Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Tardigrades Were Already on the Moon

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,958

    Tardigrades Were Already on the Moon

    According to this Scientific American blog, ...we know that nature has been busy cross-contaminating worlds for the past 4 billion years. And hardy little critters like tardigrades have likely already been deposited far beyond the Earth. ... (and) it is conceivable that any life in our solar system has spent the past few billion years in a merry game of natural cross-contamination; mixing it up on a regular basis.

    Why aren't we looking for lawki or its detritus? Why doesn't this assumption inform more of our missions to other bodies? Instead it seems the "holy grail" of a separate genesis event is of more concern, why?
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,752
    I think you've got this backwards. It is quite reasonable to expect that some microbes are occasionally transferred from Earth to the other objects in our Solar System, although tardigrades themselves would find it difficult to survive for long without a supporting biosphere. If any of these cross-fertilisation events result in a long-lived colony of microbes, then we would almost certainly see very distinct differences between the colony and the population on Earth - in short, evolution would occur.

    I think it is necessary to keep the microbial populations distinct on different planets, so that we could detect such evolutionary changes if they exist- which is why sending tardigrades to the Moon is foolhardy. Even though the tardigrades themselves may not survive for long, their internal gut flora (if any) might survive and skew our future results.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,653
    After a bit of puzzling, I'm guessing "lawki" is Life As We Know It, rather than a town in Poland?

    If we found Life As We Know It, could we ever tell for sure if was the result of recent lithopanspermia, or current contamination from the spacecraft / another spacecraft?
    Even if we found Life As We Sort Kinda Know It (that is, using the same molecules, but with some differences in metabolic processes and DNA) could we tell the difference between something spread by lithopanspermia long ago, and a novel organism from Earth that we just happened to encounter for the first time as a spacecraft contaminant?

    Whereas Life As We Very Definitely Don't Know It gives us a less ambiguous signal.

    Grant Hutchison

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    One thing we have going for us is that independent life has a 50% chance of having its DNA spiral the opposite way. That's no help if it spirals the same way, but a huge help if it doesn't.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Aug-27 at 07:53 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    One thing we have going for us is that independent life has a 50% chance of having its DNA spiral the opposite way. That's no help if it spirals the same way, but a huge help if it doesn't.
    Not to mention biospheres where DNA is a racemic mixture, or uses RNA alone, or one of the other nucleic acids. (If such exist).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    42.798928,10.952804
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM
    Why aren't we looking for lawki or its detritus? Why doesn't this assumption inform more of our missions to other bodies? Instead it seems the "holy grail" of a separate genesis event is of more concern, why?
    practically, we are are afraid to contaminate planets with terrestrial life :-/


  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    Not to mention biospheres where DNA is a racemic mixture, or uses RNA alone, or one of the other nucleic acids. (If such exist).
    Some other nucleic acids:
    TNA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threose_nucleic_acid
    GNA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycol_nucleic_acid
    PNA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_nucleic_acid
    and this does not take into account other nucleic acid bases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleo...al_nucleobases
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,752
    I have heard of these alternatives, but I am unsure whether they would be as capable of forming persistent genetic material as DNA.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    497
    Carbon Chauvinism again....
    "It's only a model....?" :-)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3dZl3yfGpc

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Barabino View Post
    practically, we are are afraid to contaminate planets with terrestrial life :-/

    Barsoom should never have been contaminated by humans.
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Barsoom should never have been contaminated by humans.
    "Keep the Red Planet green!"
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    9
    Tardigrades, which are considered the most resilient creatures on Earth, were on board the Israeli lunar rover "Beresheet", which crashed at landing. The head of the mission is convinced that they survived.
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2020-Sep-03 at 03:52 PM. Reason: typo

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,229
    Quote Originally Posted by john1298 View Post
    Tardigrades, which are considered the most resilient creatures on Earth, were on board the Israeli lunar rover "Bere****", which crashed at landing. The head of the mission is convinced that they survived.
    Of course, this gets into what is meant by “survive.” Assuming they weren’t destroyed in the crash, there’s no oxygen, water, or food so they can’t metabolize. Tardigrades can remain viable for some time if those things are eventually supplied again, but barring that, damage will accumulate (they have no metabolism to counter it) and they will become non-viable over time.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,878

    Could Use #1,000,000 Sunblock Also

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Of course, this gets into what is meant by “survive.” Assuming they weren’t destroyed in the crash, there’s no oxygen, water, or food so they can’t metabolize. Tardigrades can remain viable for some time if those things are eventually supplied again, but barring that, damage will accumulate (they have no metabolism to counter it) and they will become non-viable over time.
    Ah, radiation damage, right?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,229
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Ah, radiation damage, right?
    Yes, in part. There would also be the fairly extreme day/night temperature cycling. Even on Earth, dried out or frozen tardigrades in an otherwise fairly benign environment also become non-viable over time. Basically, if you have a population of them, greater percentages of them can’t be revived the longer the timespan they aren’t metabolizing.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •