First Titan now the Chance for Life on Io!!

Ok you're probably thinking "No Chance" Io is the most volcanic body in our solar system, what chance has any life got living on a moon with temperature swings like 1649 degrees C near the volcano's and -130 degrees C at the surface, with sulphur dioxide snowfields! Not to mention the radiation coming from Jupiter! Well.. reading a news exclusive in today's Astrobiology magazine astrobiologist Dirk Schulze-Makuch at Washington State University is saying:

"Everyone right away tends to categorically exclude the possibility of life on Io, Still, conditions on Io might have made it a friendlier habitat in the distant past. If life did ever develop on Io, there is a chance it might have survived to the present day, Life on the surface is all but impossible, but if you go down further into the rocks, it could be intriguing, We shouldn't categorize it as dead right away just because it's so extreme."

He goes on to say no organic molecules have been detected on the moon’s surface, but that does not mean they do not exist underground, maybe in the many lava tubes that exist on the violent moon.

We've just had NASA talking about Titan and the possibility of life there, as well as the on going search for life on Mars, now the possibility for life on Io, we appear to be living in an age in time that is striving for scientific evidence of life elsewhere in the solar system! Exciting times ahead! Most of us here on ATS (I presume) believe life exists out there other than us in some form or another, lets hope we find life out there in our lifetimes! It's certainly looking that way!

Astrobiology magazine

I'm a big believer in panspermia so I kind of think that there is the possibility of life in many places.

IRM

reply to post by InfaRedMan


Hi IRM, I'm with you on that, in fact I made a thread a while back on the very subject:

panspermia

I don't know if it's just me? but I feel we are getting closer to the discovery of life elsewhere, all we need now is the Governments of the World to stop bickering and get on with space exploration!

reply to post by Majestic RNA


I think we've already found evidence of life in the Martian meteorite ALH84001... and with the Viking Lander. There's either an agenda for glossing it over/withholding it, or the old conservatives still run the scientific fraternity.

Like the saying goes, "The scientific community advances one death at a time".

Hopefully in the near future, the Drake equation will go the way of the Dodo bird too. What complete rubbish that is... yet it's still quoted all the time.

IRM

[edit on 11/6/10 by InfaRedMan]

doesnt suprise me. I hope I live long enough to see the day where we except that some kinds of primitive life can be found in many places. What I really want to see is some kind of submarine rover sent to Europa. I think the ocean(s) there might have some more evolved marine life.

reply to post by InfaRedMan



Agreed, like you I think we have found life elsewhere, maybe not gray's or reptilians but microscopic life, as for the reason it's withheld is anyone's guess? Probably to protect us from the mass panic we'd all go through if we found out we're not alone in the universe

I've seen some pretty strange things when out with my telescope at night and I don't have an explanation for them, so maybe just maybe intelligent life has already been discovered... (but hey.. that's another subject)

reply to post by Totalstranger



Hi Totalstranger, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for life being discovered in our lifetime also, Io has always been a moon that's counted out as a harbourer of life up untill now, as I've been discussing with IRM, we may already have found life! Who knows??

Yeah Europa is a fascinating moon fo'sure, what's living under that ice crust is an interest of mine also, if we sent a rover capable of melting the ice crust and getting into the proposed sea underneath who knows what we'd find?..... Elvis and Hendrix maybe?

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by Majestic RNA

 

I think we've already found evidence of life in the Martian meteorite ALH84001... and with the Viking Lander. There's either an agenda for glossing it over/withholding it, or the old conservatives still run the scientific fraternity.

Once you make it big enough in science to become a person of importance and influence, not just a PhD but a PhD who's a major investigator in planetary exploration projects, you become cautious. I see it in my own field of study; once a scientist reaches a certain level of importance they stop taking risks and just keep milking whatever lucky discovery got them to their current level of importance. Theoriticians might be able to get away with risky claims, no one expects them to be right even half the time, and they tend to be remembered for what they were right about, not what they were wrong about, but not pragmatic scientists whose ideas are expected to be concrete most of the time and whose ideas will either be proven or disproven in the very near future. They got where they are usually because of a lucky discovery that proved one of their early ideas, but now they fold at the slightest chance of risk because they've already got all the chips they want and risky grants don't get funded. That said, it wouldn't be beneficial to science as a whole for conclusions to be reached on insufficient evidence. There might be strong indications of life in ALH84001, but it would be more damaging to the credibility of planetary science to conclude that it WAS life only to have to reverse that position later than it is to conclude that we don't know enough yet to say for sure and wait for firm confirmation to reach the radical conclusion.

Like the saying goes, "The scientific community advances one death at a time".

I prefer to think of it as, the scientific community advances one new PhD at a time. Senior PhDs tend to be like the wise elders; their stories of how they made their early discoveries can inspire more outside-the-box thinking in younger PhDs who don't have anything to lose. Their wisdom is valuable, even if they've grown risk-averse at the peak of their careers.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by Majestic RNA

 

Like the saying goes, "The scientific community advances one death at a time".

I prefer to think of it as, the scientific community advances one new PhD at a time.

I guess that's a nicer way of looking at it, but I believe both are true. Nice to see you back on the board btw. I haven't seen you around for a while my friend!

IRM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
...Like the saying goes, "The scientific community advances one death at a time".

Hopefully in the near future, the Drake equation will go the way of the Dodo bird too. What complete rubbish that is... yet it's still quoted all the time...

The Drake Equation as originally formulated is still valid because Frank Drake didn't originally include values for his variables. It was simply a way to link all of the variables that are considered required for the evolution intelligent life. The actual values for those variables can change (and thus changing the result) without actually changing the equation itself.

For example, one of the variables/parameters is fp, which is the average number of planets around each star. In the 50 years since the creation of the Drake equation, the value for that parameter has changed -- but that change does not nullify the pertinence of the equation itself -- nor will it in the future if science decides to change the value of that variable again.

If simple life is found to be more common that previously thought, then all that one needs to do is adjust that value in the equation -- NOT the equation itself. The equation itself would still be a valid tool no matter what the scientific understanding of the future decides the values of those variables should be.




[edit on 6/11/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Hi Soylent...

I'm aware of that mate... but no meaningful number can ever arise from the drake equation. As you know, it's all based on 'guesses' or more to the point, what can really be considered as arbitrary numbers. One must assume far to much IMHO.

IRM

reply to post by InfaRedMan

I agree that there is no way (right now) that we can have meaningful values for the equation's parameters, although I think the very act of trying to discern the approximate values is a constructive endeavor -- i.e. I think science has learned a lot by simply trying to quantify the equation.

I think the Drake Equation is a useful tool for discussion in principle, although perhaps not in application.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Agreed!

IRM