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.
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.
Good question. NASA seems to be on a search obsessively focused on the concept "liquid water touching bedrock equals life, anywhere without liquid water touching bedrock equals no life". There's so many things wrong with this concept I don't even know where to start. We don't even know if the first forms of life on our own planet developed that way, let alone whether it's common or rare and whether other possibilities are common or rare.
It bothers me because it causes them to obsess over certain bodies (Mars, Europa) while ignoring others. Personally, if I was hunting for life, of all the places in the solar system outside of Earth, I'd pick Titan (which usually gets ignored because it's so cold).
* It's bigger (although not heavier) than Mercury, and has a predominantly nitrogen atmosphere denser than Earth, with a full meteorological cycle.
* We know that there's complex organic chemistry going on en masse there. Today.
* We've detected dozens of types of complex organic chemicals already even with our limited study and we know we're only scratching the surface. Unidentified chemicals around 10000 daltons have been detected in the atmosphere. There's probably even more complex chemicals on the surface. There's so much complex organics there that it blankets the surface in places.
* There's not one type of liquid on Titan but multiple - an underground sea (which reaches the surface through cryovolcanoes, we're pretty certain) and surface seas of hydrocarbons of what appear to be significantly varying compositions.
* Titan's methane is regenerating itself. We don't know why. On Mars they treat the presence of unexpected methane as an incredible sign of possible life, on Titan it's treated just as a "Huh, weird" thing
* Before the details of what was going on on Titan it was theorized in peer-reviewed research that if life existed on Titan, it would most likely consume ethane and acetylene as fuel, burn it with hydrogen instead of oxygen, and produce methane instead of CO2. Subsequent measurements revealed that Titan's surface is unexpectedly ethane-poor, highly acetlyene poor versus how much is being produced in the atmosphere, and one tenative study reveals that hydrogen is disappearing at the surface too.
* A recent study shows that if it reached sufficient concentration, any acrylonitrile dissolved in Titan's hydrocarbon lakes would naturally form membranes with properties almost identical to the properties of phospholipid membranes on Earth. It just so happens that we've already detected acrylonitrile in Titan's atmosphere.
And on and on. Does any of this mean that there "is" life on Titan? No, not at all. But it's orders of magnitude more evidence than we have for life being at any of the other "popular" places like Mars with its peroxide-rich regolith that destroys organics on contact or Europa's undersea ocean that we know virtually zilch about. And there's an awful lot of mysteries about Titan that warrant solving, life or not. For example, even if there was some non-organic catalyst on Titan breaking down acetylene on the surface, it'd sure be amazing and potentially quite useful to know what sort of natural inorganic catalyst could do that at 100K. And even if Titan turns out to be the worst case - a "frozen early Earth" - well, geez, the knowledge we'd gain toward understanding where we came from in studying the organic chemistry there would be amazing.
Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
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.