we know next to nothing about the geology of venus. Not a fan of everytime there might be a wiff of a gas in the atmosphere, it means there is near impossible to exist life there. We don't even know how volcanically active the planet really is, much less what all the major geochemical processes that are occurring there.
Life really feels like the least likely scenario here - not just because of lack of knowledge. But because once you consider what is required for said life to exist for eons, magically staying afloat, getting the resources to reproduce fast enough, ect. It all feels incredibly contrived.They were saying the same thing about certain extreme locations on Earth where we have actually ended up finding life. In fact the kind of argument you are putting forward at least as far as the Earth is concerned has consistently proved to be wrong.There is no where on earth as unlikely for life as staying afloat in the clouds of venus.
Earth is different because there is life everywhere. Life has time to try and move into a new nitch. There is no giant resevior of life on venus, its all magically staying afloat in the clouds, and reproducing at high speed cause it only gets slow long as it falls, always getting enough water and nutrients.
Once you learn about the requirements for that life to exist, it becomes pretty sillyYeah that’s Venus not as we know it now but as it was in the past. It’s believed that Venus stayed habitable both up to a more recent time than Mars and was more suitable for life when it was habitable. The runaway greenhouse of modern Venus seems to be a relatively recent thing in terms of the age of the Solar System.No one is talking about venus of the past. I'm talking present. Go and learn about all the tricks and special situations needed for imagined life to exist on venus today. Its rather unlikely.
However lets put all this aside. The whole phosphine thing is no different than "i saw a strange light so it MUST be aliens". Someone is claiming that since we cannot rule out alien life, it MUST be alien life....
This whole life thing on venus is based a prospective detection of phosphine (lots of people argue its not even there, or if so at much lower levels). It's then said that if it exists and has the levels they think it has, it can't be geologic. However we don't even have a basic grasp of how many active volcanos venus has (just discoverd one recently). We know SOOO little about the geology (much less the geochemistry) of Venus, that its a little silly to claim it must be life.
Would it be super amazing and awesome of it was life? Of course! However were at the level of swamp gas and satellite reflections for proof of life on Venus.
we know next to nothing about the geology of venus. Not a fan of everytime there might be a wiff of a gas in the atmosphere, it means there is near impossible to exist life there. We don't even know how volcanically active the planet really is, much less what all the major geochemical processes that are occurring there.
Life really feels like the least likely scenario here - not just because of lack of knowledge. But because once you consider what is required for said life to exist for eons, magically staying afloat, getting the resources to reproduce fast enough, ect. It all feels incredibly contrived.They were saying the same thing about certain extreme locations on Earth where we have actually ended up finding life. In fact the kind of argument you are putting forward at least as far as the Earth is concerned has consistently proved to be wrong.There is no where on earth as unlikely for life as staying afloat in the clouds of venus.
Earth is different because there is life everywhere. Life has time to try and move into a new nitch. There is no giant resevior of life on venus, its all magically staying afloat in the clouds, and reproducing at high speed cause it only gets slow long as it falls, always getting enough water and nutrients.
Once you learn about the requirements for that life to exist, it becomes pretty sillyYeah that’s Venus not as we know it now but as it was in the past. It’s believed that Venus stayed habitable both up to a more recent time than Mars and was more suitable for life when it was habitable. The runaway greenhouse of modern Venus seems to be a relatively recent thing in terms of the age of the Solar System.No one is talking about venus of the past. I'm talking present. Go and learn about all the tricks and special situations needed for imagined life to exist on venus today. Its rather unlikely.
However lets put all this aside. The whole phosphine thing is no different than "i saw a strange light so it MUST be aliens". Someone is claiming that since we cannot rule out alien life, it MUST be alien life....
This whole life thing on venus is based a prospective detection of phosphine (lots of people argue its not even there, or if so at much lower levels). It's then said that if it exists and has the levels they think it has, it can't be geologic. However we don't even have a basic grasp of how many active volcanos venus has (just discoverd one recently). We know SOOO little about the geology (much less the geochemistry) of Venus, that its a little silly to claim it must be life.
Would it be super amazing and awesome of it was life? Of course! However were at the level of swamp gas and satellite reflections for proof of life on Venus.I’m not sure how you can just dismiss what Venus was like before when that’s the whole crux of the argument, the same way as it is with Mars. It wouldn’t be likely that life would evolve as either planet is now. It’s more about if there any survivors from the past into the present.
we know next to nothing about the geology of venus. Not a fan of everytime there might be a wiff of a gas in the atmosphere, it means there is near impossible to exist life there. We don't even know how volcanically active the planet really is, much less what all the major geochemical processes that are occurring there.
Life really feels like the least likely scenario here - not just because of lack of knowledge. But because once you consider what is required for said life to exist for eons, magically staying afloat, getting the resources to reproduce fast enough, ect. It all feels incredibly contrived.They were saying the same thing about certain extreme locations on Earth where we have actually ended up finding life. In fact the kind of argument you are putting forward at least as far as the Earth is concerned has consistently proved to be wrong.There is no where on earth as unlikely for life as staying afloat in the clouds of venus.
Earth is different because there is life everywhere. Life has time to try and move into a new nitch. There is no giant resevior of life on venus, its all magically staying afloat in the clouds, and reproducing at high speed cause it only gets slow long as it falls, always getting enough water and nutrients.
Once you learn about the requirements for that life to exist, it becomes pretty sillyYeah that’s Venus not as we know it now but as it was in the past. It’s believed that Venus stayed habitable both up to a more recent time than Mars and was more suitable for life when it was habitable. The runaway greenhouse of modern Venus seems to be a relatively recent thing in terms of the age of the Solar System.No one is talking about venus of the past. I'm talking present. Go and learn about all the tricks and special situations needed for imagined life to exist on venus today. Its rather unlikely.
However lets put all this aside. The whole phosphine thing is no different than "i saw a strange light so it MUST be aliens". Someone is claiming that since we cannot rule out alien life, it MUST be alien life....
This whole life thing on venus is based a prospective detection of phosphine (lots of people argue its not even there, or if so at much lower levels). It's then said that if it exists and has the levels they think it has, it can't be geologic. However we don't even have a basic grasp of how many active volcanos venus has (just discoverd one recently). We know SOOO little about the geology (much less the geochemistry) of Venus, that its a little silly to claim it must be life.
Would it be super amazing and awesome of it was life? Of course! However were at the level of swamp gas and satellite reflections for proof of life on Venus.I’m not sure how you can just dismiss what Venus was like before when that’s the whole crux of the argument, the same way as it is with Mars. It wouldn’t be likely that life would evolve as either planet is now. It’s more about if there any survivors from the past into the present.
Why any life at all?
Something is absorbing some uv in the atmosphere we know nothing about. Its possible there might be some phosphone gas, but if its there, we can't rule out geochemistry because we know nothing about venus's basic geological processes.
So of course its life? Anyone can cook up a scenario where custom designed alien life "could" be alive there right now. But why? Aliens is ALWAYS the wrong answer to something unexplained. We should prove aliens with evidence for them, not lack of evidence against. Otherwise we go in circles like this one. There is no actual evidence for aleins on venus, but everyone talks about it because there isn't strict and absolute evidence against aliens on venus...
Arguments that just dismiss even the slightest possibility of life are just exercises in defeatism in my book as they seem to be putting cynicism in front of any actual data or even scientific investigation. I mean why even bother searching for even the possibility of life if you’re just going to dismiss it out of hand before you’ve even started.
'just spectroscopy' covers such a huge range of measurements. DAVINCI has multiple methods for detailed chemical analyses. It will set bounds on phosphine, organics (and their complexity), and a range of chemical balances that if they are out of what would be expected from non biotic processes could suggest life (sorta like large amounts of oxygen and methane in Earth's atmosphere, but would be more subtle in the case of life in Venus' atmosphere).
I also doubt that many would say that's there's no life in the atmosphere of Venus, just that it's likelihood based on what we know about life (from one planetary system) says that there are many challenges. And the identification of possible phosphine is at the edge of detectability and therefore are questionable.
How far can Davinci+ address the life-on-Venus question? Is it mostly just analyzing spectroscopy?
How much will Rocket Lab’s private mission to Venus compliment the data coming from this mission.
Hypothesized organics, if present in Venus aerosols,
may be detected by the AFN as a precursor to precise identification via future missions.
How much will Rocket Lab’s private mission to Venus compliment the data coming from this mission.Assuming the mission flies, it will carry a single very constrained science instrument, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363303808_Deducing_the_Composition_of_Venus_Cloud_Particles_with_the_Autofluorescence_Nephelometer_AFNQuoteHypothesized organics, if present in Venus aerosols,
may be detected by the AFN as a precursor to precise identification via future missions.
I don't think this can do anything the DAVINCI mass spec doesn't do a lot better.
Assuming the mission flies, it will carry a single very constrained science instrument, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363303808_Deducing_the_Composition_of_Venus_Cloud_Particles_with_the_Autofluorescence_Nephelometer_AFN
Assuming the mission flies, it will carry a single very constrained science instrument, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363303808_Deducing_the_Composition_of_Venus_Cloud_Particles_with_the_Autofluorescence_Nephelometer_AFN
From the paper, the instrument is an improved version of an instrument that flew on Pioneer Venus. The main capability is to measure the refractive index, size, shape and number of the cloud particles. My impression is that it is an overcomplicated and fragile design.
The organic detection capability seems to be based on technology developed by a small company. My impression is that it is very immature, unproven, and has not been used before. The paper says:
"The excitation and emission wavelengths chosen for the AFN were motivated by laboratory work performed by Firebird Biomolecular Sciences (FBS) which demonstrated that a wide variety of simple organic compounds (OC), when reacted with concentrated sulfuric acid, will give a mixture of more complex products that are fluorescent when excited over a large range of UV and visible excitation wavelengths. The FBS team generated various mixtures of sulfuric acid (>70%) with different OCs. They found that virtually all the tested OCs (including single carbon species such as formaldehyde) were converted into mixtures with coloration and fluorescence spectra profiles highly dependent on the reaction conditions."
My impression is that they can't identify specific organic compounds. They don't say if they have tested inorganic materials which are believed to be in the clouds to see if if they also produce florescence which could confuse the measurements.
The probe has very limited resources, with only five minutes of operating time and a data rate of only 125 bytes / sec . This is insufficient to transmit all the raw data. They propose to train a neural network to reduce the raw data on board the probe and derive the properties they are looking for. I think that might be a fragile solution which will fail if they run into anything that is unexpected, complex and interesting.
The mass spectrometer on DAVINCI is vastly more capable and useful. Rocketlab would be better off with a simpler, less capable instrument which would be a better fit for the very limited capabilities of their probe. They also need to stop talking about 'searching for life in the clouds of Venus.' They don't have that capability.
Assuming the mission flies, it will carry a single very constrained science instrument, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363303808_Deducing_the_Composition_of_Venus_Cloud_Particles_with_the_Autofluorescence_Nephelometer_AFN
From the paper, the instrument is an improved version of an instrument that flew on Pioneer Venus. The main capability is to measure the refractive index, size, shape and number of the cloud particles. My impression is that it is an overcomplicated and fragile design.
The organic detection capability seems to be based on technology developed by a small company. My impression is that it is very immature, unproven, and has not been used before. The paper says:
"The excitation and emission wavelengths chosen for the AFN were motivated by laboratory work performed by Firebird Biomolecular Sciences (FBS) which demonstrated that a wide variety of simple organic compounds (OC), when reacted with concentrated sulfuric acid, will give a mixture of more complex products that are fluorescent when excited over a large range of UV and visible excitation wavelengths. The FBS team generated various mixtures of sulfuric acid (>70%) with different OCs. They found that virtually all the tested OCs (including single carbon species such as formaldehyde) were converted into mixtures with coloration and fluorescence spectra profiles highly dependent on the reaction conditions."
My impression is that they can't identify specific organic compounds. They don't say if they have tested inorganic materials which are believed to be in the clouds to see if if they also produce florescence which could confuse the measurements.
The probe has very limited resources, with only five minutes of operating time and a data rate of only 125 bytes / sec . This is insufficient to transmit all the raw data. They propose to train a neural network to reduce the raw data on board the probe and derive the properties they are looking for. I think that might be a fragile solution which will fail if they run into anything that is unexpected, complex and interesting.
The mass spectrometer on DAVINCI is vastly more capable and useful. Rocketlab would be better off with a simpler, less capable instrument which would be a better fit for the very limited capabilities of their probe. They also need to stop talking about 'searching for life in the clouds of Venus.' They don't have that capability.
SNIP to shorten things
Arguments that just dismiss even the slightest possibility of life are just exercises in defeatism in my book as they seem to be putting cynicism in front of any actual data or even scientific investigation. I mean why even bother searching for even the possibility of life if you’re just going to dismiss it out of hand before you’ve even started.
If that’s the case I wonder why RL have decided to go that route.
SNIP to shorten things
Arguments that just dismiss even the slightest possibility of life are just exercises in defeatism in my book as they seem to be putting cynicism in front of any actual data or even scientific investigation. I mean why even bother searching for even the possibility of life if you’re just going to dismiss it out of hand before you’ve even started.
Science isn't about what we want. Its about finding what is.
I'm all for finding if there is life on Venus. However, the entire discussion has no solid evidence and sucks all air out of the room, making life almost a forgone conclusion.
If that’s the case I wonder why RL have decided to go that route.Several reasons, I suspect.
1) it's all they can afford in terms of mass and funding;
2) the Venus experts who designed the instrument don't have a lot of experience building flight hardware and didn't talk to anyone who did;
3) a review process where the instrument would get criticized for low TRL wasn't applied.
SNIP to shorten things
Arguments that just dismiss even the slightest possibility of life are just exercises in defeatism in my book as they seem to be putting cynicism in front of any actual data or even scientific investigation. I mean why even bother searching for even the possibility of life if you’re just going to dismiss it out of hand before you’ve even started.
Science isn't about what we want. Its about finding what is.
I'm all for finding if there is life on Venus. However, the entire discussion has no solid evidence and sucks all air out of the room, making life almost a forgone conclusion.So in other words you have no actual decent counter argument other than you personally don’t like the discussion.
Show me any science behind the idea. Aside from handwavey maybe tiny amounts of phosphine gas? Literally nothing. Otherwise lets talk about science.