Alien Appearance

Assuming that aliens do exist somewhere in the universe, how will we compare to them physically? Fergus Simpson, a cosmologist, performed a Bayesian analysis regarding the size of aliens, size of planets, and population sizes. After considering these factors, Simpson holds the belief that we should not be looking at Earth-like planets because our planet is not representative of inhabitable planets as a whole. Instead, we should be looking at planets of smaller size.

According to Simpson, we may make predictions about alien life based on our current Earth. For our purpose, we are naming an individual country as a “group” of people. If we take a look at the number of countries and their population sizes, we notice that more than 50% of humans live in seven countries. Because of this fact, the median person will probably be a member of one of these seven countries. However, the majority of countries have populations less than six million. If we were to take the median country based on population size, the chosen country would not be from one of the seven largest countries. Anytime groups are of different sizes, most individuals will be members of groups of larger size.

However, when it comes to figuring out where we are in comparison to other life forms, we cannot say with 100% confidence which part of the spectrum we are on. All things being equal, a randomly selected person is most likely to be a member of a more populous group, whether we group by race or blood type or by nationality. Whether it involves blood type or race, we are not equally likely to belong in each group. Simpson takes uses this fact and applies it to our planet so as to compare it to all the “other” planets that house alien life. He proceeds to make the assumption that we are a part of a large group.

Countries with high populations tend to have larger land areas. Because Simpson makes the assumption that we are on the higher end of the population size spectrum, he concludes that our planet is also on the higher end of the size spectrum. If we may compare planets like we compare countries, then there is a higher number of smaller-sized planets. Therefore, we should be looking at smaller planets instead of Earth-sized planets, as there are simply a larger number of inhabited smaller-than-Earth-sized planets than Earth-sized planets or larger.

Apart from population size, we may also hypothesize the size of these aliens. If we take a look at common species on Earth, smaller creatures tend to have a higher population size than larger creatures. For example, the population size of smaller ones like an ant is much larger than the population size of a larger ones like a hippopotamus. We may then apply this concept to the sizes of aliens in comparison to human beings. Above, we saw that we may assume that there are more smaller-than-Earth-sized planets. Given this assumption, these planets also have smaller population sizes, so their inhabitants are likely to have a larger physical sizes. So, it is probable that we are smaller in comparison to most alien populations.

Source:

http://www.thebigalientheory.com/

- Stephanie Bao

The Murchison Meteorite and the Origin of Life

How did the first living being arise on Earth? A number of answers have been proposed to this question – yet no theory has been accepted as fact. Current scientific research suggests that the answer lies on our very own planet – albeit contained on an asteroid that originated far from Earth. The Murchison Meteorite, an object of great significance in the field of astrobiology, landed on Earth on September 28, 1969 near the quiet Australian town of Murchison at approximately 10:45 AM.¹ Fragments from what later became known as the meteor scattered across the countryside – each containing evidence that would become crucial to astro-biological research.

A large fragment of the Meteorite.²

Closer examination of the meteorite fragments revealed an abundance of both right-handed and left-handed amino acids and evidence of nucleobases that are comprise both DNA and RNA.³ Nucleobases are defined to be “structures that play fundamental roles in in carrying genetic information of all living things.”⁴ To illustrate the importance of such a discovery, take DNA and RNA to be a computer. Nucleobases are then metaphorically thought of as the various components of the computer, such as the hard drive. While a hard drive is essential for the operation of the computer; a hard drive itself does not constitute a computer. Similarly, a nucleobase does not constitute DNA or RNA by itself, but it essential to their function. One must note that “samples were gathered soon after impact”,⁴ therefore it is reasonable to assume that the samples were not contaminated – meaning that all compounds on the meteorite were of extraterrestrial origin.

The discovery of right-handed amino acids and nucleobases on the Murchison meteorite may provide the missing link in determining the ultimate origin of life.⁵ While the Miller-Urey Experiment concluded that organic molecules, namely amino acids, can arise naturally on Earth, they were unable to create life from such compounds. The compounds created are necessary for life to develop, alone they are not sufficient for life to develop. Some combination of the extraterrestrial materials found on the Murchison Meteorite may provide the missing component necessary for life to arise.

For some scientists, the discovery of nucleobases led them to speculate that life on Earth arose from an extraterrestrial source.⁶ Scientists who subscribe to a theory about the origin of life known as Panspermia, a theory stating that life on Earth did not originate on it, continue to debate exactly how life was transferred to Earth.⁷ Most scientists advocating for the Panspermia theory agree that meteors like the Murchison Meteorite act as the vehicles for such a transmission.⁸ After an impact had occurred, the materials from a meteor would react with the materials present on Earth to create life. While this model seemingly makes sense, a fatal flaw is present. The model – as it is currently stated – assumes that the materials that may be present on an asteroid can survive an impact. Assuming that organic compounds and organisms capable of surviving such an impact exists – such materials could exist in most places in the Universe.⁹ The idea of hardy organisms capable of surviving implying widespread life throughout the Universe characterizes the so-called “Panspermia Paradox,” as dubbed by sources such as RealClearScience¹⁰ and Scientific American.¹¹ Organic compounds and organisms honed by natural selection to survive in space for extended periods of time should be common throughout the Universe, spread by asteroids and comets – but such organisms have yet to be observed.

The findings on the Murchison Meteorite serve to clarify the paradox known as the “Panspermia Paradox.” The presence of nucleobases and both left and right handed amino acids confirms the longevity of certain organic compounds.¹² The findings of the Murchison Meteorite necessitate a re-examination of current efforts to search for extraterrestrial life. Other asteroids must be collected and planets must be explored. If such molecules could survive on an asteroid – they are most likely present on other planets.

Sources:

¹http://www.pbs.org/exploringspace/meteorites/murchison/page6.html
²http://sciencelearn.org.nz/var/sciencelearn/storage/images/contexts/satellites/sci-media/video/murchison-meteorite-an-early-glimpse-inside-a-comet/1262248-1-eng-NZ/Murchison-meteorite-an-early-glimpse-inside-a-comet.jpg
³https://briankoberlein.com/2015/04/07/it-came-from-outer-space/
⁴http://www.astrochem.org/sci/Nucleobases.php
⁵http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/050
⁶http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/were-meteorites-the-origi/
⁷https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/origin-life-panspermia-theory
⁸http://www.space.com/22880-life-from-space-panspermia-possibility.html
⁹http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/the-panspermia-paradox/
¹⁰http://www.realclearscience.com/2012/10/16/panspermia_paradox_where039s_all_the_life_249540.html
¹¹http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/the-panspermia-paradox/
¹²http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2009/left_hand_life.html

- Frank Kovacs

How Should We Deal With Life on Mars?

When it comes to Mars, the first thought that comes to most peoples’ minds would likely not be the ethical issues that could arise if we do eventually go there. After all, there are currently no conclusive signs of living organisms on the planet. So, if the planet is available, few people would argue against visiting it since it has been a goal for human explanation for at least fifty years. However, even though scientists have yet to find signs of living organisms on Mars, it is important that we are prepared to deal with living organisms just in case they do exist on Mars. If Mars is not a lifeless planet, do humans have a right to disrupt Martian organisms no matter how small they are by introducing life from Earth onto the planet? In order to answer this question, we must consider two possibilities. One possibility is that life on Mars is biochemically and genetically related to life on Earth. The other possibility is that life on Mars arose from a completely different origin.

There is strong evidence to suggest that if life on Mars exists, it would be similar to life on Earth. This is because we already know that Earth and Mars are not isolated from each other. For instance, there are over a dozen rocks on Earth that have already been discovered to have come from Mars. If rocks came from Mars to Earth, there’s a possibility that rocks that originated on Earth are now on Mars. Given that microorganisms that live deep within rocks would be able to survive the journey from planet to planet, if there is life on Mars it is probably genetically similar to life on Earth. In this case, there would be absolutely no ethical issues of inhabiting Mars with life from Earth. Humans currently coexist with millions of species of microorganisms. If these microorganisms are like those on Earth, Mars would eventually evolve similarly to Earth, so humans speeding up the process should not cause too much concern.

While it would be more likely for life on Mars to be like life on Earth, it is possible that Martian organisms originated from a completely different source. This means that there would be a different type of life on Mars, completely independent of life on Earth. In this case, the question of ethics becomes more of an issue. It would be unethical to introduce life from Earth onto Mars if the two types of life are completely different. We cannot place more value on one type of life from another. Even if the life is only simple microorganisms, humans need to leave Mars alone. This is not a matter of saying that microorganisms are more valuable than humans, but rather that humans need to respect that there is another way for life to form. Therefore, a hands-off approach would be a better way of dealing with Mars so that life could evolve on its own.

Source:

http://www.marspapers.org/papers/McKay_2000.pdf

- Autumn Hair

Plans for Future Space Survival and Colonization

Colonizing other planets is a new and interesting idea, but what really matters is the actual plans that are produced that state how colonization is to actually proceed. Although many organizations and groups claim to be planning a mission to Mars, or beyond, few of the plans proposed so far seem plausible. As to be expected from such an expensive operation, enough money and support is often hard to find. However, there have been some proposals that seem to have enough support to actually get somewhere.

Starting with probably the least likely proposal, Mars One is an eight-man project that is meant to start a lasting human civilization on Mars. The idea is popular so far, as evidenced by the over 200 thousand people that applied to be on the first crew. It has also received support from large businesses like Media Injection and Byte, such that money may become less of an issue. The first mission (unmanned) is currently scheduled to launch in 2020. No designs have been released yet, as Mars One is still in the “concept phase” of planning.

Influential millionaires such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have also developed plans to colonize faraway planets. Musk has yet to reveal any set plans, but continues to refine his ideas as more and more information and technologies are made available. His ultimate goal is to have a lasting, prospering colony on Mars. According to Musk, a key invention needed to advance his plans are reusable rockets and rocket fuel that can be made from materials already on Mars.

Stephen Hawking and a team of millionaires and billionaires have very recently proposed a new solution – tiny nanocraft that could be propelled into space. They would be propelled by lasers on Earth, and could possibly go as fast as 20 percent of the speed of light. These machines could actually get to Alpha Centauri in a reasonable amount of time (about 20 years), versus how long it would take a spaceship at current speeds (thousands of years). There are obviously many engineering and funding obstacles, but the team is confident that their plan provides a plausible solution for more distant space travel.

NASA's three-step plan in a picture.
(PHOTO: NASA)

Lastly, there is the established three-step plan published by NASA. The first step – “Earth Reliant” – is where research will be done aboard the space station to study how humans could survive on Mars. The second step – “Proving Ground” – will let crews practice operating in deep space, before returning to Earth in a few days. The final stage – “Earth Independent” – will be when the humans are finally placed on Mars, and ready for survival. NASA’s plan seems the most straightforward, but in this case a farfetched, new and creative plan could actually prove to be the most successful.

No matter the plan, the act of experimenting and discovering new possibilities for space colonization will never have a negative effect. Each time we find a method that will not work, we are one step closer to finding a future solution to a current problem.

Sources:

http://www.mars-one.com/about-mars-one

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/12/us/breakthrough-starshot-space-probe-stephen-hawking-feat/index.html

http://www.space.com/31388-elon-musk-colonize-mars-now.html

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/journey-to-mars-next-steps-20151008_508.pdf

- Mary Garrett

Terraforming within the Solar System

Terraforming is transforming a place not suitable for life into a place where life is habitable. The process of terraforming can help advance human technology and the growth of the population. Mars is one of the prime candidates to terraform because of its being the most earth like. At one point, scientists think that Mars was a habitable place, like Earth is now, but over time and solar winds stripped away the atmosphere and made it what it is now. NASA however, think that there is a way to make Mars habitable again. The first part will be to try and make an atmosphere by releasing greenhouse gases, like chlorofluorocarbons, which contributes to the growth of the ozone layer on Earth. By doing this, heat will be trapped from the sun and the planet will begin to warm up. To release the chlorofluorocarbons, factories would need to be on the planet creating them from the air and soil. One factory on Mars would need the amount of power equivalent to a large nuclear power plant. Once the greenhouse gases are released the increasing temperatures would vaporize of some of the carbon dioxide in the polar cap, meaning that carbon dioxide would be released into the atmosphere. This would contribute to additional global warming, increasing the vaporizing of the polar cap until it is completely released. With higher temperatures now, ice will start melting providing the water that is necessary for supporting life. With the melting water, atmospheric pressure will also begin to rise enough to be habitable. The next steps will be stabilizing everything by planting trees and growing things that will create the cycle of the production of oxygen.

Another way of terraforming Mars is first change the increase atmospheric pressure and the air composition by importing ammonia, hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and using fluorine compounds. The next step will be to build up the water content by melting the ice from earlier asteroids. Then people would need to create artificial rain after heating up the planet to regulate everything. There are several ways to heat up the planet, the first one is to have orbiting space mirrors direct the heat from the sun onto the planet. Another way is the use nuclear weapons to create global warming and use the radiation to warm up the planet. Another way is to use fossil fuels on the planet. If massive factories were being run of the planet, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would be released into the atmosphere, similar to how factories on earth contribute to global warming. The last way to warm up Mars is by guiding asteroids to hit Mars. The next step would be to begin planting trees and wildlife on Mars by first importing synthetic microbes and genetically engineered seeds. After all of this, people can then begin to colonize Mars. And hopefully technology will be advanced enough so that people can get to Mars in a short amount of time and be able to build cities using 3d printers.

- Tommy Sha

Leveraging the rate of Observational Research of the cosmos for funding

It seems that when SETI is brought up in discussion, the two opinions that will be expressed either suggest that god only created humans to live alone on a flat earth, or that the never-ending universe has to contain intelligent life somewhere, because of its shear size. Statistical reasoning has been able to serve as a tool for the intelligently critical to more sharply estimate around how many intelligent civilizations could reside in the universe with us. The Drake equation famously introduced the various crucial variables that can lead to the possibility of intelligent life.

The quantities linked to each of these variables can always be adjusted based on the observations we make. From a funding perspective, carrying out projects that provide cosmological observations can be very viewed as costly by politicians. So, scientists need to be cautious of the way the timing of their discoveries can affect the future of their funding. For example, if one of the variables in drake’s equation is sharpened negatively by a given discovery, because of the linked nature of how these nodes interact, effectively the likelihood of discovering extraterrestrial life can be temporarily lowered-- making finding funding for SETI less attractive.

Scientists should not falter however--- for many of the probabilities can actually be clarified by scientists in different field helping out with clarifications. For example, astrobiologists could constructively explain a case to support the decreased probabilities of life by posing other variables that could be introduced based on the discoveries. Perhaps, unity in academic thought could allow for more fearless projects. In a bayesian network, the conditional probabilities of variables actively affect the rest. For now, since we are the only intelligent life forms we know about, it is very hard to make observational conclusions that give insight on the probability of intelligent life spawning elsewhere without the help of multiple fields. Frequently, skeptics are too quick to think of the probabilities of intelligent life is non-existent, while intelligent alien believers are tend to get caught up in the philosophical infinite quality of the universe. In a universal sense, we can dream and speculate all we want about the possibility of other intelligent life arising in distant parts of the universe. The public view on SETI’s mission should remain clear on either discovering intelligent life or discovering the absence of it.

The conversation on intelligent life should not be open-ended-- this is why SETI loses funding. There needs to be a purpose presented to investors, and there is one; gaining any type of insight that can sharpen the probabilities of the variables in drake’s equation should be considered valuable. Additionally, if we were to develop a more stochastic model¹ to structure drake’s equation we can mathematically calculate what type of discoveries could affect our the conditional probabilities in the model the most; the problem, however might reside in SETI’s distrust in the current academic open-mindedness of many astrobiologists, but I digress: do not be afraid to make conscious efforts for space. The more inferences we can statistically confide in, the more knowledge we will eventually have.

Sources:

¹ Glade, Nicolas, Pascal Ballet, and Olivier Bastien. "A Stochastic Process Approach of the Drake Equation Parameters." International Journal of Astrobiology 11.02 (2012): 103-08. Web.

- Sean Moore

Cool Your Jets

When the topic of space colonization is brought up, the first thing that comes to mind for most people is a terraformed Mars. While Mars is a good candidate for eventual colonization, we may have some better options closer to home. These days, the moon is not considered a new frontier, and thus too mundane to consider colonizing, even though we only visited a few times forty years ago. But is it wise to overlook our closest celestial neighbor?

There are a few main factors that we need to take into account when building a space colony, that may show that it’s a better decision to hold off on Mars for now. Our primary concern is feasibility. If world leaders got together tomorrow and decided to throw all their money at colonizing Mars, it would be technologically achievable. However, according to an article in Discover Magazine, the heavy payload and life support means that it would be prohibitively expensive to ship everything out so far with realistic budget constraints. There is also the time factor to consider. If we continue to use the chemical rockets we use today, the journey will take several months to a year, and if there was any emergency, it could be too late by the time we try to send for help.

Now consider the moon, which is at a distance of a couple hundred thousand miles, compared to Mars, which is tens of millions of miles away. Travel to the moon takes a matter of days. Although Mars is given credit for being more earth-like in composition and viability as a terraformation project, the moon has features such as deep craters and caves that could house early colonists.

It is important to remember that terraforming Mars is only a long-term goal, and not something that we could quickly do using current technology. Any near-term colonization on either Mars or the moon would look fairly similar- enclosed environments.

One particularly promising location on the moon is the Shackleton Crater, which is at the south pole. Because it is situated at the edge of the dark and light sides, the area receives good amounts of sunlight but is sheltered compared to the rest of the surface.

A moon colony may benefit the Earth’s economy because it contains resources that could be mined. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin found high levels of the isotope, Helium 3, in lunar regolith samples brought back from Apollo missions. Helium 3 is an ingredient required in nuclear fusion, which could spawn an energy revolution once we figure out how to harness its energy. For immediate use, there are many rare-earth elements and metals that lie just beneath the moon’s surface.

Building a moon colony could help us reach Mars and other planets even faster than going there directly. The moon also has very low gravity and little atmosphere, which would make it better than Earth’s surface for a place to launch rockets. In fact, from a logistical viewpoint, building a colony on Mars would be much easier if we had an established base or colony on the moon first. It would be the ideal proving grounds before we make our big leap to the next planet.

Sources:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/09/08/where-build-off-world-colonies/#.VwbzLceMCb8
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a235/1283056/

- Krishna Rao