point out how it's different. Namely, the complex life in Antarctica evolved in different, more comfortable conditions. Complex life under hundreds of feet of ice on Earth says nothing about whether or not it's possible for life to begin or become complex in those conditions. It just says that once started, life is very adaptable.

But did life really begin in such "comfortable" conditions? I don't think its too far-fetched to imagine most life beginning in even less habitable conditions than it currently thrives in.

Natural selection seems to suggest that life must be more robust than the pressures of its environment, and that life only becomes less robust if it can afford to do so. Not the other way around.

Re:only problem

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Yes... yes... That 20 year old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon was pretty funny.

Re:only problem

[DigiShaman]

Some say that life on Earth started (and evolved) around hydrothermal vents where there is no sunlight. The get their energy through a process known as chemosynthesis. If true, life on any ocean bearing planet could become common if not expected. Going to Europa will change those odds one way or another.

Re:only problem

[Skidborg]

And time. Don't forget the time. Without time, magic is impossible.

Re:only problem

[tixxit]

But it gives us hope. Just imagine if the opposite was true; we could never find life in extreme environments. We'd probably be saying looking for life on other planets is most likely a dead end. Instead, life keeps popping up everywhere, even places you could never imagine.

Re:only problem

[infinite.intimation]

You seem to not mention that the Cambrian EXPLOSION ( like explosion of life..) on Earth... was during a period when the Earth was CERTAINLY at least a Slush-ball... and POSSIBLY an ICEball. [science]) Not jumping to attack your position; just thought it was worth pointing out that the "environment 'needed' for evolving to create complex life... is not necessarily a fixed variable.

Re:only problem

[mark-t]

That's sort of like somebody who never goes outside saying that it never rains.

The entire earth is hardly a large enough sample to conclude anything remotely meaningful about life elsewhere.

Re:only problem

[TheTurtlesMoves]

If habitable conditions is defined as conditions such that life can exist, then well you see the problem. Habitable conditions is not the same for all life forms either.

Re:only problem

[Hurricane78]

I’m in Germany right now, and from what I can see, there’s no complex life here.

The most complex thing I found is a common Potatous Couchus Televisiones mold.

Re:only problem

[tixxit]

Huh? The Earth is a fantastic sample. In fact, it is the only sample we have that we can actually explore in any sort of meaningful way. The fact that our notions about what is required for life has been repeatedly redefined is certainly meaningful and significant. What we know (from exactly this type of research) is that life can survive in very harsh environments, environments that can be found elsewhere in our solar system (and also gives us an excellent starting point). That said, I never made any conclusion, I said it gives us hope and without hope, there would be no funding!

Re:only problem

[ResidentSourcerer]

Life under the Antarctic shelf has external inputs: Water circulates there from the open ocean, bringing with it all sorts of gourmet delicacies.

Life on Europa doesn't have an adjacent sunlit ocean providing energy inputs.

The colonies of critters living around hydrothermal vents is a better model of potential Europa life than life under the edge of the shelf.

There is a misspelling...

[Sique]

The amphipod is actually a Lysianassid, not a Lyssianasid, if someone tries to google it :)

Re:There is a misspelling...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The amphipod is actually a Lysianassid, not a Lyssianasid, if someone tries to google it :)

You know, you'd get a lot more points in Scrabble if you'd just learn to shut your yap!

Re:There is a misspelling...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Yes he would! It just depends on what word he's building off of! For example, he'd be able to build it off of "ASS" and... ... err... shit. I see why he corrected the spelling now.

Europa is not the same

[Capt.Albatross]

These creatures probably depend on free oxygen to live, which comes from plant life on the unglaciated parts of the Earth's surface. This is not an argument against the possibility of life on Europa, it is an argument against assuming that the environment under Europa's ice is as life-friendly that under Antarctica's.

Re:Europa is not the same

[John Hasler]

> These creatures probably depend on free oxygen to live, which comes from
> plant life on the unglaciated parts of the Earth's surface.

How did the oxygen get down there?

Re:Europa is not the same

[Capt.Albatross]

> How did the oxygen get down there?

By ocean circulation. The article mentions that the location is 'at least 12 miles from open water', and considers whether the creatures came from there (which is thought possible but unlikely). This, then, is not an isolated water pocket, which would be much more interesting.

Re:Europa is not the same

[takowl]

How did the oxygen get down there?

Most of the oceans are well oxygenated. Oxygen dissolves from the air and is mixed through the water by large scale currents. The exceptions are some river outlets, where nutrient inputs allow life to grow quickly and use up the available oxygen.

The question with these creatures is what they eat. Oxygen wouldn't be lacking.

Re:Europa is not the same

[TheDarkMaster]

Exactly. Scientists are interested why there is no sunshine get down there, so you can not have photosynthesis and therefore plants (the base of food chain as we know). Soon, they met a shrimp (a way of life far more complex than a bacterium), then it means that under the ice there is an interesting biosphere that is independent of light or heat (apparently) to work. And the conditions beneath the ice are very similar to what is expected of the moon Europa, then found life here ... chances are good there too.

Text translated using google. If you found any strange grammar, kicks google, not me :)

Re:Europa is not the same

[TheDarkMaster]

I do not need to be a "rocket scientist" do say this... Think with me: Lots of water under a tick ice sheet, very low temperature (or not, maybe Europa have underwater volcanos by tidal heating), no or almost inexistant sun ligth and lots of pressure from the ice sheet above and from water mass itself.

And as I sayed, "to what is expected of the moon Europa". I have to be a world-famous scientist to be allowed to give my opinion? Bah, Slashdot is not Wikipedia.

Re:Europa is not the same

[TheDarkMaster]

In anothers words, you only will accept my rigth to have a opinion myself (I.E: Without the need of famous sources saying the same thing) if I are a famous scientist with lots of articles on the Nature, Time or etc. NASA is a good source for you? What you tink they are doing on Antartica drilling holes on ice? Double Bah.

Re:Europa is not the same

[mark-t]

Oh geeze... for crying out loud.... you said that "what is expected" is that Europa would be similar to what is under Antarctic ice. I only asked who expects it. Your wording did not suggest that this was just your own opinion or expectation, which is why I asked for sources. Your repeated inability or unwillingness to do so, however, is suggesting that my initial conclusion was wrong... that this was not something you had actually heard from any reputable source, but simply a belief that you yourself hold, whether by logical conclusion from the facts as you understand them, or because you had heard it from some source that you already realize may not be scientifically credible. If it's just your own opinion, that's perfectly fine... but the phase "what is expected" really carries a whole lot different connotation from "what I expect".

Life under Antarctic ice? This sounds familiar...

[Tumbleweed]

Get out your torches, and somebody call Kurt Russell, quick!

Shoggoths

[Gothmolly]

Didn't we learn from Lovecraft? /waiting for the Del Toro movie...

Re:Shoggoths

[An ominous Cow art]

Phew. I was beginning to worry, because I had read most of the comments and seen not a single "At the Mountains of Madness' reference. Surprising to see so many Clark references when HPL is so much more appropriate in this case...

Re:Shoggoths

[skroz]

Are you surprised? Most people think Arkham is a mental institution in a movie about a comic book.

Beneath the oceans?

[psYchotic87]

And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?

I don't get it, how exactly do you get from "600 feet under solid Antarctic ice" to "beneath Earth's oceans"?

Note to Explorers!

[BobMcD]

There's apparently more Earth left to see! Before we venture to Mars, lets go look under this ice. The environment is a lot friendlier, comparatively speaking, and there's less distance to cross before we arrive!

Re:Note to Explorers!

[Teun]

Why should we (+6,000 million people) do one and leave the other?

Re:Note to Explorers!

[BobMcD]

Limited resources, namely funding.

Re:Note to Explorers!

[symbolset]

During the carboniferous era the region around Roosevelt Island was an alluvial plain. The runoff was nutrient rich, resulting in abundant sea life. That, and other conditions, means there's probably oil and natural gas there. So yeah, let's go there also.

Re:Note to Explorers!

[Jeremi]

Limited resources, namely funding.

There's actually plenty of funding available... for example, in the USA people spend $34 billion per year on their pets. If people thought it was important, they could devote, say, half of their pet-support money to sea and/or space exploration, and that would be plenty to do a lot of exploration of both areas.

But the truth is, most people just don't put that much importance on exploration. Sad, but true.

Re:Note to Explorers!

[BobMcD]

for example, in the USA people spend $34 billion per year on their pets.

So everyone gets to take home an astronaut and enjoy him or her daily. They can take them for walks, play with them in the park, etc. Yes, this is precisely the same kind of need being filled.

People have pets for emotional support. What about NASA gives an ordinary person emotional support?

You may as well quote the money spent on condoms and beer.

But the truth is, most people just don't put that much importance on exploration.

The real truth is, people never have. The New World was discovered due to trade pressures. The Conquistadors mapped Mexico looking for the city of gold. Etc, etc, etc.

extreme depth

[Mantis8]

This brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "6' under".

I'm just sayin...

[wcrowe]

"...And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?"

Well, because the original prototypes developed in warmer climes and adapted to colder environments later on.

I wouldn't get my hopes up too high about complex life on Europa.

Re:I'm just sayin...

[hrimhari]

Because you know for a fact that Europa has never been hotter than it is today?

Re:I'm just sayin...

[General Wesc]

It's been hotter, most likely, but we can be pretty sure that it hasn't had the same energy inputs as the Earth. Heat from the initial formation, yes (though more rapidly dissipating than it did from the much more massive Earth). Sustained, fairly consistent sunlight for billions of years? Not so much.

Re:I'm just sayin...

[WillDraven]

Maybe if we don't find any we could put some there. Turn it into the solar systems largest shrimp farm.

No matter how you look at it Europa is of interest to humans if we plan on expanding into the solar system.

Re:Why NASA?

[Mindcontrolled]

I guess they want to refine their extreme environment exploration techniques locally before they try it out somewhere out there. Weren't techniques for the moon landings rehearsed in the highland deserts of Iceland? Perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

"All these worlds are yours,

[Animaether]

except Europa. Attempt no landings there." ... and as far as I can tell from wikipedia, it seems 'we' haven't yet? No landers, no hurling things into the surface to see what gets thrown up, no nothing... just flyby missions. hmm..

Plato on the moon?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

We know that humans have traveled to the moon. Humans similar in biological content to the famous greek philosopher Plato. So, is it possible that Plato traveled to the Moon?

Plato was a smart guy, but he couldn't have landed on the moon. Landing on the moon required us to adapt well enough to a very hospitable environment before we could even reach the moon's harsh landscape. I think We might discover the same is true of life. Its more likely to develop in a very hospitable environment and then over time develop the skills necissiary to thrive in harsher climates. I do think we might be able to transplant our extreme lifeforms to other planets. In the same way a lunar rover would probably do okay on the surface of mars as well.

Re:Plato on the moon?

[amirulbahr]

I think you are confusing skills acquired with biological adaptations.

Re:Plato on the moon?

[Skreems]

Your implied concept of what is "comfortable" for life involves the mother of all selection biases. We don't know everything about the state of the earth when life originated, but we know for sure it was not what we'd consider "hospitable" based on the majority of life on this planet today. If anything, our current environment is the "extreme" one that life was gradually forced to adapt to... all sorts of unstable, corrosive gasses and exotic chemicals all over the place.

Re:Plato on the moon?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

No not confusing, equating. In the same way I don't think humans could have suddenly arose directly from a soup of organic stuff, plato couldn't have gone to the moon with out a bunch of technological improvements.

Its called an analogy. Do you like it? I'm also working on something called sarcasm, but I don't think its quite ready yet.

Europa

[schnitzi]

>And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?

Because saying life can survive somewhere is different than saying it can evolve somewhere.

Re:Europa

[NoKaOi]

Because saying life can survive somewhere is different than saying it can evolve somewhere.

And even if they said life can evolve somewhere doesn't mean is has evolved there.

Re:Europa

[scotch]

Because saying life can survive somewhere is different than saying it can evolve somewhere.

And even if they said life can evolve somewhere doesn't mean is has evolved there.

And even if the said life has evolved there doesn't mean that it should have evolved there.

Re:Europa

[Gerafix]

Because saying life can survive somewhere is different than saying it can evolve somewhere.

And even if they said life can evolve somewhere doesn't mean is has evolved there.

And even if the said life has evolved there doesn't mean that it should have evolved there.

And even if said life lived there doesn't mean that it had evolved there.

Re:Why NASA?

[BobMcD]

An eight inch hole?

Geography issues?

[freaker_TuC]

And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?

Yeah, we Europeans are living elsewhere but Earth. We feel more attached to our universe like that...

Re:Why NASA?

[Maxo-Texas]

But you can find those all over the planet.

Sure lots are smaller... but some even fit ten inches.

Re:Why NASA?

[Sir_Lewk]

Did you read the summary? Potentially a very similar environment as Europa. You don't just fly a probe to Europa and learn how to drill a hole on the fly, you practice and rehearse beforehand. Not really a difficult to understand concept...

Re:Frolicking?

[RMingin]

I went to TFA and found no evidence of "Frolicking" unless a shrimp humping a video cable is now considered sex.

I'm pretty sure that it means EXACTLY that, for the shrimp at least.

Re:Why NASA?

[Qzukk]

An eight inch hole?

If we fly to other planets, our probes may need to be able to accommodate any size orifice.

Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

I've looked - yes it's damn cold, but I didn't find any signs of complex life.

(Ps: You misspelt Europe)

Re:Not likely

[phision]

If you try hard enough you may find complex life in Europe. As for the intelligent life... lost cause

Re:Not likely

[Toze]

Perhaps Canada could send a colonization effort?

Mmmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

How does it taste?

Jellyfish and shrimp sandwich!

Re:Why NASA?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Why is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration looking underneath Antartican Ice?

Are you seriously asking why NASA would be studying life in extreme hostile environments?

Re:Because Earth already has a proven Ecosystem

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in those days, Mars was just a dreary uninhabitable wasteland. Much like Utah. But unlike Utah, it was eventually made livable.

Surely nuclear subs have been there?

[CdBee]

I understand that Nuclear submarines have been under the North polar ice cap many times, surely someone's sent one under the Southern ice sheets by now? Obviously the continent would get in the way of going too far under but even so.....

I wonder if the relevant governments would be willing to release confirmatory data.

Re:Surely nuclear subs have been there?

[hrimhari]

surely someone's sent one under the Southern ice sheets by now?

I doubt it, since it's a continent. The other is an ocean.

Re:Surely nuclear subs have been there?

[Alan R Light]

I assume the original poster meant the Ice Shelves, and if any submarines have been there, no one's been talking.

But a few reasons why manned subs might not go underneath the Antarctic ice shelves:

(1) Said submarines would almost certainly be military, and the military presence in Antarctica is severely limited due to the Antarctic Treaty.

(2) The ice at the North Pole is thin, and in an emergency a submarine could probably find a way to surface. The ice shelves are thick (600 feet where they bored this hole) and if a submarine ran into problems the bubbleheads wouldn't have a chance of survival.

(3) The thickness of the ice shelves would force any submarines to go quite deep to get under them, as opposed to a few feet. Huge difference in pressure at those depths.

I suspect it's mostly #2 and #3.

Re:Surely nuclear subs have been there?

[HornWumpus]

(4) There are few nearby targets worth wasting a H-bomb on and the targets in range (GWAR, Cthulu etc) are H-bomb resistant and prone to anger.

Re:Surely nuclear subs have been there?

[GumphMaster]

Sending your nuclear armed and powered submarine under the northern ice sheet is the only way to place these weapons along the north coast of the USSR (conversely North America) during the northern winter when the entire region is icebound. A lot of data was gathered so that the parties knew where the ice was passable and thin enough to surface without fatally damaging the submarine. The proximity to a perceived foe and suicidal political imperative to do this does not exist in the south.

Quite a few unmanned, research vehicles have explored under the edges of the Antarctic sea ice. The ice sheet over the continent is also being explored under, although not with submarines (Lake Vostok).

Re:Surely nuclear subs have been there?

[BitZtream]

Ice is a poruis material. If theres water under it, it wicks up into the ice, carrying life with it before it freezes solid. This happens constantly, forming new ice over time and spreading out. As such, ice shelves over the open ocean almost certainly are teaming with various forms of life that can survive at least short term in those conditions. Its not uncommon at all.

600 feet in ice with no easily available source of large quanties of energy (as we think of energy needed to sustain life) and the fact that it takes a REALLY LONG TIME to get buried 600 feet into an ice sheet on land means its not new life, its been there for many generations of the organism.

it's much simpler than that

[commodoresloat]

And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?

There's just too many Europeans there for it to possibly sustain life.

Re:Why NASA?

[BobMcD]

We can't exactly reach Europa with a probe yet, can we?

Was that in the President's limited budget and I missed it?

Re:Heed HAL's warning

[Nadaka]

Clarke, like Asimov, was a scientist before he was a science fiction author. Hubbard was fraudulent huckster before he was a science fiction author/religious leader.

Re:Why NASA?

[Culture20]

Why is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration looking underneath Antartican Ice?

They're looking for the second stargate. Duh.

maybe

[Spaham]

because it migrated there and didn't evolve there in parallel ?

Lots of life in the Antarctic - if you look for it

[Alan R Light]

This doesn't surprise me too much. The SCINI Project has been finding neat stuff for some time now, even while they were just testing their equipment.

Microbes have even been found living in the ice of the polar plateau (at constant temperatures around -50C).

And check out Anoxycalyx Joubini (Volcano Sponge), some specimens of which are thought to be 15,000 years old and still living. These are animals that make those Sequoia look like juveniles.

Re:More scientific arrogance...

[X0563511]

Yea. We didn't think we know everything. Maybe he/she did, but the rest of us know we don't know.

Re:Because Earth already has a proven Ecosystem

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Mars: Utah without the Mormons?

Vokken Prawn!

[Kryptonut]

I knew it!

Whoops...

[oljanx]

This was an accident that occurred on the fifth day. Also Europa was a trial run. Pay no attention to the unspeakable horrors that lay beneath it's icy surface.

Re:Did you mean...

[ichthyoboy]

Um, no....Lysianassidae is the correct term for the actual family of amphipods; lysianassid would be the correct term for a member of that family, kinda like how the name of our family is Hominidae but we are called hominids.

Re:Why NASA?

[Sir_Lewk]

We definitely can reach Europa with probes ...or at least we could. I agree he kind of really fucked us there.

Re:Frolicking?

[ichthyoboy]

I went to TFA and found no evidence of "Frolicking" unless a shrimp humping a video cable is now considered sex.

I believe that Rule 34 applies here....

Complex life...

[Labarna]

You mean there is an imaginary component?

Re:Complex life...

[thoughtspace]

Yes, where ever they conjugate.

600 feet, 8 inch...

[Mojo66]

One should expect that at least NASA has arrived in the 21st century while the rest of the country still uses medieval units....

Re:600 feet, 8 inch...

[Dutchy Wutchy]

Early modern: SI/metric system

Modern: Planck units

Post Modern: ???

That's no moon...

[symbolset]

Do we really know for sure that Europa has always been in orbit around Jupiter? It's similar in bulk composition to terrestrial planets. That's not very much like Jupiter.

Re:That's no moon...

[General Wesc]

It's possible it was captured, but in order to be captured it would have had to have been in an orbit that took it near Jupiter (and so that far from the Sun or more likely in a very eliptical orbit that would mean there'd be siginificant amounts of sunlight only intermittently) or knocked way out of its original orbit. I guess a passing giant object could pull it out toward Jupiter without obliterating it (or maybe it was a collision and Europa used to be twice the size).

I don't study astronomy, so I can't say for certain that these possibilities have been ruled out, but these seem pretty improbable. If we had found complex life on Europa, it would make sense to hypothesize possible causes, but we haven't, so there's not any grounding to them.

Re:That's no moon...

[symbolset]

So what you're saying is... we don't know. I'm cool with that.

Video Footage

[atomic-penguin]

Here's the video ;)

Re:Video Footage

[atomic-penguin]

Nice find.

Re:Why NASA?

[SteveFoerster]

If we fly to other planets, our probes may need to be able to accommodate any size orifice.

That's right -- it's payback time for what they've done to so many of our people!

Extremophiles

[mjwx]

"...And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?"

Well, because the original prototypes developed in warmer climes and adapted to colder environments later on.

I wouldn't get my hopes up too high about complex life on Europa.

Complex life has evolved in the most punishing environments on earth, 4000 Metres below the surface of the ocean, in volcanic vents (water has a PH of 2.8). Not only complex life but complete ecosystems (these are kind of needed to support complex life). Whilst not hoping for life on Europa is a good thing it certainly does prove it is possible for life to develop and flourish under such conditions.

Mmmm. Just imagine the tastey fish of Europa...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Maybe they'll have 3 eyes without all of the yucky radiation.

Re:Mmmm. Just imagine the tastey fish of Europa...

[MiniMike]

Just get them before they're killed off by the inevitable shrimp farms...

Cthulu?

[j33px0r]

Great....we alerted one of his minions.

Re:Cthulu?

[laejoh]

Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!

I am forced into speech because men of science have refused to follow my
advice without knowing why. It is altogether against my will that I tell
my reasons for opposing this contemplated invasion of the antarctic - with
its vast fossil hunt and its wholesale boring and melting of the ancient
ice caps. And I am the more reluctant because my warning may be in vain.

Maybe they'll run into a Shoggoth!

Avatar :P

[madhusudancs]

like Pandora? :D

Re:Did you mean...

[Hognoxious]

People don't like pedantics, especially when they're wrong.

While you're here, "pedantic" is an adjective. The word you're looking for is "pedants".

The correct word is Lysianassidae.

That's just the Latin version of Lysianassids. Just because Google says "did you mean..." doesn't mean the word entered is wrong.

0/2. Fail.

Europa this, europa that.

[Jazzbunny]

I wonder why people always talk about possible life on Europa although for layman like me Ganymede seems better candidate: It's big as a planet, less radiation than Europa, molten iron core, water ocean, magnetosphere. All the good stuff and less of the bad.

ALL THESE WORLDS...

[old_skul]

,,,are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there.

Public service: Translation to standard units

[daem0n1x]

"NASA ice scientists have found a shrimp-like creature and a possible jellyfish 'frolicking' beneath 180 metres of solid Antarctic ice, where only microbes were expected to live. The odds of finding two complex lifeforms after drilling only a 20 cm-wide hole suggests there may be much more. And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?"

Norwegian sciencetists are laughing their asses of

[maggern]

Not sure if this has been posted before.
Norwegian sciencetists have been studying these creatures for 30 years. This according Norway's biggest newspaper "Verdens gang". (vg.no)

Original in Norwegian:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=591795

Translated:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Futenriks%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D591795&sl=no&tl=en