Live data from Hacker News

The International Space Station is growing mould, inside and outside

cbc.ca

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: The International Space Station is growing mould, inside and outside

#111
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I wonder if some extreme events could have kicked up enough microorganisms that some even went to the moon! That would be a false positive for finding life on the moon.

> I wonder if some extreme events could have kicked up enough microorganisms that some even went to the moon! We could fit 56 planet mars in row in the distance between the moon and the earth, so... not. Really unlikely

Fun little fact: you can fit pretty much exactly all the planets in the Solar system between the Earth and the Moon. More precisely, the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit is small, about 5.5%. The sum of the diameters of all the planets is a number in the interval between the lowest and highest distance between Moon and Earth, i.e. between 363k km and 405k km.

Re: The International Space Station is growing mould, inside and outside

#112
post #28
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that was Laika.

There were probably microorganisms and fungi on Sputnik, and before that, things that didn't orbit, like a V2 rocket in 1944: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW_18014

Laika was the first organism that we knew was alive in space. For a time.

At the time, and for decades after, everyone assumed anything on the outside would dessicate and die immediately.

Re: The International Space Station is growing mould, inside and outside

#113
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe just sloppy title writing. Because TFA says nothing about it growing outside.

“New research being presented at the Astrobiology Science Conference shows the International Space Station has an irritating mould problem — not only on the inside, but the outside, too. ” "We now know that [fungal spores] resist radiation much more than we thought they would, to the point where we need to take them into consideration when we are cleaning spacecraft, inside and outside, " Cortesao said in a statement…

I'm not quibbling about "outside". But nothing like "grow*" appears there. Spores aren't actually growing. Just waiting for suitable growth conditions.

Re: The International Space Station is growing mould, inside and outside

#114
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Ben Rich's book about the Skunkworks, one of the aircraft (U2? SR71?) was encountering high-altitude insect impacts on their windshields. Turns out they'd been lofted up there by nuclear tests.

Absolutely the best book, everyone here should read it.

I think one of the things that still blows my mind is how quickly they went from concept to first flight on the U2 (18 months?). That's the kind of things a well-focused, finely-tuned, well-funded, "cut the bullshit" engineering organization can accomplish.

Re: The International Space Station is growing mould, inside and outside

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We find rocks from the Moon and from Mars[0] on earth, and have reason to believe that small pieces of rock travel from most inner solar system bodies to most others. I find it totally believable that some micro organisms could survive the ride on such rocks and possibly thrive on other bodies, if the environment is suitable. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite

Rocks expelled and melted after a collision. If i'm not wrong, none alive or organic would survive on magma. Not even prions.

Depends on how fast the magma cooled. There are life forms which can handle up to 122°C and still actively reproduce. Look up hyperthermophiles for more info.

Re: The International Space Station is growing mould, inside and outside

#116
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I would; if you think it a useful idea for humans to become a multiplanetary species, then it seems to me just as important that life itself be multiplanetary. And that we ought to be spamming as much life as we can, the hardiest Earth organisms, as far as we can onto any body where they stand a chance of taking hold - Venus, Europa, Martian poles, comets, lobbing things at distant stars with planets intending th…

Why is it so important for the universe for life to exist and what makes it our job to guarantee it does?

I didn't claim either of those things; if your counter-point is something better than "hurr durr humans are a cancer we deserve to die, we ruin everything" then I'd be interested to hear it. But if that is your counter, then I don't want to hear it.

But, the universe has been getting more complex all the time - every stage of its history over billions of years has moved towards more things, more complex interactions, more abstract organizations - fundamental forces splitting off, plasmas, galaxies and stars, fusion and heavy elements, solids and liquids and planetary systems, chemistry tectonics and weather systems and day/light cycles, LIFE, multi-celled life, biological systems and their interaction with weather, communication, socialization, organization, co-operation, industrialization, it just gets more abstract and more involved.

Unless you think a God exists and put a barren radiated rock somewhere for a good reason, then you may as well conclude that the universe is trying to get more complex. Like you can say that humans moved grass over the ocean for our own benefit, you can also interpret it that grass got humans to move it over the ocean for grass's long term survival benefit. There is only one known life-o-sphere and if one-day it is going to outside Earth, it needs a highly intelligent species to appear and move all the rest of it. That could be us, it could be why it looks like we're screwing up the planet - because long term, the point is not for us to stay here as bucolic agriculturalists, but to be an ignition chamber for something (probably silicon) to burst out and go forth.

What makes it our job is that nobody else can. Whales cannot do it. Cows cannot do it. Oak trees and crickets and fungus and cockroaches and E.coli aren't going to. Only humans can escape Earth intentionally, so humans have the obligation to do that on behalf of all life.

Compare how many humans think life is important (a lot), with how many humans think it important that Mercury stay barren until it gets swallowed by the Sun at the end of its fuel supply (the number of people who have even considered the idea in all human history, rounds to zero).

What makes it important? WE make it important, because - in the absense of a deity giving orders to us - who else can give meaning to anything, except humans? If nothing else, a more populated universe would be more interesting for us. Eventually.

Re: The International Space Station is growing mould, inside and outside

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rocks expelled and melted after a collision. If i'm not wrong, none alive or organic would survive on magma. Not even prions.

Depends on how fast the magma cooled. There are life forms which can handle up to 122°C and still actively reproduce. Look up hyperthermophiles for more info.

When the magma has cooled enough the rock would be in space or in the upper mars atmosphere at least, not touching anything.

Anything growing on mars surface would burn, only an hypothetical floating microbe could land in this rock after cooling, but would be like expecting a bacteria landing in a bullet, surviving the impact and then sticking to the surface whereas still alive (and much later surviving a second impact against earth after years in outer space). Seems unprobable.

Re: The International Space Station is growing mould, inside and outside

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of a magnetic field ablates away an atmosphere only on cosmic timescales, not human ones. That seems like a problem that could be solved with the benefit of thousands more years of technological development. Never say never. Just a hundred years ago many people argued it was impossible to ever leave the atmosphere of this planet (And it wasn't ... using cannon. The rocket solved that problem).

It's a moral hazard to hold out hope for a "home away from home". Terraforming Mars is a moonshot. If we ever find ourselves in a situation where we cannot survive on a planet where food literally grows out of the ground, with abundant liquid water and atmospheric oxygen at 1 atm, how on Earth would we survive on a planet that is devoid of life, has no liquid water, an atmosphere that's 1% the pressure of Earth's wit…

That is a different point though.

Earth is habitable now. There are plenty of plausible non-anthropogenic disasters that may make that so not so. Some typical examples include megavolcano eruption, coronal mass ejection, and asteroid impact. It would be good to not have all of our eggs in one basket here on Earth.

And it's for exactly the same reason of having redundancy that it would be a good thing for Earth to continue to remain habitable, i.e. we should stop ruining the planet through climate change.

It's not a moral hazard at all; the two outlooks are congruous.

Re: The International Space Station is growing mould, inside and outside

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without the magnetic field, a thick atmosphere on Mars will still persist for tens of thousands of years.

It took billions of years for atmospheric oxygen to accumulate on Earth.

Yeah, but most of that was waiting around for oxygen-releasing life to evolve.

We could create an oxygen atmosphere on Mars much more quickly than that, because we'd be sending life explicitly for that purpose that's ready now, and we'd also be importing gases and digging up in-situ resources and turning them into gas.

Re: The International Space Station is growing mould, inside and outside

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took billions of years for atmospheric oxygen to accumulate on Earth.

Yeah, but most of that was waiting around for oxygen-releasing life to evolve. We could create an oxygen atmosphere on Mars much more quickly than that, because we'd be sending life explicitly for that purpose that's ready now, and we'd also be importing gases and digging up in-situ resources and turning them into gas.

> Yeah, but most of that was waiting around for oxygen-releasing life to evolve.

No, it wasn't. Photosynthesis that released O2 evolved relatively quickly, and was more efficient than other forms of photosynthesis. Then it took another billion years for oxygen to accumulate in the atmosphere. Mind you, we had an entire planet with oceans teeming with photosynthetic life. That will be next to impossible to replicate on Mars.

There are two oxygen sinks on Earth that reacted with oxygen released from photosynthesis: the first was the ocean, the other was minerals on land. This is the reason that it took so long for atmospheric oxygen to accumulate. Mars will have a lot of oxidizable minerals and compounds that will react with oxygen before it can accumulate in its atmosphere. Even then, it will escape into space without a sufficient magnetosphere to trap an atmosphere.

Post reply on HN