-
#300
by
Star One
on 26 Mar, 2021 16:42
-
Don't forget this research group's conclusion is also subject to peer review.
Or that 'peer review' just means that a paper is methodologically sound. It has nothing to do with whether the conclusions are correct or not.
I regularly do peer reviews. The goal is both to weed out obviously poor science and to give authors suggestions on how to improve their papers. Poor science usually means faulty assumptions, methodology, or unsubstantiated conclusions. If the methodology is sound and the conclusions are well supported, I (and other scientists I work with) favor getting the results out. Science is a voting system where many ideas compete both for attention and possible inclusion in the consensus view. The goal is to get well substantiated ideas into the voting system.
That said, peer review has many flaws and just because a manuscript fails peer review doesn't mean its not good or that a paper that passes peer review is not bad. A lot rides on the luck of which scientists the journal reached out to and which 2-3 volunteered their time. One colleagues recently had a paper go to two journals before acceptance and at each one reviewer thought it was poor science and one said it was great science. One of the reviews was frankly an embarrassment.
We will see how the science community comes to vote on the results of this paper. I suspect that we'd need the results of the DAVINCI+ probe to really settle this, but even then the measurements may not be conclusive. Scientists (at least outside of press releases 
) are found of saying that "the results suggest" rather than "the results prove"...
Well this latest paper certainly seems to offer some support to the original paper.
-
#301
by
Vultur
on 26 Mar, 2021 22:09
-
I wonder if this might land in a "what is life" area.
If there really is disequilibrium chemistry in Venus' clouds, but it's not bound into anything like cell membranes, and is using sulfuric acid as a solvent rather than water - well, how would we decide if that's life or not?
On Earth, the things that are arguably-living-or-not (eg viruses) are "parasites" of unambiguously-living systems. We've never seen a whole system in that ambiguous gray zone, though there is plenty of speculation about what the origin of life on Earth might have looked like.
-
#302
by
Blackstar
on 26 Mar, 2021 23:55
-
Don't forget this research group's conclusion is also subject to peer review.
Or that 'peer review' just means that a paper is methodologically sound. It has nothing to do with whether the conclusions are correct or not.
I regularly do peer reviews. The goal is both to weed out obviously poor science and to give authors suggestions on how to improve their papers. Poor science usually means faulty assumptions, methodology, or unsubstantiated conclusions. If the methodology is sound and the conclusions are well supported, I (and other scientists I work with) favor getting the results out. Science is a voting system where many ideas compete both for attention and possible inclusion in the consensus view. The goal is to get well substantiated ideas into the voting system.
That said, peer review has many flaws and just because a manuscript fails peer review doesn't mean its not good or that a paper that passes peer review is not bad. A lot rides on the luck of which scientists the journal reached out to and which 2-3 volunteered their time. One colleagues recently had a paper go to two journals before acceptance and at each one reviewer thought it was poor science and one said it was great science. One of the reviews was frankly an embarrassment.
We will see how the science community comes to vote on the results of this paper. I suspect that we'd need the results of the DAVINCI+ probe to really settle this, but even then the measurements may not be conclusive. Scientists (at least outside of press releases ) are found of saying that "the results suggest" rather than "the results prove"...
There's also a bigger issue that surrounds all this, which is the ultimate acceptance of the results. A paper can be great, it can go through peer review, it can get a lot of attention. But it may still take years, sometimes even decades before it is widely accepted as true. Somebody I know told me about how she published a paper about a process on Europa that took almost two decades to be widely accepted. Part of this was repeatability--other people had to repeat her results--but she said that she thought a big part of it was that a lot of scientists had spent a long time believing the previous theory and were unwilling to abandon it.
Science is a lot of things. A process, a method, a body of knowledge. But it's also people. And they hold to opinions and don't easily change them.
-
#303
by
VSECOTSPE
on 27 Mar, 2021 01:32
-
-
#304
by
Star One
on 27 Mar, 2021 06:09
-
But how much does any of this strengthen the hand for want of a better word the two proposed missions to Venus?
-
#305
by
vjkane
on 27 Mar, 2021 14:50
-
There's also a bigger issue that surrounds all this, which is the ultimate acceptance of the results. A paper can be great, it can go through peer review, it can get a lot of attention. But it may still take years, sometimes even decades before it is widely accepted as true. Somebody I know told me about how she published a paper about a process on Europa that took almost two decades to be widely accepted. Part of this was repeatability--other people had to repeat her results--but she said that she thought a big part of it was that a lot of scientists had spent a long time believing the previous theory and were unwilling to abandon it.
Science is a lot of things. A process, a method, a body of knowledge. But it's also people. And they hold to opinions and don't easily change them.
Science is conservative when it comes to changing the consensus view. Many reasons. Large body of evidence supports the previous position. Careers are built on the existing consensus. Most new ideas turn out to be wrong or there's not the data to prove their right. Lot's of people need to come to decide their should change their view.
It can be a slow process, but there are processes and mechanisms to allow new ideas to be presented, build up support, and be "voted" on.
-
#306
by
baldusi
on 01 Apr, 2021 14:52
-
Well, not exactly related, but the Granger and Engle paper that invented the cointegration method for time series analysis, took almost 10 years to go through peer review. Statisticians didn't liked to have to redo all their time series analysis.
-
#307
by
Blackstar
on 10 Jul, 2021 12:42
-
-
#308
by
Blackstar
on 14 Dec, 2021 22:37
-
-
#309
by
Yiosie
on 14 Dec, 2021 22:54
-
Cross-post:
The Rocket Lab Venus Mission will be the first Venus Life Finder (VLF) Mission:
“Newer, nimbler, faster:” Venus probe will search for signs of life in clouds of sulfuric acid [dated Dec. 10] (bolds mine)
In a new report published today, a team led by MIT researchers lays out the scientific plan and rationale for a suite of scrappy, privately-funded missions set to hunt for signs of life among the ultra-acidic atmosphere of the second planet from the sun.
“We hope this is the start of a new paradigm where you go cheaply, more often, and in a more focused way,” says Sara Seager, Class of 1941 Professor of Planetary Sciences in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) and principal investigator for the planned Venus Life Finder Missions. “This is a newer, nimbler, faster way to do space science. It’s very MIT.”
The first of the missions is set to launch in 2023, managed and funded by California-based Rocket Lab. The company’s Electron rocket will send a 50-pound probe on board its Photon spacecraft for the five-month, 38-million-mile journey to Venus, all for a three-minute skim through the Venusian clouds.
Using a laser instrument specially designed for the mission, the probe will aim to detect signs that complex chemistry is occurring within the droplets it encounters on its brief descent into the haze. Fluorescence or impurities detected in the droplets could indicate something more interesting than sulfuric acid might be wafting around up there, and add ammunition to the idea that parts of Venus’ atmosphere might be habitable.
Payload details:
Based on their research, the team also selected the scientific payload for the mission — which was restricted to just 1 kilogram. Seager says they settled on an instrument called an autofluorescing nephelometer because it could get the job done and was small, cheap, and could be built quickly enough for the compressed mission timeline.
The instrument is currently being built by a New Mexico-based company called Cloud Measurement Solutions, and a Colorado-based company called Droplet Measurement Technologies. The instrument is partially funded by MIT alumni.
Once the probe is in Venus’ atmosphere, the instrument will shine a laser out of a window onto cloud particles, causing any complex molecules within them to light up, or fluoresce. Many organic molecules, such as the amino acid tryptophan, have fluorescent properties.
The second VLF mission is scheduled for 2026, and the ultimate goal of the program is a Venus atmosphere sample return:
But whatever the 2023 mission finds, the next mission in the suite is already being planned for 2026. That probe would involve a larger payload, with a balloon that could spend more time in Venus’ clouds and conduct more extensive experiments. Results from that mission might then set the stage for the culmination of the Venus Life Finder Missions concept: return a sample of Venus’ atmosphere to Earth.
Details on the Venus Life Finder missions are available here (also attached [in original post]): https://venuscloudlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/VLFReport_12092021.pdf
-
#310
by
Star One
on 20 Dec, 2021 20:31
-
Here is Why Venus May Have Life with Dr. Janusz Petkowski:
-
#311
by
Star One
on 21 Dec, 2021 08:44
-
Engineers at West Virginia University are propelling exploration forward by creating control software for a group of aerial robots (aerobots) that will survey the atmosphere of Venus, the second planet from the sun.
According to researchers, Venus went through a climate change process that transformed it from an Earth-like environment to an inhospitable world. Studying Venus can help model the evolution of climate on Earth and serve as a reference for what can happen in the future.
Guilherme Pereira and Yu Gu, associate professors in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, tasked with developing the software for the aerobots, which are balloon-based robotic vehicles, hope to play a pivotal role in these discoveries. Their study is supported by a $100,000 NASA Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research.
“The main goal of the project is to propose a software solution that will allow hybrid aerobots to explore the atmosphere of Venus,” Pereira said. “Although hybrid vehicles were proposed before this project, we are not aware if any software has been created.”
One aerobot concept is the Venus Atmosphere Maneuverable Platform, which is a hybrid airship that uses both buoyancy and aerodynamic lift to control its altitude. The benefit of a hybrid aerobot is its ability to, during the day, behave like a plane, collecting and using energy from the sun to drive its motors, and, during the night, float like a balloon to save energy.
https://wvutoday.wvu.edu/stories/2021/12/09/wvu-engineers-creating-software-for-aerobots-to-explore-venus
-
#312
by
Star One
on 21 Dec, 2021 17:00
-
Into the mainstream media.
Venus could be becoming "more habitable" after evidence of bacterial "lifeforms" were found in its clouds, scientists have said.
Researchers from Cardiff University, MIT and Cambridge University have suggested the planet, which is 47.34m kilometres (29.42m miles) from Earth, could have the colourless gas made up of nitrogen and hydrogen that is also known as ammonia in its clouds.
The scientists have modelled a set of chemical processes to show how a cascade of chemical reactions would neutralise surrounding droplets of sulfuric acid if there were any traces of ammonia.
This would then result in the acidity of the clouds dropping from -11 to zero, and although this is still very acidic on the pH scale, it would be at a level that life could potentially survive at.
Co-author of the study Dr William Bains, from Cardiff University's School of Physics and Astronomy, said: "We know that life can grow in acid environments on Earth, but nothing as acid as the clouds of Venus were believed to be.
https://news.sky.com/story/venus-may-have-alien-lifeforms-in-its-clouds-scientists-suggest-12501366
-
#313
by
Star One
on 31 Dec, 2021 16:34
-
The Search for Life at Venus:
-
#314
by
Star One
on 26 Jul, 2022 14:24
-
The phosphine detection in the Venusian atmosphere has been re-confirmed using a different instrument on the same telescope.
Not included in the paper were a second round of JCMT observations from summer 2020 that have now been processed. Greaves reports that not only did JCMT see phosphine again, it did so using a different science instrument on the telescope. That means phosphine has been seen at three different points in time using three different telescope instruments at two different observatories.
What comes next? Greaves’ colleagues have been awarded 200 hours of JCMT time to observe Venus in 2022 and 2023, which will allow them to gather even more data.
Also a tentative detection from SOFIA as well.
Another new potential detection of phosphine comes from NASA’s flying SOFIA telescope.
SOFIA, which is scheduled to be shut down due to budget cuts on Sept. 30, searched for phosphine on Venus late last year. Greaves processed publicly available data from the flight and made a potential discovery of phosphine at 3 parts per billion, at an altitude of 65 kilometers (40 miles) or higher. This includes Venus’ highest-most clouds.
“I’d say there’s a hint of a detection there,” she said. “But it’s really tentative.”
NASA's DAVINCI, launching as early as 2028, will explore Venus' atmosphere. Greaves told The Planetary Society that “we’re about to make the case to the DAVINCI team” that the spacecraft should have the capability to search for phosphine.
https://www.planetary.org/articles/life-on-venus-new-updates
-
#315
by
deadman1204
on 26 Jul, 2022 14:55
-
I feel like the phosphine story leaves something really important out - we know SOOO little about Venus. Not even how volcanically active it is, basic things about its atmosphere, ect.
Its hard to explain how the phosphine is there (if it is) with what we KNOW about Venus. However, thats a tricky statement because we lack soo many of the basics about that planet.
-
#316
by
Star One
on 26 Jul, 2022 15:40
-
I feel like the phosphine story leaves something really important out - we know SOOO little about Venus. Not even how volcanically active it is, basic things about its atmosphere, ect.
Its hard to explain how the phosphine is there (if it is) with what we KNOW about Venus. However, thats a tricky statement because we lack soo many of the basics about that planet.
To be fair to her she’s quite clear that these detections do not equal detection of life and that there could be other explanations for its presence.
-
#317
by
Star One
on 06 Jul, 2023 16:41
-
New observations have again detected phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus.
More traces of a gas thought to be a sign of life have been found in the clouds and haze layers of Venus.
They come primarily from the first 50 of 200 hours of observations using the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) in Hawaii—far more than the eight hours used for the original detection—but also involve new data from NASA’s now defunct Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) airplane.
This is the key part.
JCMT’s latest detections of phosphine from February 2022 and May 2023 are significant because they hugely extend the scope of the initial study. They also suggest that there’s a steady source of phosphine either in or below the clouds of Venus.
“We now have five detections over the last few years, from three different sets of instruments, and from many methods of processing the data,” said Professor Jane Greaves, an astrobiologist at the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University whose team has been conducting tests as part of a 200-hour legacy survey using JCMT. “We’re getting a clue here that there is some steady source, which is the point of legacy surveys—to show whether that’s true or not,” said Greaves.
However, it’s DAVINCI+ (Deep Atmosphere Venus Investigation of Noble gases, Chemistry, and Imaging Plus) that could provide a phosphine detection in-situ. Scheduled to arrive in 2031, during a fatal 63-minute descent it will sample the Venusian atmosphere half a dozen times and fire lasers through it and measure the gases.
“They have four of these laser wavelengths to allocate and only three are decided,” said Greaves. “We made our case for phosphine and we’re just waiting for hear back.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2023/07/06/phosphine-confirmed-deep-within-venus-atmosphere-a-possible-sign-of-life/?sh=488e03531106
-
#318
by
jbenton
on 24 Jul, 2023 03:21
-
This is an interview with Dr. Clara Sousa-Silva from 2 years ago, about the first phosphine detetction. She was one of the scientists involved with that. Since there's been a possible second detection, I thought I'd post it here if anyone's interested:
Of course, an interview with Dr. Jane Greaves - who led that effort - was posted upthread back when the first possible detection wasn't old news. So, I'll quote that post so it'll be faster for people to watch them together:
Cool Worlds talks with Professor Jane Greaves:
) are found of saying that "the results suggest" rather than "the results prove"...