The search could be on. A new study suggests that Hubble鈥檚 successor, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), has the potential to search three freshly discovered planets to see if anyone lives there.
The planets, which orbit a star just 40 light years from Earth, were discovered last month. Researchers suggest the JWST could probe their atmospheres for signs of life after it launches in 2018.
But will it? This is the latest salvo in a debate raging through the astronomy community. Astronomers are finally on the technological brink of being able to answer the question: Are we alone? Although the answer could be transformative and NASA cites the search as part of its primary mission, the quest so far has been slow and indirect 鈥� and many think that鈥檚 not enough.
Advertisement
鈥淣ASA has been shameful in not searching for extraterrestrial life and at the same time claiming that鈥檚 one of the motivations for their programmes,鈥� says , an astrobiologist at NASA鈥檚 Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California. 鈥淭he Mars programme counts life as the reason for the programme, and then the missions NASA implements don鈥檛 even approach the question at all.鈥�
McKay cites the example of the upcoming Mars 2020 rover, which will primarily search for signs that life once existed on the Red Planet. Rather than hunting for alien microbes today, the rover will set aside samples that NASA hopes some future mission will bring back to Earth, where we can probe them for signs of past or present life. McKay thinks this is a terrible mistake.
And he鈥檚 not alone. As well as many other scientists who support the search for life elsewhere, it tops the lists of the most exciting questions driving science today for people outside the field.
鈥淭o some extent we鈥檙e all publicly funded scientists, or the majority of us are, so what the public wants us to find out is I think a legitimate motivation for trying something, even if it鈥檚 difficult,鈥� says at the University of Oxford, who led the study on exoplanet detection with the JWST.
Slow and steady
But others don鈥檛 think research should rely on a popularity contest. 鈥淲hile I am extremely grateful for the public鈥檚 excitement about looking for life 鈥� and indeed I think we should 鈥� I also think that NASA and other federal research agencies deserve the latitude to make strategic decisions that may or may not reflect the current desires of the public,鈥� says , a research scientist on the project.
All NASA鈥檚 apparent dawdling may be a vital step on a long path. 鈥淗ow do we even begin to look for life?鈥� asks , the director of space policy at the Planetary Society in Pasadena, California. He thinks we need to first characterise what Mars was like before we can know where life might have evolved and what form it might have taken. Only then can we actively look for it.
This point of view calls for a slow, steady pace. 鈥淣ASA鈥檚 next step is prudent: it鈥檚 slow, it鈥檚 methodical, it鈥檚 scientific,鈥� says , who chaired the science definition team for the Mars 2020 mission.
That鈥檚 not to say Mustard and others are thrilled with the slow rate. 鈥淚 am impatient because I don鈥檛 think they鈥檙e going fast enough,鈥� he says. 鈥淚 think they鈥檙e taking the right steps. This mission will be good, but the follow-up mission should be on the drawing board right now.鈥�
Any signs of life?
The risk that we won鈥檛 find anything is also high. It鈥檚 possible that life doesn鈥檛 exist on Mars today, and perhaps it never did. Those new exoplanets, too, might not be water-soaked worlds teeming with life. To even check would require 30 hours of observations with the JWST spread across five years 鈥� a big commitment for one of the world鈥檚 most sought-after telescopes.
And if we focus on those planets to the exclusion of others yet still find nothing, would it be worth it? The search for life, after all, is not NASA鈥檚 sole mission.
鈥淭he search for life is a fundamental question about what it means to be human, what it means to be alive, what is our place in the universe 鈥� so there鈥檚 a tremendous drive to answer this,鈥� Carr says. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 not the only question that has value. Understanding Mars, even if life never arose there, is incredibly valuable if for no other reason than to understand why Earth ended up different.鈥�
Ultimately, even those who are frustrated by NASA鈥檚 slow and strategic steps should have faith in the process, says Dreier.
鈥淚 trust science,鈥� he says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not a blind faith, but the process of science has gotten us this far for a lot of reasons. And I think it鈥檚 important to have confidence in the process.鈥�
Reference:
