Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Acetylene Based Life on Titan? 272

Posted by Zonk from the no-hugging dept.
mindpixel writes "Astrobiology Magazine's Leslie Mullen has a fascinating interview with funky science dude David Grinspoon about the possibility that there may exist a whole new biology on Titan where the extreme cold slows normally explosive reactions to a biologically useful pace." From the article: "What's really new in our paper is that we go into the question of energy sources. If there's life there, what's it going to eat? What kind of food is there? And it turns out there's abundant food because of all this photochemistry in the upper atmosphere, where methane is being turned into other organic molecules. Some of those organic molecules are very energy-rich, and one that we consider in the paper is acetylene. We know it's being made in the atmosphere, we know it's raining down on the surface, and it's been detected at the surface with the Huygens probe. We calculated that, if acetylene is reacting with the hydrogen gas to turn it back into methane, quite a bit of energy is being released. So that's our basis for saying there is something to eat on Titan. We don't know if there are any customers, but there's something on the menu."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Acetylene Based Life on Titan? More

Acetylene Based Life on Titan?

Comments Filter:

  • Farts for dinner? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jkc120 ( 104731 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:01PM (#13636024)
    Any intelligent life form that eats farts should be feared. That is all.

    • Re:Farts for dinner? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Froggy ( 92010 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:13PM (#13636081) Homepage
      Any intelligent life form that eats farts should be feared. That is all.

      Any Slashdot poster that farts acetylene is to be feared. From as far away as possible.

      • Gee, I don't know. I'm of a mind to make up some new, classic steel bicycle frames lately. If said Slashdotter wouldn't mind coming over here putting this hose. . .

        No, nevermind, I think I'll just buy the stuff afterall. Just don't tell me where it actually came from, 'K?

        KFG

    • Re:Farts for dinner? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:19PM (#13636106)
      We should be feared when we eat bread (the farts of yeast) and honey (the piss of bees). Or a can of beans.

      • Re:Farts for dinner? (Score:5, Funny)

        by TelJanin ( 784836 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:23PM (#13636124)
        I thought honey was bee barf (not in here mister, this is a Mercedes).

      • Re:Farts for dinner? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @12:54AM (#13636401) Homepage
        honey (the piss of bees)


        As I understand it, bees create honey as a convenient way to store sustenance for themselves, not as a waste product. So it's not so much the piss of bees as the cud of bees, or perhaps the canned food of bees.

        • That's correct. From Wikipedia: "Honey is laid down by bees as a food source. In cold weather or when food sources are scarce, bees use their honey as their sole source of nutrition."
        • The bees drink the nectar from flowers and regurgitate/vomit it into cells in their hive on their return. I wouldn't call it "cud" because they don't bring it back up, chew on it, and then swallow it as part of an extended digestive process such as ruminant mammals use. And it's certainly NOT piss because the nectar isn't absorbed by the digestive system and filtered out by some kidney-like organ (now honeydew from aphids is effectively piss, but that's another matter).
    • Imagine a crashed UFO somewhere on this planet. A small green guy crawls on the ground breathing heavily "acetyleeeeneee, acetyleeene...".

      • Re:Farts for dinner? (Score:3, Informative)

        by jerde ( 23294 )
        Except that our small green guy would be LONG dead from terrible burns. We get burned at 110*F or so -- the chemistry of our bodies and verily the very structure of our proteins are affected by temperatures above that, just as temperatures too low do not allow our metabolic processes to continue.

        Titan is COOOOOOOLD. Acetylene is much MORE reactive, such that at our "room temperature" it reacts much too easily and much too violently. Our bodies don't work at those temperatures, becuase you can't get oxygen t
        • so, because acetylene is much more reactive, will the life based on it have faster metabolysm, thinking and reflexes?

          • Re:Farts for dinner? (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            I think you're missing the point. How reactive the specific chemicals are depends on the temperature to a large degree. Acetylene is more reactive (too reactive) at Earth standard temperatures. On Titan, the temps are so cold as to freeze use solid in minutes, but acetylene remains liquid and could still react with other hydrocarbons. How that plays into over metabolysm and reflexes (which seems to imply macroscopic scales) depends on the reaction energies of those specific hydrocarbon reactions relativ

  • Cool (Score:3, Funny)

    by Crixus ( 97721 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:01PM (#13636025)
    This is certainly an interesting idea, and one of the more unusual proposed.

    Didn't Bush's new space exploration plan call for us to visit there, soon? :-)

  • Life of Titan (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tesral ( 630142 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:04PM (#13636034) Homepage
    Well, it is possible. Life Jim, but not as we know it. What it does bring up is the star system with nothing but giant planets might have moons with life. Hey, it could happen.

    Now if we could only be successful in finding intelligent life in Washington DC

  • Misleading headline (Score:4, Informative)

    by millennial ( 830897 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:04PM (#13636040) Journal
    Even just from the summary, it would seem that the life itself is not acetylene-based, just the food the life would eat.
    • Even just from the summary, it would seem that the life itself is not acetylene-based, just the food the life would eat.

      not quite:

      imagine a planet with a sugary rain . . .

    • Really cool point that the reaction speeds are slowed so normally fast reactions might be usable.

      Reactions slows with temperature either because diffundation speed slows (the speed of molecules) or that the energy of the collisions between molecules aren't enought to make them react.

      The molecular speed should be a problem. I believe cell size of modern life is limited by diffundation of oxygen and other molecules. Any life would have to use lots of transportation engines in their cells (or keep them ver

  • life on titan (Score:5, Funny)

    by foobari ( 227908 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:05PM (#13636048)
    Excited missionaries are pulling out their cold weather gear.

  • What is life, anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by darkmeridian ( 119044 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <gnauhc.mailliw>> on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:06PM (#13636053) Homepage
    Reading the article makes we wonder exactly what life is, anyway. It sounds as though we only require chemical conversion. What if there is a big rock that serves as a catalyst for this conversion of acetylene and hydrogen to methane. Would we think of that as a life form? Or would we require reproduction? Would reproduction be possible in this slow-motion frozen gel we find on Titan?

    It is interesting, though, how the life and the planet co-evolves. Life has really changed Earth and it may have affected Titan, as well.
    • What if there is a big rock that serves as a catalyst for this conversion of acetylene and hydrogen to methane. Would we think of that as a life form?
      No
    • Metabolism and reproduction I do believe are the hallmarks of life. So catalysts are not alive, and plenty of catalysts exist. It has to eat something, and copy itself some how.
      • Hey I think there are still semi-intelligent arguments about whether or not virii constitute living organisms. I remember in school, my god that makes me sound old, there being some degree of debate, at least at the time, as to whether bacteria qualify as life. I forget the wonderful arguments as such, but virii certainly have some degree of reproduction.

    • Re:What is life, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Compuser ( 14899 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:14PM (#13636088)
      Life is:
      1. Ability to store information.
      2. Ability to process stored information to make
      replicas of oneself.
      3. Metabolism (to power the above).
      • I don't think that the ability to store information is a hallmark of life. I think you're referring to genetic codes, etc., but extraterrestrial life wouldn't necessarily be DNA or RNA-based. Life merely has to be able to produce a copy of itself.

      • Re:What is life, anyway? (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        By that definition, a Dell PC powered by a solar cell and programmed to autonomously surf the Dell website and plug in a valid credit card number and its shipping address would qualify.
      • I think you forgot: 4. Has a sense of humor. Cause life without a sense of humor isn't any kind of life at all. (Sad observation: This post isn't very funny. So shoot me).
      • That's a nice characterization. But it fails it. Mules are alive but cannot reproduce.
      • I thought life is what happens to you when you quit reading Slashdot.

        I'm putting off my re-entry to life as long as possible about now...

    • Re:What is life, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MidnightBrewer ( 97195 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:19PM (#13636105)
      A quick trip to dictionary.com yielded this answer:

      "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."

      There are some pretty standard requirements; the rock doesn't respond to stimuli, doesn't gorw, doesn't reproduce and doesn't evolve over time. Standard geological phenomena such as erosion don't count.
      • I note how carefully the definition does not mention "evolve" or "evolution". It simply says "adaptation to environment".

        It's amazing what has happened to the US. IN this day and age we are still fighting ignorance every day [cnn.com].

        It seems silly to fight over the definition of life when the good citizens of Pennsylvania have decided that evolution is "just a theory".
        • I note how carefully the definition does not mention "evolve" or "evolution". It simply says "adaptation to environment".

          There's nothing to note and nothing evil here. A single individual can adapt to the environment without ever evolving. If it is hot, you will sweat. That is an adaptation (reaction) to the environment, not evolution (however, the development of sweat glands is another matter entirely). You might also look for a shady spot. Or you can influence your environment to suit your needs.

        • I note how carefully the definition does not mention "evolve" or "evolution". It simply says "adaptation to environment".

          It's amazing what has happened to the US. IN this day and age we are still fighting ignorance every day.

          Amen, brother! There are still those so ignorant and steeped in their belief in evolution that they consider "adaptation to environment" must always mean "evolution" - even when it refers to a classification that can apply to a single infertile individual. Clearly, an individual can a

        • If the philosophy of science were a standard part of the HS ciriculum, then politicians of the future might have the basic understanding required to realize that this crap has nothing to do with science.
        • I note how carefully the definition does not mention "evolve" or "evolution". It simply says "adaptation to environment".

          Because "adaptation to the environment" is a term that describes what living things do every single day in order to keep living. Evolution does not happen within a single organism's lifespan. We certainly don't say that something is not alive just because we can't observe it evolving. Perhaps you should be a little less sensitive and stop looking for intelligent design conspiracies every

    • Re:What is life, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:24PM (#13636128) Homepage
      A nice definition of life is something like "Active maintenance of self in the face of entropy". In other words, something that actively (and successfully) keeps itself functioning and stable even though the vicissitudes of existence constantly try to tear you down.

      Or, shorter, if you fight entropy you're alive. If you don't, you aren't.
      • Well, either that, or your desk's an absolute mess......hmmm, I don't seem to be fulfilling my duties as a lifeform....
      • I like that definition, because it also could serve to characterize the level of aliveness.

        What, do you think, this definition says about prions, though? Are they "alive"? What about virii?
        • No, for me - and for my definition, which is different - prions aren't alive.

          Viruses ("virii" is cute, and I love the term just like I like "Elvii" for a bunch of Elvis impersonators, but technically wrong) are, well, kind of, but not really, alive according to the definition. They, individually, do not fight entropy; it doesn't eat or do anything else to gain energy, and if a virus is damaged, that's it - it doesn't heal. The genes they carry, however, do fight it.

          The basic problem, as any philosophy stude

    • Re:What is life, anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:24PM (#13636130) Homepage Journal
      I like the definition of life which is based on complexity theory. Anything that shows less entropy than the environment of which it is contained is typically alive.
      • I like the definition of life which is based on complexity theory. Anything that shows less entropy than the environment of which it is contained is typically alive.

        I think you're playing mighty fast and loose with 'complexity theory' and (as you're talking about entropy) thermodynamics. That 'law' only applies to closed systems, you know.

        Or perhaps you meant entropy in the information-theoretic sense? Well, in that case it doesn't make much sense to me either ;)

      • I would contend that that is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one, or even a good general test of aliveness.

        If I shot you, you would still less entropy than your environment, but you'd be dead. This is generally true of all life - ending it does not greatly increase its entropy.

        Further, it is generally recognized that current machines are not alive. For a test to be any good for checking for life, it needs some kind of exclusionary principal to remove machines from the mix. Your test does not
    • What if there is a big rock that serves as a catalyst for this conversion of acetylene and hydrogen to methane.

      Actually, it's not a 'what if'. Platinum powder will catalyze that reaction just fine. Well, at least as far as ethane. (not sure about the final step: ethane + H2 --> 2 methane)

      Would we think of that as a life form?

      Last I checked, nobody was saying platinum was alive. :)
      Seriously though, "catalyzing a chemical reaction" is a terrible definition of 'life'.

      Or would we require reproduction?

      That's

    • Dave Barry came up with a good answer... (Score:4, Funny)

      by SIGBUS ( 8236 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:38PM (#13636183) Homepage
      Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.

      • Re:Dave Barry came up with a good answer... (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.

        So 500 pound gorillas aren't alive? They might not die, but they sure got angry with me when I tried that the other day.
    • Yeah, you have to wonder he means by "a biologically useful pace." I assume he means chemical reactions proceeding slow enough for us to recognize it as life, but isn't it just as possible for life to exist in high-energy (explosive) conditions, only too fast for us to realize it's there? And why couldn't there be life in frozen oceans with chemical reactions too slow for us to recognize? Hmm.
    • I learned the answer the other day in science:

      1. Metabolizes.
      2. Moves.
      3. Responds.
      4. Adapts.
      5. Evolves.
      6. Grows.
      7. Homeostasis.

  • I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:08PM (#13636063) Homepage Journal
    Suppose there is intelligent life in there, what will they think of earth creatures?

    "Amazing! The third planet creatures support temperatures so high that none of the titan lifeforms could withstand. Let's call them extremophiles [astrobiology.com]".

    Kinda makes you think...
    • I once read a science fiction story featuring beings from a Titan-like planet discussing Earth. One of them marveled that Earth was so unimaginably hot that its surface was mostly covered with deep pools of molten water. I thought that was beautifully phrased.
    • " Suppose there is intelligent life in there, what will they think of earth creatures?"

      Drop a radio transceiver onto the surface and we can talk about it.

      Seriously, since FTL won't be happening in my lifetime, I kinda hope we find some sort of intelligent life elsewhere in our neighborhood to give space exploration a kick in the pants.

      All we really know right now is nobody else around is using radio, but radio wouldn't even work all that well in some of the environments that have the potential to host some
    • That kind of leads to an interesting question. Could there be an advanced race (paleolithic age to almost modern in earth terms) in our solar system and we just never noticed it because it's way too different from us? If a plume of gas was sentient, would we notice?

  • Reminds me of a Hal Clement story (Score:4, Interesting)

    by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:08PM (#13636064) Homepage Journal
    Clement's Ice World was set on a unthinkably frigid world where sulfur was a solid and liquified steam covered the surface!

    It was Earth, of course. The protagonist was an alien scientist kidnapped by drug smugglers and forced to analyze a horrific drug they'd been buying from the natives. It's a juvenile, really, but enjoyable by adults as well.

  • Original Article (long) (Score:5, Informative)

    by Greg Hullender ( 621024 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:10PM (#13636069) Homepage Journal
    Here's a link to the original NASA article [nasa.gov] by Grinspoon and others. It's pretty long (and part of a longer set of papers) so you might just search for "Titan" and go from there. However, if you have the time, it's fascinating reading, and it does have cool pictures. :-)

    --Greg

  • Further study needed? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Friday September 23, 2005 @11:17PM (#13636100)
    Who elsewould like to see 10 billion taken out of that moon landing money and put towards a few swarms probes to Titan to confirm this. Something to researhc this, and the JIMO [nasa.gov] mission are what i'd really pushed up schedule. Life outside our planet is the type of scientific and philisophical question that we should make all strides to answering. Jupites moons and Titan are the only places we essentially have left in our immediate solar system that might contain life. We really owe it to ourselves to research these to their final conclusion. I'd be happy to expand humanity into the solar system once we know we're not the only thing on it.
    • Who elsewould like to see 10 billion taken out of that moon landing money and put towards a few swarms probes to Titan to confirm this.
      I'm sure more people would agree if you said take 10Bn from the military instead.
    • I would like to see 5 billions taken from the moon program and given to e.g. Scaled Composites [wikipedia.org] to build a cheap heavy lifter.

      Then you could build the solar system program for 95 billions.

      Five billions only gets you papers from NASA and their standard contractors. :-(

    • Well lets take it to its logical conclusion... what would a unified space program do, exactly? First thing I would do is set up a space station with an actual functional purpose, as a launch point for probes and a gathering point for data and samples, and expandable of course.

      Next a methodical automated probe search of the whole system, with certain goals in mind, such as habitability, mineral value, and exisitng life forms. The emphasis should be on redundancy, with thousands of cheap probes sent to eac

  • Genocide (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jozer99 ( 693146 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @12:03AM (#13636263)
    We should probably make sure they don't find out about the Acetylene genocide going on at every mechanic's garage and construction site every day.

  • The Bigger Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lcreech ( 1491 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @12:33AM (#13636346)
    Is the impact on religion. The 7th day and so forth. Like Copernicus and Gallileo popping the churches/government bubble isn't pleasent and because of the current polical atmosphere, these times are no exception.

    Not anonymous because I am not afraid, though I may regret it in the near term.
    • Religion: -1 Flamebait.

      Hello? 21st century here, all $DEITY's should be buried by now. Open your eye's people, Darwin's theory [wikipedia.org] has been out for nearly 150 years, religion has long been obsolete!

      Bring it on you fundi's, I dare you. Modding me down will get you a one-way ticket to Hell...

      • I find people who force their religious beliefs onto others despicable, including athiests.
      • I'm agnostic (fallen away Catholic), and therefore no "fundi", but IMHO the notion that deities CAN'T exist is just as foolish and arrogant as asserting they NECESSARILY exist. Ultimately, neither position is likely to ever be proved or disproved.

        Why is it so important to some atheists to ram the theory of godlessness down the throats of others: a behavior identical to many of those being vilified (the "fundi's" [sic] in this case). There is a dearth of evidence for either position, so it really does come
    • For many religions, it should have no impact.

      I mostly know about Catholic teachings, but most non-fundamentalist Christian groups hold the whole 7 day creation bit to be metaphorical. ie the 7 days represent 7 distinct periods during creation, which could be millions of years long. Just because there isn't any specific mention of an event doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. "On the x day God created the heavens and the earth." Heavens= moon, stars, Titans, etc.

      At least for Catholics, the big ban

  • Spallation? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How does the earth replenishes its carbon 14 source (half-life of 5730 yrs)? Spallation. This is the reason for carbon dating can be "somewhat" constant and "more or less" reliable. (Assuming that the high energy particles are constant.)

    This is a great topic to stump some of the more well educated scientists. N2 ----> 14CN.

    http://www.sns.gov/aboutsns/what-why.htm [sns.gov]

    My question: does spallation work on Titan? I know that Saturn has an intense magnetic field, but I don't know if Saturn emits high energy

  • Titan is OURS (Score:3, Funny)

    by patricksevenlee ( 679708 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @01:40AM (#13636532)
    All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there.

    I'm assuming the warning covers the rest of the solar system. So those little black rectangles can kiss our carbon based rear ends.

    Also, members of the Titan version of Slashdot are probably saying, "I for one welcome our monkey-based overlords."

  • >>> We calculated that, if acetylene is reacting with the hydrogen gas to turn it back into methane, quite a bit of energy is being released. So that's our basis for saying there is something to eat on Titan. We don't know if there are any customers, but there's something on the menu.

    This reaction doesn't make any sense. The C-C bond is much too stronger to be broken by a small release of energy done by the hydrogen absorbtion. At worst, this will generate etylene in the first step, and then ethane
    • This reaction doesn't make any sense.

      Sure it does. C2H2 + H2 --> CH4 is exothermic by about 300 kJ/mol. That is, 300 kJ of heat are released for every mole of acetylene consumed.

      Maybe it's confusing because we usually think of energy-releasing respiration-type reductions in the context of our nice highly oxidizing atmosphere? So that most reactions we think of as "energy producing" are combustion reactions, combinations of hydrocarbons with oxygen? But there's no free oxygen on Titan, so that's out.
  • Is it just me or are Slashdot's articles getting incrementally longer?

  • Now I understand why Huygens lasted 3x too long! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Herve5 ( 879674 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @05:13AM (#13637010)
    Because the Huygens probe had many platinum-covered appendages, this (catalyst) triggered out the chemical reactions depicted in the OP, which heated the probe much more than expected (it is notorious that the probe's temperature was well above manufacturer's predictions during all descent).
    Then once on ground, this heating continued, and Huygens whose batteries had been designed to last "the 3-hours descent + some margins" in a -150 degree environment, lasted indeed six hours more for being much hotter...

    Hervé, part of the Huygens technical team

    OK, as we are not april 1st now I wonder wether I shoulnd't have posted anonymously :-)
  • Having worked around welders, the acetylene thing put me off. Next time you're around a big metal bottle of the stuff (and there's nothing lit or burning for miles around, and you're outside!), crack the valve real quick and take a whiff. Farts don't begin to describe it, you have to mix in a rotten egg and a scortched garlic clove, along with the kind of farts your dog makes after eating liver. Good thing it's 821,190,000 miles from Earth, or we'd be able to smell it from here.

  • DOH! (Score:3, Informative)

    by SilverspurG ( 844751 ) * on Saturday September 24, 2005 @08:41AM (#13637537) Homepage Journal
    AM: So there's acetylene rain from the sky that's produced by the breakdown of methane</i>
    SSG: Actually it's the other way around. Methane is formed by the breakdown of acetylene. Acetylene is formed by the dehydrogenation of two molecules of methane [ksu.edu]
    DG: By ultraviolet light and also by interactions with Saturn's magnetosphere. There's a lot of energy up there. Then the acetylene is raining down and getting buried....

    Other than that small confusion in the heads of the interviewers, I find the concept of acetylene based life very intriguing.

    I, for one, welcome our new acetylene metabolizing overlords.

  • Yet Another Overlord? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:14AM (#13637929) Homepage
    How many overlords does this make? Doesn't it get a bit tiring every time you turn around we have welcome new overlords like those giant ants, black monoliths, 900 foot Jesus, giant squid, or even intelligent doormats. C'mon slashdot. Just stick with one overlord and we'll all be happy toiling away in the gallium arsnide mines, the selenium tarpits, and Wal-Marts. Hold on there's a knock at the door.

    I'm back. The delivery man gave me this package. It had this cool hat in it. It's a gelatinous blue with tentacles. It looked just like the one he was wearing. Except his was pulsating. I'm going to try it on.

    I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR NEW ACETYLENE BASED LIFEFORM TITAN OVERLORDS. TIME TO DELIVER MORE HATS.
  • Spock: The PAIN, The PAAAIIINNNNN!

Slashdot Top Deals

Children begin by loving their parents. After a time they judge them. Rarely, if ever, do they forgive them. - Oscar Wilde

Close