Prospect of Life On Saturn's Moons Rises After Discovery of Organic Substances (theguardian.com) 48
Scientists have discovered complex organic molecules within the icy plume erupting from Saturn's moon Enceladus, strengthening the case that its hidden saltwater ocean may harbor the conditions for life. The Guardian reports: The sixth largest of Saturn's moons, Enceladus has become one of the leading contenders in the search for bodies that could harbor extraterrestrial life, with the Cassini mission -- which ended in 2017 -- revealing the moon has a plume of water ice grains and vapors erupting from beneath the surface at its south pole. The phenomenon has since been captured by the James Webb space telescope, with the plume reaching nearly 6,000 miles into space. The source of this material is thought to be a saltwater ocean that lies beneath the moon's icy crust.
Now researchers studying data from the Cassini mission say they have discovered organic substances within the plume, with some types of molecule detected there for the first time. Dr Nozair Khawaja, a planetary scientist at Freie University Berlin and lead author of the work, said the results increased the known complexity of the chemistry that is happening below the surface of Enceladus. "When there is complexity happening, that means that the habitable potential of Enceladus is increasing right now," he said. Writing in the journal Nature Astronomy, Khawaja and colleagues reported how their previous work had revealed the presence of organic substances and salts within ice grains found in a ring of Saturn, known as the "E-ring," that is composed of material ejected from Enceladus. [...]
While the new findings do not show that there is life on Enceladus, Khawaja said they indicate there are complex chemical pathways at play that could lead to the formation of substances that could be biologically relevant. The results, he added, support plans by the European Space Agency (ESA) to investigate the moon for signs of life. "I think all the signals are green here for Enceladus," Khawaja said. The findings add momentum to ESA's proposed mission to directly search for biological signs around 2042. According to the ESA, the mission will consist of an orbiter around Enceladus that will also fly through the plumes, as well as a lander that will touch down in the south pole region of the moon.
Now researchers studying data from the Cassini mission say they have discovered organic substances within the plume, with some types of molecule detected there for the first time. Dr Nozair Khawaja, a planetary scientist at Freie University Berlin and lead author of the work, said the results increased the known complexity of the chemistry that is happening below the surface of Enceladus. "When there is complexity happening, that means that the habitable potential of Enceladus is increasing right now," he said. Writing in the journal Nature Astronomy, Khawaja and colleagues reported how their previous work had revealed the presence of organic substances and salts within ice grains found in a ring of Saturn, known as the "E-ring," that is composed of material ejected from Enceladus. [...]
While the new findings do not show that there is life on Enceladus, Khawaja said they indicate there are complex chemical pathways at play that could lead to the formation of substances that could be biologically relevant. The results, he added, support plans by the European Space Agency (ESA) to investigate the moon for signs of life. "I think all the signals are green here for Enceladus," Khawaja said. The findings add momentum to ESA's proposed mission to directly search for biological signs around 2042. According to the ESA, the mission will consist of an orbiter around Enceladus that will also fly through the plumes, as well as a lander that will touch down in the south pole region of the moon.
This is a preposterous conclusion to make (Score:3)
Organic compounds exist everywhere in the universe - including lifeless asteroids. It's a consequence of physical chemistry not biological activity and is no indicator of a location being in any way habitable.
Re: This is a preposterous conclusion to make (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: This is a preposterous conclusion to make (Score:1)
Re:This is a preposterous conclusion to make (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? Did you (not) read a different TFS from me?
> While the new findings do not show that there is life on Enceladus,
The researcher's own words were:
> "When there is complexity happening, that means that the habitable potential of Enceladus is increasing right now,"
I believe the thinking goes like this...
1) You observe a planet or moon. So far, zero evidence of life. ... and so on.
2) You observe water on said body. Now you have a tiny chance of life.
3) You observe movement of that water, plumes, or ice, or tides or whatever else - now you have a slight chance of life
4) You observe 'organic compounds' - chances of life go up a bit more
With all of this, you start to justify the billions of euros in spend for a probe to go there (as opposed to sending it anywhere else) and have a proper look. Which leads to the researcher saying...
> The results, he added, support plans by the European Space Agency (ESA) to investigate the moon for signs of life.
Seems pretty reasonable to me. In 2047, we'll be able to determine directly if there's life there or not. Roll on 2047 - finding actual life anywhere except Earth would change humanity forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Roll on 2047
make that 2060+, we still have to get there.
finding actual life anywhere except Earth would change humanity forever.
how? we already know that it is very possible that there's life out there somewhere, it's about the first thing that started to happen on our planet as soon as conditions were favorable, which was very soon. we also know with reasonable certainty that there can't be any anywhere in practical reach. now, a one way trip to enceladus is just over decade, that's pretty near all considering. observing in what different ways life can form and evolve would no doubt be ve
Re: (Score:2)
Watching that "chance" of life rise, is kind of like watching the rising chances of the arrival of the Year of the Linux Desktop, only 1,000,000x less likely. That "slight" increase in the chance, is still very, very, very slight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Particularly given the energy requirements of the simplest life forms. Some warm spots are a balmy 157K. Good luck with methanogenesis.
The hypothesis is that life could exist in the ocean beneath the Enceladus ice shell, about 30 degrees F, not on the icy surface. That's about 275K, not 157K.
Re: (Score:2)
Enceladus has a vast subsurface ocean, which makes it a habitable location.
Re: (Score:2)
Water is the single most common molecule in the universe. It's literally everywhere. It's presence does not connote a habitable zone, even in liquid form. The pressures, the high salinity / alkalinity, the lack of sunlight, the intense radiation all make it a lethal area for anything approaching an amino acid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These moons are orbiting in a sea of organics from the planet itself. Methane, ammonia, an abundance of hydrocarbons. To have traces of these compounds erupting is expected.
There are too many ifs and maybes in this. It's not enough to "maybe" harbor an environment that "might" support primitive life, there needs to be a mechanism in place for that life to have evolved in the first place and there is nothing in that moons history to support that possibility.
Re: (Score:3)
Organic compounds exist everywhere in the universe - including lifeless asteroids. It's a consequence of physical chemistry not biological activity and is no indicator of a location being in any way habitable.
This is just more tired BS from a drive-by contrarian troll.
Calling the conclusion “preposterous” is itself a preposterous misread of both the article and the underlying science. Nobody is saying that Enceladus is in any way habitible. But you'd know that if you'd actually RTFA. The point is that Cassini (and now Webb) have confirmed complex organics coming fresh from a subsurface ocean, not radiation-cooked dust from a million-year-old asteroid. Combine that with liquid water, salts, and avai
Hoooobooy (Score:2)
Since nobody is going to mention what was found: (Score:5, Informative)
Past studies:
* Volatile, low-mass (100 u) nitrogen- and oxygen-bearing organic species.
* Single-ringed aromatic compounds.
* Complex, high-mass (exceeding 20 u) macromolecular fragments of insoluble organic material, featuring multiple aryl groups connected to hydrocarbon chains, along with nitrogen- and oxygen-bearing groups.
* Aryl (aromatic) and oxygen-bearing compounds in older E-ring grains.
Current study:
* Confirmed aryl and O-bearing compounds in fresh grains (ruling out that they formed due to space weathering)
* Aliphatic O-bearing compounds with carbonyl groups attached to a C2 organic, with acetaldehyde or acetic acid being likely candidates (aldehydes are interesting because they're intermediates precursors in the formation of amino acids)
* Aliphatic and cyclic esters and/or alkenes (on Earth, these are involved in the formation of fats and oils)
* Two classes of ether and/or ethyl compounds (on Earth, these are regularly found in living organisms)
* Tentative N- and O-bearing moieties. Potential candidates for these molecules include derivatives of pyrimidine, pyridine, and nitriles like acetonitrile (such molecules are involved in the reactions that form amino acids).
TL/DR: there may well be not just the atomic building blocks of life in there (CHONPS), but the molecular building blocks as well.
Re: Since nobody is going to mention what was foun (Score:1)
Need some more context (Score:3)
Can all of these chemicals be produced by inorganic processes or are there a few that almost never appear naturally without a bio source?
Re:Need some more context (Score:5, Insightful)
The evidence is more the other way around: this is evidence that life could get established there, not evidence that life made these things.
We *might* get to Mars (Score:2)
join the coalition of the spilling. now! (Score:2)
Then what?
we mine and thrash it
then what? We can't get anywhere else.
we build a death star.
Even in my lifetime
so selfish! it will take generations to bring democracy to that barbaric outer space. and bots. lots of bots.
Re: join the coalition of the spilling. now! (Score:2)
Whatever you're smoking, I want some.
Re: join the coalition of the spilling. now! (Score:2)
Whew. I was afraid we *weren't* going to inject politics into every fucking thread.
Re: We *might* get to Mars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing about the Universe, you cannot get there from here, at least not easily without it taking several lifetimes. Oh, but if we had a warp drive (better and different engine), then we'd get there mighty quick. As an Corollary, if I won the lottery, I'd be rich.
Re: (Score:2)
you cannot get there from here, at least not easily without it taking several lifetimes with today's technology and physics
FTFY
Unless you're of the utterly unfounded opinion that we know everything there is to know about physics and engineering you should be able to see the foolishness of your statement. Two centuries ago it was believed by experts that the human body couldn't survive the acceleration to 35 mph, 150 years ago the uncle of the Wright brothers was delivering sermons saying that man could never fly, a century ago the NYT science writer confidently declared that trains would never go faster than 100 mph.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately and "better and different" engines in the forseable future will still be based on newtons 3rd law so it'll be small percentage improvements. Unless someone finds a hole in our current understanding of physics something like warp drive or wormholes will remain in the realm of sci-fi and were at best stuck in our solar system. More likely however is the expense, length of time and risks of even sending people to mars - never mind the outer planets - will be so great that no one bothers.
Re: (Score:2)
They could be pretty big percentages when we start using fusion rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be significant enough to make a big enough difference. Even if fusion rockets can travel twice as fast as chemical ones its still a hell of a long trip to mars and still impossible for humans to realistically go any further unless someone invents some hibernation technology.
Re: (Score:2)
The specific impulse of a fusion drive is expected to be several hundred times that of a chemical rocket, and "maximum speed" for a rocket is proportional to the specific impulse.
Nearer term advanced engines, i.e. ones that have working prototypes or even production examples, are in the 10-100x range. That takes a trip to Saturn from 12 years to between a month and a year. Or a few days for a hypothetical fusion drive.
Re: (Score:2)
If we manage to put a human on Mars, then what? We can't get anywhere else.
Everything is impossible until someone invents a solution to the problem. Despite being "impossible" we've been working on this type of problem for a very long time.
Humanity has at least three universal goals that permeate cultures and time:
1. explore unreachable lands
2. immortality
3. construct an artificial being
These have existed and been in stories since ancient times. We have been hugely successful in exploration (at great cost to human life) and as we learn about new places our scope expands. We've on
On the other hand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there's no life there, then I suppose we should introduce life and see where evolution takes it.
And if there IS life there, then we shouldn't bring it back. We have enough trouble with Earth-native life being introduced into new areas and thriving to our detriment. How much more disruptive and/or destructive might some totally alien form of life be if it finds conditions here hospitable?
Nope (Score:2)
Re:Nope (Score:5, Funny)
That ones ours. Europa or bust.
I have it on good authority that we should attempt no landing there.
Poor use of resources (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we stopped pouring all our resources into the bottomless money pit of military spending there are a **LOT** of things that suddenly become possible. No one is going to invade the US, much less attempt to conquer it, so spending more than the next 10 countries combined (8 of them our allies) is stupid and wasteful.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is going to invade the US, much less attempt to conquer it.
The last time the US was invaded was by Pancho Villa. Pancho Villa State Park in New Mexico is dedicated to the event. The reality is our military is used to assert US economic domination, not defend the country from invasion.
Vast amounts of oil (Score:2)