No Hope For Life In Venus Clouds, But Maybe On Jupiter, Study Suggests (space.com) 49
The amount of water in the atmosphere of Venus is so low that even the most drought-tolerant of Earth's microbes wouldn't be able to survive there, a new study has found. However, the researchers looked at data from other planets too and found that the clouds of Jupiter do provide sufficient water activity to theoretically support life. Space.com reports: The new study looked at measurements from probes that flew through the atmosphere of Venus and acquired data about temperature, humidity and pressure in the thick sulphuric acid clouds surrounding the planet. From these values, the scientists were able to calculate the so-called water activity, the water vapor pressure inside the individual molecules in the clouds, which is one of the limiting factors for the existence of life on Earth. The findings are likely a disappointment for the Venus research community, which was invigorated last September by the discovery of phosphine, a compound made of atoms of phosphorus and hydrogen that on Earth can be associated with living organisms, in Venus' atmosphere. At that time, researchers suggested the phosphines may be produced by microorganisms residing in those clouds. On Earth [...] microorganisms can survive and proliferate in droplets of water in the atmosphere when temperatures allow. However, the findings of the new study, based on data from several Venus probes, leave zero chance of anything living in the clouds of Venus [...].
However, the researchers looked at data from other planets too and found that the clouds of Jupiter do provide sufficient water activity to theoretically support life. Data collected by the Galileo probe at altitudes between 26 and 42 miles (42 and 68 kilometers) above the surface of the gas giant suggest the water activity value to sit at 0.585, just above the survivable threshold. Temperatures in this region are also just about survivable, at around minus 40 degrees F. High levels of ultraviolet radiation or lack of nutrients could, however, prevent that potential life from thriving, the researchers said, and completely new measurements would be needed to find whether it actually could be there or not.
However, the researchers looked at data from other planets too and found that the clouds of Jupiter do provide sufficient water activity to theoretically support life. Data collected by the Galileo probe at altitudes between 26 and 42 miles (42 and 68 kilometers) above the surface of the gas giant suggest the water activity value to sit at 0.585, just above the survivable threshold. Temperatures in this region are also just about survivable, at around minus 40 degrees F. High levels of ultraviolet radiation or lack of nutrients could, however, prevent that potential life from thriving, the researchers said, and completely new measurements would be needed to find whether it actually could be there or not.
There's this assumption water is always required (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd have thought any fluid would do and sulphuric acid droplets of which the atmosphere of venus is absolutely loaded with could theoretically support some form of life. Why are researchers always looking for conditions similar to that on earth rather than conditions which would allow some form of complex chemical reactions leading to a biochemistry? Eg seti researchers look for O2 in distant planet atmospheres? Why? The odds on any given biosphere producing O2 as a waste product are pretty slim, even earths didn't do it for a few hundred million years.
Re:There's this assumption water is always require (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, because for "earth-like" organisms to exist, water is necessary.
However the fact that Venus has wind and clouds, is indicative enough that there could have been an earth-like atmosphere at some point in the ancient past, and if there was ever anything living on that planet, it would have been scrubbed clear off the surface from the acidic thermally extreme atmosphere.
If there was a way to condense the atmosphere, or cool it with a solar shade (if we're going down that geoengineering route) it might realistically be possible to land on it, and break the O2 off the CO2 molecules. However I think the result would be disappointing since Venus doesn't rotate particularly fast, and the day is longer than the year. So you'd need a base that can be moved around to prevent it from being destroyed on the sun-side, or frozen in place on the dark side.
Re:There's this assumption water is always require (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is though is if we broaden the scope away from "Earth like" life, *maybe* there are other molecules to base life on other than the "universal" solvent.
With all that said, frankly I'd imagine liquid methane a far better candidate than sulphuric acid with all the aggressive chemistry associated with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We can't even make earth organisms in a lab from scratch yet, never mind organisms with a completely different biochemistry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I invented a truly universal solvent, but I still cant find anything to keep it in.
Venus Surface Temp Constant (Score:2)
So you'd need a base that can be moved around to prevent it from being destroyed on the sun-side, or frozen in place on the dark side.
Venus is not like that. The immensely thick atmosphere means the surface temperature is roughly constant at 460C night and day which is why there is little hope for any life.
Re: (Score:3)
They're talking about post-terraforming.
The main challenge is to get rid of the CO2. There are a number of quite realistic terraforming plans for Venus with incredibly long-time scales, and a number of super-extreme megaengineering-required ones for shorter time scales (freezing it out and trapping it, ejecting it, etc). With the long-term ones, it's enough to keep splitting the CO2 and generating oxygen with resileant carbon, since given enough time FeO and other Venus surface minerals will oxidize, and
Re: (Score:2)
Spinning up planets is the most difficult of megaengineering challenges, and it's not clear how it could be done in a slow-but-non-megaengineering manner. However, there si a much more plausible intermediary solution, which is a soletta. Which is technically megaengineering, but on the more plausible end of the spectrum. An orbiting soletta can shield the near side from light for part of the day and reflect light back to the other side for part of the night, simulating a 24-7 day/night cycle. Some desig
Re: (Score:2)
Should have finished writing before posting, twice now:
I am however curious how far life could be pushed to survive in Venus's present conditions. I've never entertained the notion that any current Earth life could survive there. I have often contemplated however setting up a chamber to try to *breed it* to. Very, very slowly getting less Earthlike and more Venuslike, over the course of many years. IF life could be made to survive on Venus - assuming there isn't any, which has long been my operating ass
Re: (Score:2)
They're talking about post-terraforming.
If you are terraforming then life is no problem because you end up with an Earth-like environment. Discussing how to achieve that is rather pointless at the moment because while I have no doubt that we will eventually be able to do it how, and whether it is even worth it, depends on future scientific and technological advances that we have no way to predict. There are any number of ways you could imagine to make terraforming possible - some more plausible than others - but, at this point, we are no longer
Re: There's this assumption water is always requir (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it pointless? If we're only going to look for earth like life then we'll probably be looking for a long time. The universe is a big place and the number of potential biochemistries probably infinite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think using carbon or silicon leads to life similar to that on earth? The possibly permutations of something like a protein are huge and something as complex as DNA - borderline infinite.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but that doesn't mean the biochemistry will be very similar. You need the chemical properties you mentioned and abundance, which means an appropriate stellar nucleosynthesis path and potentially a geological mechanism for concentrating it. That probably rules out boron as a contender.
Beyond that though there are other solvents. Ammonia for example is abundant, polar, supports acid-base chemistry and so on. Anything based on that would be lower temperature so would likely use molecules unstable at STP, a
Re: (Score:2)
Ammonia for example is abundant
Ammonia has certain issues of course, with the fact that it boils at -33C and has a really fucking high vapor pressure.
Not to say it's impossible, but life would have a lot more work ahead of it to try to start out somewhere where ammonia would be useful. The energy available would be very, very small.
There's also the fact that H and O are much more abundant then H and N.
I'm willing to bet that life using water as a solvent is *far* more likely to be found than life using ammonia as a solvent, assuming
Re: (Score:3)
Life or sentient life?
I'm not sure boiling at -33 is much of a problem: that just means three hypothetical habitable zone for ammonia based life is further out. Nitrogen is common enough that there's more than one nitrogen dominant atmosphere in the solar system.
Re: (Score:2)
My chemisty is about 20 years too rusty for that
But it is good enough to know that ammonia only works in really low-energy regimes.
It's not a problem that it boils at -33C, it just sets a constraint of the energy levels we're talking about.
Can life exist there? I, personally, can't see why not... but all the math suggests that the life that uses water, carbon, and oxygen is going to be *way* more abundant in the Universe.
I'm pretty sure it
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW I'm not arguing that ammonia life is more common, neither am I actually disagreeing per-se, but I think some of your arguments aren't quite correct.
Yes ammonia for low energy regimes, I.e. colder temperatures. That does rule out many reactions that agree essentially stalled at -30 or so. On the other hand there are plenty of molecules and bonds which will tear themselves apart at even 0C, especially nitrogen compounds. Chances are though that life at those temperatures would be somewhat slow.
For abunda
Re: (Score:2)
My main point about the energy regime, is that ammonia's function as a solvent not only ceases, but because very deadly to any form of life using it at any regime where water can exist, except where it is dissolved in sol
Re: (Score:2)
. . .even if a carbon-oxygen-water system is the only one capable of sustaining complex life (no proof, just exploring the idea), that still allows for massive variations in protein-like structures, and data coding for genetics. Even switching out the four amino acids used in DNA coding would make for substantial differences. . .
Re: (Score:2)
The universe is a big place and the number of potential biochemistries probably infinite.
Definitely not.
The periodic table is finite.
And you'll find that that any distribution of possible biochemistries is not going to be a uniform distribution.
The things that are most abundant, and easiest to form life out of will be the statistical mode.
As it turns out... That's us.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are researchers always looking for conditions similar to that on earth rather than conditions which would allow some form of complex chemical reactions leading to a biochemistry?
I think that is because the only element we know that forms incredibly complex molecules needed for life is carbon. So you could potentially imagine radically different carbon-based life the basic chemistry of life seems fixed on carbon as far as we know. This limits life to environments where such complex molecules can be present which means an environment similar to Earth's.
Evidence that suggests we have not missed something is that we have a range of non-Earthlike environments in the solar system and
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have thought any fluid would do
I have no idea why you'd think that.
and sulphuric acid droplets of which the atmosphere of venus is absolutely loaded with could theoretically support some form of life.
Possible, but I'm skeptical.
Not any fluid will do for a functioning self-replicating biochemistry.
Why are researchers always looking for conditions similar to that on earth
They aren't.
which would allow some form of complex chemical reactions leading to a biochemistry?
They are.
Eg seti researchers look for O2 in distant planet atmospheres?
Because even Earth life that didn't need O2 still needed O2.
It just got it by cleaving it off of more complex molecules.
even earths didn't do it for a few hundred million years.
See above.
There's a reason why the search for life looks for stuff that's... pretty close to what life on Earth is like.
And it's not because we assume that's the only kind.
It's because life on Earth is based on the C, O, and H2O.
Re: (Score:2)
Researchers look for O2 and methane in atmospheres because that combination is 1) relatively easy to detect at long distances, and 2) unstable in any sort of concentration. If life suddenly died out on Earth the oxygen and methane would rather quickly eat each other until almost all of methane was gone, and then most of the remaining oxygen would gradually disappear as it reacted with other chemical compounds. Any sort of unstable combination of gasses would do though, those are just the two most commonly
Re: There's this assumption water is always requir (Score:2)
Well, I can't be the only one...
Density problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But the word you're looking for is density.
Buoyancy on a liquid or gas is determined by how dense kg/m3 something is.
For example lead is pretty heavy. But if you manage to make a balloon [youtube.com] from it, that is filled with hydrogen or helium, the overall density of the object is going to be pretty low, so it can still be buoyant in air.
Again, the line of thought is still essentially correct, because if we're talking atoms and not subatomic particles, you don't get much lower densities th
Re: (Score:2)
Unless an organism can contain and warm the hydrogen like a hot air balloon, then this is essentially correct.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe Jupiter's upper atmosphere is full of politicians. Better stay away from it.
Re: (Score:2)
The band Led Zeppelin got its name because of a bit of music industry slang, a performance that flopped "went over like a lead zeppelin".
I know too much trivia.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is an easily compressible gas (and indeed exists at many pressures in Jupiter's atmosphere)
Buoyancy is based on the weight of the *volume* you displace, so if the hydrogen is high pressure, it can weigh more than you do.
Of course, I feel like... at that point it's probably some kind of terrible state of matter that you don't want to be hanging around in...
But beyond that, Jupiter also has wind. Like really fast wind.
You don't need buoyancy when you're light enough to be lif
There's better candidates for life elsewhere (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish they'd quit dicking around and get some unmanned expeditions on the way to Jupiter and Saturn's water moons. Europa, Enceladus and Ganymede all appear to be excellent candidates for subsurface oceans.
We've wasted enough time. What we find there will determine shape the manned part of every space program on Earth for decades or even centuries afterward.
Re: There's better candidates for life elsewhere (Score:5, Informative)
I'm particularly excited by Enceladus from an exploration perspective. It has geysers that spray water far enough from the surface that a spacecraft can fly through the vapor cloud. It's a great way to get unadulterated samples without touching down on the surface. The Enceladus Life Finder (ELF) is proposed to do this. Really hope it or something like it gets funded.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I have trouble understanding why ELF wasn't selected for funding. What a great way to get important answers without having to deal with the formidable problems surrounding a lander mission.
Re: (Score:2)
There were impactor probes designed for a Mars mission, looking rather like a giant dart they would hit the planet at a relatively high velocity and sink the point a couple of meters into the surface. They were never funded although tests showed that the concept was fundamentally sound. Something similar could be dropped onto the ice moons and return quite a bit of data about composition, surface structure, chemistry, and the like before being toasted by Jupiter's radiation (since they would be sitting on
Re: There's better candidates for life elsewhere (Score:2)
Some version of this was actually funded and hitchhiked on the Mars Polar Lander platform.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
It was two impact probes with a few instruments in each, most importantly a little oven and spectrometer called the Evolved Water Experiment. The mission failed (MGS in orbit couldn't establish communications with it).
Re: (Score:3)
If you google for it, you can find a list of missions NASA has planned. One doesn't just whack those together, and the previous mission data requires time to analyze so future missions aren't looking for the wrong stuff. Then there are budget problems, Congress does not fund NASA for planetary missions, they fund it for a whole range of things. And some members of Congress think that science just happens on its own because private companies can do all the science we need.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware of the planned missions. The budget problems are what really annoy me. We put people on the moon half a frickin' century ago, and we've suspected subsurface oceans on some moons for half that long. It shouldn't be a question of cobbling a mission together.
Your last sentence speaks volumes. I'm old enough to remember William Proxmire and his Golden Fleece awards. I was a young kid, but a science geek, and even then I realized some of the research he "rewarded" for being stupid and pointless wa
Re: (Score:3)
All NASA budgets since foundation - $650 billion (including Apollo and a lot of research carried out for the Air Farce)
2020 Pentagon budget - $753 billion (not counting the intel agencies, or mercenary contracts for State Dept.)
This is why we can't have nice things.
Re: (Score:2)
all these worlds are yours -- except Europa. Attempt no landing there.
So THAT'S why... (Score:2)
... there are no Venusans on the internet!
:->
Tenacity of Life (Score:2)
What this really meansâ¦â¦ (Score:2)
No hope that there is life the way WE understand it in our narrow view.
Re:What this really means (Score:2)
Life exists in very broad conditions here on Earth. You are claiming we have planet that started with the same elements as Earth but having life not made of oxygen-carbon engines in water solution in protein bag? What other substances could life be made of, that is found on venus. the Star Trek silicon monster Horta?