NASA Mars Rover Finds Organic Matter in Ancient Lake Bed (theguardian.com) 148
NASA's veteran Curiosity rover has found complex organic matter buried and preserved in ancient sediments that formed a vast lake bed on Mars more than 3bn years ago. From a report: The discovery is the most compelling evidence yet that long before the planet became the parched world it is today, Martian lakes were a rich soup of carbon-based compounds that are necessary for life, at least as we know it. Researchers cannot tell how the organic material formed and so leave open the crucial question: are the compounds remnants of past organisms; the product of chemical reactions with rocks; or were they brought to Mars in comets or other falling debris that slammed into the surface? All look the same in the tests performed. But whatever the ultimate source of the material, if microbial life did find a foothold on Mars, the presence of organics meant it would not have gone hungry. "We know that on Earth microorganisms eat all sorts of organics. It's a valuable food source for them," said Jennifer Eigenbrode, a biogeochemist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. The Curiosity rover also discovered that methane on the red planet changes with the seasons. The Verge: Where the methane is coming from is still a mystery, but scientists have some ideas, including that microbes may be the source of the gas. Researchers at NASA and other US universities analyzed five years' worth of methane measurements Curiosity took at Gale Crater, where the rover landed in 2012. Curiosity detected background levels of methane of about 0.4 parts per billion, which is a tiny amount. (In comparison, Earth's atmosphere has about 1,800 parts per billion of methane.) Those levels of methane, however, were found to range from 0.2 to about 0.7 parts per billion, with concentrations peaking near the end of the summer in the northern hemisphere, according to a study published today in Science. This seasonal cycle repeated through time and could come from an underground reservoir of methane, the study says. Whether that reservoir is a sign that there is or was life on Mars, however, is impossible to say for now.
Imagine finding remains ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... of complex life on Mars. Of the sort that screams: "The great filter is still ahead of you guys and it's coming for you too!"
Ooooh, creeeepy. That would have me scared.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems unlikely at this point. For the great filter to be ahead of us, they'd need evidence of complex civilizations that outstripped our current one and then collapsed. From all indications, we greatly surpassed Mars. Any new threats are of our own making, or come from the beyond.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems unlikely at this point. For the great filter to be ahead of us, they'd need evidence of complex civilizations
No, anything that eliminates the best candidate for the Great Filter being behind us (ie the development of complex life), increases the chance that the Great filter is ahead of us.
But there is no point worrying, as there is nothing we can do. If there was even a 1% chance of our greatest minds finding a way around a filter, it would not be the great filter.
The discovery of simple life would be minor bad news. Many scientists expect that simple life is common in the galaxy.
But it took a billion year
Re: (Score:2)
You're discounting the possibility that moving from single-celled to multi-celled life IS the Great Filter.
I think you misread. I said that the move to "complex" life may be the most likely known possible great filter.
But "multi-celled" is definitely not it. Life went from single to multi-cell many times independently. "Complex" life refers to eukaryotes (plant & animal cells), as compared to bacteria.
The other problem is ...
There is way more to it that that, AC. Go read if you are interested. All those obvious points have been addresses many times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Looking at your sig, the names of languages (eg. English and German) are capitalized in English. Not ALL words capitalized in German are lowercase in other languages. ;-)
Re:Imagine finding remains ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or even "carbon" (Score:3)
Chemists know what organic compound means (somewhat), but to a significant percentage of the population organic means "natural". Heck even chemists can't agree on a definition of "organic compound". Maybe "carbon" would have been more specific and therefore more clear, if that's what is meant.
Of course, a certain percentage of Slashdot readers would think "carbon" means "omg Martians were burning fossil fuels and destroyed their planet by global warming", but I guess no wording is completely idiot proof.
Re:Or even "carbon" (Score:4, Funny)
It's got what carbon-based microbes crave. It's got organic compounds!
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, it is just a roundabout way of saying that no pesticide was found on mars.
Thats cool. (Score:1)
Car remains? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Car remains? (Score:5, Funny)
Are there the remains of a red Tesla roadster scattered around the area?
Was Mars avoidance programmed into the Autopilot braking subroutines?
Re:Car remains? (Score:5, Funny)
"Was Mars avoidance programmed into the Autopilot braking subroutines?"
Yes, but a software update is required to ensure that it will brake in the required distance :-)
Re: (Score:2)
"Was Mars avoidance programmed into the Autopilot braking subroutines?"
Yes, but a software update is required to ensure that it will brake in the required distance :-)
I'd like to point out that the name "autopilot" does not relieve the vehicle's operator from duty as he or she should be in command of the vehicle at all times. Any suggestion that this name "autopilot" leads to complacency or that it makes people assume the vehicle is completely autonomous and road worthy are against our terms of service. There are many flashy flashy alerts to say that the person should be in control, not Tesla software. Crucially the user must note that software updates and scheduling of
Re: (Score:2)
Lighten up Francis!
Was hoping for more than this (Score:2)
Re: Was hoping for more than this (Score:2)
Problem is: you canâ(TM)t prove that Mars never had life. Even if we search until mankind has become extinct: if we didnâ(TM)t find substantial proof that never means Mars doesnâ(TM)t or didnâ(TM)t have life.
Re: Was hoping for more than this (Score:2)
Actually, yes you can.
Life always alters the geology and chemistry of a planet, even if it's microbial. And it does so in ways that aren't going to occur in any other way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Was hoping for more than this (Score:2)
You don't need to find the life. NASA engineers established, back in the 60s, that it alters the geology and chemistry of the planet. If you find a discontinuity in the geology for which there's no non-living mechanism, you have established there was life.
Life necessarily creates an n-way dynamic equilibrium at a moderate energy state. You always get two or more streams of molecules that cannot coexist but whose ratio is fluctuating around a non-zero value. Non-life always tends to a static equilibrium of t
Cue David Bowie! (Score:3, Insightful)
poor headline (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Those scientists need the story to hold, so that they can get paid and remain on the job for 30 or 40 years.
You telling the truth will make them jobless. Is that what you want?
Re: (Score:2)
The question is "What does 'complex organic matter' mean?" It's not just carbon, and you wouldn't find methane in a lake bed. It's a gas at Mars STP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, here's someone who actually understands what the article was about. It's interesting and informative, but the short is, not enough info to decide about bio-synthesis:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi... [sciencemag.org]
Hydro (Score:2)
Rover found genetic material, methane in sedimentary material.
Sounds like the sewer outside the average slashdotter's house!
Re: Hydro (Score:2)
No, it didn't. If you're going to try for satire, make it accurate.
Space pirate! (Score:2)
Too much to expect (Score:1)
It must be too much to expect /. to actually get into the specifics of what was measured, since that would be far, far too "technical" and above the heads of 99.9% of /. readers. Martian methane isn't news. Other organic compounds isn't news. So, the stupid (literally) post failed to state what the news actually was. Epic fail. I guess I need to go elsewhere to get content worth reading.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one article linked above seemed to indicate that about all the determined was the melting, or possibly sublimation, temperature and possibly the mass. Some of the stuff they tested for "does it contain sulfur?", It also sounded like they tested, somehow, for carbon rings. This is wildly out of my area of expertise, and someone whose organic chem was a few decades closer than mine could probably have gotten a lot more out of it.
Coal On Mars! Does Trump Know? (Score:2)
From TFA:
When the samples reached 500 to 820C, the rover’s instruments detected a range of so-called aromatic, aliphatic and thiophenic vapours. The science team believes these are breakdown products of even larger organic molecules, similar to those found in coal, which were trapped in the Martian rocks in the distant past.
Clearly we need to create a permanent base of Mars to stake our claim to Martian coal!
The Guardian (UK) (Score:1)
"When the samples [were heated to] 500 to 820C, the rover’s instruments detected a range of so-called aromatic, aliphatic and thiophenic vapours. The science team believes these are breakdown products of even larger organic molecules, similar to those found in coal, which were trapped in the Martian rocks in the distant past."
Article also mentions sample was from "mere centimeters" under surface. For decades there was debate about the origin of coal and oil (petroleum) on Earth. One camp said it (or a
Re: The Guardian (UK) (Score:2)
Silicon words, you don't need carbon.
The Goldstein-Hoyle theory of heavy oils has long been falsified.
Shotgun DNA sequencing (Score:2)
Perhaps the next thing, is to send up molecular biology analysis equipment like a DNA sequencer with all of the appropriate sample prep.
This seems like a perfect application for "shotgun sequencing" to digitally reconstruct the organisms, assuming that other simpler detection methods check out for amino acids, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Foolish of me, I got too excited. I read that you cant extract DNA from from fossil fuel for example. https://www.reddit.com/r/asksc... [reddit.com]
It looks like they don't have the instrumentation to detect complex organic molecules - What kind of instruments would we need to detect this?What are the limits of detection, and what can you put on a rover? Would nMRI work? FTIR..? I'd love to read from the perspective of an analytical chemist.
" . When the samples reached 500 to 820C, the rover’s instrume
Mars colonization just started (Score:2)
That's nothing! (Score:2)
Detecting complex molecules question (Score:2)
I spoke to a biochemist from my work about the limits of detection for complex molecules, and me mentioned that you need something like a mass spectrometer to detect mass, and a gas chromatography to detect structure. I just read that curiosity rover has this, but am unsure of it's limitations.
What are the limits to detection in terms of molecule complexity? Any how can you unambiguously tell that they were generated from life?
Could polarimetry be used to detect handedness? I've read that over tim
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Um, what? Are we reading the same story?
Yes, but many people don't know their basic chemistry.
"Organic," in chemistry terms, is the study of all the fun things Carbon does. [wikipedia.org]
"Organic," in the minds of many, means "non-GMO farming."
As you can see, there is a lot of difference in the scope and implications of those two categories. Someone reading a NASA release and thinking in terms of their soy latte will reach a false interpretation of the terms used.
As a mild reminder, carbon does loads of fun things even when not directed by enormously complicat
The Word Organic [Re:Been waiting for this...] (Score:3)
"Organic," in chemistry terms, is the study of all the fun things Carbon does. [wikipedia.org]
"Organic," in the minds of many, means "non-GMO farming."
As you can see, there is a lot of difference in the scope and implications of those two categories.
And "organic" in the original sense of the word, "relating to or derived from living matter."
(cf: https://dictionary.cambridge.o... [cambridge.org])
I think that this is the confusion here. "Organic" molecules, originally, meant molecules which were derived from living matter. But after 1828, when Friedrich Wöhler first synthesized Urea (an organic molecule), it was realized that the carbon molecules labelled "organic" could also be created by non-biological means. The word continues to have both meanings, chemists u
Re: (Score:2)
The word continues to have both meanings, chemists using it to mean molecules containing carbon...
More precisely molecules containing carbon-hydrogen bonds. CO2 contains carbon, but is considered inorganic.
Re: (Score:2)
But after 1828, when Friedrich WÃhler first synthesized Urea (an organic molecule), it was realized that the carbon molecules labelled "organic" could also be created by non-biological means.
Urea!
I just synthesized Urea!
And suddenly that compound
Will never be the same
To me
Urea!
Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! (Score:2)
I was told by many people that organic molecules made from oil in a factory are different from the same molecules made by plants. No amount of explanation could convince them that that is not true.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I was told by many people that organic molecules made from oil in a factory are different from the same molecules made by plants. No amount of explanation could convince them that that is not true.
That's because it is true. Because of chirality [wikipedia.org]
TL:DR version: there are "left hand" and "right hand" versions of virtually every organic molecule. "Hand" refers to the orientation of the various groups of atoms in the molecule. When you make the molecule artificially, you get a 50/50 mix of left-hand and right-hand molecules. Lifeforms on Earth make 100% left-handed versions of molecules, with a few exceptions. In those exceptions, they make 100% right-handed.
So those molecules made in a factory are ac
Re: (Score:1)
" And we have yet to scientifically demonstrate chirality affects how the molecule is processed by a living system"
I hope you're fucking kidding?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://academic.oup.com/toxsc... [oup.com]
To be so spectacularly ignorant and blithely arrogant, you're either an engineer or a doctor?
Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! (Score:3)
http://americanhistory.si.edu/... [si.edu]
Re: Been waiting for this my whole life! (Score:2)
Economics is a zero-sum game. So is freedom. So is much of life.
Re: (Score:2)
Organic compounds are not life. The discovery just points in that direction. The seasonally varying methane (natural gas to us) is just as interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Stick around for the next decade and you'll get to experience First Contact starting around ~2024.
Regardless of how life is (re)discovered either way we'll be forced to re-examine every belief we have -- especially our sacred cows aka Dogma in Science, Politics, Religion, Money, etc. -- which in our case is a good thing consider how much of a spiritual immature teenager the planet behaves.
e.g.
Animals have figured out how to live on this planet for Millions of years without money and yet we _s
Re: (Score:3)
it doesn't seem likely ANYBODY will discover life on another planet...
Not true. We will likely find life on exoplanets soon. We just need some improvements in spectroscopy so that we get detect molecular oxygen in their atmospheres as they occlude their mother star. That is a sure sign of life. Other than photosynthesis, there is no other plausible explanation for high levels of O2.
The James Webb Space Telescope [wikipedia.org] will launch in May 2020, and can do atmospheric spectroscopy. We may get our first sign of exolife shortly after.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
With science, unlike mathematics, there is never certain proof. All we ever have is evidence. Once the degree of uncertainty is small enough, it is a discovery.
Re: (Score:3)
But will the uncertainty diminish enough, using just spectroscopy, to consider the presence of certain gasses or compounds evidence of life? That seems shaky, and subject to confirmation bias. As much as I would love to find some form of extraterrestrial life, I also have to acknowledge that it's possible there is none, at least in this system.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have expected it to oxidize the iron on the planet's surface (and everything else) until after billions of years, there wouldn't be much free oxygen left, but apparently, if a planet has enough titanium oxide, that might not be the case [nao.ac.jp].
Re: (Score:2)
With science, unlike mathematics, there is never certain proof.
If some Martian dude were to walk up to Curiosity, tap on the camera's lens and say "Hey there!" - I'd say that would constitute proof.
Re: (Score:2)
If some Martian dude were to walk up to Curiosity, tap on the camera's lens and say "Hey there!" - I'd say that would constitute proof.
An English speaking Martian? It would be far more likely that the comm channel was hacked by a prankster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the guys have electronics. In that case they will have been watching our TV programs for the past few decades, and a few of their nerds might be quite fluent in English. And guess who they would send to tap on that lens?
Musk ?
Re: (Score:3)
we aren't ever likely to actually find life since we have no way of observing it directly
Think bigger than the some number of decades you have left.
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't seem likely ANYBODY will discover life on another planet...
Not true. We will likely find life on exoplanets soon. We just need some improvements in spectroscopy so that we get detect molecular oxygen in their atmospheres as they occlude their mother star. That is a sure sign of life. Other than photosynthesis, there is no other plausible explanation for high levels of O2.
The James Webb Space Telescope [wikipedia.org] will launch in May 2020, and can do atmospheric spectroscopy. We may get our first sign of exolife shortly after.
Ah, such grand assumptions, so little time..
What you may find is organic compounds, which only proves that conditions similar to what we know can host life exists, not that actual life does. So you see methane in the atmosphere, that doesn't mean life exists only that there is carbon there.
I think we assume that life is somehow easy, just find the right ingredients and you must have a cake.. I don't think we fully understand how unique earth may actually be or what the full recipe for life actually was.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the presence of water, Europa and Enceladus are better possible places to look. We’re focusing on Mars right now because it’s the easiest candidate place to reach.
Re: I hope I'm alive. (Score:2)
I hope I'm alive when we discover life on another plant - even if it's just microbes.
Thereâ(TM)s life on every plant.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Given we are not leaving the solar system, ever,
Wrong!
it doesn't seem likely ANYBODY will discover life on another planet
Wrong! I'm sensing a pattern here.
We are marooned here for the duration of our survival, which will be either until we destroy ourselves, or the Sun takes care of it as it expands and fries earth to a crisp before the end of 5 billion more years.
Wrong!
Re: (Score:3)
So, I'm flamebait but the OP, which is clearly a Troll is just fine? Very well, that is fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you point, but you didn't provide any kind of substantive rebuttal. You just gainsaid the OP's statements. I'm sure you're better than that, and you can show it.
Re: (Score:3)
Point taken. I should have done better than that. Lets see if I can.
The over all point of the original post was that we will never find life on another planet because we will never leave the solar system. I will now explain why he is wrong.
People do not realize how advanced our technology really is. If we pulled together all our technology from all areas, and tossed some untried technology but technology that we are reasonably sure will work we could launch a interstellar ship that could reach our
Re: (Score:1)
But the colony sent to those places will not survive very long, if they successfully reach their destinations at all.
We currently have the tech to lauch a rocket of some one or two dozen hapless humans at Mars, but that is a far cry from saying we have the tech to set up a self-sustaining colony on mars that could potentially grow to millions of people and last thousands of years.
We don't even have anyone living permanently in Antarctica, where the magnetosphere protects them from harsh radiation, the air i
Re: (Score:2)
Well first of all the original post was that we would never find extraterrestrial life because we will never leave the solar system. I hope that my post response how incorrect that was. Nothing in ether post was anything said about a colony.
With that being said, I think your post has merit. At 10% the speed of light with a 80 year round trip time to Alpha Centari I believe we can assume that a ship going there will be a one way trip. It would be inhuman and waste full to spend such resources without
Re: (Score:2)
You made no attempt to explain why the GP (who could very well be right) might be wrong.
You contributed nothing to the discussion.
Dana Carvey's "Wrong!" would jazz that up (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem likely. Mars was the best option and it's not panning out. Europa is about the only other option but that's a slim chance. Given we are not leaving the solar system, ever, it doesn't seem likely ANYBODY will discover life on another planet... We are marooned here for the duration of our survival, which will be either until we destroy ourselves, or the Sun takes care of it as it expands and fries earth to a crisp before the end of 5 billion more years.
You're just a ray of sunshine aren't you? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem likely. Mars was the best option and it's not panning out. Europa is about the only other option but that's a slim chance. Given we are not leaving the solar system, ever, it doesn't seem likely ANYBODY will discover life on another planet... We are marooned here for the duration of our survival, which will be either until we destroy ourselves, or the Sun takes care of it as it expands and fries earth to a crisp before the end of 5 billion more years.
You're just a ray of sunshine aren't you? ;-)
Ah, you have an issue with this? Makes you depressed to know the 2nd law of thermodynamics condemns all you survey to heat death? It's truth, sorry you don't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's probably no life on planets in the solar system, but there's a good chance of life in many planets and moons. Even Pluto may have a subsurface ocean teaming with life (though it's not the best candidate). Keep in mind most of Earth's life is below the surface too.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem likely.
Personally I'm going to wait until we've surveyed more than 2 of the hundreds of billions of (projected) planets in our galaxy alone before I make a call.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given we are not leaving the solar system, ever
Did you know that the human species will go on after you die?
Re: (Score:2)
Given we are not leaving the solar system, ever
Did you know that the human species will go on after you die?
Physics... We are stuck here or Einstein was wrong... No way biological life survives an trip to another star. It takes too long at physically possible speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still not possible...
The issue is the mass of "fuel" required as we are limited to ejecting mass to accelerate. You need enough to get the vessel out of the solar system and up to speed with enough left over to stop and descend into the gravity well of the solar system you are visiting. Then add the mass for the return fuel if you don't want a one way trip... Even for a really small craft and really high impulse from your fuel's mass, the mass required is huge.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's obviously a one-way trip, unless you can build another ship when you get there. Plenty of people have left on one-way trips, exploring the unknown, in the past.
Still, the fuel thing is... pesky. Is it possible to pick up material on the way somehow?
Re: (Score:3)
Still, the fuel thing is... pesky. Is it possible to pick up material on the way somehow?
Why yest there is. Many years ago I read a paper about a ship designed to go to Alpha Centauri. From what I remember the project looked pretty do able. I can't find a copy of the paper online now but I did save it in a pdf and have it some where.
One of the things that has stuck with me for a number of years is how the author came up with a solution to the fuel problem. "Pellets" of fuel would be launched from the home system at speeds slightly slower than what the ship should be going when it catches
Re: (Score:2)
Physics... We are stuck here or Einstein was wrong...
Think long term- what will we be capable of in 10,000 years?
Robotic ships that grow humans when they arrive.
Ships that are able to support generations of humans.
A ship housing uploaded humans.
Humans with extended lifespans.
Cryogenic sleep or some other form of suspended animation.
A ship crewed with human-built AI (does this qualify as "we"?).
That, and we have an incomplete understanding of physics. I wouldn't say there's zero chance we'll develop FTL.
Re: (Score:2)
The basic problem here is rocket science... Eject mass one way to push you the other.
The issue is mass and how fast can you accelerate it as you push it out the back. Right now, Ion rockets are about as efficient as we can get, but they "burn" fuel that is hard to find (xenon gas) and pretty expensive to obtain because it's limited concentrations on earth. Finding billions of tons of this stuff would be impossible from known sources and it's going to take billions of tons of this to get any kind of reaso
Re: (Score:2)
When you have something, call me.
I don't think you understand the difference between not being capable of something now, and not being capable of it ever. Did you think people were suggesting that we were capable of leaving the solar system today?
Re: (Score:2)
When you have something, call me.
I don't think you understand the difference between not being capable of something now, and not being capable of it ever. Did you think people were suggesting that we were capable of leaving the solar system today?
I'm claiming that the laws of physics as currently known preclude our leaving the solar system, ever... I'm not so naive to assume that the laws of physics are 100% understood, but I'm pretty confident that we have a pretty reasonable handle on the physics involved in rocket science. I am not aware of any possible technologies that fit within the current laws of physics, even conceptual ones, that allow us to leave this solar system. Thus, I claim we are stuck here for the duration.
So, do you have any phys
Re: (Score:2)
So, do you have any physics theories we need to change or refine that might allow this? No? Ok, Call me if/when you do, but I don't expect to hear from you.
If you can't be bothered to even read my previous response, what are we doing here? There are many ways for us to get to other star system that don't require FTL drives or the existence of travelable worm holes. Scroll up to expand your mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Ring Ring .. here is your wake up call.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Please take the time to read the linked to article. The part that proves you wrong is under Theoretical applications. Freeman Dyson, a man who is probably way smarter than both of us, clearly shows that a mission to Alpha Centauri is possible in just over 40 years with a Orion drive system at 10% light speed.
Since your argument seems to be based on the mass required to get a star ship up to the speed required. That being the m
Re: (Score:2)
Orion drive? Just so the unknowing reader understands what this is.. Orion drive is basically blowing up a long series of nuclear blasts behind your vehicle and "riding the wave" of particles and radiation.
Problem for this method of propulsion is obvious and not so obvious. Nuclear fission is pretty energetic, and if you boost the event with fusion you can get quite a bit of energy out of a small device. The problem here is channeling the energy to push you in the desired direction. To get the best pus
Re: (Score:3)
A link was provided in the original post. A unknown reader can do the research for themselves and make up their own mind.
Lets take you, an unimaginative slashdot poster with little understanding of the discussion at hand. Who says it can't be done. Yet can't or won't produce any evidence to back up his clam.
Then we have Freeman Dyson. Probably one of the most brilliant man alive. A world renown physicist and mathematician. A man who say not only is it possible, has done the math to back it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Proxima Centauri is 4.25 ly from earth. So with an ideal power source we could get there in just 5 years at close to C, 10 years at 0.5C, 20 years at 0.25C and 40 years at 0.125C. This last speed is the only one that is (close to) a theoretical possibility for us right now (nuclear pulse or fission fragment among others), but that is only because we don't have a viable space drive yet.
Where's the math to back up your statements? There is nothing in Einstein's equations that limits us from traveling to other
Re: (Score:2)
Have we found possibly habitable planets with 30 light years?
First off, we don't have the ability to go 1/2 C. If E=MC**2, and the only "drive" method we have in space is the equal and opposite reaction kind (where we emit mass one direction to go the other) then a couple of things are true. It's going to take a huge vessel to carry even a small crew that far and the energy required to sustain the crew is going to be massive. It's going to take a MASSIVE amount of fuel/mass to get up to speed and get
Re: I hope I'm alive. (Score:2)
In 2024, the Square Kilometre Array will be fully online.
It will be capable of establishing active life on another planet, even at the microbial level, up to around 100 light-years away. If we have detected no life at all by 2030, assuming the telescope allows the data to be analyzed for it, then there is no life to detect.
If there is life out there, we have a decent chance of finding it by 2025 and it's a near-certainty by 2030.
Re: Yeah, and? (Score:2)
Those are lowest energy state. Organics rarely are. Complex organics never are.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just another snake cult.
Re: (Score:2)