digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at esa.int

Hubble finds first organic molecule on extrasolar planet

esa.int — The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has made the first detection ever of an organic molecule in the atmosphere of a planet orbiting another star. This breakthrough is an important step in eventually identifying signs of life on a planet outside our Solar System.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yillip, on 03/20/2008, -5/+18Amazing.....so glad that NASA is repairing Hubble in August; it will practically be a better, brand new version of itself!
    • aajjcckk, on 03/20/2008, -8/+5> eventually identifying signs of life on a planet outside our Solar System.

      Yawn. Ha ha ha. Seriously, get with the program. ET life is interacting with this planet now, and has been for decades officially, and millenia unofficially.

      All you need to know:
      http://www.disclosureproject.org

      Yes, I'm serious.
      • TheG2, on 03/20/2008, -4/+9Heh, I was wondering how long it would take for the tinfoil hat brigade to jump on this.
      • rodrigo74, on 03/20/2008, -3/+5Thanks for the tip aajjcckk, this website is hilarious.
  • jaobedoza, on 03/20/2008, -7/+18we are a step closer to answering whether we are alone or not in the universe
    • slapded, on 03/20/2008, -5/+22we already know the answer. its just proving it thats harder
      • aladrin, on 03/20/2008, -3/+10Are you talking about religion or extraterrestrials?

        You already -believe- something. You can't -know- it without some kind of actual knowledge.
        • KaiUno, on 03/20/2008, -0/+18I think he's talking about statistical probability.
          • matt510, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2You cannot base statistical probability on one example. You can GUESS at certain factors that lead to a certain statistical probability, but one case does not tell us anything.
          • KaiUno, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I'm not. I'm not even considering this "find". I'm just taking the huge-ass nature of the universe as a basis.
      • bj1989, on 03/20/2008, -6/+4No, in fact we don't know the answer.
      • geekdw, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3Goa'uld and Ori...duh!
        • TheG2, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Technically the Ori were in another Galaxy, but then we killed them, so its all good.
          • TheBrain21, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1we did? But I thought that the last episode (which I watched) was a really bad cliffhanger?
    • isunktheship, on 03/20/2008, -10/+4THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE
    • SpickSlayer, on 03/20/2008, -21/+1The answer to that question is "Yes, we are." Now we're going to waste a dick of a lot of time on this one instance, when we could be doing more useful things.
      • consoneo, on 03/20/2008, -3/+9That's pretty retarded.
      • NoCt1, on 03/20/2008, -2/+12Wow dude.. I mean thats all i can really say.. You think that out of the billions of planets there isnt life out there... that somehow earth is the only planet with life... Thats a Sad view on things.
        • eouw0o83hf, on 03/20/2008, -7/+3Actually, think about it: The chance that another planet out there (a) has the proper chemical makeup to support life, (b) has the proper distance from a habitable star to be condusive to the forming of life, (c) will hit the extreme number of statistical "flukes" necessary for biological evolution to occur, and (d) that we will find it, is very small. I'm not trying to say you're an idiot or anything, but there are a lot of miniscule probabilities which must occur in order for this to happen.
          • TheG2, on 03/20/2008, -1/+7"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." - Douglas Adams
          • zeabu, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2Not finding it, does not mean it isn't there. Drop your point (d) and you have millions and millions of apropiate planets out there.
          • thumperings, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3look ***** there are literally more stars in the universe than there are grains od sand on Earth. X 100000 ... Anything is possible. Got I hate narrow minded fearful twerps.
        • jimmy17, on 03/20/2008, -2/+5You are maybe correct in thinking that the chance of finding life on any individual planet may be extremely small but considering there are hundreds of trillions of stars in the universe kinda balances that out.
        • Logicexe, on 03/20/2008, -0/+6eouw0o83hf, I think you're looking at this too simplistically. You're absolutely correct about all those things being very unlikely, but you're assuming that those are the only ways in which life can arise. That's an assumption we have little basis for making. We just don't know how many different "configurations" could result in life forming on a planet, are there millions? Hundreds? Dozens? Or just 1? I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

          However, the guys who say it's a certainty because there are trillions and trillions of planets are also committing a similar error. Nobody knows how likely life will arise in the universe so while it's fun to speculate, we should admit our massive uncertainties on both sides.
        • ligyron, on 03/20/2008, -1/+5Billions of planets? There are billions of GALAXIES in the universe. There are like a googlian(?) planets in the universe
      • JamesDiggem, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2whats REALLY sad is he's not the only person who thinks that way...
      • fracktica, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1If you said the diameter of our solar system is around an inch, then the diameter of our galaxy would be ~ 150 miles. Take a sharpened number 2 pencil to the night sky.. at the tip of that point, we can see ~ 1,000 galaxies. Move it one click in any direction - 1,000 more. 100,000,000,000 galaxies in total! Our galaxy has 400,000,000,000 stars.

        The galaxy is probably teaming with life, let alone the universe...
    • eouw0o83hf, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3Not exactly...we are a step closer to finding out if there is possibly another planet in the universe which maybe has the potential of possibly containing life, based on its observed atmospheric chemical makeup.
    • DrDragun, on 03/20/2008, -0/+11I used to believe that based on probability, there must be alien life on a planet out there somewhere. I still hold to that belief somewhat, but I find it extremely unlikely we will ever find them. I will try to explain quickly with ASCII art.

      = Planet formation
      - Planet devoid of life
      * Life begins on the planet and starts to evolve
      ^ Life finally inolves into an intelligent species capable of spaceflight

      Imagine 3 planets evolve life. Each ASCII character represents ONE HUNDRED MILLION YEARS.

      EARTH =----------*********************************^
      PLANET A =------***********************************^
      PLANET B =--------------*******************************^

      All these planets reached the "sentient species capable of spaceflight" within about 10% of the amount of time of each other. However this amounts to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS head-start for some races over the others.

      Now, how long did it take mankind to evolve from stone age to spaceflight? 10 thousand years? How long until we are colonizing other planets? 100-300 years? Technology grows exponentially.

      Basically what I'm saying is, if you have thousands of planets with life on them, then chances are one of them has a HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS headstart over us. And if we are going to develop interstellar colonizations, then I would hope it would be within the hundres of millions of years timeline.

      Thus, we should have seen them by now already, visiting us with technology that is hundreds of millions of years headstart over us.

      So basically, one of the following I believe to be true.

      EITHER
      1) Faster-than-light travel is not possible and spacefaring races will only colonize nearby planets expanding incredibly slowly
      2) There is no alien life
      3) There is alien life but the natural evolution of technology/society leads them to be removed from the universe before they would have found us. Stephen Hawking said this. Either they naturally go extinct from nuclear war or they have some form of engineered transcendence where they can go off to a better place.
      • displacednomad, on 03/20/2008, -0/+7Or,
        1) We're actually first. Perhaps all the other life forms are a million years behind us. No opposable thumbs for them yet.
        2) Maybe there is another species that is a million years ahead of us, technologically, but they are more than a million years away from us too, on the other end of the galaxy, and will reach us 1000 years from now.
        3) or, building off your #3, they do exist and are very aware of earthlings but refuse to visit us until we grow up a little.

        Very interesting times we live in, indeed.
        • 3uphoria, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2Your #3 is brilliant and gets a digg from me.
          Although I'll add
          3) or, building off your #3, they do exist and are very aware of earthlings but refuse to let us know they visit us until we grow up a little.
          • piesforyou, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2or 4) they know we exist but are planning a surprise attack, followed by our total annihilation!
    • aajjcckk, on 03/20/2008, -11/+2> eventually identifying signs of life on a planet outside our Solar System.

      Yawn. Ha ha ha. Seriously, get with the program. ET life is interacting with this planet now, and has been for decades officially, and millenia unofficially.

      All you need to know:
      http://www.disclosureproject.org

      Yes, I'm serious.
  • MTessa, on 03/20/2008, -10/+4This is amazing and incredibly important!
  • gilg, on 03/20/2008, -8/+3mmm. I know quite a few folks waiting for this news... interesting.
  • moviefreakusa, on 03/20/2008, -8/+10OLD NEWS: http://digg.com/space/Hubble_Detects_Organic_Molec ...
  • IphtashuFitz, on 03/20/2008, -9/+2So does this mean Hubble will likely beat SETI@Home in proving that ET exists?
  • Stonekeeper, on 03/20/2008, -5/+3So will interfering with organic molecules in space create some sort of imbalance somewhere and cause devastating consequences that could ultimately lead to the self implosion of the universe? Ok, so i talked that up a bit, but the question remains.
  • foxhaze, on 03/20/2008, -16/+4Whoop. Dee. Doo.
  • JSager, on 03/20/2008, -5/+40Yes yes, organic molecules, blah blah. The question is, does the planet have oil? Because if so, I think we need Colin Powell to take those pictures to the UN. Methane is a weapon of gas destruction.
  • justok, on 03/20/2008, -2/+28alien cows fart in our general direction.
    • orangefly, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1actually it was pigs....in....space....
  • isunktheship, on 03/20/2008, -13/+2THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE
  • painperdu, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1Damn! You're finding us out!
  • Marty4975, on 03/20/2008, -0/+4Tinetti is however quick to rule out any biological origin of the methane found on HD 189733b. “The planet’s atmosphere is far too hot for even the hardiest life to survive — at least the kind of life we know from Earth."
  • fuhcough, on 03/20/2008, -0/+6while i doubt they're little green men, i think that to assume we are alone would be extremely ignorant.
  • jacekpoplawski, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Again?
  • tjmb9, on 03/20/2008, -1/+10All they found was methane?
    "Although methane has been detected on most of the planets in our Solar System, this is the first time any organic molecule has been detected on a world orbiting another star"

    Not that exciting anymore....
  • WikiEasy, on 03/20/2008, -7/+2Stop the yawning. Here's a really old joke for ya.

    What does toilet paper have in common with Star Trek?




    They both circle Uranus in search of Klingons.
    • DeathMarcher, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2*What does toilet paper have in common with the Enterprise?
  • JoshuaLowe, on 03/20/2008, -8/+7Creationists have filed a petition to have this information immediately sealed.
    • andyd273, on 03/20/2008, -2/+2This is small minded thinking.
      If God created us, and gave us this vast universe to explore, discover, and show off His majesty, who is to say that he didn't create other beings somewhere else to appreciate it too?
      I for one am not going to limit God that way.
      • trg100, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1I kind of agree but, honest question, if you were to believe that the Bible is God's guidance for our lives, do you think it is telling that there is no mention of extraterrestrials?
      • sc0rpi0n, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1Once upon a time, God created a flat earth (Wait wait... they have changed that to a round earth in the 20th century), and He created moon and stars to light up the sky (wait... the earth was created before all the stars?) in 7 days 5000 years ago (wait... did it all happen in 5000 years ago?). Look like Creationists does it again, adapting whenever new fact is born. C'mon don't be jerks with all the ***** self-justification.
      • zeabu, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Church has not ruled out alien life.

        They're getting smarter than those centuries, when they were opposing to "the earth is not flat".
  • purplehaze420, on 03/20/2008, -11/+2Yes it is interesting. But honestly, the amount of money and resources that go into NASA and other space agencies is, well, astronomical... And really what does it get us besides some cool pictures and inspire some through-provoking discussions... Which is great don't get me wrong, but is it necessary, and couldn't this money perhaps be used to cure world hunger, stop poverty, or perhaps find a way to save the planet we are already stuck with rather than trying to find new ones. Just my 2 cents.
    • JorgeGT, on 03/20/2008, -2/+4That's what they said to Cristobal Columbus when he was asking money to cross the Atlantic...
    • Logicexe, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3Stop poverty? Cure world hunger? Save the planet? Do you have any idea how small NASA's budget is compared to most other government institutions? The amount of money NASA gets would hardly put a dent in these things.

      Even if they did have insanely large budgets you can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to get fixed just because you spent a lot of money, just look at Iraq.
      • hklrs, on 03/20/2008, -2/+0Oh they could do much, if they wanted to.
        • Logicexe, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Maybe they could, but not with NASA's budget, which is the point I was trying to make.
    • akkibaba, on 03/20/2008, -0/+6Money spent on space programs usually is an excellent investment, by promoting research in diverse fields like mechanical engineering, chemistry, materials science,supercomputing etc. This is not frivolous spending.
    • displacednomad, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
      http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
    • CheeseburgerBro, on 03/20/2008, -0/+4Out of curiosity, have you compared NASA's 2007 budget to the Pentagon's 2007 budget?

      The results may surprise you.

      Space is CHEAP!
      • vuke69, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1"Space is CHEAP!"

        Compared to the Pentagon's budget, NASA's budget could easily be mistaken for a rounding error.
    • piesforyou, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2How to cure world hunger: Attack the problem from both ends and feed the hungry to the hungry!
    • sc0rpi0n, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2Dude, get back to work! You're wasting your time here at digg.
    • zeabu, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1I'll be the first to throw it in: "Iraq". If all the money they have thrown in at wars like Vietnam, the 3 gulfwars, the cold war, or the fence along the US-Mexican border, or..., we would've been living already on the moon, mars, and the viable moons around jupiter, saturnus, etc.
      If only.....
  • Claude1971, on 03/20/2008, -6/+1*farts* phew can you smell that? I think there's an organic molecule in my underwear now
  • DanOnTheMoon, on 03/20/2008, -3/+3CH4 isn't really that surprising. When they said 'organic molecule' I was hoping for aromatic hydrocarbons at least. Methane? Methane is part of every damn gas giant out there. So, yeah, yawn.
  • dwright99, on 03/20/2008, -2/+0Not exactly first contact.
  • brstilson, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1I remember when Hubble was launched. I was in the second grade and when they said it would be in space for 20 years, I remember thinking how long that seemed. Now, it's only got 2 years to go.
  • JamesDiggem, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5I hope they finally discover life outside this planet in my lifetime... I'm curious what kind of an impact it would have on the creationism movement
    • derekmas10, on 03/20/2008, -0/+6What, like God couldn't create creatures in HIS image on other planets HE created, too?

      I think the only impact this will have on the creationist movement is that if there is, in fact, life on another planet, how long will it take us to get there so we can convert the savages?
      • skipstar127, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Very well put.... I'd rather see them build a complete DNA stain using atom-stacking with nano technologies, then jump start a human life that they built out of raw materials. Non-Kosher raw materials at that.
      • andyd273, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1I'm digging you up because I agree with the first line, but I think the second line is a bit cynical.
      • zeabu, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2But what, if they don't look like us (and I'm sure of that). Is it still his image? What if they're more advanced, are they his image, or are we.
        Yes, I'd like to see the impact on religions.
  • akkibaba, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1This is more a testament to our technical skill at spectroscopy, rather than any proof of extra-terrestrial life. However, that in itself is an awesome engineering feat, kudos.
  • alanbradin, on 03/20/2008, -2/+0So we can find a molecule of whatever, but we can't find an 80 billion year old terrorist that's rigged to a dialysis machine?
    • Zaneris, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Perhaps because he's dead and the MSM doesn't want you to know that?
  • annflower, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Soon huble will help us to find oil in space!)
  • Arkaris01, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1"James Webb Space Telescope, can detect organic molecules on planets around other stars using spectroscopy"
    I wonder if they tried doing this on a planet in our solar system first, one that we know the molecular makeup of. It's not so much I doubt the research, I'd just like to see evidence the theory works as suggested and not have to believe these ideas without proof of concept.
  • Morky, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2That's pretty incredible, considering in the not to distant past (pre-1988) we could not even detect any extrasolar planets.
  • nycmac247, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1I'll be sure to tell the people in Texas that have been seeing all those UFOs lately?
  • undy242, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2This should be a top news story this week. Unfortunately CNN and the likes will still be talking about Hillary's last gasp for air, Obama's opinions on the pastor, and some other "unique" story on violence.
  • MentalHazard, on 03/20/2008, -2/+0Easy phrase to ward off people who believe they were abducted by aliens:
    "Pics or it didn't happen."
  • no2gates, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4They can't find Bin Laden on THIS planet, but they can find a MOLECULE on a planet BILLIONS OF MILES AWAY???? WTF?
    • Claude1971, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1more importantly who gives a *****. shut up *****
  • aajjcckk, on 03/20/2008, -6/+1> eventually identifying signs of life on a planet outside our Solar System.

    Yawn. Ha ha ha. Seriously, get with the program. ET life is interacting with this planet now, and has been for decades officially, and millenia unofficially.

    All you need to know:
    http://www.disclosureproject.org

    Yes, I'm serious.
  • chuckDontSurf, on 03/20/2008, -3/+2I, for one, welcome our new molecular... oh nevermind.
    • zeabu, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1our new molecular nevermind... It doesn't always have to ba an overmind.
  • garryw, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2I'm not excited about CH4. I want more. I want klingons and a betazoid of my own. This sucks. A single fart in the cosmos is all we get?
  • frobozz0, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1I love science. I'm constantly amazed at how well we can determine things without direct observation. For example ...

    HOW THE HELL DO THEY KNOW THAT?!

    Seriously, it's damn close to a Jedi trick.
    • TheBrain21, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Spectral analysis. They split the light coming from the planet using a prism and study the broken up light. Different materials give off different light.
  • zodieman, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2All that money and effort and they can't detect any intelligent life forms in the White House...
    • zeabu, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1If there is none, that's quite hard.
    • TheBrain21, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life here..."
  • bjs3171, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1"ah yes, that molecule right over there!"
    "where??"
    "are you looking through the *telescope*?
    "YES!"
    "NO. the *hubble* telescope!"
    "oh...oh yeah! THAT molecule!"
  • dungar, on 03/20/2008, -9/+1anybody who thinks finding a molecule of methane in space is interesting must be a ***** retarded douchebag. no, make that ***** douchbag.
  • bubba9999, on 03/20/2008, -1/+2I think we should bomb them. They're probably harboring hydrocarbon terrorists.
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Does this mean real organic, or the fake CA molested definition of organic
  • asherchang, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1That's cool, but not that significant once you consider that INTERSTELLAR organic molecules have been detected in the past. Did you know they found ethyl alcohol in deep space?
    • garryw, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Russians for sure, they love the Vodka.
  • wracker92, on 03/20/2008, -1/+0In space no one can hear you fart but now we can detect it using a billion dollar telescope. That that Ridley Scott!
  • alvarezg, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1What do the creationists say about this? Was fart gas divinely created on Earth?
  • BCCM, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0Fantastic! If we can find a molecule in an extrasolar planet, perhaps we can find some gray matter inside the heads of the House Science Committee and at NASA to try to figure out why NASA has engaged in censorship against certain independent researchers.

    http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary. ...
    SRD
    www.bccmeteorites.com
  • TheBrain21, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Well, lets see...

    There's approx. 100 billion (with a B) stars in our average sized galaxy.

    If we use that approximation for all galaxies (which I will go out and say is NOT true, but it doesn't make much difference in the big picture), then in our local group of galaxies (creatively called the Local Group)
  • TheBrain21, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Sorry I messed up my other comment.

    100 billion stars in Milky Way X 35 galaxies in our local galaxy cluster X .40 of stars have planets = 140,000,000,000 stars with planets in our local group. If the chances are 1:1,000,000,000 of life forming on a planet, then there's 140 planets with life on them in our local group of galaxies. multiply that by whatever many galaxy clusters you wanna say are in our cosmos, and bam. We are statistically not alone.
  • markopyhajarvi, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Good submission! Dugg.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.