Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Chief Scientist Predicts Evidence For Life Beyond Earth By 2025
An anonymous reader writes: Ellen Stofan, chief scientist at NASA, predicts we're not far off from finding evidence for alien life. At a panel discussion yesterday, she said, "I think we're going to have strong indications of life beyond Earth within a decade, and I think we're going to have definitive evidence within 20 to 30 years." She added, "We know where to look. We know how to look. In most cases we have the technology, and we're on a path to implementing it." Stofan thinks putting astronauts on Mars will be a big part of that goal. As efficient as robot missions are, she thinks it'll take humans digging and cracking rocks to find definitive evidence for life on other worlds.
We have no idea how far off we are from finding life on another planet, and we won't know until we actually find it. Miss Stofan should stick to gazing at the stars rather rhan into a crystal ball.
This is all about raising money. What else would she say? "We'll keep looking; hopefully we find something, but we have absolutely no idea whether we will. Also, looking is really expensive! Other than the usefulness of tech we develop, we're burning money."
If you DO go to mars, don't drink the water.
humans digging and cracking rocks
Digging and cracking rocks in alien enviroments sounds like a perfect job for semi-/autonomous vehicles. Despite the romance of sending humans to distant planets, robots/remote vehicles are a sound economic alternative.
If we put humans on Mars, I'm guessing that would be considered life beyond earth. If NASA sends someone who isn't a US Citizen, they would be an alien.
So, really, not too far fetched for the pedantic among us. And, being /., that would be pretty much all of us.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Ellen Stofan, chief scientist at NASA, made a wildly speculative, headline-grabbing claim in an attempt to gain more funding.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I think we're going to have strong indications of life beyond Earth within a decade, and I think we're going to have definitive evidence within 20 to 30 years.
Obligatory XKCD translating what that means
we were supposed to
- cure AIDS by year 2000
- have an inhabited mission to Jupiter in the early 2000
- have already people living on the Moon / Mars
"Experts" also said the big one (earthquake) in Tokyo had to happen by 2012, and so many other BS that sometimes, statistically, a few prove to be true.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
There must be a lot of the Space Nutter fraternity on slashdot who are torn here, as the only thing they seem to hate more than people who don't understand why a sane human being would want to go on a suicide mission to a barren red rock is NASA.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This reminded me of an experiment from the eighties to detect life on earth, from space. It actually worked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Unless you are really bad at math, we need a few hundred million more years of being around to make contact with aliens.
Stofan thinks putting astronauts on Mars will be a big part of that goal.
In that case, you're going to be in for a VERY long wait. Man may one day set foot on Mars, but it won't be any time within our liftetimes, and they won't be wearing a NASA patch on their spacesuit.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Much worse than space nutters are you miserable bean counters. Let's not do anything or go anywhere because "my God the expense!". Let's carry on with pointless resource ears to enrich the already insanely wealthy even further.
Sure, but there are many far more worthwhile goals we should be aiming for.
The 10 hour workweek leisure society with resources for all, for example.
Will they find extra-terrestrial life IN the solar system or Outside it?
Frankly if they find it within the solar system then it would be a more significant find unless, of course, they found evidence of advanced (intelligent) life outside the solar system. It would mean that the universe is absolutely crawling with life; even if the life was somehow related to that on earth (distributed by asteroid impacts?) that would mean that panspermia is a viable method of distributing life over (at least) interplanetary distances.
In addition, it would mean that there would be a chance of someone going and really examining it within what's left of my lifetime!
So let's hope that it's on Mars (doubtful), Europa/Enceladus (possibly) or Titan. Of course if they find life on Titan, it'll have to be so radically different that our own that it'll blow the minds of just about every biologist in the world! Of course they'd be very very happy to find just fossils.
Goes back some. See if it rings a bell.
The dingo ate mah baby. Oi!
Truth is stranger. Aliens ate the baby.
"If NASA sends someone who isn't a US Citizen, they would be an alien."
And if he smuggled aboard he would be considered an illegal alien.
And deported of course.
Hopefully we will find intelligent life on Earth by then.
Some settling may occur during posting.
For a 10-hour workweek to be productive enough to support a "leisure society with resources for all" will require significant advances in materials, economics, physics, engineering, and especially politics.
Putting a few folks on Mars is a far simpler goal, and the technology we develop along the way will help your preferred utopia, as well.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
What is the purpose of engaging in pointless speculation like this? This becomes a story when extraterrestrial life is actually discovered.
They'll discover that the 1976 Viking Mars lander transported life from Earth, and it survived.
Let's not do anything or go anywhere
Nobody says that. But the budget is only so big, so I would rather see it used on something that brings the most scientific bang for the buck.
I predict we'll find proof of life by 2024. And definitive proof in 19 to 29 years. Her numbers are off by a year according to my "calculations".
Yes, just like Russia's early lead into space clearly had tons of benefits for Russia and its people, right?
Yeah whatever. No evidence for those predictions at all. Way to go Nostradamus.
The more leisure time technology gives us, the more we spend it on 'hobbies' in the broadest sense of the term. This started in Victorian times when the first wave of industrial wealth made it possible for the Downton Abbey class to fund voyages of exploration to every unexplored part of the planet, thereby initiating a golden age of observational science.
Today, ventures like SpaceX are part of the same process. If we did achieve a ten-hour workweek, space nutters would be waving at Luddites from the Oort Cloud.
The 10 year horizon offers no step change in our space exploration to discover life.
We certainly won't visit the gas giant moons that seem promising within a decade, NASA can't send humans to Mars within a decade, SETI continues good but unrewarded work, we have no new physics to peer more closely at extrasolar planets and even if we did, NASA can't build *anything* new in less than a decade.
So you basically have to ask, "will today's tech with a slight upgrade do something basically different in the next decade ?"
Maybe, but probably not.
NASA exists only to distribute pork according to the demands of incumbent politicians.
What we have here is in no useful way different from the Disney Hype for the next Star Wars film.
Indeed I expect more surprises from SW7 than from NASA in the next decade, which is bloody sad.
Dominic Connor,Quant Headhunter
For a 10-hour workweek to be productive enough to support a "leisure society with resources for all" will require significant advances in materials, economics, physics, engineering, and especially politics.
I think politics is the largest impediment to a leisure society. We already have the productive capacity. Our needs could be met if people weren't constantly being convinced to buy stuff they don't need. But our economic system requires constant growth and profits. I have said before on this site that I think Capitalism is holding us back. And politics is the only way to change that.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Well, yes... The Soviet Union's advancements in rocketry and spaceflight let to some very nice technological advancements, which were primarily useful after some further social and political advancements in the region.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
And that will be the year of the Linux desktop...
And the year of the first human explorers on Mars...
It will be the year that we get a submersible robot into one of the ice covered ocean moons
I think we may even figure out how life started that year
And cure all cancers
plus Alzheimers
Prevent and reverse aging
We will finally get our damn flying cars
I can't wait!!!
Maybe I can take all this stuff in my time machine that will no doubt exist at that time and bring it back to myself now so that I don't have to wait!
I'm not generally prone to conspiracy theories, however the fact that she is making such a bold, declarative prediction on this subject does make me wonder if they know more than they're letting in in regards to there being possible signs of life on Mars or elsewhere. On the other hand, they could also just be making a provocative sales pitch to get boots on the ground, an endeavor that will keep the cash flowing their way for years to come.
She's making predictions on the future discovery of future discoveries!
Laughable conclusion. Leisure society or not, there's simply no compelling reason for people to go into space. As a matter of fact, space would look even more hostile and empty from the perspective of a leisure society technological Earth. Your whole Elysium gloom and doom flies out the window there.
Never mind the fact that there's no technology even remotely feasible that would allow anyone to "wave from the Oort Cloud".
Why? It's dark, dead, hostile, and empty. Why would you wave from there? For us to come rescue you? Where did you get your comic book world view from?
If anything, if a Space Nutter like you starts assembling his Oort spaceship from cardboard boxes in his backyard, we'd be the ones pointing and waving at YOU!
We really don't have the productive capacity for it. I've done the math before.
The short version is that there are so many people in the world that we each get a very tiny amount of raw materials, and the mass production systems we have now really only support a small fraction of the population. To support a leisure society for everyone, we need to increase global production efficiency by a few hundred percent.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Could you give some concrete, verifiable evidence of your claim of usefulness? Like for the common citizen in Russia in the 1960s, let's say.
Just watch how the Republican Congress and Senate slash NASA's already paltry budget because "only life can exist on Earth"... They won't allow looking for others in the great beyond because it conflicts with their fundamental religious beliefs...
Your post simply assumes that we should continue buying things we don't need and valuing a new car higher than leisure. If you want $60K/yr then yes you have to work long hours, everyone agrees on that. If you want $10K/yr then perhaps leisure is achievable.
This space intentionally left blank
When the next "cometary visitor" from the Oort Cloud comes knocking - whether it is 100 years in the future or 10,000, you had better hope for humanity's sake that there are Space Nutters out there, because humanity would be toast.
You personally may have no long term plans, but if mankind wants to live as long enough to speciate, we have to clean up our act - with resource usage and population control here on earth, and branching out beyond earth. If we don't radically change our economic model, then the latter choice is the only choice for survival our our species.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
I, for one, hope we DON'T find alien life. If we could, we'd just bribe them into leasing us some land on their home planet; which would lead to Starbucks, McDonald's, cell phone stores and car dealerships at every turn. In other words, we would fuck it up just as fast (if not faster) than our own planet.
When the next "cometary visitor" from the Oort Cloud comes knocking
It's easier to survive a comet impact on earth than it is to survive the normal conditions on Mars or other solar system object.
Humans operate it either way, the only major difference between a robot and a physical presence is higher latency for robots, and orders of magnitude greater cost for humans.
That is not the only major difference. Humans can create new tools and are vastly more flexible in what they can do than any robot. It's more than mere latency. Furthermore there are some bits of information that simply cannot be obtained by a robot. There is a huge difference between looking through a webcam at an ocean and actually standing at the shore yourself. There is information about humans that can only be obtained by sending humans. There are economic benefits to developing the technology to send humans that go far beyond the mission itself.
Going to other planets isn't just a geology project. There are some things we will only learn if we are there ourselves.
My post assumes that $60K income is a baseline for a leisure society. The exact numeric value is subject to inflation, arbitrary labor valuations, and many similar factors, but the economy scales uniformly.
We can redefine "leisure society" to require driving a cardboard car and eating ramen twice a day, which would significantly lower the economic cost of the redefined leisure. However, if we set the bar at a current American middle-class lifestyle, silly desires and all, then $60K is reasonable.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Nonsense - the vast majority of current production goes to disposable novelties. To take cars as an example: if we instead built only a handful of different models, all of which relied on standardized, easily replaceable/repairable parts, and were designed for easy maintenance with a design life of several decades, we could radically reduce the number of cars produced with no loss in functionality, rather than selling enough new cars to replace every car in the country every 12 years. Reduce virtually all of them to sturdy golf carts instead and the savings would be even more dramatic. Would it require a cultural shift? Absolutely, but nothing substantial would be lost.
Something like 50-75% of global food production gets discarded in landfills thanks to cosmetic defects - lumpy potatoes, bread crusts from sandwich factories, spoilage at the store, etc - all a complete waste thanks to inefficiencies that aren't worth fixing because production so radically outstrips demand.
And don't even get me started on pretty much everything sold by Walmart and the like - designed to be as cheap as possible, despite the fact that doing so tends to raise the per-annum ownership costs dramatically.
In the US worker productivity has increased 3-5x over the last century - reducing work hours by 75% and the per-capita productivity will be roughly the same as it was a century ago, when it was obviously sufficient. Would it mean a reduction in material wealth? Possibly, but that's a whole separate conversation. All we *need* is food, water, and shelter from the elements, all of which can be provided at extremely low cost. Even most modern medical care is relatively inexpensive pretty much everywhere in the civilized world, at least so long as we stay away from end-of-life drastic measures. Everything else is cultural expectation, and many studies have shown it has minimal impact on happiness or quality of life.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Sure there is - the most compelling reason of all time, which has caused humanity to spread even before we had language: "Because it's there."
There may not be any *economical* reason to do, but humans are not rational beings, asking us to behave as though we are is ridiculous. What *rational* reason is there for having children, falling in love, or hanging out with the guys for a few beers? Rationality has always been nothing but a tool useful for pursuing our irrational desires. And I for one rejoice in the irrational pleasures of life.
As for not being able to wave from the Oort Cloud - what are you smoking? Admittedly we still have a ways to go on closed ecosystem engineering, but early experiments such as Biosphere 2 were incredibly promising, with most of the major problems falling into the easily avoidable "lesson learned" category. Once we have that worked out, waving from the Oort cloud is just a nuclear reactor, some ion drives, and a few centuries of transit time away.
Now who would want to do such a thing? Not I, not without a really compelling plan to start a new society better than what's being left behind at least, but as long as there's folks who have the vision to try, I say go for it. I'm sure they'll get the micro-G reproduction thing worked out soon enough - if nothing else there's always centrifugal environments.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Okay, so first lets ditch the pointless wars in the Middle East - lots of bang, but the only bucks are the ones being funneled from my wallet to the military-industrial complex.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The difference is a lot smaller when you can move the camera (and other instruments) around, zoom in on any details that the human could see, and you have a team of experts deciding where to look.
The difference is vast between standing somewhere and looking through a webcam and it will never become otherwise. It doesn't matter how good your camera is. You seriously are pretending that you know what the ocean is like because you looked at it through a camera? It's not even close to the same thing. What does it smell like? What does the breeze feel like? How does it feel?
No robot can tell you everything you will learn by standing there yourself. There are biological questions that remote robotics simply cannot answer. There are economic benefits that robotics cannot contribute to.
The environment of Mars limits what you can make.
It's a planet with all the resources a planet has. Once you get a sufficient amount of technology to the location you are exploring there is very little that couldn't be done.
I agree with this. The capitalist system promotes competition and innovation but at the cost of efficiency and economy of R&D (double edge sword).
The next big obstacle is over population. Developed countries still have a positive population growth but it's significantly less than countries like India. I hate to say this but population growth control is key to the future on earth. Science continues to increase life expectancy as well as free up time to do what we want (automation + AI within 100 years will probably take over most jobs).
There already strong indications of life on Mars from the MSL SAM results...
The difference is vast between standing somewhere and looking through a webcam and it will never become otherwise.
Yeah, because we've reached the point that cameras can exceed human vision in so many ways. If only human eyes were able to do quantitative spectral analysis, observations for days on end, and all while sitting at temperature extremes. I'm not trying to downplay the importance of knowing what the smell is like, but there is a lot of value in knowing quantitatively the ratio of different salts and even isotope ratios within the water, something that can be done with a machine smaller than a breadbox these days.
Isn't that like saying, "Hey, this roulette wheel is hot, it's ready to pay off, man!"?
Let us make a few assumptions first, and maybe throw in some facts as well.
1. What are the odds that there exist or has existed life beyond earth?
Well, even if the chance of a given solar system or any of its planets has life, we are talking about an infitesimal number of galaxies with their solar systems and planets So I'd say the odds are pretty good, almost so good that I would not bet a penny against it for a dollar.
2. What are the odds that evidence of such life or remnants of such life could be found within a few decades in human time scale? Almost impossible, if not flat out impossible.
Why do I say that?
Well, I learnt when I was a kid watching a Sagan program that the universe was sort of like a giant dough with raisins i it, that is ever expanding. The odds that one raisin will ever meet another raisin is pretty slim , and the raisins will get further and further apart over time. So whatever crap they find digging in mars rocks is likely stuff from our solar system, and if they find any stuff from outside the solar system, due to the nature of the big bang, you would only find stuff from the very birth of the universe.
Since it takes up to a few billions of years to get all the conditions right for the nurture of life, I'd think it very unlikely that any such primordial space debris would have any remaining evidence of life.
Aliens here, what utter nonsense. Assume that time travel and travel beyond velocity of light is impossible. Given the distances at play, an alien could not target earth, or even our solar system for a trip. What they observed from our solar system would have been millions of years old when they saw it, and given the expanding nature of the universe, they might even need to break the laws of physics to travel in that direction fast enough for millions of years to catch earth.
If life was achieved in the very few birthing moments of the universe, and if intelligent species managed to come up with space travel and colonized a fair amount of of the primordial matter, we still would have only infinitesimally small chances of ever finding any evidence of this.
I find it distasteful that NASA, which should be founded on science is engaging is such claptrap gallopping charlatanism. The universe is plenty interesting enough as it is, no need to add hobgoblins and other hocus pocus.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
NASA seeks more funding!
The difference is vast between standing somewhere and looking through a webcam and it will never become otherwise. It doesn't matter how good your camera is. You seriously are pretending that you know what the ocean is like because you looked at it through a camera? It's not even close to the same thing. What does it smell like? What does the breeze feel like?
Unfortunately immediately after having smelled an alien ocean or after feeling the Martian breeze a human will need replacing, whereas a robot will remain functional. A human standing on another planet will be sensing everything through mechanical mediation. Gazing through a visor may be preferable to viewing via a remote screen, but you are unlikely to ever be feeling that breeze on your cheek.
Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
That is astounding. Citation, please?
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
Google is your friend - "global food waste". Most of the statistics I'm seeing now are in the 30-50% range, so perhaps my original source was overstating the case.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
As the title says, I'm getting on now - and even thinking of properly retiring.
Ever since I was aware of such things, I was always very much more than hopeful - convinced really - that we would receive some signal (in a 'Contact' fashion) before I was placed into my box (cremate/inter :- hey surprise me!) An example of self-centred hubris in the ‘belief of ourselves’, including me of course!
Still, I live in hope.
Goodness knows what it would do to all those religious fundamentalists though!
@peetm
I wonder if the aliens will claim they are chosen by God? Will they even believe in God? Will they have a Mork and Mindy at the centre of their creation myth?
"In My Father's house are many dwelling places".