User talk:Rowan Forest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deep groundwater system on Mars?[edit]

Of possible interest? => In March 2019, scientists reported evidence that suggests the planet Mars, in some near-equatorial regions, currently contains a deep groundwater system.[1][2]

ALSO - In April 2019, scientists reported confirming the presence of methane on the planet Mars, and determining that the source of the methane likely came from an ice sheet about 300 miles east of Gale Crater. The Curiosity rover is currently exploring Gale Crater.[3][4][5] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

ALSO - Researchers reported the possibility of ancient life on the planet Mars based on microscopic studies of the Allan Hills 77005 (ALH-77005) Martian meteorite found on Earth.[6][7] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Thanks. I took a short break from the digital world. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Abotalib, Abotalib Z.; Heggy, Essam (28 March 2019). "A deep groundwater origin for recurring slope lineae on Mars". Nature Geoscience. 12: 235–241. Retrieved 1 April 2019.
  2. ^ University of Southern California (28 March 2019). "New evidence of deep groundwater on Mars - Researchers suggests that deep groundwater can generate surface streams on Mars". EurekAlert!. Retrieved 1 April 2019.
  3. ^ Giuranna, Marco; et al. (1 April 2019). "Independent confirmation of a methane spike on Mars and a source region east of Gale Crater". Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/s41561-019-0331-9. Retrieved 1 April 2019. Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  4. ^ Galey, Patrick (1 April 2019). "Scientists find likely source of methane on Mars". Retrieved 1 April 2019.
  5. ^ Chang, Kenneth (1 April 2019). "Something on Mars Is Producing Gas Usually Made by Living Things on Earth - Mars emits methane, a European orbiter has confirmed. But scientists can't say yet whether the source is geological or biological". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 April 2019.
  6. ^ De Gruyter (4 April 2019). "Life on Mars? - A Martian meteorite discovered 40 years ago delivers fresh evidence that life once existed on Mars". EurekAlert!. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
  7. ^ Gyollai, Ildikó; et al. (29 March 2019). "Mineralized biosignatures in ALH-77005 Shergottite - Clues to Martian Life?". De Gruyter. Retrieved 4 April 2019.

Page history[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello. When I look at the History tab of any page, I am now seeing additional functions at the top that I do not want to see or use. They appear in a large rectangle and state: "Show revision history" and has two fields bellow to complete. The first field states: "To date: " The second field states: "Tag filter". I do not want to use or see this option but I am unable to inactivate every time I open a History tab. Any help making it go away will be appreciated. Thanks Rowan Forest (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Rowan Forest, this is due to a recent change to the MediaWiki software. There is some discussion about it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Hideous history page. – bradv🍁 01:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at SpaceIL shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Rowan Forest - Sorry to template you like this. I'm doing this in order to be a completely neutral party and to be fair to all users involved, and make sure that everyone is treated exactly the same (which includes leaving the same warning for everyone). :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Never mind; please disregard the warning I left you above. I just realized that this IP user is part of a range that I just blocked earlier today due to IP-hopping vandalism, disruption, and other abuse. I apologize for leaving the warning and messages above before realizing the connection here... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
No problem. That was one nasty disruptor that knows the strings, and unless the administrator looks into the story, they usually get away with it. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Methane on Mars?[edit]

If interested, latest refs about methane on Mars?[1][2] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Latest on finding methane on Mars? => On 22 June 2019, scientists working with the Curiosity rover on the planet Mars reported the detection of a significant amount of methane (21 parts per billion), a possible indicator of life.[3][4]
@Drbogdan: Thanks. It is always better to hear it from NASA, without hype and wild click-bait interpretations. The burning question is: Will ExoMars TGO finally detect this "high" concentration (21 ppb)??? It is supposed to be a lot more sensitive (~ 0.05 ppv) than Curiosity's sensors, but it may be so only in the middle and upper atmosphere, because the TGO always comes back negative. Maybe there is a very efficient sink in the middle and upper atmosphere that prevents its detection by the TGO? My suspicion is that this sink (chemical or radiation) acts within hours not ~300 years, because the TGO has never seen it in real time. Another possible but scary possibility is that the TGO methane detection is also flawed, as the Indian MOM orbiter is. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: Thank you for your excellent comments - you may be right about your noted TGO concerns - either a methane sink in the Martian atmosphere of some sort, or a flawed detector in some way - nonetheless - seems time may be needed to process more data - including that from the TGO - in which case, all may be found to be ok after all - guess we'll have to wait-and-see what develops - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: Published just minutes ago:[5] "The measurement deepens the mystery of why a European Space Agency probe sent to Mars to nail down the origins of the planet's methane has so far found no traces of the gas. One possible explanation is that any methane released on the planet is broken down before it reaches the altitude of the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO)." Well, the gas does not have to literally reach the TGO, but certain altitude above ground. I believe its spectrometers use solar occultation to read the atmospheric spectra, and it may not work well close to the ground/horizon. Interesting to see that someone else also thinks the methane sink acts significantly faster than ~400 years. Although it is early to hear a detailed report, the silence by the TGO science team is not comforting. They would be ecstatic to have their first detection and note that their studies are underway. But complete silence is not reassuring.Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: - Thanks for the followup[5] - yes - a word or two from the TGO team may help of course - but seems we'll just have to wait-and-see atm - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A bit more on the latest methane detection on Mars[6] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC) - very latest NYT followup news report[7] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC) @Drbogdan: I read somewhere that the Europeans (Mars Express and TGO) have not yet downloaded their data from the orbiters, so that explains their current silence. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: - If interested, three more very recent refs about methane on Mars[8][9][10][11] - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Noticed that it is almost 2 months since the last reported methane release, and no news from the ExoMars TGO team. My guess is that if the results came back negative they would have said so, and therefore, they are processing the data and resulting paper. Whatchathink? Rowan Forest (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Thanks for your comments - and reminder - yes - I agree with your thinking about this - there may be some data processing and a research paper in preparation I would think as well - hopefully we'll see something soon about this - iac - Thanks for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: Seems a source of methane on Mars may have been ruled out[12] - but not (yet) a biological source - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I never read anything about wind erosion "releasing methane", on the contrary, there is a hypothesis on the wind facilitating a powerful sink by the silica in the regolith. Thanks. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Chang, Kenneth (10 April 2019). "A Gas Could Hint at Signs of Life on Mars. Why Hasn't a New Spacecraft Found It? - Two spacecraft have detected methane in the Martian air. But the Trace Gas Orbiter, with more sensitive instruments, has come up empty". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
  2. ^ Korablev, Oleg; et al. (10 April 2019). "No detection of methane on Mars from early ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter observations". Nature. Retrieved 11 April 2019.
  3. ^ Chang, Kenneth (22 June 2019). "NASA Rover on Mars Detects Puff of Gas That Hints at Possibility of Life - The Curiosity mission's scientists picked up the signal this week, and are seeking additional readings from the red planet". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
  4. ^ Good, Andrew; Johnson, Alana (23 June 2019). "Curiosity Detects Unusually High Methane Levels". NASA. Retrieved 23 June 2019.
  5. ^ a b Staff (24 June 2019). "Mars rover's large methane discovery excites scientists". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 June 2019.
  6. ^ Oberhaus, Daniel (24 June 2019). "Is Mars' Methane Spike A Sign Of Life? Here's How We'll Know". Wired. Retrieved 24 June 2019.
  7. ^ Overbye, Dennis (26 June 2019). "With a Poof, Mars Methane Is Gone - Last week, NASA's Curiosity rover detected a belch of natural gas on the red planet. The gas has since dissipated, leaving only a mystery". The New York Times. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  8. ^ Aarhus University (2 July 2019). "Methane vanishing on Mars: Danish researchers propose new mechanism as an explanation - An interdisciplinary research group from Aarhus University has proposed a previously overlooked physical-chemical process that can explain the rapid disappearance of methane from Mars' atmosphere". EurekAlert!. Retrieved 2 July 2019.
  9. ^ Finster, Kai (2 July 2019). "Methane vanishing on Mars: Aarhus researchers propose new mechanism as an explanation - The processes behind the release and consumption of methane on Mars have been discussed since methane was measured for the first time for approx. 15 years ago. Now, an interdisciplinary research group from Aarhus University has proposed a previously overlooked physical-chemical process that can explain methane's consumption". Aarhus University. Retrieved 2 July 2019.
  10. ^ Thøgersen, Jan; et al. (22 June 2019). "Light on windy nights on Mars: A study of saltation-mediated ionization of argon in a Mars-like atmosphere". Icarus. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.06.025. Retrieved 2 July 2019.
  11. ^ Koren, Marina (3 July 2019). "A Startling Spike on Mars - Methane gas is a potential indicator of life on the red planet, but it's proving difficult to track". The Atlantic. Retrieved 3 July 2019.
  12. ^ Newcastle University (12 August 2019). "Methane not released by wind on Mars, experts find". Retrieved 12 August 2019.

Possible Articles[edit]

I am preparing a few articles that may require for checking by a more experienced editor.

Would it be possible for you to check them out?

Thank you

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Water loss on Mars?[edit]

Recent refs[1][2] seem to help explain some of the loss of water over the years on the planet Mars - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW - seems a lot of water may have been found on Mars?[3][4] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, they already knew of the polar ice cap. I believe the new understanding is that it was deposited in layers along with sand, giving interesting clues to climate change on Mars. Very interesting. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Finding Life on Mars?[edit]

Seeems the best way to find life on Mars may largely depend on the type of Martian rocks studied, according to several references[1][2] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Strange. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Several other refs re the search for life (look for signs of pasta?) on Mars[3][4] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
It's always nice to watch this talk page.Face-smile.svgPaleoNeonate – 02:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Microscopic morphology alone will not do, but it certainly can be a trigger to use the analyzers on it. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


New JAXA mission[edit]

Well, word has been out,[1] so I did a quick update on some pages. JAXA's ISAS division made their pick of the next Large-class mission, and it's the space physics mission, LiteBIRD. Also chosen was a Medium-class mission called JASMINE, an IR astrometry mission[2] (similar in function to ESA's Gaia spacecraft). Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hms1103: thanks. I may slow down my edits for the summer. All the best. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for my recent absence, there were some matters at hand (hint: a Japanese fiscal year starts every April). In the past few months several major developments have happened in space exploration, so although I may not be able to make big edits, will try to update things bit by bit. As always, Hms1103 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lunar Ultraviolet Cosmic Imager, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Format: New messages go at the bottom[edit]

Do you have a link to where these types of things are mentioned? Thks, 5Ept5xW (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@5Ept5xW: It is something I learned on the way. I did read it eventually at WP:BOTTOMPOST, but think a more important page for you would be Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For now, accept the feedback from other editors and be patient. You are doing good. Very good. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
You are awesome! How is it possible that a single person knows so much? I am in awe of your contributions to wikipedia. Thank you for making it useful to all of us. Wikina4321 (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wikina4321: I just read science news and some selected journals that are interesting to me. So I don't really "know" all this stuff, I just quote the sources. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Search for ET[edit]

If interested, seems that molecular biologist Gary Ruvkun may be one of those on the front lines in the search for ET these days?[1][2] - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: That is well put. The basic building blocks of DNA/RNA are ubiquitous in interstellar space, in comets and in asteroids. It is possible that once mixed with and incubated for millennia in liquid water, the same prebiotic chemistry, nucleic acid polymers, and protocells will assemble spontaneously on that planet or moon. However, being conservative and considering other types of biochemistry when building life-detection methods is the best way to go, especially for exotic environments like Titan; not so much for Europa and Enceladus. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: Yes - I *entirely* agree as well - very well put - as was your own comments above - for my part, seems well in line with my own thinking about this some years ago (NYT, 2012),[3] which you may be familiar with from one of my earlier notes on Wikipedia - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, SISTINE,[4]a NASA mission, may be of interest - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Another way for searching for ET may be related to the newly created "Nautilus Deep Space Observatory" article[5][6][7] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: If interested, biofluorescence - a newer, maybe better way, to search for ET?[8] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: I think this is well-grounded hypothesis (for biosignatures), and the technology (telescopes) are actually being developed for the expected wavelengths. So I think it is appropriate to add this one in Wikipedia. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: yes - agreed - biofluorescence is particularly interesting to me since one of my earliest research efforts involved this technique to some extent (with catecholamine studies back in the day) - iac - Thanks for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Chotiner, Isaac (8 July 2019). "What If Life Did Not Originate on Earth?". The New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X. Retrieved 9 July 2019.
  2. ^ Ruvkun, Gary (17 April 2019). "YouTube Video (24:32) - Breakthrough Discuss 2019 - What is True for E. coli on Earth Will Be True for Life on Proxima Centauri b". University of Berkeley. Retrieved 9 July 2019.
  3. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (2 December 2012). "Comment - Life Thrives Throughout Universe?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 3 October 2015. Retrieved 9 July 2019.
  4. ^ Hatfield, Miles (2 August 2019). "Shining (Star)light on the Search for Life". NASA. Retrieved 3 August 2019.
  5. ^ University of Arizona (2 August 2019). "A new lens for life-searching space telescopes - University of Arizona researchers have designed a new kind of telescope that is a cheaper, lighter and more powerful option than creating telescopes using ever-larger mirrors. With a fleet of the newly designed space telescopes, they aim to scour a thousand potentially earth-like planets for signs of life". EurekAlert!. Retrieved 5 August 2019.
  6. ^ "A Thousand Earths: A Very Large Aperture, Ultralight Space Telescope Array for Atmospheric Biosignature Surveys". The Astronomical Journal. 158 (2). 29 July 2019. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2631. Retrieved 5 August 2019.
  7. ^ Apai, D.; et al. (2018). "Nautilus DeepSpace Observatory: A Giant Segmented Space Telescope Array for a Galactic Biosignature Survey" (PDF). Universities Space Research Association. Retrieved 5 August 2019.
  8. ^ Cornell University (13 August 2019). "Fluorescent glow may reveal hidden life in the cosmos". EurekAlert!. Retrieved 13 August 2019.

Human evolution[edit]

Thanks again for your *Excellent* help with the "Apidima Cave" article - it's *greatly* appreciated - somewhat related is a possible interestng (at least imo atm) read entitled, "Would humans evolve again if we rewound time?"[1] - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Although evolution is the product of random mutations, it happens in its environmental context and at the level of species; so yes, humans would evolve again given the same (African) environment. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Horton, James (10 July 2019). "Would humans evolve again if we rewound time?". BBC News. Retrieved 11 July 2019.

ITN for Apidima Cave[edit]

Ambox current red.svgOn 14 July 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Apidima Cave, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

SpencerT•C 23:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your edits on Payload (Leser Retroreflector Array(LRA))[edit]

is it a part of payloads? 

If so, why ISRO sites it as passive experiment everywhere on their official site? [1] [2]

In both of these referances, LRA has been categorized as passive AbhiMukh97 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@AbhiMukh97: Please read: "Vikram carries a seismometer, thermal probe, and an instrument to measure variation and density of lunar surface plasma, along with a laser retro-reflector supplied by NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center." Being passive means that it requires no electricity (it is a mirror). It is a payload on the Vikram lander and it is documented as such by ISRO, NASA and the press. I just don't know what your grievance is. Just because it uses no electricity.... Rowan Forest (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Wheather it uses electricity or not is no problem. My only query is why ISRO, on their official page, cited no of payloads for VIKRAM as 3, and Categotized LRA as a passive element(without counting it as a payload) without considering it as a payload. Why didn't they provide the no. of payloads as 4. I hope my query is clear to you. Thank you AbhiMukh97 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@AbhiMukh97: I see. You were relying on a specific official reference. In the end, NASA and ISRO managed a very last minute deal to mount a little LRA on top of the lander (it looks like a little disco ball). Maybe that is why it does not figure in the official ISRO manifest, as it has not been updated. I noticed that in the past, the accomplishments of Chandrayaan-1 in confirming water ice traps were largely attributed by the mass press to one of NASA's instruments on that orbiter. So I understand ISRO's position to make all hardware 100% domestic this time and not undergo the same situation again. But in the end, cooperation with other space agencies is the best way to go and they accepted to carry the LRA. (PS: Take a look at Moon Village, an initiative born out of common sense and economics.) Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


Possible Protocells?[edit]

Several refs[1][2] of possible interest - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Thanks. My mind is lately on some space missions and on Lunar resources, and sometime soon I will likely catch up with the latest in protocell research. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


The first confirmed ever was in 1917[edit]

The 1917 and 1988 detections are now confirmed too. The point here is that the 1992 detection was the first one contemporaneously confirmed. Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, what took place in 1992 for the first time was a confirmation, not a detection. I changed your new wording accordingly. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
For third time: people have dreamed, wondered, and hypothesized of exoplanets for a long time, and the confirmation of the first exoplanet is the keystone. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I've always agreed with that. There was no need to say it three times. But 1992 is not the year of the earliest confirmed detection. It is the year of the earliest confirmation of a detection. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
confirmed detection = confirmation. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Not so. Conjunction in classical logic requires that if something is a detection and is confirmed, then it is a confirmed detection. That is why the first (now) confirmed detection was in 1988. In this case, the now confirmed detection took place in 1988, while its confirmation took place later. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Tardigrades now on moon?[edit]

Besides any human microorganisms left behind on the moon by the Apollo Astronauts, we now learn that tardigrades may be on the moon also? => In August 2019, scientists reported that tardigrades may have survived the April 2019 crash landing on the Moon of Beresheet, a failed Israeli lunar lander.[1][2] - worthy read imo, if interested - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sent in desiccated state (cryptobiotic state) inside tiny capsule. They may remain viable for many years. Worth finding its impact site and sending a crew in 30-50 years when there is a series of bases to retrieve it for analyses. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: Thanks for adding the phrase - it's *greatly* appreciated - a revisit in 30-50 years may be very interesting I would think - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, whenever humans are in the area and have nothing better to do, that would be an interesting dataset. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


OoL on Early Earth?[edit]

Possibly worthy (very) brief OoL article[1] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Nature article[2] re Lokiarchaeota, a possible "lost link" between simple and complex (eukaryote) microorganisms, seems interesting - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
If interested, another related article[3] - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. #3 is fascinating. It is known that liposomes can form spontaneously, but becoming stable is a huge chemical evolutionary step. It may -or not- suggest that aminoacids (proteins) may have preceded nucleic acids. Maybe it suggests they were co-located in membranes simultaneously. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)



Reactivity is measured in dollars and cents. See Dollar (reactivity). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)