Plan B From Outer Space

I'm always fascinated by the continuing attempts to circumvent Fermi's Paradox, the problem that no matter how probable we calculate the existence of space aliens, they never quite show up. The latest, which is something that's actually turned up on the Science Channel in recent years, is that they're probably hiding in oceans of warm water under ammonia ice on [name a moon of Jupiter or Saturn, or maybe Pluto.] Via Instapundit, which is fond of this sort of thing, I found this:

Forget Mars—Jupiter’s moon Europa is one of the most promising worlds in the solar system to look for alien life, in large part because it boasts a huge liquid ocean sitting below a sheet of ice. Although Europa is just one-fourth the diameter of Earth, its ocean may have twice as much water as our planet’s oceans combined. And where there is water, there is the chance for life as we know it to settle down.

In fact, that's the whole argument. I used to admire that talent. My father, checking my homework assignments like "write a 250 word essay on ____", would complain that I'd fallen short with only 150 words. I'd answer that was all I had to say. "No," he'd reply. "You have to expand. You have to take what you've said and expand on it, keep expanding on it", as he made a gesture like the guy who expands on the size of the fish he's caught. That was one of the lessons I learned in my childhood, that I needed to be the kind of guy who could expand on things.

They sent me to an Ivy League school and wound up immensely disappointed that I never learned to expand on things. They thought that was the kind of thing you were supposed to learn there. They were probably right. I guess they could have consoled themselves that at least when they sent me there, learning how to do that was a lot cheaper than it is now.

But I always admired people who could do that. The author of the piece in the link has that ability that I never could master. He explains,

However, it might not be as daunting as we think. A new study published in Nature Communications on Tuesday reveals that the icy shell itself might be much more porous than previously thought. In fact, the ice might be home to multiple pockets of water that could be habitable to life as well.

The key to these new findings? Greenland. New data collected with ice-penetrating radar shows the formation of “double ridge” features in the Greenland ice sheet—features that are present on Europa as well. The researchers behind the new paper believe that the mechanism for how these double ridges formed in Greenland ought to apply to Europa—which would suggest that liquid water is more present on the Jovian moon than we could have ever dreamed of.

And all you need to create life is water, right? Just get some plain ol' H2O and let it sit in a pot for about 18 gazillion years, and voilà, life! Which runs up against Fermi's Paradox, that if it's so probable, why aren't we seeing it?

Actually, I've run into a fair number of articles lately that say there's little to say on the subject, like this one:

PERTH, Australia — The quest to find alien life in the cosmos has come up empty in one of the biggest searches to date. Researchers in Australia say their latest project scanned billions of stars and 144 known exoplanets for signs of alien broadcasts — but ultimately found nothing.

Or this one:

NASA has discovered more than 5,000 planets outside of our solar system – but so far, Earth is the only one that appears to have the right conditions for human life.

NASA said it has confirmed 5,005 exoplanets – or planets outside of our solar system. Most are in a very small region outside of our galaxy, the Milky Way. And by "small," NASA means within thousands of light-years. One light year is 5.88 trillion miles.

The closest known exoplanet to Earth, Proxima Centauri b, is about four light-years away.

Here's the conundrum. NASA doesn't come right out and say that a core objective is to find alien life, but it implies it strongly in the wording of its mission statement:

NASA vision statement is “to discover and expand knowledge for the benefit of humanity."

. . . Evidence shows that NASA has been successful in satisfaction of the first component in this vision statement. The company prides of pioneering a wide range of discoveries such as the feasibility of life in other planets. Although this is futuristic, the most impactful discoveries comprise the ones that have an immediate and direct impact on the lives of people in the contemporary era.

How has NASA demonsrated "the feasibility of life in other planets?" Its own studies like the one linked just above suggest that gosh darn it, no matter how hard we look, we can't seem to find any. And how has this non-discovery had any "immediate and direct impact on the lives of people"? Well, I guess if you look at NASA's payroll, and the university payrolls supported by NASA grants, I guess you could say so. NASA's brought up generations of people who are able to expand on things.

Heck, some of them have gotten rich.