The Mosquito as space traveller

I see where this is heading. News heading: "Dark Matter pervading
the universe nothing but swarms of mosquitos"

On Feb 19, 7:32*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Mosquito survives 18 month in outer space on the ISS outside hull:
*http://www.en.rian.ru/analysis/20090218/120203420.html

This has large implications, as now we can see that insects have the ability to travel on a space rock,
or just by themselves using gravity assist, to other planets.

The question now comes up:
Are the aliens already here, are those mosquitos the alien invaders,
sucking our blood, looking for planets with warm blooded lifeforms?

"Tim BandTech.com" wrote:

On Feb 19, 1:32 pm, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
Edward Green wrote:

On Feb 19, 5:32 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Mosquito survives 18 month in outer space on the ISS outside hull:
http://www.en.rian.ru/analysis/20090218/120203420.html

This has large implications, as now we can see that insects have the ability to travel on a space rock,
or just by themselves using gravity assist, to other planets.

The question now comes up:
Are the aliens already here, are those mosquitos the alien invaders,
sucking our blood, looking for planets with warm blooded lifeforms?

It does seem incredible that this mosquito had adaptations for
surviving drought which would allow it to survive in the even harsher
environment of space.

Insects are one of the more prevalent practitioners of
diapause...unusally in a larval state, but some practice
it as adults. The mosquito appears to be one of the
latter so survival of extreme temperatures and/or
desiccation might not be as unusual as it seems at
first glance.

Aha! could this be a catch to the mosquito concept? To enter the
planets atmosphere is must undergo the same buffeting force that the
reentry vehicles undergo? Then even hidden away is some inner bit of
an asteroid how hot does it get?

I expect it gets pretty hot...after all, meteorites routinely
burn up in the atmosphere. An extremophilic bacterium,
especially a sporulator, might stand a chance, but I should
think it would need fairly wide thermal adaptability range.
(My guess is that hyperthermophilic facultative anaerobes
with cryptoendolithic traits might not be the easiest of
creatures to isolate, so we'd probably never know they've
arrived even if they did survive the ride in.)

As for our pesky, blood-sucking friend, the mosquito, I have
my doubts that any arthropod could survive a meteoric trip
through the atmosphere...I don't know exactly how heat re-
sistant the average exoskeleton is, but as any kid with a
magnifying glass can tell you, it doesn't take that much to
make an insect's life uncomfortable.

Deirdre

Dear Jan Panteltje:

On Feb 19, 12:44*pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:18:51 -0800 (PST)) it happened Ian Parker
wrote in
:
....

Good thread by the way...

No, I go by Occam. Evolution (and everything else for
that matter) has taken place in the last 13.7 billion
years. I say this because in the steady state theory
you have panspermia because any event, no matter
how improbable must have occurred once. We
could have neen formed complete - just once.

Yes, but

In the Big Bang evolution has a restricted time. If
the first cell did not evolve on Earth, where did it
evolve? It was 13.7 billion years in the other place
too. This is what I mean by Occam. Occam (in effect)
states that the simplest form of evolution is evolution
on Earth. Therefore we must assume that to be the
case.

Rather, we must try and eliminate that as being the case. It should
be a testable prediction.

if you take the big bang as the beginning.
It seems to me, and maybe here I am again in
conflict with current 'science', that to call 'big bang'
the beginning, is like somebody saying any
supernova was the beginning.

The Big Bang was not an explosion into a pre-existing space, however.
It would also fry any RNA / DNA, as a 3000K hydrogen plasma would well
and truly destroy it.

It may be the beginning for what science can
see today, but maybe we live in a space (I avoid the
word 'universe here, as that has so many concepts
hung on to it), so say a 'space', where many,
perhaps billions of 'Big Bang' like events happened.

What we see extends to a very hot, life ending, plasma.

What was before, and what came after... will we
ever know?

Not without God-like powers, or "hyperspace".

The timescales involved, and what already can
exist out there, imagine, 200 *years* ago we had
no radio, no TV, no cellphones, no airplanes, no
real machines. If big bang was _not_ the
beginning, would not some alien civilisation - to
stay in the current thinking of what we think perhaps
*could* be done, have engineered some DNA, RNA,
maybe even some pre-programmed virus,
programmed in such a way as to carry our
construction plans and spread it around that space
(universe if you must)....

This was central to a Next Generation script...

What about the RNA world hypothesis? This
states that if you have RNA Evolution states
and RNA must be considered therefore to be the
first life. The RNA hypothesis may be right, may
be wrong. It is though a theory of the origin of life
which is consistent with the Big Bang.

The tree of life in fact converges to one point.
Does this mean that there was one organism at
the origin of life. No, in fact it does not. What is
inplied though is that only one ancient organism
has survived to the present day. Most life is after
all extinct. The tree of life does not therefore
invalidate RNA. RNA inplicitly assumes different
types at each stage of life. All these types are
now extinct.

Lastly were dinosaurs warm blooded. We say
they were reptiles and hence cold bloodied. In
fact the dinosauria are a distict class of their
own. The only non extinct dinosaurs (birds) are
not bloodied. I am inclined to believe that the
Ornithpods (including T Rex) were warm
blooded. Now someone argue against that.

Given that the dinosaurs were massive, any sort of internal metabolism
would produce internal heat. Immerse the dinosaur in warm water, and
you don't need much in the way of temperature regulation... and it
would be really easy to kill them.

There are many more issues with dinosaurs,
why were they so big?

Reptiles today are larger the more surface water is around. So the
places they lived would have been very "damp". Additionally, why are
we getting (in general) larger with each successive generation? Maybe
it is something that occurs with dominance, larger makes for a
survival characteristic. They *could* be larger because ambient
oxygen levels appear to have been much higher then.

It takes an incredible amount of force to walk
if you are so heavy, was gravity lower?

No indication the G changed by more than 1 part in 10^8 over 2.2
billion years, based on tidal rhythmites. You weigh almost nothing if
you are up to your neck in water.

Was the air pressure much higher?

Wouldn't help the weight much, but would help circulation.

Were they half under water?

Or more.

Maybe the old earth was much smaller, with
hardly any water, and some big comet hit it,
driving the continents apart, creating oceans,
increasing gravity, that killing all the huge
animals.
Just a thought...

Doesn't fit the available data.

David A. Smith

On a sunny day (Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:22:07 -0600) it happened Deirdre Sholto
Douglas wrote in
:

As for our pesky, blood-sucking friend, the mosquito, I have
my doubts that any arthropod could survive a meteoric trip
through the atmosphere...I don't know exactly how heat re-
sistant the average exoskeleton is, but as any kid with a
magnifying glass can tell you, it doesn't take that much to
make an insect's life uncomfortable.

There are a few differences, first, the final speed at which a mosquito
may fall, is likely very much less then a massive object.
I know all object obey Newton's law, and fall with the same acceleration,
but for example there is a final speed for something in the atmosphere,
due to air resistance, and the mass and momentum it has.
Just drop a dead mosquito from a meter or 2, it sort of falls slowly.

The speed and angle the creature would need to survive, maybe it can move,
and use airobreaking,
Sure the slightest of atmosphere would already slow it.
And it would be falling vertically or with the wind streams at lower altitudes,
warm up, wake up, start flapping its wings, find you and yes I just saw one,
gotta kill it before it gets me.
Maybe they can read to and have Internet :-)
Had not seen one for month... why just now :-)

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:22:07 -0600) it happened Deirdre Sholto
Douglas wrote in
:

As for our pesky, blood-sucking friend, the mosquito, I have
my doubts that any arthropod could survive a meteoric trip
through the atmosphere...I don't know exactly how heat re-
sistant the average exoskeleton is, but as any kid with a
magnifying glass can tell you, it doesn't take that much to
make an insect's life uncomfortable.

There are a few differences, first, the final speed at which a mosquito
may fall, is likely very much less then a massive object.
I know all object obey Newton's law, and fall with the same acceleration,
but for example there is a final speed for something in the atmosphere,
due to air resistance, and the mass and momentum it has.
Just drop a dead mosquito from a meter or 2, it sort of falls slowly.

I'm not going to ask if you've actually run the dead mosquito
experiment. :-)

The speed and angle the creature would need to survive, maybe it can move,
and use airobreaking,

It won't be moving if it's in diapause. Even if we assume it's
not in a suspended metabolic state and is capable of some
movement, disengaging from its meteor in the upper atmo-
sphere is, most likely, going to leave it in an environment
where it is too cold to function.

Sure the slightest of atmosphere would already slow it.
And it would be falling vertically or with the wind streams at lower altitudes,
warm up, wake up, start flapping its wings,

Have you ever watched an insect, say a butterfly, warm up
on a cool summer morning? It's not a quick process, they
soak up the sun, flap their wings a bit, soak up a bit more
sun and eventually get going...they're actually pretty indo-
lent creatures now that I think of it...and I say that as
someone who's equally indolent given that I think watching
a butterfly warm up is a reasonable way to past time. :-)

Nonethless, a cold falling insect is going to be at a disad-
vantage compared to a cold ground level one...compen-
sating for the cooling capacity of the air as it moves
through it may well be insurmountable for it.

(I wonder, however, if it hit the "right" atmospheric condi-
tions...while in diapause...it could become the nucleus of a
hailstone...it would be one way of getting to earth. Gotta
love idle conjecture.)

Maybe they can read to and have Internet :-)
Had not seen one for month... why just now :-)

You're obviously sending out the right vibrations...ones
which say "Source of corpuscles, queue forms to the
right." Better you than me. :-)

Deirdre

On Feb 19, 5:22*pm, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
"Tim BandTech.com" wrote:
....
Aha! could this be a catch to the mosquito concept? To enter the
planets atmosphere is must undergo the same buffeting force that the
reentry vehicles undergo? Then even hidden away is some inner bit of
an asteroid how hot does it get?

I expect it gets pretty hot...after all, meteorites routinely
burn up in the atmosphere. *An extremophilic bacterium,
especially a sporulator, might stand a chance, but I should
think it would need fairly wide thermal adaptability range.
(My guess is that hyperthermophilic facultative anaerobes
with cryptoendolithic traits might not be the easiest of
creatures to isolate, so we'd probably never know they've
arrived even if they did survive the ride in.)

You have a way with neologisms. :-)

As for our pesky, blood-sucking friend, the mosquito, I have
my doubts that any arthropod could survive a meteoric trip
through the atmosphere...I don't know exactly how heat re-
sistant the average exoskeleton is, but as any kid with a
magnifying glass can tell you, it doesn't take that much to
make an insect's life uncomfortable.

I guess they would just have to let go, and drift down.

"Jan Panteltje" wrote:
Mosquito survives 18 month in outer space on the ISS outside hull:

http://www.en.rian.ru/analysis/20090218/120203420.html

This has large implications, as now we can see that insects have
the ability to travel on a space rock, or just by themselves
using gravity assist, to other planets.
The question now comes up:
Are the aliens already here, are those mosquitos the alien invaders,
sucking our blood, looking for planets with warm blooded lifeforms?

hanson wrote:
Yo, Pante, que passo!... Listen, it may turn out that "organic- or
carbon based" life is far more pervasive and common than seen
thus far.--- 10 -15 years ago, a big deal was made about that
RNA & DNA can withstand unbelievable amounts of Cosmic ray
damage.
To boot, it turned out, that if damage occurred, that the R/DNA
molecules are self-repairing, having the capability to restore
themselves to their original composition and structure... under the
"right" environmental conditions. And R/DNA are allegedly doing
so with extreme accuracy and efficiency, barring an occasional
****-up.... which gives them the option to evolve....
Take care,
hanson

Edward Green wrote:

On Feb 19, 5:22*pm, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:

I expect it gets pretty hot...after all, meteorites routinely
burn up in the atmosphere. *An extremophilic bacterium,
especially a sporulator, might stand a chance, but I should
think it would need fairly wide thermal adaptability range.
(My guess is that hyperthermophilic facultative anaerobes
with cryptoendolithic traits might not be the easiest of
creatures to isolate, so we'd probably never know they've
arrived even if they did survive the ride in.)

You have a way with neologisms. :-)

In my line, they're called "jargon", but I thank you
anyway. :-)

Deirdre

Deirdre Sholto Douglas ) writes:
Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:22:07 -0600) it happened Deirdre Sholto
Douglas wrote in
:

As for our pesky, blood-sucking friend, the mosquito, I have
my doubts that any arthropod could survive a meteoric trip
through the atmosphere...I don't know exactly how heat re-
sistant the average exoskeleton is, but as any kid with a
magnifying glass can tell you, it doesn't take that much to
make an insect's life uncomfortable.

There are a few differences, first, the final speed at which a mosquito
may fall, is likely very much less then a massive object.
I know all object obey Newton's law, and fall with the same acceleration,
but for example there is a final speed for something in the atmosphere,
due to air resistance, and the mass and momentum it has.
Just drop a dead mosquito from a meter or 2, it sort of falls slowly.

I'm not going to ask if you've actually run the dead mosquito
experiment. :-)

The speed and angle the creature would need to survive, maybe it can move,
and use airobreaking,

It won't be moving if it's in diapause. Even if we assume it's
not in a suspended metabolic state and is capable of some
movement, disengaging from its meteor in the upper atmo-
sphere is, most likely, going to leave it in an environment
where it is too cold to function.

It's not just a matter of desiccation: how much radiation (hard uv, plus
solar wind) could an unprotected insect take? And wherever it came from
it's unlikely to reach a safe planetary surface in a matter of weeks
(unless it's on the surface of a space ship, of course...).

--John Park

On 19 Feb, 22:37, dlzc wrote:

In the Big Bang evolution has a restricted time. If
the first cell did not evolve on Earth, where did it
evolve? It was 13.7 billion years in the other place
too. This is what I mean by Occam. Occam (in effect)
states that the simplest form of evolution is evolution
on Earth. *Therefore we must assume that to be the
case.

Rather, we must try and eliminate that as being the case. *It should
be a testable prediction.

It is difficlt to decisively eliminate it at the monent. If we could
find life on (say) Europa and show that the DNA could not have come
from the same source that would be a help. We should indeed try to
test everything but I feel that an asolutely definitive proof (or
rather diasproof) will elude us for some time.


Lastly were dinosaurs warm blooded. We say
they were reptiles and hence cold bloodied. In
fact the dinosauria are a distict class of their
own. The only non extinct dinosaurs (birds) are
not bloodied. I am inclined to believe that the
Ornithpods (including T Rex) were warm
blooded. Now someone argue against that.

Given that the dinosaurs were massive, any sort of internal metabolism
would produce internal heat. *Immerse the dinosaur in warm water, and
you don't need much in the way of temperature regulation... and it
would be really easy to kill them.

There are many more issues with dinosaurs,
why were they so big?

Reptiles today are larger the more surface water is around. *So the
places they lived would have been very "damp". *Additionally, why are
we getting (in general) larger with each successive generation? *Maybe
it is something that occurs with dominance, larger makes for a
survival characteristic. *They *could* be larger because ambient
oxygen levels appear to have been much higher then.

Not really. In point of fact sizes evolved to fit an ecological niche.
Not all dinosaurs were in fact enormous. There was an advantage in
gaving large size in that :-

1) A herbivore would be immune from preditors.

2) T Rex needed some chance with megafauna.

There is in addition the question of heat loss.

Things get bigger where there is a survival advantage in being big.
Where there is not things get smaller.

It takes an incredible amount of force to walk
if you are so heavy, was gravity lower?

No indication the G changed by more than 1 part in 10^8 over 2.2
billion years, based on tidal rhythmites. *You weigh almost nothing if
you are up to your neck in water.

Not absulutely true but it does help. You have to work against water
pressure when you breath.

Was the air pressure much higher?

Wouldn't help the weight much, but would help circulation.

Were they half under water?

No. The fossils show they were engineered for land.

Or more.

Maybe the old earth was much smaller, with
hardly any water, and some big comet hit it,
driving the continents apart, creating oceans,
increasing gravity, that killing all the huge
animals.

If the Earth was smaller gravity would be HIGHER


Just a thought...

- Ian Parker