# Astronauts find living organisms clinging to the International Space Station



## stinger608 (Aug 25, 2014)

Interesting read.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ace-station-and-arent-sure-how-they-got-there



> During a spacewalk intended to clean the International Space Station, Russian astronauts took samples from the exterior of the station for a routine analysis. The results of the experiment were quite surprising. Astronauts expected to find nothing more than contaminants created by the engines of incoming and outgoing spacecraft, but instead found that living organisms were clinging to outside of the ISS. The astronauts identified the organisms as sea plankton that likely originated from Earth, but the team couldn’t find a concrete explanation as to how these organisms made it all the way up to the space station — or how they managed to survive.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 25, 2014)

They need to set up a long term experiment to see if sea plankton can survive in space indefinitely.  If they can, that may be evidence to support the theory that life hitched a ride on an asteroid which crashed into Earth and life spread from there.  The fact it is sea plankton is astonishing.


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 25, 2014)

My theory is they brought a crate of Krabby Patties on one of their latest supply missions.


----------



## newconroer (Aug 25, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They need to set up a long term experiment to see if sea plankton can survive in space indefinitely.  If they can, that may be evidence to support the theory that life hitched a ride on an asteroid which crashed into Earth and life spread from there.  The fact it is sea plankton is astonishing.



Which would be pretty awesome, until you get to the part where you have to explain via modern science, how long term macro-evolution can actually occur. This is of course after we accept that a small organism survived a long term trip across the universe and conveniently crashed into Earth(and survived).


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 25, 2014)

newconroer said:


> Which would be pretty awesome, until you get to the part where you have to explain via modern science, how long term macro-evolution can actually occur. This is of course after we accept that a small organism survived a long term trip across the universe and conveniently crashed into Earth(and survived).



"Seeds of life" as it may be.  One theory for them getting up there is the fact that they have found such organisms miles up in the atmosphere.  If a sizable asteroid struck the earth or ocean, no doubt debris could enter earths orbit.. or perhaps even a sizable volcano.  Could that be the case?

"The bigger mystery is not that the plankton survived, but how they made it all the way up there, 205 miles above Earth. The scientists have already dismissed the possibility that the plankton were simply carried there on a spacecraft from Earth, as the plankton aren’t from the region where any ISS module or craft would’ve taken off. The working theory is that atmospheric currents could be scooping up the organisms then carrying them all the way to the space station, though that would mean the currents could travel an astonishing 205 miles (330 km) above the planet."

"Living organisms have been found far above Earth before, such as microbes and bacterial life discovered 10 and 24.8 miles, respectively, into the atmosphere — though those numbers are a far cry from 205 miles."


----------



## newconroer (Aug 25, 2014)

Had someone approached me and said that microbes and bacteria can be swept high up into the atmosphere, bordering and beyond the outer layers of Earth - I would believe them. It doesn't strike me as very amazing or rare. 
The way this article is written, gives people the complete opposite end of the stick and has them immediately frothing at the mouth over the idea that it's a prelude to the discovery of billion-celled intelligent organisms in the universe.

Interesting, definitely. News, debatable. A revelation of any type, no.


----------



## HossHuge (Aug 26, 2014)

It's pretty simple actually.  Life had to come from space.

There was no Earth. 
Earth formed from rocks from space.
Life formed on Earth and grew.

End of story.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 26, 2014)

HossHuge said:


> It's pretty simple actually.  Life had to come from space.
> 
> There was no Earth.
> Earth formed from rocks from space.
> ...


Why did life HAVE to come from Space? Maybe Earth gave space life? You dunno. Nobody knows. Just random guesses that will be disproved in a 100 years then reproved again. Who F#$KING KNOWS?


----------



## Steevo (Aug 26, 2014)

HossHuge said:


> It's pretty simple actually.  Life had to come from space.
> 
> There was no Earth.
> Earth formed from rocks from space.
> ...


And in the beginning of the earth it was molten, and it was generally hot roundabouts the area that it was, being really hot as it was. 

And then life said, whoa, look at that hot roundness, and so it began, that life found earth good and did cling to that hot roundness. For ever and ever, yeah.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 26, 2014)

There are only two major scientific theories of how life came to be on Earth:
1) It evolved here from inorganic material.
2) It came here from elsewhere via an extraterrestrial body.

#1 should be testable in a lab but no tests have yielded positive results thus far (at least not any that are clearly capable of evolution).  This discovery is evidence for #2.


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 26, 2014)

Steevo said:


> And in the beginning of the earth it was molten, and it was generally hot roundabouts the area that it was, being really hot as it was.
> 
> And then life said, whoa, look at that hot roundness, and so it began, that life found earth good and did cling to that hot roundness. For ever and ever, yeah.



Hot roundness... like TITTIES!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 26, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There are only two major scientific theories of how life came to be on Earth:
> 1) It evolved here from inorganic material.
> 2) It came here from elsewhere via an extraterrestrial body.
> 
> #1 should be testable in a lab but no tests have yielded positive results thus far (at least not any that are clearly capable of evolution).  This discovery is evidence for #2.


Plankton from Earth found on a Space craft built on Earth is proof life came from space. Seems legit.


----------



## DLGenesis (Aug 26, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Why did life HAVE to come from Space? Maybe Earth gave space life? You dunno. Nobody knows. Just random guesses that will be disproved in a 100 years then reproved again. Who F#$KING KNOWS?


thats like saying the universe revolves around earth.  just how would that be possible?


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 26, 2014)

remixedcat said:


> Hot roundness... like TITTIES!



From plankton to titties.  Only on TPU, lol



TheMailMan78 said:


> Plankton from Earth found on a Space craft built on Earth is proof life came from space. Seems legit.



I can't say for sure, but I get this gnawing feeling you're being sarcastic.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Aug 26, 2014)

The atmoshpheric currents carrying bits of plankton is the most plausible.  Even at 205 miles, the ISS is not completely free from the atmosphere.  There is still some drag on it.  So, even the faintest wisps could have carried some micro-sized organisms till it latched onto an object.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 26, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They need to set up a long term experiment to see if sea plankton can survive in space indefinitely.  If they can, that may be evidence to support the theory that life hitched a ride on an asteroid which crashed into Earth and life spread from there.  The fact it is sea plankton is astonishing.



Didn't they already discover this with Tardigrades?  An organism that can functionally endure radiation, vacuum, and temperature extremes the likes of which mean that hitching a ride on comets is an absolutely plausible way for life to travel throughout the solar system.


The plankton is, in my estimation, less interesting.  They have hardened outer surfaces, produce energy through photosynthesis, and have proven to be significantly less complex than a Tardigrade.  That kind of simplicity almost singularly produces a very survivable animal.






FordGT90Concept said:


> There are only two major scientific theories of how life came to be on Earth:
> 1) It evolved here from inorganic material.
> 2) It came here from elsewhere via an extraterrestrial body.
> 
> #1 should be testable in a lab but no tests have yielded positive results thus far (at least not any that are clearly capable of evolution).  This discovery is evidence for #2.



Your conclusions seem, flawed.

I can agree with points 1 and 2, because the only option for 3 is beyond any provable reason.  The conclusion that #1 is provable in a lab is pretty unrealistic.  Have you ever been in a lab that has a planetary quantity of material to work with, or that can reproduce an early-earth environment with a planetary quantity of material?  

If one exists I'm unaware of it.  Creationists use the same logic to say that because it's "infinitely" unlikely that god did it.


The science, at this point, can demonstrate the rise of organic matter from non-organic matter.  It can demonstrate that creatures can survive nearly indefinitely in space (even if they're not complex).  As yet, both conclusions for the origin of life on Earth are equally valid and equally based on conjecture.  

A science teacher put it to me like this.  Your average UPS driver could make 30 stops in a day.  This means that if he randomly chose his route each day, he could run that route every day of his life without ever having to run the same route twice (30! is huge).  Despite this, I get my package from him every day between 2:00 and 2:15.  The reality is that some unseen logic governs the action of the UPS delivery system.  If I got all 30 stops on his route together I could conjecture as to how the route is planned, and even theorize as to how the planner determines his route.  Humanity is doing the same thing with Physics and Chemistry.  We may not know all of the laws, but we've got a solid theoretical framework that reasonably predicts the outcome.  Until we observe the route planner in action, we can be proven incorrect rather easily.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 26, 2014)

DLGenesis said:


> thats like saying the universe revolves around earth.  just how would that be possible?


I just think life could have started on Earth just as easily as it could have started else where. The theory of primordial ooze is just as plausible as "alien hitchhikers". With the vastness of space why couldn't there be multiple origins of life? To assume life as WE know it didn't start on Earth is just as presumptuous as life evolving here.

There is no clear evidence to swing the argument either way. Just because you find life on a comet doesn't mean life on Earth started from a comet. That's like saying because you find due on a leaf it must have rained the night before. Its wet so it MUST be rain.

Point is no one knows.


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 26, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> A science teacher put it to me like this.  Your average UPS driver could make 30 stops in a day.  This means that if he randomly chose his route each day, he could run that route every day of his life without ever having to run the same route twice (30! is huge).  Despite this, I get my package from him every day between 2:00 and 2:15.  The reality is that some unseen logic governs the action of the UPS delivery system.  If I got all 30 stops on his route together I could conjecture as to how the route is planned, and even theorize as to how the planner determines his route.  Humanity is doing the same thing with Physics and Chemistry.  We may not know all of the laws, but we've got a solid theoretical framework that reasonably predicts the outcome.  Until we observe the route planner in action, we can be proven incorrect rather easily.



Don't forget that human observation is always subjective to some degree.  Remember when the world was flat?

Besides, it was Russian scientists that harvested the material.  They could have just had re-hydrated sushi for lunch and not washed their hands.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 26, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> Don't forget that human observation is always subjective to some degree.  Remember when the world was flat?
> 
> Besides, it was Russian scientists that harvested the material.  They could have just had re-hydrated sushi for lunch and not washed their hands.



The world was flat when exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 26, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The world was flat when exactly?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth




"
Although the misconception was frequently refuted in historical scholarship since at least 1920, it persisted in popular culture and in some school textbooks into the 21st century. An American schoolbook by Emma Miller Bolenius published in 1919 has this introduction to the suggested reading for Columbus Day (12 October):

When Columbus lived, people thought that the earth was flat. They believed the Atlantic Ocean to be filled with monsters large enough to devour their ships, and with fearful waterfalls over which their frail vessels would plunge to destruction. Columbus had to fight these foolish beliefs in order to get men to sail with him. He felt sure the earth was round.[33]

So yes, human observation is always subjective to some degree.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 26, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> "
> Although the misconception was frequently refuted in historical scholarship since at least 1920, it persisted in popular culture and in some school textbooks into the 21st century. An American schoolbook by Emma Miller Bolenius published in 1919 has this introduction to the suggested reading for Columbus Day (12 October):
> 
> When Columbus lived, people thought that the earth was flat. They believed the Atlantic Ocean to be filled with monsters large enough to devour their ships, and with fearful waterfalls over which their frail vessels would plunge to destruction. Columbus had to fight these foolish beliefs in order to get men to sail with him. He felt sure the earth was round.[33]
> ...



I...what...I can't even...

Observation isn't questioned on something like this.  You can bring forward the idea that observation is a fallacy, but that sort of thinking means that nothing you observe matters.  I could be a giant plate of spaghetti and just deluding myself into seeing the universe like this.  We assume, because all observation and models are worthless without assuming so, that our observations are valid and describe a predictable universe.  To even have this discussion we have to agree to that basic assumption.

Columbus didn't say the Earth was round, he said that the Earth had a much smaller circumference than others believed (and was wrong).  He didn't observe the circumference of the Earth, he guessed at the value based upon other observations.
Popular culture doesn't have an influence on science, and isn't right because of the popular vote.  If it were applicable we'd have floating cars by now, because people in the 50's agreed that we'd have them by by the year 2000.


What you seem to be trying to indicate is that human historical perspective is tainted by perception.  The winners wrote history, the losers were cast as somehow less deserving of playing the game.  What we are talking about is science moving toward an answer that is most likely, not people observing the genesis of life.  I conjecture that my stomach produces acid, dissolves food, and my lower intestines metabolizes the components.  I observe that the pH in my stomach is low.  I observe that the organic matter I eat dissolves in fluids that have a low pH.  I observe that the intestine has more going into it than coming out the other end by measuring the mass, and determining that material is not still being stored somewhere in there.  These observations support my conjecture, but I could be running a nuclear reactor in my intestines that converts mass into energy and radiation.  You only observe the reactor when you split me open. Observation and conjectures based on observation cannot be conflated.

Observation only breaks down when you're looking at quantum mechanics and extrapolating observation into an assumed reality.  We will, within reason, never observe the genesis of life on our planet.  That is true even if we advance to the point of creating new life on another.  Conflating observations, conjectures, and reality is a rather dangerous game.


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 26, 2014)

^ with all due respect...  I stick by my statement:  Human observation is always subjective to some degree.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 26, 2014)

I think its just another great example of how extremes can support life.
The origins of the first life in this universe can never be known but how widespread life is could eventually be guestimated.
This news also helps promote a positive possible outcome from a lot of extra terrestrial research for which great amounts of everything(cash /time/watts/etc) is spent on.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 30, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Popular culture doesn't have an influence on science, and isn't right because of the popular vote.  If it were applicable we'd have floating cars by now, because people in the 50's agreed that we'd have them by by the year 2000..


http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1164046

It does. Fitting data to match the required results is almost status quo in this day and age, eventually it all comes out and gets explained, but in the meantime......



If life didn't originate on earth, when and where did it have time to originate in space? I mean, we are talking about a one in a trillion chance, then to crash into our planet and not be made sterile by the fiery decent though an atmosphere....which http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life-components.html makes them sterile unless we find something capable of living through plus 1000 degree temperatures encountered on the way through.


----------



## broken pixel (Aug 30, 2014)

If humans are the only intelligent life among the vast universe, the universe is f¥cked.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 30, 2014)

We might be it for a few lightyears.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Aug 31, 2014)

Steevo said:


> http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1164046
> 
> It does. Fitting data to match the required results is almost status quo in this day and age, eventually it all comes out and gets explained, but in the meantime......
> 
> ...



... The article you linked to has science triumphing over the pop cultural notion that autism is linked to vaccinations.  Are you trying to agree with me, or debate my point?  Science is not influenced by popular culture, popular culture tries to create technology from science.


As to the other point, you are looking at my statement incorrectly.  Either life came from Earth, or it came from outside Earth.  If the atmosphere is the blurry line you draw, the only third option would be that it existed prior to the Earth existing and the Earth happened to form  around it.  



For the record, the equation for a several thousand degree object assumes that the impact occurs instantly, and on a non-deformable surface.  Assuming those conditions aren't met (like a water impact), the temperature might only be a few hundred degrees C.  There are plenty of extremophiles that can survive that.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 1, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> ... The article you linked to has science triumphing over the pop cultural notion that autism is linked to vaccinations.  Are you trying to agree with me, or debate my point?  Science is not influenced by popular culture, popular culture tries to create technology from science.
> 
> 
> As to the other point, you are looking at my statement incorrectly.  Either life came from Earth, or it came from outside Earth.  If the atmosphere is the blurry line you draw, the only third option would be that it existed prior to the Earth existing and the Earth happened to form  around it.
> ...


Science may not be influenced by pop culture but its certainly influenced by financing and politics. Follow the money if you ever want the real truth.


----------

