Author Topic: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!  (Read 64759 times)

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #20 on: 07/30/2012 02:17 pm »
....

The links to the data and leaked studies show

Why a decade of HLVs (Constellation and SLS) did not solve NASA $$$ problems, but depot centric with a LEO ZBO Depot and Smaller LVs Will free up cash for Flexible Exploration


....


Hi muomega0!

See the comments by Removed User

« Reply #110 on: 12/29/2011 08:49 PM »

His post is slightly below the one you referenced.


Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #21 on: 07/30/2012 06:02 pm »
Quote
... so what? Are we looking for life or not? Or is it all about pork ...

I thought we were looking for a place to live so to spread the risk of living in one place, and for resources with which to generate wealth in order to live comfortably. But we need more data. ...

What would be the keystone piece of data about the Moon? Do we need to know whether or not liquid water exists at some depth, or is it enough to know whether or not near surface ice exists in the polar craters? Do we need to know whether or not mankind on the moon will spread across the surface living in surface habs, like houses, or will bore down under the protection of the surface living in underground (?) cities. ...

But do we need to know this next? If so, then how do we find out? Can it be done remotely or do we need to dig, drill or blast? Where should we look, and how deep should we look irrespective of the required technology and equipment? If this is not next on the agenda, what is?

Your line of thinking here is pretty good.

My indictment of NASA's efforts over the last forty years has been summarized as the preference for profit over accomplishment.  Although the word "pork" does not generally cross my lips in this regard, I am not unaware of the concept.

We are looking for a place to attempt the experiment of living off planet.  That's "we", as in we who are looking for that place to live.  Water is one of those resources which could enable wealth generation, if a lot of other things go right.  Water might be that "keystone piece of data" for Luna.  It will be easier to live on the surface, even if we have to use some meters of regolith for radiation shielding.  Windows and distant views are crucial for most people, and quite enticing if the views would be alien and wild.

I think we do need to know more about that water next.  Unfortunately, the current Pooh-bah and the aspiring Pooh-bah are not interested in Luna, thus have no interest in searching for a site for an outpost.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Warren Platts

Quote
... so what? Are we looking for life or not? Or is it all about pork ...
But we need more data. ...

But do we need to know this next? If so, then how do we find out? Can it be done remotely or do we need to dig, drill or blast? Where should we look, and how deep should we look irrespective of the required technology and equipment? If this is not next on the agenda, what is?

I guarantee you drilling for liquid water on the Moon is not next on the agenda. But maybe it should be. Back in the day when they first began drilling for oil and natural gas, the strategy was simply to find an oil or gas seep, and then drill down on top of that. (As a result, natural oil and gas seeps as a natural phenomena on Earth are  practically extinct.)

So the thing to do would be to identify features on the Moon--evidently, these are the rimless pits like Ina--that are thought to have been formed because of escaping volatiles, and then drill down on top of them. For starters, a rig capable of drilling completely through the 10 meter regolith and down into some pristine bedrock would be good for starters. Core samples with sample return to earth would be great. A rig capable of drilling a hundred feet could be landed with a single beefy lander, pipes and all.

It's potentially dangerous work. If they found liquid water, it could potentially be overpressured. They could have a blowout. But hey, there are worse problems to have! Hopefully, no one will get hurt.

But even if Ina proved to be a dry hole, they could potentially find direct geochemical evidence that liquid water was somehow involved in the explosion that caused the formation of Ina. Maybe even some microfossils.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2012 11:28 pm by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Warren Platts

Yes Warren, I too appreciate "The Emperor's New Clothes" and since 1837 that simple story by Hans Christian Andersen has taught the lesson of how some folks in various leadership positions don't want to appear foolish or think too deeply or ask any questions at all about the obviously nonsensical behavior and illogical proclamations of their Grand Pooh-bah.

From such grandiose and easily duped Grand Pooh-bahs we get tragic wars, bankrupt nations, misdirected space programs, and various other types of goofy zig zagging national policies.

Further human field work research to prioritize the tapping of the strategically located Lunar water, volatiles, and other resources would be the logical and commercially smart thing to do, if logic and commerce had anything to do with the vague blind alley asteroid and Mars space policy formulated and articulated by our Grand Pooh-bah.

Unfortunately, our current Grand Pooh-bah continues to display his disdain about the commercial prospects of our lovely and resource rich Moon.

We Americans routinely install a new Grand Pooh-bah every four or eight years, so hopefully we will eventually get a Grand Pooh-bah that is actually interested in science instead of displaying an ongoing dismal ignorance about what is needed for a functional and commercially robust space exploration architecture.   

:)
Oh really?

Quote above leaves in sentences with GPB:  Grand Pooh-bah

GPB circa 2001-2009 along with the same Congress and forced NASA to build a HLV (Constellation)--throwing out the depot centric architecture.  The budget impact of this choice was ~$3B/year.   Robotic missions?!

The links to the data and leaked studies show

Why a decade of HLVs (Constellation and SLS) did not solve NASA $$$ problems, but depot centric with a LEO ZBO Depot and Smaller LVs Will free up cash for Flexible Exploration


GPB circa 2009-   threw out Constellation, but *Congress* mandated the 70 to 130 metric tonne LV SLS as part of a compromse--no cash savings.  SLS =>   something << envisioned HSF

The great news for those at NASA who want to start addressing the key Challenges and developing Exploration Hardware is that SLS now has a half life of 4 months. ;)  This will free LV dollars for hardware to explore for water and to start working on technologies for other BEO missions.

Visiting an asteroid is only a step in the process and has nothing in common with the Constellation flags and footprints 2X/year 6 day lunar sorties.  A asteroid mission requires most of the technologies needed for Mars, but with substantially less energy required.  Think of the asteroid mission as a lunar flyby--a step in the overall process.

But its flexible, if one does find a economically retrievable resource.....asteroid or lunar or ....

One remaining key to the puzzle is a reasonable, cheap yearly IMLEO required by NASA to aid the so called 'commercial' lv sector, because as we all know, increasing the flight rate reduces costs.   Again, this is accomplished by removing unneeded product lines, and using the cash for BEO hardware.

Most people at NASA want to move *forward* to the proper, flexible architecture.

....

The links to the data and leaked studies show

Why a decade of HLVs (Constellation and SLS) did not solve NASA $$$ problems, but depot centric with a LEO ZBO Depot and Smaller LVs Will free up cash for Flexible Exploration


....


Hi muomega0!

See the comments by Removed User

« Reply #110 on: 12/29/2011 08:49 PM »

His post is slightly below the one you referenced.


Cheers!

Quote
... so what? Are we looking for life or not? Or is it all about pork ...

I thought we were looking for a place to live so to spread the risk of living in one place, and for resources with which to generate wealth in order to live comfortably. But we need more data. ...

What would be the keystone piece of data about the Moon? Do we need to know whether or not liquid water exists at some depth, or is it enough to know whether or not near surface ice exists in the polar craters? Do we need to know whether or not mankind on the moon will spread across the surface living in surface habs, like houses, or will bore down under the protection of the surface living in underground (?) cities. ...

But do we need to know this next? If so, then how do we find out? Can it be done remotely or do we need to dig, drill or blast? Where should we look, and how deep should we look irrespective of the required technology and equipment? If this is not next on the agenda, what is?

Your line of thinking here is pretty good.

My indictment of NASA's efforts over the last forty years has been summarized as the preference for profit over accomplishment.  Although the word "pork" does not generally cross my lips in this regard, I am not unaware of the concept.

We are looking for a place to attempt the experiment of living off planet.  That's "we", as in we who are looking for that place to live.  Water is one of those resources which could enable wealth generation, if a lot of other things go right.  Water might be that "keystone piece of data" for Luna.  It will be easier to live on the surface, even if we have to use some meters of regolith for radiation shielding.  Windows and distant views are crucial for most people, and quite enticing if the views would be alien and wild.

I think we do need to know more about that water next.  Unfortunately, the current Pooh-bah and the aspiring Pooh-bah are not interested in Luna, thus have no interest in searching for a site for an outpost.

Hap, I knew this would happen. Thanks a lot. 1000 words between you all, and the word "liquid" appears nowhere. Let's leave the Presidential politics out of it, please. There is the Space Policy subforum for that if you like. If you must discuss politics, then let's talk about the scientific politics of the astrobiology and planetary science community. Why is it politically incorrect to discuss the possibility of life on the Moon? Why is it career suicide to discuss the possibility? What happened to the ISRO leak that Chandrayaan found "signs of life"? There was no follow up. It disappeared down a black hole. E.g., the latest article quoting a lot of astrobiology rock stars: no mention of the Moon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/alien-life-enceladus-saturn-moon
« Last Edit: 07/30/2012 11:29 pm by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #24 on: 07/30/2012 09:57 pm »
....

Hap, I knew this would happen. Thanks a lot. 1000 words between you all, and the word "liquid" appears nowhere. Let's leave the Presidential politics out of it, please. There is the Space Policy subforum for that if you like. If you must discuss politics, then let's talk about the scientific politics of the astrobiology and planetary science community. Why is it politically incorrect to discuss the possibility of life on the Moon? Why is it career suicide to discuss the possibility? What happened to the ISRO leak that Chandrayaan found "signs of life"? There was no follow up. It disappeared down a black hole. E.g., the latest article quoting a lot of astrobiology rock stars: no mention of the Moon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/alien-life-enceladus-saturn-moon


Warren, the topic of this thread is Liquid Water IN The Moon!, not life in the Moon.

I am willing to encourage folks to drill deep for that liquid Lunar water, and have done so in some of my previous posts, . The current Pooh-bah and the Pooh-bah wannabe don't seem inclined to do any drilling on the Moon for liquid water or evidence of life. Luckily, a bipartisan Luna first attitude in Congress seems to have us headed back to the Moon, and once we eventually get there we will do some drilling, and maybe even some very deep drilling for liquid water. Yep, for water, and maybe even life, we should drill deep and not just be "interested in the top 10 to 100 meters of the surface".


.....
True, but for the practical purposes of this thread, we are only interested in the top 10 to 100 meters of the surface. It's not clear to me that there is a sharp dogleg in the thermal gradient where it drops down to 20 K/km immediately after the first 2 meters. I'm still researching this issue. Main point remains that it's possible, indeed likely, that liquid water in certain circumstances may reach as high as the base of the regolith is some locations.
....



"Back in 1998, Onstott made the astonishing discovery that bacteria can thrive in pockets of hot water miles underground — far below the depth at which living organisms were known to exist before. Ever since then, he's been spending his summers thousands of feet beneath the earth, in the bowels of South Africa's deepest gold mines, prospecting for other kinds of life in this lightless, hidden biosphere."

And, "To prove the critters were truly worms from hell (rather than worms just visiting hell), Onstott and Borgonie had to tap into veins of water that had never been exposed to air. Sure enough, they found worms there as well."

From: Could 'Worms from Hell' Mean There's Life in Space?  By Michael D. Lemonick Wednesday, June 08, 2011
At: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2076281,00.html


Drill many kilometers deep into the Moon and find "veins" of liquid water and maybe life as well.


Cheers! 
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Warren Platts

....

Hap, I knew this would happen. Thanks a lot. 1000 words between you all, and the word "liquid" appears nowhere. Let's leave the Presidential politics out of it, please. There is the Space Policy subforum for that if you like. If you must discuss politics, then let's talk about the scientific politics of the astrobiology and planetary science community. Why is it politically incorrect to discuss the possibility of life on the Moon? Why is it career suicide to discuss the possibility? What happened to the ISRO leak that Chandrayaan found "signs of life"? There was no follow up. It disappeared down a black hole. E.g., the latest article quoting a lot of astrobiology rock stars: no mention of the Moon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/alien-life-enceladus-saturn-moon


Warren, the topic of this thread is Liquid Water IN The Moon!, not life in the Moon.

Nope. The thread title is Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN the Moon! Liquid water, while interesting, and with potential ISRU applications (implying that it might potentially be possible to drill for water in non-polar regions), it's main interest is its potential to harbor extraterrestrial life. That is a scientific problem that can fire the imagination of the public in a way that magnetic and gravitational anomalies cannot. It's a problem we've already spent billions on, with little to show in the form of positive results. And look how desperate they're getting: an Enceladus flyby mission that's going to cost billions and take 30 years to deliver results is now being billed as our most cost-effective way to discover actual alien life forms.

That is so awful it's making me begin to get suspicious that the astrobiology rock stars really don't want to find life on another world. Maybe they're afraid that once they find it, the funding will dry up, so a nice 30 year mission to the Far Side of the Solar System is a good way to keep the cabbage flowing. But that's being really cynical on my part. We should have HSF capability to Lunar surface within the decade (it's still the law of the land to have a man on the Moon by 2020). We should start developing drilling technology now.

Quote from: Happy Martian
I am willing to encourage folks to drill deep for that liquid Lunar water, and have done so in some of my previous posts, . The current Pooh-bah and the Pooh-bah wannabe don't seem inclined to do any drilling on the Moon for liquid water or evidence of life. Luckily, a bipartisan Luna first attitude in Congress seems to have us headed back to the Moon, and once we eventually get there we will do some drilling, and maybe even some very deep drilling for liquid water. Yep, for water, and maybe even life, we should drill deep and not just be "interested in the top 10 to 100 meters of the surface".

There is a world of difference between a drilling rig that can drill 100 feet versus one that can drill 10,000 feet. The equipment required to drill a shallow water well can fit on a single truck; to drill a deep oil well takes many semi-truck loads to set up. The drill pipe alone is heavy; so heavy in fact, it only really makes sense if the drill pipe and most other heavy components of a big rig can be forged on the Moon itself.

A small rig capable of drilling at least down through 30 to 50 feet of regolith can surely fit on a single lander. It could possibly be entirely robotic, but other things being equal, it would be better of course to have humans at the scene to help with the setting up, troubleshooting and analysis of the results. Most especially, having humans on the scene ensures sample return.


Quote from: Happy Martian
"Back in 1998, Onstott made the astonishing discovery that bacteria can thrive in pockets of hot water miles underground — far below the depth at which living organisms were known to exist before. Ever since then, he's been spending his summers thousands of feet beneath the earth, in the bowels of South Africa's deepest gold mines, prospecting for other kinds of life in this lightless, hidden biosphere."

And, "To prove the critters were truly worms from hell (rather than worms just visiting hell), Onstott and Borgonie had to tap into veins of water that had never been exposed to air. Sure enough, they found worms there as well."

From: Could 'Worms from Hell' Mean There's Life in Space?  By Michael D. Lemonick Wednesday, June 08, 2011
At: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2076281,00.html


Drill many kilometers deep into the Moon and find "veins" of liquid water and maybe life as well.


Cheers! 

Now thanks for this Hap! Keep digging and keep posting the results here my friend. However, if I am right, we won't have to drill many kilometers down. It might very well be under our very noses. You know how it is: the Sahara Desert looks like a barren place to our Western eyes, but a smart Bedouin will know where to dig with his bare hands and still find water.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2012 12:17 am by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #26 on: 07/31/2012 12:50 am »
{snip}
That is so awful it's making me begin to get suspicious that the astrobiology rock stars really don't want to find life on another world. Maybe they're afraid that once they find it, the funding will dry up, so a nice 30 year mission to the Far Side of the Solar System is a good way to keep the cabbage flowing. But that's being really cynical on my part. We should have HSF capability to Lunar surface within the decade (it's still the law of the land to have a man on the Moon by 2020). We should start developing drilling technology now.
{snip}

Or they have worked out that any drilling mission to the Moon, that is going down more than a few feet, will not be launched for at least 5 years.  That means there will be a different man in the White House.  The new man may wish to claim the glory and give it public authorisation.  Until then NASA has to quietly develop landers, prospecting equipment, drills and refining machines.  So long as the President does not know the project is there he will not bother to cancel it.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #27 on: 07/31/2012 03:05 am »
...
So long as the President does not know the project is there he will not bother to cancel it.


A stealthy Lunar exploration program designed to find liquid water and life. I got it! OK Swallow! But I'm not sure we should tell anyone, even Warren. Warren is an American and sometimes those Americans get a bit excited. Is there anyone we can discuss this with in the international community? You know, someone who won't blab it it to the media, right? Let's keep this on topic and on the QT. Yep, a strictly need to know basis.

Hhmmmm, Swallow, maybe you shouldn't tell me either. I am an American and have a much bigger mouth than Warren...

Swallow, this is your secret international mission: Figure out the Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon! Remember, whatever you come up with, don't tell NASA, Warren, me, or any American. You can work with the rest of the world, but please keep this new research program away from every American. Scientific secrecy is essential for the success of your deep mission into the depths of Luna! I trust you! Good luck!


Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline spacermase

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #28 on: 07/31/2012 03:32 am »


That is so awful it's making me begin to get suspicious that the astrobiology rock stars really don't want to find life on another world. Maybe they're afraid that once they find it, the funding will dry up, so a nice 30 year mission to the Far Side of the Solar System is a good way to keep the cabbage flowing. But that's being really cynical on my part.

Speaking as an astrobiologist (though not yet a rock star), I have a hard time conceiving of an astrobiologist who didn't want to find life on another world- aside from the nice benefit of having your name immortalized in history as That Guy Who Found Aliens, finding exolife would represent just the start of funding- after all, you're going to need multiple samples, a thorough investigation into the ecosystem of the organisms, lots and lots of gene sequencing, assuming there are genes to be sequenced.  The reason Enceladus is getting a lot of attention is because we know with absolute certainty that there is both liquid water and organics there (although personally I'm skeptical that there is enough chemical energy in Enceladus's hydrothermal systems to support life, but I certainly could be wrong).

The problem with going after the Moon for astrobiology is that, truth be told, it's not just a matter of following the water- you also need a lot of organics (and easily assimilated organics at that), and a source of energy.   Organics have only been definitively detected in relatively trace amounts on the Moon's surface, and there is no reason to suspect that they'll necessarily be found in the subsurface (as they are believed to the result of micrometeorite and solar wind deposition).  And as for energy, terrestrial biology uses a relatively narrow range of sources (although it's still surprisingly wide by everyday standards)- the most likely metabolic pathway for the Moon, based on simple availability, would be the reduction of iron, but you'd eventually run out of of Fe(III) to reduce, since there's no volatile oxygen available to reoxidize the Fe(II) and cycle it.  It doesn't help that the Moon (at least at the surface) is predominantly silicon dioxide, which is about as biologically inert and inaccessible as you can get.

The terrestrial deep subsurface bacteria mentioned earlier get by through an extremely slow metabolism (they may not reproduce for centuries, and it has been suggested that they may be effectively immortal), and by (we think) metabolizing high energy compounds produced by radioactive decay.  And even then, the colonies that support nematodes are specifically mentioned as not being entirely isolated from the surface biosphere.

Bottom line, while life deep in the Moon can't be ruled out- we've found stranger things, after all- but it's much, much more of a stretch compared to Mars (where water and organic carbon are known to have existed in the past, and may still exist in some form), Europa (strongly suspected to have water and probably organics), and Enceladus (definitively known to have water and organics).

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #29 on: 07/31/2012 03:49 am »
Until then NASA has to quietly develop landers, prospecting equipment, drills and refining machines.  So long as the President does not know the project is there he will not bother to cancel it.

I agree, except replacing "the house" for "the president". The current president proposed significant funding for all these things. We would have had a lunar lander with an ISRU package during his term. The exploration technology budget was radically large.


Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #30 on: 07/31/2012 04:06 am »
The exploration technology budget was radically large.

Yep. Most people who can't understand why anyone would be against SLS seem to be completely unaware of what they gave up to have it.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #31 on: 07/31/2012 04:25 am »
Back on topic, the moon might have one advantage for looking for life. Since the surface itself is so unfriendly to life, genuine life signs might stand out like a beacon.

There is so much we just havent seen at all. We debate the ice at the poles and whether this or that experiment will be sufficient but maybe we will go there and find seven foot ice crystal forests or something we just haven't considered.

I would really like to get even a look at any locations where volatiles have been gassing out of. What sort of residue is left on the surface, for example.

Offline Warren Platts

Speaking as an astrobiologist (though not yet a rock star), I have a hard time conceiving of an astrobiologist who didn't want to find life on another world- aside from the nice benefit of having your name immortalized in history as That Guy Who Found Aliens, finding exolife would represent just the start of funding- after all, you're going to need multiple samples, a thorough investigation into the ecosystem of the organisms, lots and lots of gene sequencing, assuming there are genes to be sequenced.  The reason Enceladus is getting a lot of attention is because we know with absolute certainty that there is both liquid water and organics there (although personally I'm skeptical that there is enough chemical energy in Enceladus's hydrothermal systems to support life, but I certainly could be wrong).

The problem with going after the Moon for astrobiology is that, truth be told, it's not just a matter of following the water- you also need a lot of organics (and easily assimilated organics at that), and a source of energy.   Organics have only been definitively detected in relatively trace amounts on the Moon's surface, and there is no reason to suspect that they'll necessarily be found in the subsurface (as they are believed to the result of micrometeorite and solar wind deposition).  And as for energy, terrestrial biology uses a relatively narrow range of sources (although it's still surprisingly wide by everyday standards)- the most likely metabolic pathway for the Moon, based on simple availability, would be the reduction of iron, but you'd eventually run out of of Fe(III) to reduce, since there's no volatile oxygen available to reoxidize the Fe(II) and cycle it.  It doesn't help that the Moon (at least at the surface) is predominantly silicon dioxide, which is about as biologically inert and inaccessible as you can get.

The terrestrial deep subsurface bacteria mentioned earlier get by through an extremely slow metabolism (they may not reproduce for centuries, and it has been suggested that they may be effectively immortal), and by (we think) metabolizing high energy compounds produced by radioactive decay.  And even then, the colonies that support nematodes are specifically mentioned as not being entirely isolated from the surface biosphere.

Bottom line, while life deep in the Moon can't be ruled out- we've found stranger things, after all- but it's much, much more of a stretch compared to Mars (where water and organic carbon are known to have existed in the past, and may still exist in some form), Europa (strongly suspected to have water and probably organics), and Enceladus (definitively known to have water and organics).

Wow! Thank you for the breath of fresh air. These are the sort of things we should be discussing. However, I think you may be mistaken in a few of your assumptions:

1. Organics: LCROSS did find organics in the material it dislodged from the Moon; granted, current theory is that most of this stuff comes from comet impacts, but the recent discovery of water within magma fragments found encapsulated in glass particles found in the famous "orange soil" recovered by Apollo 17 indicates that the Lunar mantle contains water concentrations comparable to the Earth's mantle; presumably other sorts of volatiles would be included, and so it's possible that the polar cold traps are trapping Lunar volatiles also, and not just cometary impact material.

2. The rimless pit features (like Ina) are thought to have been caused by the catastrophic release of overpressured volatiles; these do not happen in the polar regions; this is further evidence that "food" molecules could be coming from deep with the Moon.

3. What do you mean my Lunar "surface samples"? If you are referring to the typical Apollo sample, it's no surprise that the volatiles and organics have been baked out of them by a billion years of heating up in a vacuum. These cannot be taken as representative of what's going on in the interior.

4. There was the tantalizing ISRO leak about the Chandrayaan impactor finding "signs of life" in the form of organic molecules.

5. Your point about iron reducing forms running out of iron is well taken, but I was thinking the most likely form would be methanogens feeding off of primoridial carbon dioxide and hydrogen released by the serpentinisation of olivine. (Alternatively, they could get hydrogen from water, and release oxygen--and this could in turn reoxidise Fe(II) and cycle it.) These are the sorts of organisms that live deep within the Earth's basalts (which are primarily composed of olivine). And there is actually a bit of empirical evidence to support this view: there is a mysterious diurnal pulse of methane that the Apollo science packages consistently detected; this is consistent with methanogens releasing methane that slowly makes its way to the surface. During the night it accumulates in the regolith, and then when warmed up by the Sun, it is released to the Lunar exosphere.

Any thoughts you have on this subject are very welcome spacermase. Astrobiological expertise is definitely in short supply around here! ;)
« Last Edit: 07/31/2012 06:30 am by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #33 on: 07/31/2012 07:07 am »
...

Speaking as an astrobiologist (though not yet a rock star), I have a hard time conceiving of an astrobiologist who didn't want to find life on another world- aside from the nice benefit of having your name immortalized in history as That Guy Who Found Aliens, finding exolife would represent just the start of funding- after all, you're going to need multiple samples, a thorough investigation into the ecosystem of the organisms, lots and lots of gene sequencing, assuming there are genes to be sequenced.  The reason Enceladus is getting a lot of attention is because we know with absolute certainty that there is both liquid water and organics there (although personally I'm skeptical that there is enough chemical energy in Enceladus's hydrothermal systems to support life, but I certainly could be wrong).

The problem with going after the Moon for astrobiology is that, truth be told, it's not just a matter of following the water- you also need a lot of organics (and easily assimilated organics at that), and a source of energy.   Organics have only been definitively detected in relatively trace amounts on the Moon's surface, and there is no reason to suspect that they'll necessarily be found in the subsurface (as they are believed to the result of micrometeorite and solar wind deposition).  And as for energy, terrestrial biology uses a relatively narrow range of sources (although it's still surprisingly wide by everyday standards)- the most likely metabolic pathway for the Moon, based on simple availability, would be the reduction of iron, but you'd eventually run out of of Fe(III) to reduce, since there's no volatile oxygen available to reoxidize the Fe(II) and cycle it.  It doesn't help that the Moon (at least at the surface) is predominantly silicon dioxide, which is about as biologically inert and inaccessible as you can get.

The terrestrial deep subsurface bacteria mentioned earlier get by through an extremely slow metabolism (they may not reproduce for centuries, and it has been suggested that they may be effectively immortal), and by (we think) metabolizing high energy compounds produced by radioactive decay.  And even then, the colonies that support nematodes are specifically mentioned as not being entirely isolated from the surface biosphere.

Bottom line, while life deep in the Moon can't be ruled out- we've found stranger things, after all- but it's much, much more of a stretch compared to Mars (where water and organic carbon are known to have existed in the past, and may still exist in some form), Europa (strongly suspected to have water and probably organics), and Enceladus (definitively known to have water and organics).


Yep. Thank you spacermase and Warren!

Bottom line, "Mars (where water and organic carbon are known to have existed in the past, and may still exist in some form)" may not actually have had any life evolve there, and given all the givens and lots of unknowns, the Moon or Mars may only harbor life that hitched a ride from Earth on a fragment launched by an ancient large NEO impact.

Such Earth life may 'live and thrive' deeply buried on some other orb in part because of organics that were brought to that hidden environment from Earth, NEOs, or even wandering Oort cloud comets, several billion of years ago.



See:

Oort cloud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud
"If analyses of comets are representative of the whole, the vast majority of Oort-cloud objects consist of various ices such as water, methane, ethane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide.[20] However, the discovery of the object 1996 PW, an asteroid in an orbit more typical of a long-period comet, suggests that the cloud may also contain rocky objects.[21]"

And, "Analysis of the carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios in both the Oort cloud and Jupiter-family comets shows little difference between the two, despite their vastly separate regions of origin. This suggests that both originated from the original protosolar cloud,[22] a conclusion also supported by studies of granular size in Oort-cloud comets[23] and by the recent impact study of Jupiter-family comet Tempel 1.[24]"



What is buried deeply beneath the Lunar surface? Warren is a geologist and he doesn't know. No one really knows, do they? 

Going looking for life elsewhere is what astrobiologists do. But since astrobiology is a somewhat young science and there is a large degree of uncertainty about the early history of life on Earth and the actual environmental conditions on the early Earth, Mars, and Moon, perhaps we should not yet discount the possibilities of life from Earth, Mars, Ceres,  Enceladus, or wherever, may in fact be deeply buried in relatively isolated and suitable water rich Lunar environments.

One may also tend to wonder about the shattered depths of Luna's far side. Exactly what happened there, and when did those events happen, and what became deeply buried there?

See:

Far side of the Moon
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon
"The far side has a battered, densely cratered appearance with few maria. Only 1% of the surface of the far side is covered by maria,[4] compared to 31.2% on the near side."

And, "Another factor in the large difference between the two hemispheres is that the near side has been shielded from impacts by the Earth via the synchronous rotation that keeps the far side exposed to impactors coming from outer space."

And, "The L2 Lagrange point of the Earth-Moon system is located about 62,800 km (39,000 mi) above the far side, which has also been proposed as a location for a future radio telescope which would perform a Lissajous orbit about the Lagrangian point."

And, "One of the NASA missions to the Moon under study would send a sample-return lander to the South Pole-Aitken basin, the location of a major impact event that created a formation nearly 2,400 kilometres (1,491 mi) across. The size of this impact has created a deep penetration into the lunar surface, and a sample returned from this site could be analyzed for information concerning the interior of the Moon.[19]"



There are many potential questions about the Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water in the Beautiful Orb orbiting above us. Maybe that's why almost everyone wants to go to the Moon, including Congress and our International Partners. It is a smart idea to have International Partners and Congressional support when you go digging and drilling for Liquid Water IN The Moon!



"Where does the Moon fit into plans for future human space exploration?  From reading the space media, you might get the idea that the very notion is dead and buried, killed by President Obama’s casual dismissal of the idea in a speech over two years ago at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, followed this year by Mitt Romney’s dismissive remarks on the Moon during the Republican primaries."

And, "So even though the agency and most of the media seem to be blissfully unaware of it, NASA has been charged by Congress to develop space systems capable of conducting missions to and throughout cislunar space, including to the lunar surface.  Our international partners agree with this intended direction, convinced that the Moon is the appropriate next destination for humans in space."

From: Everyone’s Gone To The Moon   By Paul D. Spudis   June 5, 2012
At: http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2012/06/everyones-gone-to-the-moon/



Yep folks, be patient. Lots of ground truth Lunar research, including looking for Liquid Water, is going to be done by robots and humans in the next few decades.



Cheers!


Edited.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2012 10:36 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #34 on: 07/31/2012 01:29 pm »
...having your name immortalized in history as That Guy Who Found Aliens...

Y'all lookin' in the wrong place.  Try Dirty Nellie's Pub, down the street on Fontaine Avenue...

But seriously, folks:

Quote
Bottom line, while life deep in the Moon can't be ruled out- (1) we've found stranger things, after all- but it's much, much (2) more of a stretch compared to Mars (3) ... Europa ... and Enceladus ...

(1) No, you (or we) haven't found stranger things.  Life off of Earth has simply not been found yet.  Yeah, we have interesting terrestrial varieties which eat different food than humans do, and we haven't yet found all of them.  Any strange life found so far is strictly strange Earthly life, varieties of which can be found in various environmental niches, including bars and arsenic infested watering holes.

Tantalizing extraterrestrial soups of likely chemicals are fine, even if they are freeze dried, and certainly should be looked for, categorized, and understood.  Maybe that search will lead to a serendipitous finding of alien life, but...

(2) Mars looks pretty dead and dry at the moment.  Curiosity lands in a few days, and "everybody" is rooting for her successful landing, and for a successful mission.  That secondary "success" refers to the successful operation of the various experiments, which will collect a bunch of new data.

What "everybody" would like to see is unambiguous, macro scale evidence of life or intelligence.  Technically, microbes would be acceptable, but microbes would get lower TV ratings than bones or stone axes or hey, even "primitive" robots.

(3) Fascinating future destinations.  But the astrobiology community would do better, I think, to insist that Mars be thoroughly studied, before moving the goal posts to such distant locations.

Right now, Curiosity is not being held out as the final word on whether or not Mars is barren of life.  Clearly, the planet should be studied far more thoroughly.

Who can say what's behind the next rock?
« Last Edit: 07/31/2012 01:32 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #35 on: 07/31/2012 02:16 pm »
The exploration technology budget was radically large.

Yep. Most people who can't understand why anyone would be against SLS seem to be completely unaware of what they gave up to have it.




With the SLS and Orion, Congress and NASA and people from many countries are going to get a viable BLEO human transportation system that will also begin the process of giving us the modules and tools we need to answer some diverse and difficult questions about the Moon, asteroids, Mars, and even our own planet. The SLS and Orion combination may also make an important contribution to answering our questions concerning the Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!

Yep, in the end, robotic Lunar and Martian drilling efforts for Liquid Water will need ground truth research by humans.

And to fully enjoy and make good use of Luna's water, volatiles, and other resources, you'll obviously want humans there doing all those things that humans could do with those treasures and an expanded base of scientific knowledge. Lunar experience and ISRU could even reduce the high costs and dangers of missions to asteroids and Mars. Wouldn't that be peachy keen?

But since you seem a bit set in your negative perspective about the BLEO transportation value of the SLS and Orion combination, perhaps you might try to convince some other folks of your superior wisdom and knowledge in this important area of expertise.


See:  First Look: China’s Big New Rockets   By Craig Covault
At: http://www.americaspace.org/?p=22881

"Liang outlined several new Long March versions, virtually all of them testing elements that would eventually find their way into the Long March 9 that has 4 million lb. more of liftoff thrust than the 7.5 million lb. thrust NASA Saturn V.  Forty-three years ago this week a Saturn V propelled the Apollo 11 astronauts to the first manned landing on the Moon on July 20, 1969."


Yep, the clock is always ticking and the years just seem to zip by while the world keeps on spinning and changing. It could well be that Warren won't be the geologist that discovers Liquid Water IN The Moon. But please QuantumG, don't tell Warren because I'm sure he would be disappointed. Keep it a secret, OK?


Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline spacermase

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #36 on: 07/31/2012 09:02 pm »

5. Your point about iron reducing forms running out of iron is well taken, but I was thinking the most likely form would be methanogens feeding off of primoridial carbon dioxide and hydrogen released by the serpentinisation of olivine. (Alternatively, they could get hydrogen from water, and release oxygen--and this could in turn reoxidise Fe(II) and cycle it.) These are the sorts of organisms that live deep within the Earth's basalts (which are primarily composed of olivine). And there is actually a bit of empirical evidence to support this view: there is a mysterious diurnal pulse of methane that the Apollo science packages consistently detected; this is consistent with methanogens releasing methane that slowly makes its way to the surface. During the night it accumulates in the regolith, and then when warmed up by the Sun, it is released to the Lunar exosphere.

Any thoughts you have on this subject are very welcome spacermase. Astrobiological expertise is definitely in short supply around here! ;)

Actually, your serpentinization hypothesis is really intriguing- it's not something that had occurred to me, but you are correct, that would be entirely viable (although Fe cycling works better if you have sulfur available to act as an intermediary- the subglacial ecosystem I work on uses exactly that system, and has been stable for the last three million years or so despite being more or less cut off from the rest of the biosphere).  The one tricky thing with it, however- and this has been a major bugaboo with the much-debated Martian methane findings- is that serpentinization can also generate methane abiotically.  Either way, though, it does definitely suggest the presence of liquid water.

Additionally, it occurred to me today that this could actually be a great opportunity for collaboration between lunar and Mars science- it is my personal suspicion, one that is shared with many others in my field, that if there's anything still kicking around on Mars, it's probably going to be buried either in the deep subsurface, or underneath the polar icecaps.  Therefore, if we're going to go hunting for Martians, we're going to need some pretty serious drilling equipment, designed for non-terrestrial environments.  I think you could make a good argument for the same approach on the Moon (if to practice for Mars, if for no other reason), and if any Selenites happen to serendipitously turn up, so much the better. 

(Although, with that said, a major obstacle with the previously mentioned idea of life being seeded from Earth on the the Moon occurred to me as well- on Earth, microbes probably infiltrated the deep subsurface using groundwater; on the Moon, no such route would be available, so anything that managed to make it to the Moon's surface would be pretty much stranded there until it either starved or was cooked.  Alternatively, if lunar life exists, it may have a separate indigenous origin (which admittedly, from the astrobiological perspective, would be all kinds of awesome)- but that gets into the debate on how easy is it for life to form (do you just need water, organics, and energy, or is life more finnicky than that?), and we really don't know enough to say one way or the other).

Offline Warren Platts


Actually, your serpentinization hypothesis is really intriguing- it's not something that had occurred to me, but you are correct, that would be entirely viable (although Fe cycling works better if you have sulfur available to act as an intermediary- the subglacial ecosystem I work on uses exactly that system, and has been stable for the last three million years or so despite being more or less cut off from the rest of the biosphere).  The one tricky thing with it, however- and this has been a major bugaboo with the much-debated Martian methane findings- is that serpentinization can also generate methane abiotically.  Either way, though, it does definitely suggest the presence of liquid water.

Additionally, it occurred to me today that this could actually be a great opportunity for collaboration between lunar and Mars science- it is my personal suspicion, one that is shared with many others in my field, that if there's anything still kicking around on Mars, it's probably going to be buried either in the deep subsurface, or underneath the polar icecaps.  Therefore, if we're going to go hunting for Martians, we're going to need some pretty serious drilling equipment, designed for non-terrestrial environments.  I think you could make a good argument for the same approach on the Moon (if to practice for Mars, if for no other reason), and if any Selenites happen to serendipitously turn up, so much the better. 

(Although, with that said, a major obstacle with the previously mentioned idea of life being seeded from Earth on the the Moon occurred to me as well- on Earth, microbes probably infiltrated the deep subsurface using groundwater; on the Moon, no such route would be available, so anything that managed to make it to the Moon's surface would be pretty much stranded there until it either starved or was cooked.  Alternatively, if lunar life exists, it may have a separate indigenous origin (which admittedly, from the astrobiological perspective, would be all kinds of awesome)- but that gets into the debate on how easy is it for life to form (do you just need water, organics, and energy, or is life more finnicky than that?), and we really don't know enough to say one way or the other).

Might there not be an isotopic distinction between biotically mediated serpentinogenic methane versus abiotically mediated methane? I think I read somewhere that if the methane on Mars is biotically generated, it should be depleted in heavy carbon (C13). As for methane being prima facie evidence for the existence of water, isn't it also the case that we should expect some primoridial methane from the original dust clouds that formed the planets? Or would such primoridial methane get mostly pyrolized?

I agree that this potentially offers a great opportunity for collaboration between Mars and Lunar science. But tell us, please: what really happens when you're sitting around talking shop over beers and someone brings up the possibility of life on the Moon? Isn't there a lot of eye rolling. I mean if a graduate student wanted to work on that project, he or she probably might have a hard time getting a job once out of school?

As for how life originally got down there, I figure after the late heavy bombardment, as the Lunar surface cooled there must have been a brief period where liquid water was stable on the surface, and life might have snuck into the interior at that point.

And regarding the possibility of independent origin, how would we know for sure it was an independent origin, unless it was wildly different. I mean how do we know for sure that the Achaea are not the result of an independent origin?
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #38 on: 08/01/2012 02:01 pm »
...it is my personal suspicion, one that is shared with many others in my field, that if there's anything still kicking around on Mars, it's probably going to be buried either in the deep subsurface, or underneath the polar icecaps.

In general, I'm in agreement on the liklihood of martian life possibly existing in the subsurface rather than the surface.  I don't agree with the word "deep" however.  If there now exist living creatures deep in the martian crust, they would have to be the evolutionary product of an earlier time when life was teeming in the martian oceans.  Otherwise, it must then be assumed that the genesis of martian life took place in those deep regions, and such an assumption doesn't seem credible to me.  If there is any life "left over" on Mars, I think it is likely to be shallow, not deep.  My intuition is that here on Erf, life began in the oceans, and migrated underground, and that if it should exist on Mars, it's history would have been similar.

We don't know how life began on Earth, but most thinking holds that it began in the oceans.  The link between animal's blood salinity, and that of the oceans is more than a coincidence.  If the genesis of Earthly life took place in the oceans, and evolutionary processes arose such that it could adapt to the fairly wide variety of ecosystems here, then that could explain a possible evolutionary pathway for life to spread to deep subterranean locations, given the eons of time that life here was given.

An alternative genesis hypothesis would be that life began in the deep subterranean locations, then spread to the surface.  I have not heard of such a hypothesis before, so it would be interesting to read something about that.  Of course, life needs an energy source, and the subterranean genesis hypothesis   could only work if a "serpentinization of olivine" process, or a similar process, was the first process to produce life, which then spread thruout the planet.  Today, the organisms which "live deep within the Earth's basalts" are more considered to be extremeophiles, and do not represent the vast majority of Earth's life.  See:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/270/5235/377.short

It doesn't seem to me that these guys, who live 1500m below ground, were the first to evolve here on Earth.  Plus, consider the probable mass of these organisms, and compare to the mass of surface based organisms.  They probably represent a small proportion of Earthly life by mass, without some proof to the contrary.

For me, the migration of life from cushy environments to extreme environments seems more likely, and I'd say that if life began on Mars, that it began in those oceans, and then possibly migrated to the deep places, time permitting.  If life came to be on Mars in the same way it is thought to have come to be on Earth, then those oceans would have been teeming with life for a sufficient number of millenia for it to have migrated to the deep levels.  This means that the sedimentary beds of those ancient oceans should be teeming with fossils.  This suggests to me that looking for fossils in these areas should be the first thing to be done.

************************************

I took a googol on the phrase:

"diurnal pulse of methane detected by Apollo"

but it produced this thread as the first hit.  The phrase:

"Apollo detection of lunar methane cycle"

dealt mostly with returned sample analysis.  It would be interesting to read more on the topic of the diurnal methane pulse results reported by Apollo science packages.

************************************

Quote from: spacermase
if lunar life exists, it may have a separate indigenous origin (which admittedly, from the astrobiological perspective, would be all kinds of awesome)- but that gets into the debate on how easy is it for life to form (do you just need water, organics, and energy, or is life more finnicky than that?), and we really don't know enough to say one way or the other).

I've been asking this question since I was six.  Not a single adult has been able to answer it.  Second genesis would be a totally awesome thing to find out, and a totally sobering thing to know if it is not found on Mars.  The Panspermia hypothesis would be another question that adults have not yet answered for children.  And that hypothesis has a directed possibility, and an undirected one, with the former being taboo in some cultures and the latter frowned upon severely.  All OT, but hey.

Some analysis can be done of the lunar and martian methane cycles, if enough about the cycles is known.  My suspicion is that these cycles, if thought to be the waste products of life, don't indicate clearly that the bodies in question are teeming with life.  The cycles will be seen as corroborating evidence of life, but only after it is found by other means.

I suppose it depends on what the word "teeming" means.  Already, our basalt here is, uhhh, "teeming" with life.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Astrobiological Implications of Liquid Water IN The Moon!
« Reply #39 on: 08/01/2012 05:38 pm »
Video: moonorigin (History Channel)


Video: Robin M. Canup, UC Boulder/SRI
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~robin/moonimpact/
motion2_sm4.avi          12-Dec-2004 15:17   16M
motion3_sm.avi           14-Dec-2004 11:02   27M

Video: Excellent CGI
Where Did The Moon Come From? - Do We Really Need the Moon? - Preview - BBC Two


Video: Animation on the Formation of the Moon (NASA)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth
"Liquid water oceans existed despite the surface temperature of 230°C because of the atmospheric pressure of the heavy CO2 atmosphere. As cooling continued, subduction and dissolving in ocean water removed most CO2 from the atmosphere but levels oscillated wildly as new surface and mantle cycles appeared.[3] ... Study of zircons has found that liquid water must have existed as long ago as 4.4 Ga, very soon after the formation of the Earth.[4][5][6] This requires the presence of an atmosphere."

Spacermase, am I correct that hydrothermal vent origins enjoy no consensus at all? From my reading it appears that the present understanding is that they are a destination site of a range of specifically adapted thermophillics from some other origin site, rather than the origin site of everything. Also, is there any consensus on whether the earliest common ancestor was a thermophile as opposed to a nonthermophile? Lastly, does anyone at all subscribe to cryophillic origins?

A hot (off) topic lately that is marrying astronomy and comparative planetary science is the carbon to oxygen ratio to be found in extrasolar planetary systems. The spectra from "hot jupiters" found in surveys like WASP, TrES, COROT are can indicate if some systems are too carbon rich to support as much water as we enjoy. Water inventory in a stellar system may be a function of the pertaining C/O ratios, and the C/O ratio may change from host star to inner planets to outer planets. Carbon excess sucks up oxygen into carbon monoxide and dioxide. Oxygen excess permits nontrivial water. We have a very dry inner solar system with solar C/O ratio ~.5 , order unity.

The effects of snowlines on C/O in planetary atmospheres
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5567.pdf

On the Evolution of the Snow Line in Protoplanetary Discs
arxiv.org/pdf/1207.4284
« Last Edit: 08/01/2012 05:42 pm by Hernalt »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1