Could Fossils of Ancient Life From Earth Reside On the Moon? 88
MarkWhittington writes Does the moon contain fossils of billions of years old organisms from Earth? That theory has been laid out in recent research at the Imperial College of London, reported in a story in Air and Space Magazine by Dr. Paul Spudis, a lunar and planetary geologist. The implications for science and future lunar exploration are profound. Scientists have known for decades that planets and moons in the Solar System exchange material due to impacts. A large meteor smashes into a planet, Mars for example, and blasts material into space. That material eventually finds itself landing on another planet, Earth in this case. Mars rocks have been discovered on Earth since the 1980s. Other rocks from the moon and, it is surmised, Mercury have also been found, blasted into space billions of years ago to eventually find themselves on Earth.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, we can definitely send more machines like Luna 16 in 1970. Dig a bit deeper, get some more dead rocks and dust, put it in a box and return it to the Earth where we have all our labs and people.
I agree.
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please! That is a really stupid reason to do nothing.
The money spent on space exploration is virtually nothing compared to the rest of what the government spends. Diverting just a month or two's bill for removing foreign dictators so that religious wack jobs can take over would be enough to really start to move forward as a species.
Your grandchildren wouldn't notice the money as it would be just pennies compared to dollars spent on much less productive stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
There comes a point where you know the credit is going to be cutoff. At that time it makes idiot sense to charge a (new car/obamacare) before the line of credit is pulled.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so when Earth is attacked by giant aptosauruses (? sp) and we don't know whether or not they came from Earth, the moon or Mars are your grandkids going to be happy with you, hidden in your cloak of Randian ignorance?
I suspect not. They will spit on your cheap ass grave, assuming that the apto doesn't squash them like bugs first.
Re: (Score:2)
A better analogy would be your are deep in debt, still buying a new car that you cannot afford every other day or so and some dipshit is complaining at you because you also invested a few dollars in a savings account for your kids college fund.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me of a time that I showed picture of the LHC to a few (ahem Republican) colleagues and lamented that we stopped work on the SSC. That started a debate and they started lecturing me that the SSC was a frivolous waste of tax payer money. This was back in the bowels of the Iraq war and I reminded them that the entire SSC project would have cost less than two months of the war in Iraq.
It was one of those rare moments where you could see a light turn on. They realized it wasn’t a matter of whether the war was necessary and justified or ill-conceived and evil. They realized the raw trade off humanity makes for whatever reason. They considered the fantastic scale and complexity of the LHC and how it embodied a small facet of humanity’s capacity to achieve and progress and weighed it against a blip in one campaign of misery and devastation.
BTW, I’m neither a hawk nor a dove. Humanity is too often brutal, and I have always had a certain respect for and fascination with the spirit and technology of the military in the face of that brutality. Humanity is a long way from peace on Earth. That doesn’t mean I don’t grasp the almost incomprehensible loss of prosperity and potential humanity accepts to maintain and flex the machines of war (many of which are economic) and the conflicts that allow those machines to flourish.
Re: (Score:3)
I reminded them that the entire SSC project would have cost less than two months of the war in Iraq.
One expenditure keeps a newly minted US ally stabilized for at least two months. That at least fulfills concrete interests of the US. The other distracts thousands of physicists from doing productive work for two decades and sucks the oxygen out of the room for future physics research funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sure... how's it working out for that ally?
I was all for the invasion of Iraq at first. The WMD story always did smell like BS but I was filled with all the stories of the horrible things that Sadam and his family and friends had done. Now all I hear about is the horrible things that ISIS is doing and the old dictator sounds pretty good.
Meanwhile half their neighbors have ousted their own dictators and voted in religious nutcases. Oh boy.. the world just keeps getting better doesn't it.
I strongly be
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, sure... how's it working out for that ally?
It was working well until Iraq was abandoned to ISIS.
Meanwhile half their neighbors have ousted their own dictators and voted in religious nutcases. Oh boy.. the world just keeps getting better doesn't it.
The world is better for it. What you don't get here is that first, we now have established precedent for getting rid of tyrannical governments. Second, why shouldn't the voted in religious nutcases get a chance to show they can govern?
I strongly believe that increasing our knowlege of the universe and how it works is far more profitable in the long run than getting involved in the middle east could ever be.
But I believe that spending money in a way that strongly impairs our future ability to gather knowledge of the universe is worse that dumping that money on two months of war.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but what?
All of the justifications to topple Iraq's government in 2003 were fabrications and lies.
Going in there in the first place was misguided, wrong, and pointless.
So don't suddenly act like the expense to stay in there is better than doing something useful.
Toppling the government in Iraq was sheer folly, pushed by an idiot, and justified by things which were pr
Re: (Score:1)
That's like saying that swimming is wrong, because falling into a river in the first place is a stupid thing to do.
See also: sunk costs fallacy.
Re: (Score:1)
While there was no active WMD program after all, there *had* been one, as we all knew, and the NY Times recently expounded on just how much [nytimes.com] of those chemical bits were lying all over Iraq; although ironically, they were safer in the hands of Saddam Hussein than ISIS.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't suddenly act like the expense to stay in there is better than doing something useful.
I certainly didn't do that. I compared it instead to something actively harmful, a program which squanders the labor of thousands of physicists for a couple of decades. And Hognoxious [slashdot.org] has a point about sunk costs. Sure, it'd be nice if the US didn't do dumb shit that cost trillions of dollars, but if the US were smart enough to not do that, what makes you think they'd still be dumb enough to fund the SSC?
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, at the same time the SSC was killed, Bush and the Republican Congress passed the biggest increase in non-defense science spending in decades [sensysmag.com] (I usually link directly to aaas.org, but their site appears to be down). Only the space race in the 1960s was big
Re: (Score:1)
My overall point was more generic than specific. I was using the SSC and HLC symbolically to represent the kind of colossal projects we often think are out of reach economically and juxtaposing them to the truly fantastic sums of resources humanity expends on war, for whatever reasons. R&D in health and medicine, and myriad other constructive endeavors, are just as worthy if not more worthy of our funds and attention, but smaller projects simply don’t require the same will and commitment to ach
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Saddam was a CIA appointed dictator that left the reservation.
And like all the other petty dictators that we stopped supporting (Shah of Iran, Qaddafi, Mubarak ... ) it was replaced by something much much worse.
And I know that the Left loves to blame the USA for "meddling" into the affairs of radical Islamists, but I would like to point out that when the USA was a new country, having its merchant ships being attacked by the Pirates of Tripoli, it responded and thus formed the Marine Corps. In othe
Re: (Score:3)
Well, no.
The Marines (and the Navy) were formed in 1775. Then they were disbanded at the end of the Revolution.
Then they were recreated in 1798 for the Quasi-War with France.
Shortly after that (1801), Marines were sent with Decatur's Squadron to deal with the Barbary Pirates.
And no, the Barbary Pirates had little, if anythin
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the Shah was not a dictator.
Perhaps you should read about his history :)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that was more what we did in the 80s. Today we oust the dictators so that the people can over compensate and democratically elect what they perceive to be the dictator's polar opposites.
IE religious whack jobs replace secular dictators. In another 20 or 30 years we can shift back to our old ways and start replacing the religious whack jobs with cruel secular dictators again so the cycle continues.
Meanwhile.. cruel secular dictators or religious whack jobs.. either way we have plenty for the popul
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Those private companies started by Ex-NASA employees? At the height of space expenditure the US spent about 4% gdp which it got back 10 fold with super qualified skilled engineers allowing the US to dominate war production.
But don't worry China will do it.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because *YOU* and *I* aren't even paying enough taxes for the government to pay its bills for the stuff it's already doing right now
We don't have a tax problem, but an appropriations problem. We collected over 3 trillion in taxes last year and only 1% went to science and technology. That's abysmal, but reflects our overall stance to disregard facts and science (selective ignorance), and indulge our gross sense of self entitlement.
Economically speaking, there are only two areas of government spending that have a positive ROI, research and development (10:1), and infrastructure (3:1). If you are concerned for future generation, the last thing you want to cut are these two areas of spending. If you really want to fix the problem, cut medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security and military spending.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
could easily afford to contribute more
What part of 3 trillion dollars do you not understand? Its not a tax collection problem. Its a spending problem. Yes people could contribute more, but that's not the point. In its current state, the government would waist that revenue to.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a spending problem. We spend far too much on the military, and too little on infrastructure, and other investments in the future. But it's not a money problem, it's a printing problem, or rather, a philosophical problem. Many in our government do not understand how a fiat currency, (or the economy), works.
Re: (Score:2)
some of its citizens who could easily afford to contribute more aren't willing to do so and the public is unwilling to force them.
This assumes that Taxes are a right of government, and not the consent of the governed.
Considering that we (the USA) were formed on the basis of a tax revolution (at least in part), because we weren't being represented by those in government (a lot like now), this (protesting, avoiding taxes) is our national heritage.
If Europeans want to continue paying their masters, that is fine. I don't want to be a serf to those in government.
Re: (Score:2)
"To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, those things are MENTIONED, but science and technology were never a function OF government, at least directly.
And as a libertarian, I would be HAPPY to support government grants via taxes on patents discovered / created / inventions that were the result of (directly or indirectly) of those government grants. The problem is, government gives a grant to University to do _________, which leads to discovery ______, which is used in patent _________ which is used to generate all sorts of revenue, none of wh
Re: (Score:2)
No,
How about "to hell" with using government money for self enrichment. IF you take a grant or whatever funding to get you MRI, your discovery belongs to the people of the USA, and no yourself. That way, anyone can use the technology that everyone paid for, without having to worry about royalties to people who used public funds to enrich themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Earth rocks with fossils on the moon are probably rare enough that lots of sifting will be required. Robotic survey & collection missions are much better suited for such a task.
It's too much money to pay a human in space garb to pick up each rock and go, "This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No..."
Of course they could (Score:2, Informative)
Could Fossils of Ancient Life From Earth Reside On the Moon?
I'm sure they could, if we took some there.
Re: (Score:3)
The moon is probably a good place to store time capsules (or backups). Well, except for the meteorites and the annoying dust that gets everywhere.
Re: Of course they could (Score:1)
I'm slightly older then most of you, but I remember off the old asmov show, that there were large collissions from space bound objects, in our distant past. One off the spinoffs is probably the moon. Even the planetarium of my old home town used to emphasize that. So, why would you not find early protolife there? The same type of collisions occurred with and to the other planets. Why would you not find proto parts there? Give man something to shoot at other then humans and see what happens, maybe he would l
Re: (Score:1)
I'm slightly older then most of you
How do you know how old most of me is?
YES!! OIL!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oil is not made from fossils. Oil is mainly compressed sea flora.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, let's go invade MARS!
Re: (Score:2)
I have noticed a lot of websites don't work well if the browser window is small enough. That's why websites do have "recommended resolution".
Get digging. (Score:5, Informative)
The issue is we'd likely need to be digging for decades to find something that might have something, if it hasn't been broken down so much from high radiation in solar storms.
It would be a very long search for that needle.
Even on Earth as we find fossils, these are just fossils that are LUCKY enough to have survived all that time. The majority of skeletons aren't lucky and degrade.
There are very likely large numbers of life we will never* know about that filled various niches, was the in-betweens of one lifeform and another as it evolved over millions of years.
We have also just barely scratched the surface. The deeper we go, the older we are finding. (especially in the cold pole regions)
Just recently we found that cave with stupidly old stuff in it, several billion years old if I remember.
There are likely millions of little caves like this scattered all over the planet where life has been hidden away and protected .
Also aliens. And pyramids.
*unless we make time machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The return on investment just looks terrible to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps if a particularly large chunk got blown out and the fossil was deep inside it.
Then again, if it's deep inside it'll be bugger to find. I for one have better things to do than splitting random rocks open just in case there's a bilobite inside. I don't think Bennet Haselton could solve this one, even if Elon Musk offered him all his money.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is basically everything from TFA that is NOT related to the news.
It's not TFA, but TFAs. Did you bother RTFA2?
Very silly excuse for going to the moon (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a very silly idea. There are countless fossils still to be uncovered on Earth, including microfossils from billions of years ago in rock that has not been altered by too much heat and pressure. On the moon there are probably very, very few, if any fossils. Why would anyone waste time and money going to the moon to look for fossils rather than just spending more time carefully looking and digging on Earth? This is the silliest excuse for sending something or someone to the moon I can think of. If you want to explore the moon, go to the moon. If you want to look for fossils, dig right here on planet Earth where you actually have a good chance of finding something very interesting, and very old.
Re: (Score:1)
Cause don't you know. At one point in the past the moon was really part of earth. An asteroid hit earth and broke a chunk off. This is how the moon came to be.
Re:Very silly excuse for going to the moon (Score:4, Informative)
You wanna be pedantic? I'll bite.
The Moon is made of both Earth and Theia protoplanet that slammed into it. Not an asteroid, it was Mars-sized.
Re: (Score:1)
Quite possible. (Score:2)
Since one of the theories of the moons origin is from impact of an asteroid with earth, this is not completely unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving 400 million years for the earth and moon to solidify a crust after the collision.
That theory has been laid out (Score:2)
Is it a theory or a hypothesis?
Earth Fossils on Mars? (Score:5, Interesting)
If we are finding rocks from Mars on Earth, it is likley there are rocks from Earth on Mars and possibly fossils from Earth on Mars. And I wonder about bacteria from Earth on Mars. It is possible. This complicates the "finding life on Mars" projects. Is it martian life or transplanted life from Earth?
Re: (Score:2)
If we are finding rocks from Mars on Earth, it is likley there are rocks from Earth on Mars and possibly fossils from Earth on Mars. And I wonder about bacteria from Earth on Mars. It is possible. This complicates the "finding life on Mars" projects. Is it martian life or transplanted life from Earth?
There will always be uncertainty, but if we can find some trace of life on Mars and it isn't directly associated with a meteorite with a composition that could indicate it is from Earth then that would probably be good enough to rule out direct transport from Earth... but it wouldn't rule out that it was transplanted life unless it was completely different than anything we have or had on Earth. So if it is bacteria or other simple life it is going to be nearly impossible to rule out transplant theories wit
Re: (Score:2)
I would say it is much less likely- the escape velocity of Mars is half that of Earth's and the thick atmosphere would keep many smaller fragments from leaving orbit.
Why just fossils? Maybe organics too. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know, if you have a comet or asteroid impact big enough to eject material into space you have to consider that the ejecta is going to be heated by a large amount. Much of the "ejecta" is in the form of vaporized rock, much of the solid ejecta will be fractured. The fireball associated with an impact of this size is also going to be large (10's or 100's of km in diameter), so you get additional heating beyond the heating of atmospheric compression while the ejecta is departing.
Seems like organics wou
Betteridge (Score:2)
Headline writer: Why ask us when you can ask Betteridge?
life evolved once in solar system (Score:2)
Cross-infecting other solar systems is more tenuous.
Fossils escaping velocity to reach moon? Really? (Score:1)
I'm I missing something or TFA is suggesting that the earth got hit by something big enough to make an explosion with fire and heat and power big enough that some debris reach escape velocity to escape earth. And that somehow some fossils survived the trip on these debris?