Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Source of icy moon's heat

Scientists believe heat from radioactive decay inside a tiny, icy Saturn moon shortly after it formed billions of years ago may explain why geysers are erupting from the surface today. The Cassini spacecraft last year beamed back dazzling images of Yellowstone-like geysers spewing from a warm section on Enceladus, raising the possibility that the moon, which has an overall surface temperature of about minus 330 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 201 degrees Celsius), may have an internal environment suitable for primitive life. However, scientists have been stumped by the origin of Enceladus' interior heat. Now a new model suggests ancient radioactive decay played a key role in shaping the moon's warm south pole region where plumes of water vapor and ice crystals periodically vent. According to the theory, Enceladus formed some 4.5 billion years ago by the mixing of ice and rock containing the radioactive isotopes aluminum and iron. Over a period of several million years, the rapid decay of the two radioactive elements produced a burst of heat that resulted in a rocky core enclosed by an ice sheet. Over time, the remaining decomposition in the core further warmed and melted the moon's interior. If confirmed, the model suggests Enceladus possesses the necessary ingredients to support life -- a stable heat source, organic materials and liquid water. For the full article: Click Here .

Anyone placing bets on where the first ET life will be found - Enceladus or Europa? The environments look similar, even if causes are different.

Wasn't the first ET life already found in meteorites or is this still part of controversial pieces of evidence?

MrBIGG, I'm think you're referring to the controversy about the meteorite designated 'ALH 84001'

Here's a link that deals with that:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/meteorites/life.html

From the link:

"To summarize, the Science paper of McKay and co-workers leaves many unanswered question. As they forthrightly state, their paper is NOT PROOF OF LIFE ON MARS. Their paper presents evidence that, on its surface, is consistent with ancient life on Mars; McKay and co-workers believe that the evidence is more consistent with life on Mars than any other explanation or explanations. Almost all of their conclusions can be disputed and will likely be disputed.

From my perspective, their strongest conclusion is that ALH 84001 contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that formed on Mars. These PAH molecules may be related to martian micro-organisms, as McKay and co-workers suggest. The PAHs might also have formed without assistance from living organisms, in what might be called a prebiotic organic chemistry. Proof of a prebiotic organic chemistry system in Mars would be nearly as exciting as proof of life itself."

Allan H. Treiman, Lunar and Planetary Institute [NASA-funded]
August 21, 1996

To sum up: There's no proof that there is, or has ever been, life on Mars.

My bet is that they'll find it on whichever one they send the appropriate experiments to first. And then they'll find it on the other, too. And then they'll find it on Mars, too.

w

I'm with you Wayne.

And as I've said before ... I think that the level of incompetence in not finding it before now is a measure of the fear many hold in finding out that we're not all that special.

That may well be true, but I don't understand the fear experienced by anthropocentrics. I suppose I have an emotional axe to grind too, though; I'd be ecstatic to learn that the universe is awash with life - and I can't explain that, either.