3 ms·

NASA asteroid sample contains life-critical water and carbon

70 points by wglb 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jerf 3y ago
I wish they'd stop treating this like some sort of news. Is there any significant number of people out there seriously claiming that the only carbon or water in the universe is on planet Earth? The mere presence of water or carbon challenges no theories, surprises no one, disproves no one in the scientific community. I'm sure there will be some sort of interesting thing found about the carbon itself, as there always is whenever something is closely examined for the first time. Perhaps that news will challenge a theory, surprise someone, or disprove someone. But this news isn't it.
- 1970-01-01 3y ago
  >The mere presence of water or carbon challenges no theories, surprises no one, disproves no one in the scientific community. Its actually doing the opposite of this. See https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/negative-results-null-results-or-no-results https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/negative-results-null-...
- kaycebasques 3y ago
  This seems to be the news: > "This is the biggest carbon-rich asteroid sample ever returned to Earth," NASA administrator Bill Nelson said Maybe the presence of carbon and water is well-established through theory and remote observation, but it seems a lot more conclusive when you can find it, go out and grab it, and bring it back to Earth. Or maybe it's already well-established through asteroids that fall naturally to Earth? And isn't there a huge related question that is not conclusively settled whatsoever (if my armchair scientist readings are correct): whether life started here or elsewhere?
  - jerf 3y ago
    I think the life question may be what they are trying to get at, but if they are, they're running the story on cognitive autopilot. Nobody of any scientific significance believes, or as far as I can see as someone interested in this topic, ever has believed that the limit on life elsewhere is that only Earth had the raw elements necessary for life. Nobody doubts that carbon atoms exist elsewhere in the universe, and in quantity. It's sort of like the stories about how there are planets around other stars, therefore, handwave handwave something about life give us more money. Nobody (of scientific relevance) has ever seriously claimed that the only planets in the universe are the ones we can see in our solar system. There were some debates about how many there may be, but nobody ever proposed that they were somehow rare in absolute terms. Debates about the natures of those planets aplenty, certainly, but not their existence.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  Strawman. Nobody ever claimed that the only carbon or water is found on earth. The presence of carbon and water in these asteroids is interesting because they preserve a record of what the early solar system was like. We did not know if they had these materials in abundance. Maybe they had a bit, maybe a lot. Maybe almost none. We did not know. Now we do. If the finding was almost none, that prompts different ideas about their source on earth than if they had. You may have thought this outcome was very likely, but it was just speculation on your part.
  - jerf 3y ago
    "Strawman. Nobody ever claimed that the only carbon or water is found on earth." My point, you found it. Congratulations. It is not often talked about in the ever-popular "logical fallacies" articles online, but you do need to do slightly more work than just seeing a fallacy and immediately trying to score points with an accusation. There mere presence of a fallacy does not quite mean an error is being made. You might also want to try to finish reading the content before reflexively jumping up and yelling FALLACY, as you clearly did not.
barbazoo 3y ago
> A sample collected from the 4.5-billion-year-old asteroid Bennu contains abundant water and carbon, NASA revealed on Wednesday, offering more evidence for the theory that life on Earth was seeded from outer space. > Scientists believe the reason Earth has oceans, lakes and rivers is because it was hit with water-carrying asteroids 4 to 4.5 billion years ago, making it a habitable planet. This might be common knowledge for lots of folks but this is the first time I read this and is just mind boggling to me. There's A LOT of water on our planet, that's a lot of / very big asteroids.
- uolmir 3y ago
  It's always great for more people to know this. As another comment said, this is in no way "new" information. In fact, it may be interesting for you and others to read about the long study of organic compounds in meteorites. You could start with Murchison[1], which contains not just simple molecules, but over 70 amino acids. It even smells. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
- pstuart 3y ago
  It's not an unreasonable proposition but life had to have an origin somewhere, so if it came from space where did that source come from? Deep sea thermal vents seem like a reasonable origin as well.
  - cryptoz 3y ago
    I like playing with the odds and changing the unknowns to extremes in my head - what if abiogenesis is relatively common given the right conditions and enough time, and also that panspermia is common. This would mean that life could both easily arise alone on a planet and also the universe would be strewn with asteroids scattered everywhere carrying single-celled organisms/simple life. Ignoring the question of the likelihood of intelligent life out there, I do wonder if maybe the universe is full of lush planets with lots of related lifeforms across trillions of star systems. Could life even cross into new galaxies this way? I dunno! But it's fun to think about.
hettygreen 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
djedr 3y ago
> offering more evidence for the theory that life on Earth was seeded from outer space. This hypothesis seems to be getting more and more traction. There is an excellent recent video on topic from Kurzgesagt [0]. Interesting that neither the video nor the article uses the name panspermia[1] to refer to the hypothesis. I wonder why that is. Wikipedia also states that "[the fringe theory] is also criticized because it cannot be tested experimentally". Can't it? If we ever find an organism based on DNA compatible with organisms on Earth, wouldn't that validate it? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOiGEI9pQBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOiGEI9pQBs [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
- streakfix 3y ago
  There's a kurzgesagt for that...
dang 3y ago
Recent and related: NASA finds water and organics in Bennu asteroid sample - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37850556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37850556 - Oct 2023 (52 comments)
dadjoker 3y ago
It's amazing how much effort and money is being spent to merely push the question out to outer space, not answer it.

70 points by wglb 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jerf 3y ago

I wish they'd stop treating this like some sort of news. Is there any significant number of people out there seriously claiming that the only carbon or water in the universe is on planet Earth? The mere presence of water or carbon challenges no theories, surprises no one, disproves no one in the scientific community. I'm sure there will be some sort of interesting thing found about the carbon itself, as there always is whenever something is closely examined for the first time. Perhaps that news will challenge a theory, surprise someone, or disprove someone. But this news isn't it.

1970-01-01 3y ago
>The mere presence of water or carbon challenges no theories, surprises no one, disproves no one in the scientific community. Its actually doing the opposite of this. See https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/negative-results-null-results-or-no-results https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/negative-results-null-...
kaycebasques 3y ago
This seems to be the news: > "This is the biggest carbon-rich asteroid sample ever returned to Earth," NASA administrator Bill Nelson said Maybe the presence of carbon and water is well-established through theory and remote observation, but it seems a lot more conclusive when you can find it, go out and grab it, and bring it back to Earth. Or maybe it's already well-established through asteroids that fall naturally to Earth? And isn't there a huge related question that is not conclusively settled whatsoever (if my armchair scientist readings are correct): whether life started here or elsewhere?
- jerf 3y ago
  I think the life question may be what they are trying to get at, but if they are, they're running the story on cognitive autopilot. Nobody of any scientific significance believes, or as far as I can see as someone interested in this topic, ever has believed that the limit on life elsewhere is that only Earth had the raw elements necessary for life. Nobody doubts that carbon atoms exist elsewhere in the universe, and in quantity. It's sort of like the stories about how there are planets around other stars, therefore, handwave handwave something about life give us more money. Nobody (of scientific relevance) has ever seriously claimed that the only planets in the universe are the ones we can see in our solar system. There were some debates about how many there may be, but nobody ever proposed that they were somehow rare in absolute terms. Debates about the natures of those planets aplenty, certainly, but not their existence.
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
Strawman. Nobody ever claimed that the only carbon or water is found on earth. The presence of carbon and water in these asteroids is interesting because they preserve a record of what the early solar system was like. We did not know if they had these materials in abundance. Maybe they had a bit, maybe a lot. Maybe almost none. We did not know. Now we do. If the finding was almost none, that prompts different ideas about their source on earth than if they had. You may have thought this outcome was very likely, but it was just speculation on your part.
- jerf 3y ago
  "Strawman. Nobody ever claimed that the only carbon or water is found on earth." My point, you found it. Congratulations. It is not often talked about in the ever-popular "logical fallacies" articles online, but you do need to do slightly more work than just seeing a fallacy and immediately trying to score points with an accusation. There mere presence of a fallacy does not quite mean an error is being made. You might also want to try to finish reading the content before reflexively jumping up and yelling FALLACY, as you clearly did not.

barbazoo 3y ago

> A sample collected from the 4.5-billion-year-old asteroid Bennu contains abundant water and carbon, NASA revealed on Wednesday, offering more evidence for the theory that life on Earth was seeded from outer space. > Scientists believe the reason Earth has oceans, lakes and rivers is because it was hit with water-carrying asteroids 4 to 4.5 billion years ago, making it a habitable planet. This might be common knowledge for lots of folks but this is the first time I read this and is just mind boggling to me. There's A LOT of water on our planet, that's a lot of / very big asteroids.

uolmir 3y ago
It's always great for more people to know this. As another comment said, this is in no way "new" information. In fact, it may be interesting for you and others to read about the long study of organic compounds in meteorites. You could start with Murchison[1], which contains not just simple molecules, but over 70 amino acids. It even smells. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
pstuart 3y ago
It's not an unreasonable proposition but life had to have an origin somewhere, so if it came from space where did that source come from? Deep sea thermal vents seem like a reasonable origin as well.
- cryptoz 3y ago
  I like playing with the odds and changing the unknowns to extremes in my head - what if abiogenesis is relatively common given the right conditions and enough time, and also that panspermia is common. This would mean that life could both easily arise alone on a planet and also the universe would be strewn with asteroids scattered everywhere carrying single-celled organisms/simple life. Ignoring the question of the likelihood of intelligent life out there, I do wonder if maybe the universe is full of lush planets with lots of related lifeforms across trillions of star systems. Could life even cross into new galaxies this way? I dunno! But it's fun to think about.

hettygreen 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

djedr 3y ago

> offering more evidence for the theory that life on Earth was seeded from outer space. This hypothesis seems to be getting more and more traction. There is an excellent recent video on topic from Kurzgesagt [0]. Interesting that neither the video nor the article uses the name panspermia[1] to refer to the hypothesis. I wonder why that is. Wikipedia also states that "[the fringe theory] is also criticized because it cannot be tested experimentally". Can't it? If we ever find an organism based on DNA compatible with organisms on Earth, wouldn't that validate it? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOiGEI9pQBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOiGEI9pQBs [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

streakfix 3y ago
There's a kurzgesagt for that...

dang 3y ago

Recent and related: NASA finds water and organics in Bennu asteroid sample - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37850556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37850556 - Oct 2023 (52 comments)

dadjoker 3y ago

It's amazing how much effort and money is being spent to merely push the question out to outer space, not answer it.