Fw: Carnegie Mellon Scientist Receives NASA Award to Develop Probes to Detect Li
- Original Message - From: Ron Baalke - Mars Exploration Program Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Carnegie Mellon Scientist Receives NASA Award to Develop Probes to Detect Life on Mars http://www.cmu.edu/PR/releases03/030210_mars.htmlCarnegie Mellon Press ReleaseContact: Eric Sloss412-268-5765For immediate release:February 10, 2003Carnegie Mellon Scientist Receives NASA Award to Develop Probes to DetectLife on MarsPITTSBURGH - Carnegie Mellon University scientist Professor Alan Waggoner hasreceived a three-year $900,000 award from NASA to developfluorescent-dye-based systems to be used in remote operations to detect lifeon Mars and in other hostile or distant environments.As part of the grant, Waggoner's team will develop new fluorescent dyes thatbind to the common building blocks of life - DNA, lipids, carbohydrates andproteins. The grant also provides funds to develop an optical system thatcan spray these fluorescent dyes on a region of soil to detect life forms inthe environment. This system is expected to be completed within severalyears. The Waggoner team is collaborating with researchers at CarnegieMellon's Robotics Institute; the final life detection system should beversatile enough to couple with different types of rovers used in planetaryexpeditions.The scope of the grant includes developing dyes and testing theirfeasibility in local environments, as well as areas hostile to life, such asthe Atacama Desert in northern Chile, where relatively few pockets of lifepersist. Given its Mars-like terrain, the Atacama is a favorite laboratorytesting ground for astrobiologists."It's tremendously exciting to extend the work of our team and contribute tointerplanetary searches for life," says Waggoner, who directs the MolecularBiosensor and Imaging Center (MBIC) at the Mellon College of Science. "Webelieve that these methods will provide the most sensitive means ofdetecting life with a remote device."The technology has potential beyond Mars, according to Shmuel Weinstein,project manager. "The scientific impact of our work begins on earth, withthe ability to detect very low concentrations of living and dead organisms."Once developed, this system could work in circumstances such as biohazardoussettings or extreme environments, where an automated, unmanned device wouldbe ideal.Developing fluorescent markers to detect life in space for this projectpresents many technical challenges, according to Gregory Fisher, projectimaging scientist. Fluorescent markers that bind to their targets must standout against what could be a blinding background of natural mineralluminescence.Additionally, detecting low levels of light emitted from relatively feworganisms could be difficult against reflected light that is originallyemitted from the optical instrument. Just as big a challenge is creating adetection system that resembles a good epi-fluorescence microscope used onearth, but one with few, if any, moveable parts. The completed system willneed to focus using a camera range finder (like those found in hand-heldcameras), in addition to providing some additional processing of its owncamera images."Other testing methods require considerably more sampling or are lesssensitive than what we propose. We don't know of other remote methodscapable both of detecting low levels of micro-organisms and visualizing highlevels incorporated as biofilms or colonies," adds Fisher.Additionally, notes Lauren Ernst, project chemist, Martian life forms maycontain different structural components than those found on earth. "We wantour reagents to visualize any form of life that might be present. We willdefine fluorescent probes to detect the smallest amounts of DNA, lipids,carbohydrates and proteins."For example, Ernst will design fluorescent tags to the materials containingpeptide bonds, a signature feature of proteins. Other tags will target avariety of sugars that comprise carbohydrates. Moreover, these tags will notbe specific for left- or right-handed structures. Such "handedness," orchirality, characterizes proteins and other compounds on earth, but Martianlife could exhibit opposite chirality from our own.Other members of Waggoner's team who will be performing critical research aspart of this grant include Christoffer Lagerholm and Byron Ballou.The fluorescent marker technology proposed is based on the extensiveexpertise of the MBIC at Carnegie Mellon. Established 17 years ago with amultimillion-dollar grant from the National Science Foundation, MBICcombines research on molecular and cellular sensors along with research inimaging and computation to understand biological function. The Waggoner teamis world renowned for developing widely commercialized cyanine dyefluorescent labeling reagents that have played a significant role in thehuman genome project and are the main dyes used to analyze gene activity inthe regulation of cells and tissues.For more information about the grant or MBIC, please
What's Next
This is really addressed to Bruce Moomaw, but this is the only email address I have for him. No, it's not about Europa, so don't get on my case. I know that, but this is the only way I know to get my thoughts out. Bruce, you have repeatedly bashed the space shuttle and the ISS as colossal boondoggles, and I have often taken issue with that position for a variety of reasons which I thought at the time were valid. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, I'm beginning to agree with you and the others who question the sense of continuing something that is not only not producing anything worthwhile, but is diverting badly needed resources from finding better ways to explore space--or "explore" it at all. Please see my question at the end and see if you can come up with anything. A number of the things I've been reading on the internet following the Columbia disaster have to do with arguments for and against keeping the shuttle/station program alive.One comment seems to be a lament that the public just doesn't seem to care all that much about the program, whatever it is. Joe Latrell went to his kids' schoolroom to talk with the kids about the disaster and was met with indefference--"Thanks for dropping by," I think the response was.Why? Because as far as the shuttle/station is concerned, there is NO exploration taking place! We've been circling the earth at 240 miles up for years, and aside from the Hubble repair mission and the Columbia research mission, we haven't gone anywhere or done anything new. So what's to get excited about? Damn little.That raises the question of whether we have learned all we can from the station, and very little, if anything, new will come from spending billions more. Same is true of the shuttle. True, it's the only thing we have, but maybe the time HAS come to bring the folks home, lock the door, and go up only as often as necessary to boost the station back up to the proper orbit. I would favor keeping it there as a relay point for trips further out, but maintaining a crew seems to be a waste of time and human power. One thing it could be used for is a "space classroom" for future mission personnel so they could get the feel of microgravity, space suits, and tool use. Pretty expensive, but maybe worth it.In an article on Slashdot.org, (www.slashdot.org) Gregory Benford said that we have not conquered two things we must have before we even think seriously about going to Mars: (1) a true self-supporting biosphere, and (2) an artificial gravity that could be produced by centrifugal force with the habitat module on one end of a tether and a spent container of appropriate weight on the other. He commented that Russians who have set the endurance records in microgravity never have regained full mobility, and even those who have been up for six months or more are still having problems. Check out the whole article.So what's to do? Maybe the answer IS to stop spending more billions on a program which has essentially run its course and put the money into development of better propulsion systems, such as nuclear or ion drives, better comm and computer controls, and so on. Prepare to go to the Moon and set up permanent housekeeping so we can develop the true biosphere we need and get used to living, working, and playing in reduced gravity.Any ideas on how we get this brilliant and insightful thinking to the decision makers?Ad Astra!Gail Leatherwood
Re: What's Next
- Original Message - From: G B Leatherwood To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:16 PM Subject: What's Next This is really addressed to Bruce Moomaw, but this is the only email address I have for him. No, it's not about Europa, so don't get on my case. I know that, but this is the only way I know to get my thoughts out. Bruce, you have repeatedly bashed the space shuttle and the ISS as colossal boondoggles, and I have often taken issue with that position for a variety of reasons which I thought at the time were valid. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, I'm beginning to agree with you and the others who question the sense of continuing something that is not only not producing anything worthwhile, but is diverting badly needed resources from finding better ways to explore space--or explore it at all. Please see my question at the end and see if you can come up with anything. A number of the things I've been reading on the internet following the Columbia disaster have to do with arguments for and against keeping the shuttle/station program alive. One comment seems to be a lament that the public just doesn't seem to care all that much about the program, whatever it is. Joe Latrell went to his kids' schoolroom to talk with the kids about the disaster and was met with indefference--Thanks for dropping by, I think the response was. Why? Because as far as the shuttle/station is concerned, there is NO exploration taking place! We've been circling the earth at 240 miles up for years, and aside from the Hubble repair mission and the Columbia research mission, we haven't gone anywhere or done anything new. So what's to get excited about? Damn little. That raises the question of whether we have learned all we can from the station, and very little, if anything, new will come from spending billions more. Same is true of the shuttle. True, it's the only thing we have, but maybe the time HAS come to bring the folks home, lock the door, and go up only as often as necessary to boost the station back up to the proper orbit. I would favor keeping it there as a relay point for trips further out, but maintaining a crew seems to be a waste of time and human power. One thing it could be used for is a space classroom for future mission personnel so they could get the feel of microgravity, space suits, and tool use. Pretty expensive, but maybe worth it. In an article on Slashdot.org, (www.slashdot.org) Gregory Benford said that we have not conquered two things we must have before we even think seriously about going to Mars: (1) a true self-supporting biosphere, and (2) an artificial gravity that could be produced by centrifugal force with the habitat module on one end of a tether and a spent container of appropriate weight on the other. He commented that Russians who have set the endurance records in microgravity never have regained full mobility, and even those who have been up for six months or more are still having problems. Check out the whole article. So what's to do? Maybe the answer IS to stop spending more billions on a program which has essentially run its course and put the money into development of better propulsion systems, such as nuclear or ion drives, better comm and computer controls, and so on. Prepare to go to the Moon and set up permanent housekeeping so we can develop the true biosphere we need and get used to living, working, and playing in reduced gravity. Any ideas on how we get this brilliant and insightful thinking to the decision makers? Well, first, my E-mail adress is [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Second, I've got another piece coming out in SpaceDaily soon elaborating on my reasoning in that bitter editorial I published the night of the accident. Simon says he'll shorten it from the original (about 6500 words) down to 3000, but I'll be happy to send you the original if you want. I tried to cover ALL aspects of the argument. Basically, our feelings are a lot closer together than you might think. My major objection to the Shuttle and the Station is that they're sucking money out of ALL useful aspects of the space program, including a redesigned manned ship for those infrequent occasions over the next two decades in which manned orbital spaceflight might be justified -- which could be both cheaper and far safer than the Shuttle -- and also out of the technical work genuinely useful for any preparations for manned flights into the Solar System in the more distant future, as well (of course) as out of the unmanned missions which will be much more scientifically productive (and, I think, equally inspirational to the general public) over the next few decades. I've attached a reading list to the article in which people with far more engineering and scientifid background than I have reached the same conclusions -- and proposed new and more productive paths to follow. Back to Europa: I'm still having hell's own time scraping up any information on this proposed JIMO
On/Off Topic
Since we seem to have so much trouble reining in those who have something to say about space exploration, how about this? Suppose we either just change the name of the group, or keep the name for its intended purpose and just stop worrying about what is discussed? A. This is a wonderfully diverse group with a sincere desire to foster efforts in getting off the planet, and B. There is actually very little to discuss productively about Europa, at least for the foreseeable future. I'd like to see the group continue because it's such a rich resource, and current events discussion could help keep the interest of the members up in the doldrum periods of Europa interest. Please be assured this is in no way a criticism of our site administrator--his is a thankless job at best, and we should all give him a big "Well Done!" for putting up with us for as long as he has. What thinkest thou? Gail Leatherwood
RE: On/Off Topic
There IS stuff going on regarding Europa (i.e., this new Prometheus Project), but people are so into flaming about Columbia that, unfortunately, no one seems interested in talking about Europa. (Ive tried.) One of the difficult things Ive had to learn about life is that people have different points of view. This doesnt necessarily mean they are ignorant, or evil, or even - wrong. Intelligent, well-informed, well-intentioned people can be presented with the same facts as me, and come to totally different conclusions. Whats worse, rarely will my arguments however well-reasoned convince them that I am right and they are wrong, nor are they likely to convince me. So Ive given up trying; I still enjoy the satisfaction of knowing, deep down inside, that I AM right! Having said that, I still believe that the shuttle was the best we could come up with at the time given the constraints of technology and budget, that the ISS (or something like it) is a necessary stepping stone to a permanent human presence in space, and the more wonderful unmanned exploration of the solar system gets, the more it whets my appetite for going there in person. I cant imagine anything as exciting as the thought of living in a spacefaring civilization. Maybe someday John Sheff Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Cambridge, MA 02138 Voice: 617-495-4671 Fax: 617-496-0193 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/
Europa discussion
Heres an example of people that are talking about Europa. I wish this group was discussing it. Astrobiologists Say Prometheus Jupiter Mission Should Have Landing Craft By Leonard David Senior Space Writer posted: 12:30 pm ET 11 February 2003 TEMPE, ARIZONA -- Scientists here at the NASA Astrobiology Institute General Meeting 2003 this week have welcomed the news that NASAs Project Prometheus work on nuclear electric propulsion has picked as a flagship mission the exploration of the icy moons of Jupiter. To be flown within a decade, a nuclear-powered probe would search for evidence of global subsurface oceans on Jupiter's three icy Galilean moons, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. These oceans may harbor organic material, with the spacecraft moving from moon to moon, training an array of equipment on each world. Scientists have long thought Europa is a prime candidate for life. Its one of the few places in the solar system where liquid water may be found. That being the case, a new phase of exploring the moon should include surface landers, contend astrobiologists meeting here. Site for life A special focus group on future Europa exploration is reviewing plans to understand better the moon and its promise of being a site for life. Any future exploration of Europa about the size of Earths Moon -- should spotlight the identification of sites where signs of past or present life can be found and studied. Thats the view of Ron Greeley, a geology professor at Arizona State University (ASU). Greeley underscored the growing body of evidence that beneath Europas icy crust there is an environment favorable for present life or where signs of past life may be preserved. Wanted: landers NASAs decision to move out on a nuclear-powered mission to Jupiter has created some grumbling, however. Most people, myself included, view this as a good thing, Greeley told SPACE.com. The grumbling stems mostly from the skepticism that the first mission would take place on the time-table given because the needed development is substantial, he said. But once the capability is developed, then there is high potential for science, not only with the ability to shift from one object to another, but also with the potential to carry landed packages, Greeley said. There is a consensus among Europa experts that getting something onto the surface of the moon early is key -- preferably as part of the orbiter mission itself -- rather than doing missions serially, Greeley said. Task at hand Europa has been the subject of repeated examination by the robotic Galileo spacecraft. That data has been critical in showing that Europa is home for a salty liquid ocean. But Greeley and other researchers here believe future studies of the moon will need to focus on surface missions. The task at hand is agreeing on areas across Europa where geologic processes have caused the icy crust to melt, and where organisms would be protected from radiation and provided with an adequate food supply. Now that the Galileo mission is nearly completed, it is time for researchers to sift through the images to shape the current state-of-knowledge about the satellite [of Jupiter] and pose scientific questions to be addressed by future missions, said Patricio Figueredo, an ASU researcher studying the chances for life-on-Europa.
Re: On/Off Topic
I didn't mean to imply that the shuttle/station wasn't the best that could be done at the time, although some evidence to the contrary has been produced during this past week. We know that many decisions about the whole program, from the earliest responses to Sputnik to actual construction of the ISS and its mission definitions, were political, not technical or scientific. We HAVE learned a lot, but my thesis is becoming that we've "been there, done that, let's move on to the next stage." Let's not put any more resources into something that is aged and unproductive; something that is preventing other avenues of exploration. Gail - Original Message - From: John Sheff To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:43 PM Subject: RE: On/Off Topic There IS stuff going on regarding Europa (i.e., this new Prometheus Project), but people are so into flaming about Columbia that, unfortunately, no one seems interested in talking about Europa. (Ive tried.) One of the difficult things Ive had to learn about life is that people have different points of view. This doesnt necessarily mean they are ignorant, or evil, or even - wrong. Intelligent, well-informed, well-intentioned people can be presented with the same facts as me, and come to totally different conclusions. Whats worse, rarely will my arguments however well-reasoned convince them that I am right and they are wrong, nor are they likely to convince me. So Ive given up trying; I still enjoy the satisfaction of knowing, deep down inside, that I AM right! Having said that, I still believe that the shuttle was the best we could come up with at the time given the constraints of technology and budget, that the ISS (or something like it) is a necessary stepping stone to a permanent human presence in space, and the more wonderful unmanned exploration of the solar system gets, the more it whets my appetite for going there in person. I cant imagine anything as exciting as the thought of living in a spacefaring civilization. Maybe someday John Sheff Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Cambridge, MA 02138 Voice: 617-495-4671 Fax: 617-496-0193 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/
Re: Europa discussion
- Original Message - From: John Sheff To: Europa Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:27 PM Subject: Europa discussion Here's an example of people that are talking about Europa. I wish this group was discussing it. Astrobiologists Say Prometheus Jupiter Mission Should Have Landing Craft By Leonard David Senior Space Writer posted: 12:30 pm ET 11 February 2003 Well, what had turned this group moribund was simply the total lack of recent developments where plans for future Europa exploration were concerned. Now that's finally ended. JIMO, and whether or not it is the best form for the next stage of Europa exploration, is a superb topic for debate, and as soon as I learn more about the damn thing I intend to start talking. But at the moment I simply don't have enough information on the overall design of the mission (which may not still be very vague) -- or on the design of its nuclear-electric drive -- to hazard an opinion quite yet. Needless to say, I intend to start finding out fast. There have also been a number of very interesting recent scientific papers on the nature of Europa's environment which I intend to list for this group as soon as I get a moment's chance. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
