11 ms·
Tardigrades spilled all over the Moon in 2020
- onecommentman 6y agoIt has been thought that we infested each planet on which we dropped a probe with tardigrades, especially the earlier missions. Inadvertently infecting the Solar System is one argument against space exploration...humans are just too dumb and clumsy at this point.
- hobby-coder-guy 6y agoIt has been thought? By who?
- mrlala 6y agoOne might say, if we are the only life to enjoy the solar system (in any reasonable proximity), then does it really matter?
- aeternum 6y agoWhy is spreading life seen as a negative? There are still an unfathomable number of planets without life. Isn't spreading life a good thing?
- JauntTrooper 6y agoIt would be poetic if tardigrades end up colonizing other worlds hundreds of years before we do.
- aeternum 6y agoPerhaps they already have!
- dyingkneepad 6y agoThe danger is if there is already some life that we're not aware of, then our tardrigades screw up their environment, eventually killing them. We don't want our tiny bacteria killing their tiny bacteria.
- temp0826 6y agoIt is illogical to have such disregard for the prime directive.
- bpodgursky 6y agoThe Prime Directive prohibits contact with intelligent pre-warp civilizations. Starfleet colonized quite a few planets without existing intelligent life.
- gmuslera 6y agoConsidering recent events, I'm not so sure if there is intelligent life on Earth. We are ripe for being colonized by what would be the Starfleet of a different star system, even if they have a Prime Directive.
- WalterBright 6y agoStar Trek violated the Prime Directive in just about every episode. (They wouldn't have had any plots if they didn't.)
- benibela 6y agoAnd they discovered that Tardigrades are probably already everywhere, since they can travel through the mycelial network
- Traubenfuchs 6y agoIt's illogical to keep ecosystems alive that could potentially harm us and it's illogical not to spread ecosystems that are habitable for us.
- antonvs 6y agoDoes morality come into this?
- mlyle 6y agoTo the extent that we accidentally contaminate the moon -- with life, radioactive material, etc -- we screw up some of our ability to study the origins of life, the solar system, etc. And we don't materially seed the universe with more life in the process. But then again, astronauts have been there, and the practices that were used were not (could not be) completely sterile. Still, this is probably a bit worse.
- aeternum 6y agoThere 200+ moons in our solar system alone and an uncountable number outside it. Each second we delay space travel, millions of moons are consumed by black holes or obliterated by asteroid collisions. If humanity became space-fairing earlier, perhaps we could save some of them. We're probably committing more alien genocide by delaying space travel than we ever would through contamination.
- mlyle 6y agoI never said to delay space travel. But that doesn't mean "seed the moon with Tardigrades" either.
- aeternum 6y agoEnsuring that our spacecraft are 100% sterile costs significant money and time. Maybe there are some things we can do that provide high ROI, but my inclination is that building bases and having humans basically live on the moon is going to require giving up its sterility.
- mlyle 6y agoSure... AGAIN, the horse is already somewhat out of the barn on the Moon in particular (human spaceflight already went there, I think), but this tardigrade thing, in retrospect, was extremely stupid.
- noizejoy 6y ago> delaying space travel In the context of space and time in the universe delaying things by a century or two is like delaying something in our life by a blink of an eye.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jrochkind1 6y agoI'm honestly not sure. Why would it be?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- petre 6y agoBecause one could end up with invasive life brought from Earth, just like it happened with cats brought to isolated islands that had endemic species of birds with no predators.
- thesuitonym 6y agoThe counter argument is that if the life we inadvertently leave throughout the solar system thrives, that's an interesting result too. This only really becomes a problem if there was other life to begin with.
- tessierashpool 6y agoit's not impossible, but this could be how Earth got tardigrades in the first place. (it's a stretch, of course.)
- BitwiseFool 6y agoWhat would the tartigrades eat? Surely they would die off eventually due to a lack of an ecosystem - no matter how hardy they are.
- PeterisP 6y agoThey don't eat, they're dehydrated and passive without any metabolism until (if) they are rehydrated.
- zepto 6y agoWhat would they eat if they were rehydrated?
- p1mrx 6y agoPresumably whatever food people provide with the water.
- airesearcher 6y agoCheese
- dumpsterdiver 6y agoFor awhile they could survive on a carnivorous diet by eating eachother, but they would eventually need a source of algae/plant matter to thrive.
- booleandilemma 6y agoLike trisolarans then.
- cgriswald 6y agoFacing the choice of whether to explore space, consider the worst case scenario. If we explore space, we could potentially destroy the evidence of non-Earth life that we are trying to find. The worst-case scenario from a anthropocentric point of view is that we don't get evidence of non-Earth life. If we do not explore space, we guarantee that worst case scenario. And, ultimately, we doom all Earth-life to extinction in a billion or so years; an extinction we may be able to prevent.
- antonvs 6y agoThe morality of destroying non-Earth life doesn't seem to enter into your analysis.
- cgriswald 6y agoThis is a simplified analysis. On balance, I don't think there is any consistent moral basis for objecting to space travel that is based on not accidentally destroying non-Earth life. Did you have a specific objection in mind? Saying, "It is immoral to risk destroying non-Earth life," would not be enough. One argument is a sort of recursive argument that humans are the best hope for Earth life in the long term, they are also the best hope for solar system life in general. All solar system life is equally doomed—albeit at potentially longer timescales than Earth life.
- dr_orpheus 6y agoWhat makes you say this? The potential to contaminate other planets with life from Earth has been a concern ever since we started planning to put something on a different planet or the moon. This originally got its start in 1958 with the draft of a Planetary Protection Policy [1]. This was prior to the first landing of anything on a body in outer space with Luna 2 in 1959 [2]. This was by the USSR and granted there is not great documentation for anything they actually did, the USSR said they took precautions to prevent biological contamination. For NASA they have been using the planetary protection guidelines since the first lunar lander which was the Ranger mission [3]. Every NASA mission that goes to another planet is required to undergo sterilization using the "Dry Heat Microbial Reduction" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Space_Research#Planetary_Protection_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Space_Research#Pl... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_2#Payload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_2#Payload [3] https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/planetary-protection# https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/planetary-protection# Edit: Spelling
- airesearcher 6y agoThe Moon is not a protected environment under Planetary Protection guidelines. Also the rules apply to much larger payloads. Don’t forget the Apollo astronauts left nearly 100 bags of excrement on the Moon.
- beervirus 6y agoUntil we explore and colonize space, we are one random asteroid away from human extinction. The odds in any given year or small, but it's nevertheless an unacceptable risk. We should do everything we can to spread our eggs into other baskets.
- lupire 6y agoHow would an asteroid cause human extinction? We're far more adaptable than dinosaurs.
- mr_toad 6y agoThe asteroid that caused the KT extinction burned every exposed life form, including all the land plants. The atmosphere became incandescent. Anything that survived the inferno would have then had to deal with the clouds of ash blocking out the sun for years. It’s possible some small groups of humans could survive that, if they were survivalist types with bunkers and years of food, but it would be dicey.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zhte415 6y agoDinosaurs were around for a fair amount of time.. as were and still are, perhaps, cockroaches and dragon flies.
- vector_spaces 6y agoIn case anyone was wondering, "Beresheet" means "In the beginning", as in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth"
- lovemenot 6y agoThanks. So it's not in fact the word for a thin sandwich of water-bears in epoxy.
- heckerhut 6y agoYou mean a bearsheet?
- astrea 6y agoWaterbearsheet?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- airesearcher 6y agoThat’s hilarious
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lovemenot 6y agoOf course. Whaddya think. I mean - does a bere sheet in da woods?
- pcthrowaway 6y agoThanks, I didn't even make that connection. Beresheet (pronounced like "buh-ray-SHEET" if memory serves) is also the original Hebrew name for the first book of the bible (titled "Genesis" in English)
- aurizon 6y agoThe tardigrades have alrady eaten 25% of the far side of the moon - to avoid being seen...;)
- stolen_biscuit 6y agoFortunately per the article the tardigrades are sealed in epoxy and dehydrated, so any concerns about inadvertently disrupting some theoretical microbial ecosystem on the moon is probably not founded (not that I believe there is other life on the moon anyway)
- WalterBright 6y ago> Fortunately I'd say unfortunately.
- stolen_biscuit 6y agoPerhaps, but personally I'd prefer any potential life seeding events to be controlled so we are reasonably confident we aren't wiping out a potentially unexplored domain of living things. If we're interested in expanding the frontiers of life I'd love for it to be a scientific pursuit rather than brought about by human error. However if we're talking cosmically, the chaotic crash landing does seem to be more in line with the more natural unpredictable way of the universe. So who am I to judge?
- WalterBright 6y agoCan't prove there is no life on the moon, but all indications are there is none. Need to stop worrying about it, just like we don't worry about the Abdominal Snowman. Besides, as the astronauts were unable to prevent getting moondust all over themselves and the spacecraft, it's highly unlikely they didn't spread biologic material all around, and it's all long dead now.
- stolen_biscuit 6y agoI do agree, I certainly don't think there's any life on or near the surface of the moon given our current understanding of it's composition. Seems incapable of fostering even the hardiest extremophiles, so the chance of astronauts leaving behind biological material, or dehydrated tardigrades trapped in epoxy doesn't concern me too much. But having said that, I do like to hope we will discover much, much more about our nearest neighbours and who knows? Maybe life is much more versatile than we know it to be now. I never want to see that pursuit muddied or compromised by negligence on our part.
- airesearcher 6y agoThe Fiction: Thousands of tardigrades settled on the Moon, after stowing away on a space mission. They mutated due to solar radiation and reproduced. Now they roam in herds on the Moon, eating all the cheese, and plotting their glorious return to Earth. The Truth: There were no living tardigrades likely to be onboard. At best there were some dehydrated tardigrades in the tun state, embedded in epoxy resin, inside a disc containing an archive of humanity (See: www.archimission.org). The total quantity would have been microscopic in size and the mass would have been far less than 1 gram. At the time this occurred there were no regulations governing the delivery of such a low mass of non-living organic material to the Moon, which was not a protected location. No planetary protection guidelines were violated due to the extremely low mass and non-living nature of the alleged tardigrades. As there is no liquid water on the Moon, there is no way to rehydrate tardigrades on the Moon, nor could they reproduce on the Moon if there was liquid water there. The Deeper Truth The tardigrades were announced in the month of April. The tardigrades might have been a myth constructed as a media "beacon" to mark the location and time of a shipwreck on the Moon for future historians.
- smoyer 6y agoThe truth for me is simpler ... this article, unlike most of the other news I've seen the last two weeks made me smile when I imaged them being freed by the crash. Re-hydration may not be so simple but thanks to the FOTON-M3 mission we do know that live tardigrades can also survive in space. Thriving and reproducing are pretty unlikely though.
- anthony_romeo 6y agoI stopped reading the article at: “Despite the impact, scientists believe that if anything survived the crash intact, it may well have been the tardigrades. The microscopic creatures were sandwiched between micron-thin sheets of nickel and suspended in epoxy, a resin-like preservative that acts like a jelly — potentially enough to cushion their landing” as I realized that I’d been duped by their very affirmative headline
- prvc 6y agoNobody is advocating the position outlined over your "fiction" heading, your "truth" section talks about only about likelihood and details like the total mass of the contaminants are irrelevant figures. As for the "deeper truth" section, why would historians need to be informed of this if they had access to 2020 news stories already? And how would a false (or, worse, true) claim about committing such an act bolster the credibility of other information related to the crash?
- lwneal 6y agoSpilling a few tardigrades on the Moon isn't a big deal, because there is almost certainly no life there. But imagine if, in the year 2120, we discover thriving colonies of live bacteria 40 meters below the surface of Mars. Life on another world! It would change everything! But suppose upon further inspection the bacteria turn out to be a species from Earth, stowed away stuck to the treads of the Perseverance rover [1]. Was there life on Mars before we put it there? Was there a unique kind of Martian life, with DNA completely different from ours, that has been forever eaten away by our accidental contamination? We would never know. For this reason, NASA and the Soviets agreed in 1967 to pursue a policy of Planetary Protection [2] ensuring that no probe or lander contaminates another planet. [1] https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/mars_2020/launch/mission/spacecraft/biological_cleanliness/ https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/mars_2020/launch/mi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection
- 8bitsrule 6y agoI dunno. "Life, uh, finds a way."
- sonotmyname 6y ago> It would change everything! Really? How? What is one aspect of life that would change for anyone not in the space exploration industry?
- mr_toad 6y agoFinding life on another planet, even just single celled organisms, would help with the study of biogenesis, which is one of the greatest mysteries of biology.
- perryizgr8 6y agoSome exotic life form, which did not originate on earth would most likely have interesting features we have never seen before. Scientists could study them and gain insights about alternatives to the biology of earth creatures. Who knows this research may lead to new drugs or procedures we can use to better our lives?
- Ftuuky 6y agoSo technically they colonized the Moon before us.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago"First Tardigrade on the Moon" might be my new band name.
- prvc 6y agoWhy would the people in charge of that spacecraft have decided to include such a cargo? It seems to go against all the principles of good science and conservation.
- api 6y ago20 years later: https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/288572b7-ea42-44bc-99a8-eff309671c3d/d2dd8wv-9cbe413c-a6e8-4e8f-b684-4fb83447a196.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3sicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvMjg4NTcyYjctZWE0Mi00NGJjLTk5YTgtZWZmMzA5NjcxYzNkXC9kMmRkOHd2LTljYmU0MTNjLWE2ZTgtNGU4Zi1iNjg0LTRmYjgzNDQ3YTE5Ni5qcGcifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNlcnZpY2U6ZmlsZS5kb3dubG9hZCJdfQ.Hwbqvd6OYyYwV8J_ilewmFK9KIBe25B6n_-J7X1yN5s https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/28...
- antonvs 6y agoTo be fair, we deserve it.
- pyuser583 6y agoThe surface of the moon is similar an autoclave. The little buggers won’t get far.
- gorgoiler 6y agoWhat’s concerning is that with the reduced gravity on the moon, these bears will be able to grow well beyond their terrestrial limits. If the physical weakness of an exoskeleton scales with the fourth power of gravity then a 16% decrease in gravity would mean a growth factor of 1.5e3. Moon tardigrades would grow to be three feet long. I look forward to publishing my research in full at, ahem, the start of April.
- airesearcher 6y agoIn the distant future giant lunar tardigrades in the tun state fall back to earth and seed the desert wastelands, eventually evolving into giant sand worms.