Slashdot Mirror
Space Sugar Discovered In Binary System Star
SchrodingerZ writes "Sweet tooths rejoice! 400 light years from Earth in the constellation Ophiuchus, sugar molecules have been confirmed in a gas cloud surrounding a young star. The star, IRAS 16293-2422, though early in its life is relativity close to the size of our Sun. It is part of a Binary star system. '"In the disk of gas and dust surrounding this newly formed star, we found glycolaldehyde, which is a simple form of sugar, not much different to the sugar we put in coffee," study lead author Jes Jorgensen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark, said in a statement.' Glycolaldehyde has been found before in space, but never this close to a Sun-like planet. In fact 'the molecules are about the same distance away from the star as the planet Uranus is from our sun.' This discovery proves that the building blocks of life could have possibly existed in the earlier parts of our own solar system. This particular sugar reacts with propenal to form ribose, which is a major component for organic life on Earth."
The creationists will need something to sugar the pill.
Ezekiel 23:20
If the submitter had actually read the article, he'd know that while the molecules in question *are* sugar, they *are not* sweet and in fact are arguably not even saccharides.
Why did you even post this?
"hohum... :)"?
You didn't get first post, and your post is worthless to boot.
Please kill yourself at the earliest possible opportunity.
destroyed sugar transport
To form ribose, which is necessary for life?
Yeah, but the propenal reaction is not exactly how "life" does it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The great thing about all these discoveries so far far away is that they're really hard to confirm/falsify.
Oh, the building blocks of life - how exciting! This could mean.. uh... that we need more grant money, please! Work harder, proles!
Yes, we should only work on the things which are really easy, because nobody has done those before, and because the things which are currently really hard will become really easy if we just leave them alone for a while.
Is there nowhere in the universe where it's safe for me to diet???
with space ice, some space air (20% should do) and sure, why not, a few space girls, and we can have a space party like it's space 1999 !!
You're an ignorant moron.
These findings are usually independently confirmed/refuted by peers. It's the scientific method which separates morons like you from intelligent life.
Now, go back to sucking the comforting cock of your pastor while your swamp daddy pushes your putty from behind.
Since there can be life in outer space, and since the capitalist owners of all the means of production can't seem to make a living employing us workers any more except by impoverishing us and stealing the last crust of bread from our mouths, we should send all the capitalists on a big rocket to their new home over there on that star, away from all us pesky workers and our goddamn unions, and we will abolish private property and inaugurate the dawn of the communist future! Any takers?
I agree with this.
Also: not a sockpuppet. Not at all, I am not, I repeat NOT a sock puppet of For a Free Internet nor in any way associated with same.
buttgoat. goatbutt. cia sells drugs.
It is worth noting that this effect does actually happen to some degree. For example, the radio telescope array that they use, includes a great deal of computing power for controlling the system and signal and image processing. That technology didn't need to be independently developed from scratch.
As to cost, that system apparently costs more than a billion dollars. But I doubt that the system would have been the same order of magnitude, should one have developed it in 1970 (with the same capabilities as the current one) instead of now. Similarly, I imagine we'll find that computing technology and manufacture/construction would have advanced in the next twenty years to make the project somewhat easier and cheaper to do twenty years from now.
The real issue to such things is that there is a time value to research and development. Doing and learning things now does have greater value than doing those things twenty years from now.
...your average Brit, sitting there sipping his coffee or tea, listening to BBC morning news...
"And we interrupt this program to bring you the following news: A huge lump of sugar is headed towards planet earth, yes...that is where you and I live".
The unassuming average Brit, just sitting there, sipping on his morning coffee when he yet again is interrupted by a voice saying: "More sugar dear?" ...you all know where I am going with this.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
It is worth noting that this effect does actually happen to some degree. For example, the radio telescope array that they use, includes a great deal of computing power for controlling the system and signal and image processing. That technology didn't need to be independently developed from scratch.
Right, but developing that computing power probably wasn't a stroll in the park either. I get your point: that if you don't tackle Problem A, then developments from the solution from Problem B can make solving Problem A easier later on. Thing is though, you've still got to solve Problem B to do that, which equally probably wasn't trivial.
You've got to start tackling the hard problems sooner or later if you want to make decent progess.
As if we didn't have enough golf-club-gold-member yacht owning dentists in this world.
Imagine vampires turning people into more vampires, now...dentists will give birth to even more dentists...
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
I'm not a sock puppet either, but we really should send the Italians off on that rocket as well.
Say hi to Laura
Since there can be life in outer space, and since the capitalist owners of all the means of production can't seem to make a living employing us workers any more except by impoverishing us and stealing the last crust of bread from our mouths, we should send all the capitalists on a big rocket to their new home over there on that star, away from all us pesky workers and our goddamn unions, and we will abolish private property and inaugurate the dawn of the communist future! Any takers?
I agree with this.
Also: not a sockpuppet. Not at all, I am not, I repeat NOT a sock puppet of For a Free Internet nor in any way associated with same.
buttgoat. goatbutt. cia sells drugs.
I also agree with this. I am not a sockpuppet and I am not creating false interest.
no sir-ee.
If there's sugar, someone will surely make rum out of it. We'll have plenty of space grog. Arrr!
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
A sugar molecule is as far from an amoeba as a piece of quartz frim a supercomputer. Insisting that living things came from nonliving matter by random processes is absurd. Anyone who thinks that is being far more dogmatic than the creationists they stubbornly ridicule.
Aren't the Ur-Quan meant to come from that part of space? We are so screwed. ;)
BTW, Star Control II (or the open source Ur-Quan Masters) is a great game and is part of many Linux repos, and also has Win32 binaries. Download it plus a cheat map (it's too hard otherwise) and lose a weekend... it's a great game, universe and story, and it has a quirky sense of humour. Make sure you download the full music and speech, and persist through the early game - it's a little slow.
Thing is though, you've still got to solve Problem B to do that, which equally probably wasn't trivial.
The point is that you were going to solve Problem B anyway. For example, I think we'll see a decline in the cost of space-based science missions just due to manufacture improvements on Earth (and eventually the entry of private charity into that endeavor).
Unfortunately, these sorts of results are not usually confirmed independently, you dalliant goatherder.
Just need some yeast and we'll have one hell of a party star!
Everybody uses broad generalizations.
Confirmed with a different telescope? Do you suspect it's often a case of measurement error?
I always knew the meaning of life was sweet and tasty.
...you dalliant goatherder.
... dalliant goatherder? Negative nerd points for a missing "scruffy looking nerfherder"
Binary Solo!
0000001 00000011 000000111 0000001111
"Glycolaldehyde has been found before in space, but never this close to a Sun-like planet."
Gentlemen. We have found the planet of heaven.
"Space Sugar" would make a great name for a healer Jedi chick on Star Wars: The Old Republic MMO.
"Pour a little sugar on me honey!
Pour a little sugar on me baby!"
Oh, wait. I haven't played that game in 3 months. n/m
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Since when is ribose "a major component for organic life on Earth"? Central—yes; but major? That would be Glucose, I think ...
Quick! Somebody clean this mess up before space-flies gather on top of it.
That's where all the Maple Syrup went!!
Since there can be life in outer space, and since the capitalist owners of all the means of production can't seem to make a living employing us workers any more except by impoverishing us and stealing the last crust of bread from our mouths, we should send all the capitalists on a big rocket to their new home over there on that star, away from all us pesky workers and our goddamn unions, and we will abolish private property and inaugurate the dawn of the communist future! Any takers?
Everything said here is correct.
And you're not?
Sugar? In coffee?
What the hell is wrong with these people?
You mean like when other researchers look at the same system now that they know there are organics there, and hope to find more complex ones? That happens all the time, but typically only makes the news when they find a new compound there that wasn't seen before.
Sugar that close to a sun must be caramelised - mmmmmm
This is a rehash of a paper published in November 2008 (Beltran, et. al.). By the way, glucolaldehyde is NOT a sugar, it is a diose. Well, the only diose.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Willy Wonka went after he retired.
Glycolaldehyde is the first step in the metabolism of ethylene glycol, and likewise will be metabolized to oxalic acid, which is the poison in rhubarb.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
. . . so I'll have to do it:
I, for one, welcome our new monosaccharide overlords!
How? Does it reflect some rare particular frequency of light? Oh wait, Doppler wavelength dilation. Did they travel out there and scoop some up to sample it? I don't get it! Why do they never mention how they determined what molecule is off on some distant solar system?! Good thing some intelligent slashdotter is about to reply and explain it to all of us 10x simpler and faster than any article anywhere ever :-D
As you have just clearly demonstrated with your moronic post, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Sweet justice ! ...
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
.. 't makm' e feeeeel so gooooood!
WhuuaaAAAAuuu!
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
It's pollution from Earth. not only are we ruining our home, we are spreading our trash universally.
I respect all that science has given me and have excepted it's truths as my own personal savior. But every time I read about a discovery like this, I can't help but feel like somebody really wanted to justify the grant money they were given. At 400 million light years distance the milimeter/submilimeter apparatus used to make this "discovery" seems a bit ludicrous. I'm not an astrophysicist but I'm pretty sure that the potential for random anomalies to contaminate the observations made over such great distances would give one pause. And I just can't believe that finding the same results over and over for a relatively limited time period makes up for the shortcomings of our technology.
"... proves that the building blocks of life could have possibly existed ..."
Is it just me or is this an extremely vague and uninsightful statement? In a way, it reminds me of this xkcd.
"proves that ... could have possibly" --- "up to 15% or more"