this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
247 points (89.7% liked)

Space

8724 readers
4 users here now

Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Picture of the Day

The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula

Related Communities

πŸ”­ Science

πŸš€ Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography

Other Cool Links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Bitswap@lemmy.world
Agamemnon@lemmy.world
L7ePvmEn@lemmy.world
otter@lemmy.ca
otter@lemmy.world
247
NASA just scored a badly needed win: The best potential evidence of alien life yet (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 3 months ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/space@lemmy.world
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 153 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Article highlights:

The rock, nicknamed Cheyava Falls, has three critical features:

  1. First, white veins of calcium sulfate are clear evidence that water once ran through it.
  1. Second, the rock tested positive for organic compounds, which are the carbon-based building blocks of life, as we know it.
  1. Third, it's speckled with tiny "leopard spots" that point to chemical reactions that are associated with microbial life here on Earth.

However, both the organic material and the leopard spots could have come from non-biological processes.

The rover has reached the limit of what it can learn about the rock.

They go on to say that the confidence in biosignature detection could be elevated significantly if the rock were brought back to Earth for closer study. And, it's implied that doing so would be a worthwhile endeavor.

[–] Koto@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 3 months ago

Thank you for the highlights. This is an exciting discovery!

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also, it will be returned to earth. All the perseverance samples will eventually be returned in a later mission.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Has the money actually already been allocated though? Because nothing's final until it's launched.

Nasa had a perfectly good moon buggy that they've had to scrap for no good reason, so just because it's on the cards doesn't mean it'll definitely happen.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Well, that's unfortunately true... The good news is that there's no time limit. The samples can wait as long as they have to. I doubt we'll just forget about them.

Also good, the rover is sitting on Mars, the bean counters can't disassemble it there.

[–] moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 116 points 3 months ago (1 children)

the win that NASA needs is to stop having their budget slashed

[–] MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But privatization makes everything better 🀒

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Privatization done right can make things better, but done badly it always always makes things infinitely worse. It's almost always done badly though, by bureaucrats with vested interests.

[–] MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Privatization typically prioritizes shareholders over the general public. Many things are good in theory but god awful in reality, and privatization is one of those things. It actively encourages greed and predatory practices.

[–] Xerxos@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

Even if done "right" privatization is the wrong choice for a lot of things. Like everything that should be a service for all citizens: postal service, health care, water, electricity, ...

When greed is introduced into these services people will suffer for it. Just look at all the examples of privatizations and show me where the outcome was positive for the people.

[–] kippinitreal@lemmy.world 58 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This is exciting! Even if its not microbes its a fascinating find & a win for science.

Though I hate how a someone remotely piloting science experiments via a rover on friggin' mars has to worry about how "NASA needs this win". What is the point of humanity if we don't explore our universe! I find it it so frustrating.

[–] abbadon420@lemm.ee 43 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I hope that one day, science can be a goal on it's own. Not just to gain profit or funding.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DickFiasco@lemm.ee 56 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Does NASA really need to "score a win" or is that just click bait?

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 48 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Yeah, unfortunately.

They’re a popularity based branch. You gotta clap to keep them alive.

[–] massacre@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

"Please clap"

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] mrvictory1@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

NASA depends on funding from the government

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

And the government accepts cool rocks in trade?

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Sadly, yes, if the rocks generate enough interested congresspeople.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah, they're already stocked on space noodles, unfortunately.

[–] slampisko@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

The article actually goes into detail on that point.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Goddamnit. Can you imagine being alive at a time when we finally confirm that life is not unique to Earth? I'm going to lose my shit.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Every time there is claim that Earth is some unique snowflake we are eventually proven wrong.

Some things that were said to be unique to Earth include being the center of the universe, being the only planet with a moon, being in a solar system, having an atmosphere, etc.

Yeah, we will eventually find life on Mars. Or at least solid confirmation that it did exist at some point.

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Even if we find out Mars has always been lifeless, we'll find it somewhere eventually. I'm also convinced we're going to find something clearly alive (or that was once alive) that completely redefines our entire idea of life. Dunno what that could be, but like you said, every time we think something is unique, we find out it ain't. Our definition of life is going to turn out to be too narrow, eventually.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I expect we will find carbon based life, but since we have such variety between life on Earth odds are the Martian life will be something completely new. I mean the odds of finding this was decent being on the edge of an ancient riverbed, but still finding it with one small rover suggests that it might not be that uncommon!

[–] dgriffith@aussie.zone 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Right now, conditions are not right for liquid water to exist on the surface of Mars. Atmospheric pressure is too low, water goes from ice directly to vapour with no liquid phase in between. "Life as we know it" requires liquid water as a medium. Possibly at the bottom of the deepest valleys on Mars or deep (like km) underneath the surface we might still find remnants of life.

What we will most likely find on Mars with our rovers is a history of life once existing. Life, from a billion years ago when it was warmer and wetter and plate tectonics still worked and essential chemicals weren't locked up in rocks.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago

Possibly at the bottom of the deepest valleys on Mars or deep (like km) underneath the surface we might still find remnants of life.

Or even a few yards under the surface! As long as it was able to evolve into something that breaks down minerals and can produce energy without sunlight it just needs enough moisture and an energy source to reproduce.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It depends on time and distance. We may never find life, even if there's a lot of it out there. This would be the case even if we had a lot of time and the ability to travel fast, but it is especially unlikely if we destroy our our capacity for technology through, for example, climate change-induced societal collapse or nuclear war. And that's the road we're presently on.

[–] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I want to raise a little alien farm at home.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 24 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So NASA needs aliens in order to justify its existence? The original remit was simply to reach the moon, and there were definitely no aliens there.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It’s pretty unfortunate that with all NASA has done to expand and improve technology, society, humanity, science, the continued benefits in our day to day lives, that funding it can be so controversial. It’s such a tiny fraction of the budget already and continues to do so much - how does it become a target?

Let’s also look at space stations for similar negativism. Why are so many stories talking about destruction of ISS, and end of humans in space? NASA is planning on retiring the ISS and yes it’s a huge effort to do so safely. But how is it not inspiring, to be planning a space station orbiting the moon instead? How is it not inspiring that NASA is working with private companies such that we might have multiple space stations? This transition really could be a new era of humans living and working in space, if we let it

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not even American but the underfunding of NASA is criminal, firstly because iirc it has something like a 5:1 return on its funding when you account for the economic benefits of all the research it does that filters into the private sector.

Secondly because it has great PR that really gets people engaged with space science. Before James Webb the ESA launched two telescopes of similar important, one radio one that produced the best map of the CMB we have to date and another one where I can't even remember what it does just that it was also groundbreaking in its field/spectrum. Which is the point, we all should have been excited about those telescopes when they launched but I can't even remember their names or what one of them even did, I can remember James Webb though because NASA did the PR work and that's incredibly telling.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

β€œCosmic Vision” would have been a great opportunity to sell the overall plan better, big enough to afford marketing, expensive enough overall to need marketing. Let’s all get excited and share a

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That title really hurt me.

[–] SouthFresh@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago

Ah, yes. From trusted anti-sensationalist science-based publication... er, uh... Business Insider?

[–] kinttach@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Contrarian opinion:

Discovering that Mars once had life would be bad for NASA. It would mean that human exploration of Mars might not be allowed as it could contaminate the evidence.

And it would be terrible for humanity, according to Kurzgesagt, because it would indicate that we may soon go extinct.

[–] MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean it's not like Human exploration of Mars is even viewed as remotely doable right now.

And I think there are more glaring signs here on earth that we may not be around much longer.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

More glaring than a million alien species that should exist, simply not existing?

That's a lot of life to discount.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

It's okay, they also say we might be ahead of the great filter. We're more than just life, we're physically super complex.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

No it's not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for NASA, it should get it's budget increased by x20 if you ask me, bit they didn't find alien life or anything remotely to it.

Not until there is actual evidence.

This isn't the first time that ALIENS is being screamed from NASA and it's getting annoying. Last time it was from Venus, a planet famous for a number of things, one of them being it having a lack of Hydrogen, making anything alive pretty much impossible. After the fanfare of some chemical components that "could only be created by alien microbial life!" it was just ignored because of course it wasn't alien life.

This too will just quietly be ignored, it seems to be a desperate gasp for breath as their budget slowly gets cut to zero.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is NASA the one screaming AlIeNs!1 or is it shitrags like Business Insider taking 'maybe we found some microbes' and turning it into AlIeNs!1?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

No, what’s annoying is people willfully misreading the science being published here. NASA does not claim to find alien life, they claimed to find an interesting rock with an unknown formation process consistent with microbial life in Earth rocks. People like the article writer vastly overstate what NASA is claiming.

[–] p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I refuse to believe that we are the only living beings in the entire universe.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

Oh I didn't say we aren't. I'm sure there are aliens.

I'm just saying that all these "ALIENS!" headliners from Nasa are bullshit

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί