ENDEAVOUR LIFTOFF -- AWESOME

Endeavour liftoff. The final mission (the 25th) for this Shuttle. Mark Kelly, husband of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, at the commands.



.

ARSENIC AND OLD ... (OR NEW) ... BACTERIA

Life is mostly composed of the elements Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Sulfur, and Phosphorus. And these are all generally taken to be essential to life. Phosphorus contributes to the backbone of the DNA double helix, and to energy related molecules, among its many functions. Arsenic is chemically similar to Phosphorus but heavier, and somewhat different in the strength of its chemical bonds. Most living things, when Arsenic is available may substitute Arsenic for Phosphorus in some of their body's molecules, but then their body's chemical reactions go awry and the organism dies.

Felisa Wolfe-Simon (a scientist working with the NASA Astrobiology Institute, and the U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA) and her co-workers have isolated or created a bacterium that is able to substitute Arsenic for Phosphorus and survive in an environment that is very rich in Arsenic and very weak in Phosphorus. (or pure Arsenic?)

The existence of life with chemistry significantly different from all other forms of life previously known obviously expands the possibilities for finding new life forms on Earth, and also in extra-terrestrial environments. It per-force widens the field of search.

There are many obvious questions. For example:

1 - Does this bacterium in its natural habitat substitute Arsenic for Phosphorus, or is the presence of Arsenic in its body an artifact or creation of the isolation process? In other words is this an old bacterium with Arsenic or a new form of life created in the Petri dish and the test tube?

1a - Does the bacterium directly from the pond survive in a pure Arsenic environment? Does the isolated bacterium survive in a pure Arsenic environment?

2 - Recent investigations have suggested there is a single ancestor for all life on earth (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/59133/title/All_present-day_life_arose_from_a_single_ancestor). Is this result a refutation of that study? Or is this bacterium a descendent of that ancestor that has developed special powers? Or (again) is this a new life form?

3 - Results announced at highly hyped news conferences and on the front page of major newspapers have a depressing history of turning out to be not quite right. Will this Arsenic endowed bacterium result survive the inevitable massive effort to extend or disprove it?

(Note 12/5/2010 -- Here's one example of a skeptical post with a critique of the way the results are stated and checked. It's not a refutation, but a call for more tests and clearer descriptions - http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html. Science works properly when results are obtained, described, and explained, and then the results are tested to obtain new, more complete results, and then these are described and explained.)

4 - If Arsenic can be substituted for Phosphorus in a living organism, can other substitutions be possible? Obviously Silicon for Carbon would be of great interest. (If the "organ" in "organic" stands for Carbon, then would a Silicon based life form be a "silicism"?) Also, Sulphur for Oxygen! (Some environments on Earth - and Venus - for example, are rich in hostile Sulphuric compounds.)

5 � After some confusion, the Press Conference seemed clear that this bacterium uses both Arsenic and Phosphorus. The substitution is not complete. Thus, would it be correct to say that, at least so far, it remains true that elements Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Sulfur, and Phosphorus are ALL necessary for life?

One major result that is still lacking is the X-Ray diffraction confirmation of the Arsenic imbued DNA. (Note... X-Ray diffraction studies by Rosalind Franklin of normal DNA was just recently the subject of PHOTOGRAPH 51, by Anna Ziegler, an EST / SLOAN theatrical production at the Ensemble Studio Theatre.)


There is no "SCIENCE of Unintended Consequences," just random warnings about the possible hazards of particular developments from some people, and vague assurances about their safety from others. The possibility of an entire new branch of biochemistry (essentially alien to all previously understood biochemistry) suggested by the video news conference about this result, should be one good reason for a scientific process of dealing with the ramifications of new technology.

(The possibility of alien chemistry life forms might permit one horror-story alien possibility: A strange life-form in space that senses electromagnetic radiations from a planet (eg Radio & TV radiating out into space) and then homes in on the planet to consume it).

Felisa Wolfe-Simon is attractive, enthusiastic, well-spoken, knowledgeable and bright. She is (and this can be bad or good, media-wise -- and irrelevant scientifically) cutesy, with a sly smile, somewhat egotistical (with a tendency to say "I" when "we" would be better, and to reference great scientific milestones), argumentative, and somewhat scientifically not-quite-clear-and-accurate when not speaking technically.

She came to the Press Conference well prepared, with clear visual back-up material. As a media personality and scientific spokesperson and advocate, Felisa may have a very bright future. (Video of the whole Press Conference is embedded below.)

The paper is published in SCIENCE, the journal of the AAAS. Unfortunately, the paper, while online, is not free, and requires either membership in the AAAS ($99 & up depending on your stage of life) or a fee for 24 hour use of the one paper on one computer. (Or wait a week or two for the December 2, 2010 SCIENCE magazine to reach your library.)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2010/12/01/science.1197258#aff-1



Felisa had speculated earlier on the possibility of finding Arsenic tolerant bacteria. (The following paper is also not available online for free):

Did Nature Also Choose Arsenic?
International Journal of Astrobiology (2009), 8: 69-74 Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/S1473550408004394

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5981644

Here's the video of the Astrobiology Press Conference (followed by an earlier video from Dutch TV talking about what Felisa hopes to find in her work).






Here's the video, from a Dutch TV program, of Felisa talking about what she is trying to do in her studies...

NASA POD - ATLANTIS

NASA PICTURE OF THE DAY:


STS-132 LIFTS OFF
Space shuttle Atlantis soars to orbit
from Launch Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida
Image Credit: NASA/Kenny Allen

The STS-132 mission to the International Space Station at 2:20 p.m. EDT on May 14 is the third of five shuttle missions planned for 2010, the last planned launch for Atlantis.

FAR, FAR AWAY & LONG, LONG AGO

At 3:55 a.m. EDT on April 23, a NASA satellite ("Swift") detected a gamma ray emission from an object believed to be about 13 billion light years from Earth. The event is believed to have taken place about 600 million years after the Big Bang when the universe was created.

Light takes 13 billion years to go 13 billion light years. If the object was 13 billion light years away from Earth when it exploded, it had to have travelled those 13 billion light years since the Big Bang (when "Earth" and the object, and everything else were all together in one tiny little space): that is, the object travelled 13 billion light years away from "Earth"in only 600 million years.

To get 13 billion light years away from "Earth" travelling at the speed of light would take 13 billion years, not 600 million years.

Either

a -- it was (way!) closer to "Earth" when it omitted the gamma ray pulse than 13 billion light years (ie distance estimate is wrong)

b -- it emitted the light (way!) longer than 600 million years after the Big Bang (ie time estimate is wrong)

c -- "Earth" & the object were not in proximity at the time of the Big Bang (ie Big Bang assumptions are wrong)

d -- The object separated from "Earth" (way!) faster than the speed of light.

e -- something else (for example, light does not travel at "the speed of light").

Note that our Earth did not exist 13 billion years ago; "Earth" (in quotes) designates a sort of virtual place that would later be occupied by our Earth. Since the idea of the Big Bang is that all matter in our universe occupied a very small space, exactly what space "Earth" occupied is not relevant -- unless of course that is where the solution lies...

Right now, the leading explanation for how something could get 13 billion light years away from "Earth" in 600 million years may be something like this... (a) the whole universe expanded / inflated at a rapid rate shortly after the Big Bang; and (b) this is allowed by General Relativity: space itself can expand, separating objects faster than the speed of light; it's not that the objects are moving, it's that the space between object is expanding.

So d (carefully using the word "separated") may be the leading explanation...

NASA ARTICLE:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/cosmic_record.html

WIKIPEDIA ON THE EXPANSION OF SPACE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

NASA PICTURE OF THE DAY

Explanation: This rocket is headed for the Moon. Pictured above, a huge Altas V rocket roared off the launch pad last week to start NASA's first missions to Earth's Moon in 10 years. The rocket is carrying two robotic spacecraft. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is scheduled to orbit and better map the Moon, search for buried and hidden ice, and return many high resolution images. Some images will be below one-meter in resolution and include images of historic Apollo landing sites. Exploratory data and images should allow a more informed choice of possible future astronaut landing sites. The Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) is scheduled to monitor the controlled impact of the rocket's upper stage into a permanently shadowed crater near the Moon's south pole. This impact, which should occur in about three months, might be visible on Earth through small telescopes.

NASA Picture of the day.

MARS IS ALL WET

Well, not all wet, but (after about 67 days on the surface of the planet) lab tests on board Phoenix have confirmed water-ice two inches below the surface of Mars, and a panoramic image indicates water-ice all around.

Latest results:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/news/phoenix-20080731.html

PHOENIX SCOOPS MARS

Phoenix has landed on Mars and begun to scoop the Martian soil, to test for possible water ice and organic material under the surface.

Here are some pictures from Mars, from NASA.

POSSIBLE ICE TABLE AT PHOENIX LANDING SITE





This image captured by the Robotic Arm Camera aboard NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander on Sol 6, the sixth Martian day of the mission, (May 31, 2008) shows a close-up of the "Snow Queen" feature under the lander.

Swept clear of surface dust by the thruster rockets as Phoenix landed, the area has a smooth surface with layers visible and several smooth, rounded cavities.

The Phoenix Mission is led by the University of Arizona, Tucson, on behalf of NASA. Project management of the mission is by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. Spacecraft development is by Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Denver.

Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona/Max Planck Institute


MARTIAN SOIL IN PHOENIX SCOOP



This image from NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander's Robotic Arm Camera (RAC) shows material from the Martian surface captured by the Robotic Arm (RA) scoop during its first test dig and dump on the seventh Martian day of the mission, or Sol 7 (June 1, 2008). The test sample shown was taken from the digging area informally known as "Knave of Hearts."

Scientists speculate that the white patches on the right side of the image could possibly be ice or salts that precipitated into the soil. Scientists also speculate that this white material is probably the same material seen in previous images from under the lander in which an upper surface of an ice table was observed. The color for this image was acquired by illuminating the RA scoop with a set of red, green, and blue light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona/Max Planck Institute

PHOENIX LANDING



Here's a picture, (2008-05-26) of the Phoenix Lander parachuting down to Mars, in this image captured by the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

PHOENIX HAS LANDED!

A raw, unprocessed image of Mars
taken by Phoenix shortly after arrival on Mars...From NASA

Phoenix has landed on Mars. Launched in August, Phoenix used parachutes and reverse rockets to slow its decent to a solid landing on the North Polar, Arctic region of Mars.

Previous studies have shown the strong likelihood of a layer of H20-ice possibly as close as an inch below the surface. Phoenix is designed to dig into the surface and study the frozen water that it hopes to find there (including the possibility of organic material in the ice). Other experiments on Phoenix will measure moisture, dust and other meteorological properties of the atmosphere.

http://www.nasa.gov/

SEX AND DEATH ON THE WAY TO MARS

NASA is thinking about tackling the hard topics of sex and death in space on a voyage to Mars. Here's an interesting article from AP about this issue:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/05/01/on_trip_to_mars_nasa_must_rethink_death/

(Note: The article has been widely reprinted. The version above is one of the few which includes the actual author of the article. That is interesting, because the article contains comments from a number of people, speculation, and reference to a report from NASA that was obtained by the AP using the Freedom of Information Act.

I have not been able to find a link to the NASA report itself. I haven't found it on the NASA site, or any link to it on any of the articles I've looked at. There is a page with reports NASA has made public:
http://standards.nasa.gov/public/public_query_NASA_stds.taf

and this includes one report on spaceflight safety standards. However, it deals primarily with radiation issues:
http://standards.nasa.gov/public/public_detail.taf?Documents_uid1=6618&doc_name=NASA-STD-3001, Volume 1#.)