What Did Nasa Find?

[Boerseun]

Oi - wot's this, then?

 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-167_Astrobiology.html

 

Anybody know what this might be? I can't wait till the 2nd if there be aliens involved...

[sanctus]

Me too (and write this super cool and interesting post-content here so that in case I forget to check, I will see that you will post if it is cool :-) )

[Boerseun]

Sandro, have you got your tinfoil hat ready? :)

[sanctus]

Lol, now what is a tinfoil hat? Or more precisely its use?

[Rade]

Here is one attempt to predict what will be presented:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/01/rumor-roundup-nasa-discovered-alien-life/

 

According to this the expectation value will be high that the announcement will have to do with (1) arsenic, (2) bacteria type life form (3) one of the moons of Mars.

 

It is interesting how attempt to explain the unknown leads to pure rumor about expectations, all of which may be completely false, after we read the facts that will be presented tomorrow.

[Jay-qu]

Unfortunately it has been confirmed that they are not revealing a possibility of extra-terrestrial life - it will be something a little less conclusive. Still I am very interested to hear what has been found, it may be more mundane than expected with all the hype, but thats how must science progresses :P

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/has-nasa-found-life-beyond-earth-20101202-18h0w.html

[Boerseun]

Dammit. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Whatever their big revelation is, I'll buy beer for all you guys if its awesome.

[LaurieAG]

3 times as many stars means 3 times as many planets. That will make any new anti matter calculations very interesting.

 

But if the stars are mainly red dwarfs then most of the new planets wouldn't be that earthlike anyway and the actual percentage of habitable planets would drop substantially.

[Boerseun]

Awesome, but not alien...

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html

[Moontanman]

Well now we know, not completely new but still a significant find. Other bacteria and algae use arsenic in place of phosphorus in parts of their biochemistry.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

 

Arsenic as an alternative to phosphorus

 

Arsenic, which is chemically similar to phosphorus, while poisonous for most Earth life, is incorporated into the biochemistry of some organisms.[9] Some marine algae incorporate arsenic into complex organic molecules such as arsenosugars and arsenobetaines. Fungi and bacteria can produce volatile methylated arsenic compounds. Arsenate reduction and arsenite oxidation have been observed in microbes (Chrysiogenes arsenatis).[10] Additionally, some prokaryotes can use arsenate as a terminal electron acceptor during anaerobic growth and some can utilize arsenite as an electron donor to generate energy.

 

It has been speculated that the earliest life on Earth may have used arsenic in place of phosphorus in the backbone of its DNA.[11] A geomicrobiology study released by NASA has revealed that a bacteria, named GFAJ-1 collected in the sediments of Mono Lake in eastern California, may employ such 'arsenic DNA' when cultured without phosphorus.[12][13][14][15][16]

 

The finding of this organism does beg the question, "Is there a Shadow Biosphere" on the Earth?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_biosphere

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AsBio...9..241D

 

http://unlikelyworlds.blogspot.com/2010/12/et-v-shadow-life.html

 

No aluminum foil hats needed just yet....

[Tormod]

I'll admit to being severely underwhelmed. First the story that "something big" would be announced - which (knowing NASA now) spoke of sensationalism. Then it turned out to be just a rehash of older stories in a new version.

 

Yes, it's exciting for biologists, and yes it says something about our general failure to understand that things can be very different than we expect them to. But this is not about finding life in the universe, which is what everyone was expecting.

 

This blog entry at New Scientist is spot on:

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/12/the-et-discovery-that-wasnt.html

[Boerseun]

Gotta agree. I don't think you can blame NASA for the unrealistic hype that was generated in the Blogsphere, though.

[Qfwfq]

I knew it would be disappointing, but I couldn't help secretly hoping to see pictures of some kind of little slugs feeding on some kind of fungi in some especially favourable area.

[JMJones0424]

From xkcd

 

The mouse-over text-

"According to a new paper published in the journal Science, reporters are unable to thrive in an arsenic-rich environment."

 

 

I still find the discovery of alternate biology on earth fascinating, even if I was secretely hoping for hints of extra-terrestrial biology.