Toolbox
Share on facebook Reddit del.icio.us Save to Yahoo! bookmarks Slashdot it Save to Windows live Save to MySpace science news feed Add to google
- size +

Meteorite experiment deals blow to 'bugs from space' theory

This NASA file image shows a 4.5 billion-year-old rock labeled meteorite ALH84001 believed to have once been a part of Mars and to contain fossil evidence that primitive life may have existed on Mars more than 3.6 billion years ago which was found in ...
This NASA file image shows a 4.5 billion-year-old rock, labeled meteorite ALH84001, believed to have once been a part of Mars and to contain fossil evidence that primitive life may have existed on Mars more than 3.6 billion years ago, which was found in Allan Hills ice field, Antarctica in 1984.

A novel experiment has dealt a setback to a theory that life on Earth was kickstarted by bacteria that hitched a ride on space rocks.
The "pan-spermia" hypothesis is that cells were transported to the infant Earth on rocks that were bumped off other planets or even came from another star system.

The theory gained a boost in 1996 when a group of US scientists proposed that a famous meteorite found in Antarctica may have held traces of fossilised bacteria that once lived on Mars.

Seeking to find out more, European scientists have devised "artificial meteorites" to see what happens when rocks bearing fossil traces and living bacteria are exposed to the fiery heat of entering Earth's atmosophere.

In research to be unveiled on Thursday, they attached small rocks two centimetres (0.8 of an inch) thick to a Russian unmanned Foton M3 capsule that was launched in September 2007 and returned to Earth 12 days later.

The samples were imbedded on the capsule's heat shield, which reached a peak velocity of 7.6 kilometres (4.75 miles) per second (17,000 miles, or 27,200 kms, per hour) during the controlled descent.

One sample comprised a 3.5-billion-year piece of sedimentary rock from Pilbara, Australia, that contained carbonaceous microfossils.

The other was a piece of lake sedimentary rock from the Orkney Islands, Scotland, containing chemical traces of past organisms.

The back of both rocks was smeared with a living bacterium called Chroococcidiopsis -- a hardy, primitive species that lives on the underside of stones in the desert, surviving on tiny droplets of moisture.

Some scientists have considered it, or a relative of it, to be a good candidate for a Martian germ.

Recovered and analysed after the return, the Pilbara sample was found to be covered with a creamy-white fusion crust about half a millimetre (0.02 of an inch) thick but, underneath, its microfossils were intact.

The Orkney samples lost nearly a third of its mass, but otherwise survived, as did its biomolecules.

But there was bad news for the Chroococcidiopsis. The bugs were burnt to a crisp, although their carbonised outline remained intact.

"The STONE-6 experiment suggests that, if Martian sedimentary meteorites carry traces of past life, these traces could be safely transported to Earth," said investigator Frances Westall, of the Centre of Molecular Biophysics in Orleans, France.

"However, the results are more problematic when applied to pan-spermia," she said a press release.

"STONE-6 showed at least two centimetres (0.8 of an inch) of rock is not sufficient to protect the organisms during [atmospheric] entry."

The study was scheduled to be presented on Thursday at the European Planetary Science Congress in Muenster, western Germany.

So far 39 meteorites have been found on Earth that have been attributed, through their chemical signature, to a Martian origin.

The notion is that they were knocked off the planet in the distant past by an asteroid impact. They then wandered in space before landing here.

But all of these meteorites are of basalt, or volcanic origin.

None is sedimentary, a term for rocks that are laid down in beds or strata as a result of wind, water or gravity. This has perplexed scientists, as there is abundant evidence for sediments on the Red Planet.

The outcome of the STONE-6 experiment, though, shows that Martian sedimentary rocks could survive entry through Earth's atmosphere.

The Foton capsule generated temperatures of around 1,700 degrees Celsius (927 degrees Fahrenheit), although its speed was somewhat slower than that of a meteorite.

Meteorites normally attain a velocity of 12-15 kms per second (26,800-33,500 mph, 42,800-53,600 kph) depending on their angle of descent.

A third piece of rock, a control sample of basalt, was lost during the descent.

© 2008 AFP
» Next Article in Space & Earth science - Space Exploration: New Target Shuttle Launch Dates Announced as Astronauts Complete Rehearsal

would you recommend this story?

 

User Rating

3.9 out of 5 after 40 total votes
  • not at all
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • highly

Leave a Comment or

Rank filter

Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.
Posted by lotusEater 09/25/08 07:27
Rank: 3.9/5 after 21 votes
"deals blow to 'bugs from space' theory"
Nonsense. Smearing some bacteria on the rear surface of two tiny pieces or rock has no relevance to the panspermia theory. Bacteria are found living thousands of feet below the earths surface in the interstices naturally present. When the experiment has been repeated and shows that all bacteria -or bacterial spores - have been killed in the center of a 10Km wide space rock, that would be more relevant. Bad science.
Posted by Modernmystic 09/25/08 09:13
Rank: 2.8/5 after 10 votes
Actually the more I think about it the more of a no-brainer it seems. Unless you're talking about a huge rock (with a lot of surrounding insulation) the heat really would be too intense for any kind of life as we know it to survive.

Admittedly I've never been a fan of panspermia, and quite frankly always considered it fringe science....so it may just be my bias showing through.
Posted by wawadave 09/25/08 09:35
Rank: 1.4/5 after 10 votes
Yes but say a bolder sized peace comes into the atmosphere and explodes partway down sending some of its mass back towards space thus slowing its decent. Brakes up again smaller peace ejects the same. now moving far slower then burn up rate.
brakes open releasing spores microbes etc. that are very light in now thick atmosphere float slowly down alive. Providing the vacuum and hard radiation of space had not killed them.
Posted by Bazz 09/25/08 09:44
Rank: 4.1/5 after 11 votes
If on future mars missions we find life or signs of earlier life on mars that resembles life as we know it, it would be conclusive to say pan-spermia happened.

Until then its an interesting theory that may or may not have happened.

Unfortunatly the only thing this article suggests is that small meteorites are unlikely to spread life around.For some reason i suspect funding wouldnt allow the 10km rock experiment:D
Posted by drel 09/25/08 09:51
Rank: 4.3/5 after 13 votes
Size matters.
Too small and the meteor burns up in the atmosphere.
Too large and the meteorite is vaporized on impact.

I have seen photos of meteorites that range in size from softballs to basket balls that left only small (less than 1m) craters if any at all. These meteorites could be porous or have deep fissures and still be large enough to insulate the interior from the heat of passing through the atmosphere. I can envision a scenario where just such a rock lands in water, snow or ice and is rapidly cooled before the interior of the meteor was heated via conduction and said space germs are cooked. Such a thermal shock could also further fracture the rock releasing the travelers to their new environment (we must assume it's not toxic to them).

Posted by superhuman 09/25/08 09:52
Rank: 3.8/5 after 9 votes
"deals blow to 'bugs from space' theory"
Nonsense. Smearing some bacteria on the rear surface of two tiny pieces or rock has no relevance to the panspermia theory. Bacteria are found living thousands of feet below the earths surface in the interstices naturally present. When the experiment has been repeated and shows that all bacteria -or bacterial spores - have been killed in the center of a 10Km wide space rock, that would be more relevant. Bad science.


Yeah the test is not conclusive but its some result at least. They should try bigger ones with bacteria placed in the center.

Very large rocks have huge kinetic energy and are vaporised on impact - nothing will survive in those.

To me the main problem with panspermia is that it doesn't solve any problems, instead it creates new ones - the life still had to start somewhere, and on top of that it also had to make an exceedingly improbable journey to Earth.

I think the reason behind panspermia is a desire some people have for a more romantic way in which life came about as well as the fact that it is more compatible with purposeful creation (by aliens, god, AI, or whatever). No trace of such a deliberate creation on Earth can be troubling for proponents of some such theories, with panspermia they can claim the creation took place elsewhere.
Posted by Doug_Huffman 09/25/08 10:17
Rank: 3.3/5 after 4 votes
We have already successfully returned E. coli from NEO behind a heatshield. Too much design consideration opens the experiment to criticism.
Posted by Roach 09/25/08 10:43
Rank: 4.5/5 after 6 votes
I know this is a stupid question, but is there a reason the process must take place on an actual re-entry vehicle?
Wouldn't it be cheaper to simulate in a blast furnace or something?
Or is the abrasive nature of the entry also a factor?
I realize the questions may appear novice, but I'll admit I'm no astrobiologist.
Posted by deatopmg 09/25/08 10:47
Rank: 2.5/5 after 4 votes
This experiment is highly flawed and proves nothing. Meteors spin as they travel through the atmosphere, as I once was very fortunate to observe from 50 - 75', exposing more than one surface to heating and therefore dispersing the heat.

many of the points above are valid and point out that the experiment is highly flawed.

...or maybe someone just didn't wipe their feet or take off their shoes (like my wife is always telling me) when they stepped on the surface 4 billion yrs ago.
Posted by Sean_W 09/25/08 10:57
Rank: 2/5 after 3 votes
I don't like panspermia either but it does have the advantage of meaning that life would only need to develop on one planet and any collisions large enough to litter the solar system would effectively seed the habital zone of the galaxy as it went around spitting off rocks due to orbital influences.
Posted by superhuman 09/25/08 11:02
Rank: 4.5/5 after 2 votes
I know this is a stupid question, but is there a reason the process must take place on an actual re-entry vehicle?
Wouldn't it be cheaper to simulate in a blast furnace or something?
Or is the abrasive nature of the entry also a factor?
I realize the questions may appear novice, but I'll admit I'm no astrobiologist.


Well it has to be as close to the real thing as possible, it would be very hard to precisely recreate all aspects of reentry like proper pressure profile, changing atmospheric concentration, shockwaves, abrasion, etc.

Besides no matter how hard you tried some critics would never be convinced its good enough.

(At least I think those are the reasons I'm not astrobiologist either)
Posted by Rohitasch 09/25/08 13:11
Rank: 2.3/5 after 3 votes
All that's been shown is evidence that extraterrestrial rocks smaller than my butt are unlikely to be ferrying microbes.
Posted by trantor 09/25/08 14:54
Rank: 5/5 after 5 votes
I dont know why people are such fans of life coming from outerspace!!

What makes it so difficult to believe that life originated on Earth instead of Mars?

if it could originate on Mars, it could ALSO originate on Earth.

in fact, it could have very well originated on Earth and being transported TO MARS aboard Earth rocks expelled from Earth due to a big impact.
Posted by tpb 09/25/08 17:12
Rank: 3/5 after 1 vote
I'm assumming you mean 927 celsius to 1700 Farrenheit.
Posted by holmstar 09/25/08 17:15
Rank: 5/5 after 2 votes
deatopmg said:
Meteors spin as they travel through the atmosphere, as I once was very fortunate to observe from 50 - 75', exposing more than one surface to heating and therefore dispersing the heat.


You observed a meteor (in flight) from 50 to 75 feet away? Sure... right...
Posted by holmstar 09/25/08 17:19
Rank: 1/5 after 1 vote
I dont know why people are such fans of life coming from outerspace!!

What makes it so difficult to believe that life originated on Earth instead of Mars?

if it could originate on Mars, it could ALSO originate on Earth.

in fact, it could have very well originated on Earth and being transported TO MARS aboard Earth rocks expelled from Earth due to a big impact.


Right... but either way its still panspermia, at least within our solar system. If it is true that life developed on one planet and then seeded another, then wouldn't you find that rather interesting?

Anyway, *WE* are outer space from the perspective of Mars.
Posted by GrayMouser 09/25/08 18:43
Not rated yet.
If on future mars missions we find life or signs of earlier life on mars that resembles life as we know it, it would be conclusive to say pan-spermia happened.


Unless you count the possibility that our Mars landers have already contaminated Mars with Earth grown life.

A second question, WRT this experiment, is how long did they leave the Chroococcidiopsis exposed to vacuum? Anything coming from Mars would be exposed to vacuum and solar radiation for at least 6 months (and more likely years.)
Posted by jeffsaunders 09/26/08 00:50
Rank: 5/5 after 3 votes
This experiment was a waste of time to begin with.

Not many people if any would expect that a rock that small would not be cooked on re-entry.

And cooking will kill bacteria.

Whether Panspermia exists or not this experiment proves nothing except that cooking does in fact kill bacteria something we already knew.

Even if Panspermia is proved as feasable it does not prove that life on Earth originated elswhere.

There is nothing on the books that says life cannot be created in more than one location.
Posted by Rute 09/26/08 05:28
Rank: 4.3/5 after 3 votes
I dont know why people are such fans of life coming from outerspace!!

What makes it so difficult to believe that life originated on Earth instead of Mars?

I think it's partly because life appears to have come out of "nowhere" very soon after the Earth formed.

Pretty much everyone agrees that there have been cyanobacteria at least as long as 3.5 billion years, and some evidence seems to indicate that they have been around for 3.8 billion years. That's the time when the fiery Hadean period ended and life as we know it became possible. The problem is that cyanobacteria are actually very complex organisms and the Calvin cycle they use to release oxygen requires lots and lots of evolution. Would cyanobacteria have evolved on Hadean Earth? I wouldn't bet on it.

Here's Wikipedia's entry for Calvin Cycle:
http://en.wikiped...in_cycle

if it could originate on Mars, it could ALSO originate on Earth.

in fact, it could have very well originated on Earth and being transported TO MARS aboard Earth rocks expelled from Earth due to a big impact.

As far as I know, there are three points that would make the reverse case more likely:
1. Earth is bigger and has stronger gravity, which makes it take in more rocks from space.
2. The weaker gravity of Mars means a large meteor impact on it's surface sends more rocks to space.
3. The conditions for life on Mars apparantly became favorable before they did on Earth.
Posted by superhuman 09/26/08 11:42
Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote

Pretty much everyone agrees that there have been cyanobacteria at least as long as 3.5 billion years, and some evidence seems to indicate that they have been around for 3.8 billion years. That's the time when the fiery Hadean period ended and life as we know it became possible. The problem is that cyanobacteria are actually very complex organisms and the Calvin cycle they use to release oxygen requires lots and lots of evolution. Would cyanobacteria have evolved on Hadean Earth? I wouldn't bet on it.


According to (sourced) wiki article on hadean period liquid water already existed on Earth as early as 4.4 billion years ago (BYA).

Cyanobacteria article says the earliest evidence for life seems to be from 3.5 BYA but it is not identified as cyanobacteria which are phototrophic, evidence shows that photosynthesis evolved before 2.5 BYA but there is no proof when exactly.
All in all there is no conflict as those dates leave enough time for evolution to do its magic.

http://en.wikiped...i/Hadean
http://en.wikiped..._history

One other thing is that today's cyanobacteria are almost certainly completely different from those which first evolved.

Just as todays combustion engines are nothing like the first steam engines, the primitive life metabolism was nothing like today's sophisticated biochemical masterpiece.

Calvin cycle should be thought of as a most recent incarnation in a series of metabolic engines of increasing complexity developed during evolution.

3. The conditions for life on Mars apparantly became favorable before they did on Earth.


What makes you think so? So far it seems possible that they never became favorable on Mars.
Posted by Tachyon8491 09/26/08 18:29
Rank: 4.5/5 after 2 votes
Most ill-conceived "experiment" based on totally conflated premises. Firstly, species such as micrococcus radiodurans and M. radiophilus which can withstand 2Mrad of radiation and enzymatically repair their own genetic damage, and terrestrial hyperthermophilic bacteria which can withstand up to 306 C would have been more suitable here. Forgotten are two facts - their panspermic taxonomic precursors would have been far more resistant to the exigencies of interstellar journeys than evolutionary later ones that would have adapted to a terrestrial econiche - such adaptation clearly being a rapid process as ratified in the biostratigraphic record beginning shortly after crustal solidification in the Hadean Period; secondly, embedding in a heat-shield would appear to be a poor substitute for cometary or meteoric ingress modelling.
Posted by tencourt 09/27/08 12:51
Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote
What if a rock fragment from Mars that contained living oragisims was in space for 10 year before it entered the Earths atmosphere, at a temperature of 3 degrees above absolute zero would the organism be able to survive the trip?
Posted by p1ll 09/27/08 13:11
Rank: 4/5 after 2 votes
bacteria pulled from 100 million year old salt deposits were found to revive by simply adding water. I dont have the source at the moment, but you can google it, its quite interesting.

some bacteria seem to have been built for interstellar travel: survive radiation, vaccuum and cold of space, repair its DNA, and survive millions of years in a sort of hibernation.

stupid experiment though, smearing bacteria on the back of a rock? c'mon
Posted by earls 09/27/08 13:37
Rank: 3/5 after 1 vote
Gotta redo the Spore Intro now.
Posted by Rute 09/27/08 15:11
Rank: 4/5 after 2 votes
According to (sourced) wiki article on hadean period liquid water already existed on Earth as early as 4.4 billion years ago (BYA).

The Hadean period, which lasted up to billion years, was a time when there was very little crust on Earth and so the first oceans were extremely hot (estimates vary between 80C and 100C), not to mention all the other types of hazards like radiation and chemicals. That's dangerous for organisms without DNA damage repair molecules and definitely too much for the molecules behind photosynthetic reactions.


Cyanobacteria article says the earliest evidence for life seems to be from 3.5 BYA but it is not identified as cyanobacteria which are phototrophic, evidence shows that photosynthesis evolved before 2.5 BYA but there is no proof when exactly.

The oldest known stromatolite fossils (photosynthetic cyanobacteria) are approximately 3.5 billion years old:
http://www.ucmp.b...ofr.html


One other thing is that today's cyanobacteria are almost certainly completely different from those which first evolved.

There's still no denying that oxygenic photosynthesis requires a very complex set of molecules to work.
Posted by GrayMouser 09/27/08 18:29
Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote
Forgotten are two facts - their panspermic taxonomic precursors would have been far more resistant to the exigencies of interstellar journeys than evolutionary later ones that would have adapted to a terrestrial econiche


1. What makes you state this as a "fact"?

2. Why would they be more adapted to space? This would imply an organism evolving IN space as opposed to an organism evolving on a planet and being broadcast through space.
Posted by DoctorKnowledge 09/28/08 02:18
Rank: 3/5 after 1 vote
The above comments mostly covered it. A great example of how PhysOrg readers can spot a clunker.

But there are two other sillynesses to the study: 1) Life could have entered when the atmosphere was vastly thinner or thicker; 2) The study assumes that it's common for material in space to carry life. But it might be only one-in-a-million. The end result, after millions of hits, would be the same.
Posted by superhuman 09/28/08 07:34
Rank: 4/5 after 1 vote
The Hadean period, which lasted up to billion years, was a time when there was very little crust on Earth and so the first oceans were extremely hot (estimates vary between 80C and 100C), not to mention all the other types of hazards like radiation and chemicals. That's dangerous for organisms without DNA damage repair molecules and definitely too much for the molecules behind photosynthetic reactions.

Todays life can exist in such conditions, early life could have been even more tolerant. As for radiation most of it would be attenuated by water.

There's still no denying that oxygenic photosynthesis requires a very complex set of molecules to work.

The oxygenic photosynthesis is complex, but photosynthesis when it first appeared was most likely much simpler based on something like a bacteriorhodopsin molecule - a single protein capable of converting light energy into chemical energy (proton gradient). Oxygen only started to accumulate at the end of archean period 2.5 billion years ago.
http://en.wikiped...hodopsin
Posted by Au-Pu 09/28/08 09:56
Rank: 1.3/5 after 3 votes
I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY SMALL METEORITES WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED AS BIOLOGICAL ARKS.
LARGER ONES PERHAPS.
THE MOST PROBABLE SOURCE WOULD BE DUST PARTICLES THAT WOULD TEND TO FLOAT OR DRIFT DOWN, THUS AVOIDING THE HEAT OF RE-ENTRY AND AVOID BEING COOKED.
SPACE DUST AND COMET DUST COULD BE SOURCES
I THINK IT IS PREMATURE TO WRITE THIS POSSIBILITY OFF ON A SINGLE 2 CM SAMPLING
FRED HOYLE AND A SRI LANKAN ASSOCIATE WROTE AN INTERESTING BOOK ON PANDEMICS AS HAVING POSSIBLE ORIGINS FROM SPACE DEBRIS OF SOME SORT. A TRIP TO ONES LIBRARY MIGHT PROVE INTERESTING
Posted by MikeB 09/28/08 20:14
Rank: 4/5 after 2 votes
They should try a rock half the size of present day earth made of iron (which became earth's core) and filled with carefully controlled living conditions (water and atmosphere) for the pan sperm... or not...
Of course there could be a god. Nahhhh, that would be too simple
Posted by pocketgopher 09/29/08 02:22
Not rated yet.
THOSE LAMEBRAINS PROBABLY USED LIVE BACTERIA INSTEAD OF GRAM-POSITIVE SPORES. BUT SCREW THE DETAILS, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MUST MOVE ON. TAKE THAT, YOU SMARTY-PANTS INTELLECTUALS!