Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

RNA compound and vitamin B3 found in samples from near-Earth asteroid

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 110 posts

Re: RNA compound and vitamin B3 found in samples from near-Earth asteroid

#71

Post by runjake »

jasonlotito wrote: post #45
JPLeRouzic wrote: post #6

They didn't detect RNA which would be extraordinary. What they detected is Uracil, one of the molecules that is found in RNA. They didn't found any other nucleotides. " Other DNA/RNA nucleobases were not positively identified in both the A0106 and C0107 samples. This does not necessarily exclude a possibility that those nucleobases are present in the Ryugu samples, but just they may be below the detection limit under…

> They didn't detect RNA which would be extraordinary. Correct, and they don't say that. They found an RNA compound. Uracil, one of the molecules that is found in RNA. Not sure of the purpose of this comment to regurgitate what's found in the article itself, which goes into greater detail.

Most of us are laymen to the subject. Please people, feel free to continue regurgitating concise and understandable information.

Re: RNA compound and vitamin B3 found in samples from near-Earth asteroid

#72

Post by coldtea »

craftsman wrote: post #47
mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read my comment as implying all science is ruled out due to one example, that's very much a you problem. I said or implied no such thing. I also didn't take a stance on this research. I've yet to read the paper, and I don't read "science journalism" like TFA. But it's not like the findings are earth shattering given previous research. Therefore I lean towards optimism. I am simply saying that scepticism is war…

If your post was simply to say, "This paper could have flaws and its conclusions could be incorrect," then yes, almost all of us will agree with you. I'm not sure it's big news, however. I would guess most of us understand that scientific findings are contingent on future experiments and results. If your post was to point out a specific flaw, e.g., that the sample could have been pre- or post-contaminated, then it fa…

>But no, there is not anything anyone can do with the critique

Critique doesn't just exist to be actionable.

It can also exist (as in this case) to remind of a possibility. Especially in this case, where the possibility is precluded.

In fact that was the very intended. Pre/post contamination could still have happened, we can't just exclude it because "protocols were followed". Protocols have been followed in other cases where errors got in the way to.

Perhaps you didn't wanted to see a general comment, but somebody spotting a specific error in a specific step of the actual process?

Re: RNA compound and vitamin B3 found in samples from near-Earth asteroid

#73

Post by [deleted] »

JPLeRouzic wrote: post #6

They didn't detect RNA which would be extraordinary. What they detected is Uracil, one of the molecules that is found in RNA. They didn't found any other nucleotides. " Other DNA/RNA nucleobases were not positively identified in both the A0106 and C0107 samples. This does not necessarily exclude a possibility that those nucleobases are present in the Ryugu samples, but just they may be below the detection limit under…

[deleted]

Re: RNA compound and vitamin B3 found in samples from near-Earth asteroid

#74

Post by maicro »

chatmasta wrote: post #48
jasonlotito wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They didn't detect RNA which would be extraordinary. Correct, and they don't say that. They found an RNA compound. Uracil, one of the molecules that is found in RNA. Not sure of the purpose of this comment to regurgitate what's found in the article itself, which goes into greater detail.

As someone who reads the comments more than the articles, I always appreciate when this kind of clarification is in the comments. It's one of the best parts of HN.

Honestly, me too, to the point where I open the comments in tabs before visiting the articles. It may be biased, but seeing what the HN hivemind has to say about the topic is usually as valuable, and often more valuable, than the linked article itself.

There are also situations like this one where, while I find the headline interesting, I don't care enough to read through the whole link - so I'll check the comments for any significant additions or corrections or clarifications, and sometimes read the interesting discussions that occur, but won't even click through to the main link.

It might come down to a question of number of perspectives - the linked article is usually by a single person/group (or worse, a news org poorly interpreting the results of a group), while the HN comment section will be filled with a variety of people, often with domain specific knowledge and experience.

All that to say, HN is an interesting community, and I don't think there's a "wrong" way to interact with/be part of it (as long as you're being respectful etc.).

Re: RNA compound and vitamin B3 found in samples from near-Earth asteroid

#75

Post by kortex »

gilleain wrote: post #59
faeyanpiraat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually does: "Organic: relating to or derived from living matter"

Yes, /originally/ 'Organic' meant from living matter. However, when it was discovered that urea could be synthesised in the lab, we realised that there was no real distinction between 'living' molecules and 'dead' ones ... Nowadays, 'organic' refers to chemicals with a majority (?) carbon content. It gets a little tricky for things like diamond and graphene (both materials) or for compounds that have a lot of heteroa…

As a (former) organic chemist, this is spot-on. "Organic" doesn't really have a strict definition, but it's not so much "majority carbon" as it is presence of a C-H and/or C-C bond. I personally don't consider diamond and graphite organic, but some do. Carbon disulfide and phosgene (COCl2) usually aren't regarded as organic. And as you mentioned, stuff with carbon and lots of carbon atoms is a grey area (looking at you, azidoazide azide, but not looking at it too hard, it might not like that).

Re: RNA compound and vitamin B3 found in samples from near-Earth asteroid

#76

Post by kortex »

mr_mitm wrote: post #62
dsr_ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the difference between standard usage and jargon. Chemists consider any covalent compound involving carbon that isn't only carbon to be "organic". Normal usage is what you wrote. Alternative but widespread usage is "agricultural products made without synthesized fertilizers and pesticides". Oh, and business jargon uses organic to mean "natural market growth or internally developed capabilities", as opposed to…

It's like astronomer talking about metals. By which they mean everything that's not hydrogen or helium.

To their credit, I remember something about basically every element ionizes to some extent in space, thus exhibiting the "sea of electrons" behavior characteristic of metals.

Re: RNA compound and vitamin B3 found in samples from near-Earth asteroid

#77

Post by lallysingh »

jasonlotito wrote: post #45
JPLeRouzic wrote: post #6

They didn't detect RNA which would be extraordinary. What they detected is Uracil, one of the molecules that is found in RNA. They didn't found any other nucleotides. " Other DNA/RNA nucleobases were not positively identified in both the A0106 and C0107 samples. This does not necessarily exclude a possibility that those nucleobases are present in the Ryugu samples, but just they may be below the detection limit under…

> They didn't detect RNA which would be extraordinary. Correct, and they don't say that. They found an RNA compound. Uracil, one of the molecules that is found in RNA. Not sure of the purpose of this comment to regurgitate what's found in the article itself, which goes into greater detail.

Yeah, even the title here (now) is "RNA compound" not RNA.

Re: RNA compound and vitamin B3 found in samples from near-Earth asteroid

#78

Post by blincoln »

"The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency mission collected one sample from the asteroid’s surface in February 2019, then fired a copper 'bullet' into the asteroid to create a 33-foot (10-meter) wide impact crater."

10 meters seems like a pretty impressive crater for a science payload launched from a deep space probe. In case anyone else is curious, there's a detailed writeup[1] about the Small Carry-on Impactor (SCI) that was used.

It looks a little bit like a swords-into-plowshares version of a HEAT warhead. A shaped plastic explosive charge simultaneously launched and deformed a copper plate so that by the time it hit the asteroid, the projectile was shaped like a hollow bullet. ~2kg moving at ~2km/sec, so about 4 million Joules, or about 200 times the kinetic energy of a .50 BMG round. That's some bullet!

[1] https://www.planetary.org/articles/what-to-expect-hayabusa2-...

Re: RNA compound and vitamin B3 found in samples from near-Earth asteroid

#79

Post by lumb63 »

permo-w wrote: post #33
aa-jv wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

if you want people to engage with you seriously, perhaps avoid such a condescending tone. ditching the sarcastic italics could be a good place to start the way it currently reads is less like curiosity and more like “ how dare you question the judgment of scientists ”, as if questioning results isn’t the absolute bedrock of science in the first place

Nowadays, to a lot of folks, questioning isn’t the bedrock of science. “Trusting the experts/science” is. That’s the root behind a lot of issues we’ve seen socially, especially over the last few years.

Re: RNA compound and vitamin B3 found in samples from near-Earth asteroid

#80

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mr_mitm wrote: post #62
dsr_ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the difference between standard usage and jargon. Chemists consider any covalent compound involving carbon that isn't only carbon to be "organic". Normal usage is what you wrote. Alternative but widespread usage is "agricultural products made without synthesized fertilizers and pesticides". Oh, and business jargon uses organic to mean "natural market growth or internally developed capabilities", as opposed to…

It's like astronomer talking about metals. By which they mean everything that's not hydrogen or helium.

> like astronomer talking about metals

This is particular to stellar astrophysics. Astronomers studying asteroids maintain the conventional definition.

Post reply on HN