This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Astrobiology

Phosphine Detected In The Atmosphere of Venus – An Indicator of Possible Life?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 14, 2020
Filed under ,
Phosphine Detected In The Atmosphere of Venus – An Indicator of Possible Life?

Hints of life on Venus, RAS
“An international team of astronomers, led by Professor Jane Greaves of Cardiff University, today announced the discovery of a rare molecule – phosphine – in the clouds of Venus. On Earth, this gas is only made industrially, or by microbes that thrive in oxygen-free environments. Astronomers have speculated for decades that high clouds on Venus could offer a home for microbes – floating free of the scorching surface, but still needing to tolerate very high acidity. The detection of phosphine molecules, which consist of hydrogen and phosphorus, could point to this extra-terrestrial ‘aerial’ life. The new discovery is described in a paper in Nature Astronomy.”
Keith’s 14 Sep update: Apparently the RAS has changed its mind about how it is going to do their big announcement and a live stream will be presented at 11:00 am EDT here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IIj3e5BFp0
Keith’s 13 September 18:32 pm note: There is a big press release coming out tomorrow (Monday 14 September) morning at the Royal Astronomical Society. They want you to know its big news. The press release has been issued in advance to some journalists under embargo – but not others (like us). We have not seen the press release. But according to several sources knowledgeable with the details of the announcement (who are not under embargo) phosphine has been discovered in the atmosphere of Venus. Its presence suggests – suggests – some strange chemistry going on since phosphine is something you’d only expect to see if life (as we know it) was involved.
The presence of phosphine is seen by many astrobiologists as a “biosignature” i.e. an indicator of the possible presence of life. The detection was made by the Atacama (ALMA) array located in Chile and the James Clerk Maxwell telescope located in Hawaii. The research team includes members from the University of Manchester, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Cardiff University. A paper will appear in the 14 September issue of Nature Astronomy.
From what we’re told the researchers have concluded that abiotic mechanisms (i.e. ones that do not involve life) that might produce phosphine cannot account for the large amount that they have detected. The phosphine has been detected in the region within the atmosphere of Venus that is considered by some to be potentially habitable. As to what spin the researchers put on this, we’ll have to wait for reporters who have the press release or are allowed to participate in the Zoom press conference thing tomorrow at 15:00 GMT to let us know.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

39 responses to “Phosphine Detected In The Atmosphere of Venus – An Indicator of Possible Life?”

  1. Chris says:
    0
    0

    very interesting. But the only proposed project wanting/proposing to send something to Venus is Rocket Lab.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Actually, no. NASA is currently considering four proposed Discovery missions. Two of them (DAVINCI+ and VERITAS) are for missions to Venus. Those four mission concepts are funded for further study, with the study reports due in about a month. NASA plans to select one or two of them for flight, and the selections are due to be announced next spring.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        I did a little skimming of articles describing DAVINCI+ and VERITAS. Neither one seems suited to directly look for possible life in the atmosphere of Venus. DAVINCI+ is obviously better suited than VERITAS. But I’m not sure DAVINCI+ would provide any definitive answers as to how the abundance of phosphine was created.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          VERITAS wouldn’t contribute much; it’s very much an orbital remote sensing mission focused on geology and geophysics. DAVINCI+ is an atmospheric probe, and would make relevant measurements. Definitely not actual life detection measurements, but things like the phosphine abundance as a function of altitude. That’s hard to do with a telescope, since the actual measurements give a column density not density as a function of altitude. I’m not sure about the laser spectrometer in their payload, but the mass spectrometer is a Goddard quadrupole instrument, and one in a long line (Galileo probe, Huygens probe, Cassini orbiter, MAVEN, etc.) I’m not sure if it could get down to the part per billion level, but it would definitely provide altitude profiles of trace species. As I said, it’s too late for either of these proposals to make any real changes, but there is time for them to point out in their study reports what they could do. (Even if it isn’t a whole lot, mentioning some related capabilities would improve the odds of being selected for flight.)

    • Sam S says:
      0
      0

      I suspect priorities will change quickly. If we can’t show an abiotic mechanism for the phosphine, and biological mechanisms remain the most likely culprit, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a whole bunch of missions to Venus in the next decade.

      • Synthguy says:
        0
        0

        Agree – I can’t see how NASA could avoid deprioritizing other missions, including to Mars, to do Venus missions if there really is current microbial life. Of course… they could always ask for more funding for new missions given the unique circumstances.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        The announcement didn’t say they could rule out abiotic sources. Just that they ones they could think of don’t explain the observed abundance. That’s a long way from ruling out abiotic sources.

        But, even so, the timing is interesting. There are two Discovery missions to Venus under study (out of four on the short list.) Their concept study reports are due in November, with selections for flight next spring. That’s not enough time for either Venus concept to change anything in response to this discovery, but one (DAVINCI) seems to be well-suited for studying phosphine in Venus’ atmosphere. They do have time to type furiously and add a few paragraphs to their concept study report pointing this out. Or someone might decide to let Venus go for this round of Discovery missions, and select one specifically designed to address this discovery in the next round.

        Beyond that, there is a planetary science Decadal Survey in progress, with the report due out in the spring of 2022. That’s probably where any changes in priorities regarding Venus will happen. In many ways, NASA does not decide on science priorities. Every ten years, they have the National Academy of Science do a report on the state of the art in planetary science, the opinions of the scientific community and what the priorities should be for the next decade. In general, NASA follows those recommendations. As importantly, Congress usually does as well. Not in terms of funding, but in terms of the approach and priorities. There are some exceptions, but for something like Neptune versus Venus, they usually follow the NAS Decadal Survey’s recommendations. That includes the list of targets for New Frontiers missions (which Venus current is not on) and what one or two flagship missions to pursue in the next decade. That’s where we may hear, “If this doesn’t turn out to be abiotic, leave those cached samples on Mars for as long as it takes, and send a bunch of missions to Venus.” But the next step in Mars sample return is fairly far along (a memorandum of understanding with ESA is ready to be signed), and NASA isn’t likely to make a wild change in priorities until the Decadal Survey weights in with their report in 2022.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      A quick and cheap Venus atmospheric sampling mission could be about a dozen RocketLab Photon buses with Venusian dropsondes mounted on an ESPA ring/bus launched on a heavy NSSL launcher. Similar in concept to a MIRV dispenser.

  2. Synthguy says:
    0
    0

    If confirmed then I think this will force NASA (and other space agencies) to take a second look at unmanned probes to Venus, perhaps prioritise funding away from Mars, and consider the best way to study such life safely. If its ‘current’ life – which the article seems to imply – that, to me would take priority over hunting for fossilized remains of extinct life on Mars. Obviously humans to Venus isn’t an option, unless we are talking an orbital platform, or something operating in the upper atmosphere. So Mars is easier than Venus in that sense for human exploration. But if the primary driver for humans going to Mars is to do science – and a big part of that is to search for life – then if there is current life in Venus’ upper atmosphere, suddenly our plans will need to be changed.

    We should also consider that this does have implications for our exploration of the moons of the outer planets. If Europa, Enceladus, and Ganymede have liquid water oceans then the prospects for life on those worlds also need to be considered seriously, and the question must be asked – are we chasing a red herring on Mars, whilst ignoring more likely prospects for life in our solar system.

    Finally, if this is confirmed, and its evidence of extraterrestrial life evolving independently of Earth, that has huge philosophical implications for SETI, and humanity’s place in the cosmos that could be teeming with life. If life emerges, it can evolve given the right circumstances. Eons ago, life started on this world as simple bacteria in a warm ocean. Eons later, I sit at my computer in Canberra, Australia, typing these words. Are we alone? Probably not.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      WRT “if this is confirmed” – the researchers have confirmed this.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I think he means if the phosphine can be shown to be of biological origin. They’ve confirmed the presence of phosphine and said they can’t think of any abiotic processes to produce the observed abundance. But just because one team couldn’t find a viable abiotic process doesn’t mean someone else can’t. And, given this discovery, I’m sure lots of other people will try to come up with an abiotic process to explain the phosphine observations.

        • Bob Mahoney says:
          0
          0

          That’s what I thought at first, but then I carefully reread the sentence. As two clauses separated by an ‘and’, the first clause (“if this is confirmed”) points to the chemical detection and is clearly distinguished from the second clause (“its (sic) evidence of ET life).

          I’m fairly certain that Keith’s assessment of the comment was correct.

          Unless of course Synthguy was entertaining the third possibility: the phosphine all came from an Earth-delivered (and Earth-bio-contaminated) probe.

      • DJE51 says:
        0
        0

        True, but I have read that other telescopes that have the capability want to run their own tests to “double confirm” the phosphine levels. All of a sudden we might shift from rover laboratories (such as Perseverence) to Balloon laboratories! The Decadel Survey scientists will certainly be burning the midnight oil on what to recommend! Exciting times.

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      From the talk at the press briefing, all other known explanations have been ruled out, but that with a HUGE level of uncertainty that can only be addressed with direct study by spacecraft.

  3. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Among humans there is a kind of loneliness, isn’t there? It’s a sense that, on somehow learning of life elsewhere, anywhere, a small piece of knowledge would bring to us a sensibility that the universe is complete, we are part of a greater whole, and somehow we understand it, just a tiny bit more.

    Is it possible that our finest biologists are also affected? They are not to be criticized, except in the most gentle terms, in my view. We can point out that the totality of the Venusian environment is the playground of fiction writers, not our sober investigators.

    Still, none considers the stars, nor the planets, without that niggling thought; wondering all the while, whence an odd little molecule?

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      Hey, now! Us fiction writers TRY and ride on good science, just not at the expense of a good story. 😉

      Do I want a StarWarsesc Cloud City on Venus though? You bet!

    • Bob Mahoney says:
      0
      0

      Among humans there is a kind of loneliness, isn’t there?

      Indeed. But confirming the presence of life elsewhere in the universe, even on the planet next door, will not alleviate it. The yearning to which you refer involves something much more profound than a mere ignorance of possible fellow residents of our physical surroundings.

      “It is quite futile to argue that man is small compared to the cosmos; for man was always small compared to the nearest tree.”
      G.K. Chesterton

    • Tritium3H says:
      0
      0

      “Among humans there is a kind of loneliness, isn’t there? It’s a sense that, on somehow learning of life elsewhere, anywhere, a small piece of knowledge would bring to us a sensibility that the universe is complete, we are part of a greater whole, and somehow we understand it, just a tiny bit more.”

      Michael, with all respect and cordiality, I would submit that the existential loneliness (despair?) you so poetically describe, generally applies to those holding a materialist, atheistic belief system and world-view. Those with a classical theistic understanding, would argue that the physical Universe is both sensible and complete, yet merely part of much greater reality.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        If you are going to insult someone like this at least have the courage to use your own name.

        • Tritium3H says:
          0
          0

          That most definitely was not my intention. My sincere apologies, if it has caused any offense.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            While I take Keith’s point, I actually take Mr. 3H at his word (“respect and cordiality”), and respond, in kind. Won’t we throw off the training wheels of youth? Favoring a comprehension sprung from the realities we see, and come to understand, around us?

            Some future vantage point will gaze unafraid at the entirety of the Universe, unafraid of the huge unknowns surrounding the very basic questions.

            Indeed may we at some future time find the deepest sort of peaceful satisfaction in recognition that “We face an implacable Universe that is very likely beyond our ken?”

          • Tritium3H says:
            0
            0

            Thank you for the gracious reply, Michael, and thank you for reading my comment in the spirit I intended — which was to offer a friendly, counter-perspective to the metaphysically deep thoughts you expressed quite eloquently. Cheers.

          • Bob Mahoney says:
            0
            0

            Training wheels of youth?

            I currently AM gazing unafraid at the entirety of the amazing Universe because (among other truths obtained via various disciplines) Reason demonstrates that what we see is necessarily a subset of that which is.

  4. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    I think the key part is about the phosphine abundance being larger than expected from abiotic sources. Phosphine has been observed in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn, and no one claimed that was a sign of life. So phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus isn’t a biosignature. Phosphine in unexpectedly high abundances might be. But we should also remember the whole business about methane on Mars. It wasn’t predicted by models, suggested as a biosignature, and was then observed (in a patchy, sometimes-there-sometimes-not and sometimes-here-but-not-there way). So now there is a big debate over how it could be produced abioticly and if the the earlier models were wrong. I suspect a phosphine detection in the atmosphere of Venus will result in the same uncertainties and debates.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Well, sure- it’s exactly the sort of observation that sharpens the appetites of real scientists, a kind of “Hey, that’s weird”!e

      While high pressure/temperature chemistry (possibly in the presence of less well understood solar radiation) is surely well understood, the exciting part here isn’t possible production by life (which seems far-fetched), but perhaps a new POV regarding these reactions.

      A steady discussion to the finding over at one of my favorite sites:
      https://www.centauri-dreams

  5. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    A Gateway style station in Venus orbit would be an excellent strategy for studying it. Astronauts could use it for controlling robots sent into the Venus atmosphere and safely study the samples at the station. Maybe instead of Mars Venus will be the next planet we reach.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      Venus is closer to the Sun though. Designing the thermal protection might be challenging.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Perhaps, but not too challenging. The usual complaint about the thermal environment concerns outer solar system missions which do Venus flybys to get to Jupiter, Saturn or where ever. That involves designing for a hot case (a dayside Venus flyby) _and_ for cold cases five or more AU from the Sun. That’s challenging. Designing just for the hot case isn’t nearly as difficult.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Yes, it is always easier to design for a single environment than multiple environments. In addition to studying Venus, a Venus Gateway Station could also use its location to study the Sun and to search for asteroids interior to the Earth’s orbit.

          Also on the “to do” list would be a communication relay satellite in a solar orbit for ensuring communications when Venus is in superior conjunction. If placed in a Sun-Earth L-4 or L5 position it could serve a similar function for spacecraft at Mars and exploring the outer Solar System.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I’m not too concerned about the communications blackouts from solar conjunctions. Planetary missions deal with them all the time, and they’ve never had a problem (other than it being annoying and something you have to plan around.) But if someone really wants to put a communications relay in the Sun-Earth L4 point, tacking on some solar wind and solar instruments would be of great value to space weather forecasting.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes. Given the importance of understanding and forecasting solar weather I never understood why a network of solar weather satellites was never deployed along the orbit of the Earth (SE L3, L4, L5) or Venus (SV L3, L4, L5) to provide continual monitoring of it. I could understand the challenge of delta v required to place solar weather satellites in a polar orbit around the Sun, but it should be easy to deploy them along the Earth’s orbit.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I wouldn’t complain. And if someone’s paying for it, I have a solar wind ion sensor I’d like to sell them…

            Anyway, I don’t think the Venus-Sun Lagrange points would be as useful as multiple satellites in distant Earth-Sun L4 and L5 halo orbits (they can drift from perhaps 10 to 110 deg. from the Earth rather than sitting in a tight orbit 60 deg. from Earth). The Earth-Sun L3 point is basically always in solar conjunction, and that’s a nightmare for communications. And, while a polar orbit is prohibitive, a spacecraft using electric propulsion could get into a 20 deg. inclination solar orbit without too much work. Limit latitude coverage is better than no latitude coverage at all… But, overall, the whole idea would require multiple small spacecraft in solar orbits. That’s pushing the limits for small spacecraft, but not pushing them too far.

            Programmatically, this falls into the same awkward position as weather satellites. Is it a NASA or a NOAA program? Solar weather monitoring, like terrestrial weather monitoring, isn’t a NASA function. But studying the solar wind or the Earth’s atmosphere is definitely a NASA function. So who pays for and how operates spacecraft like this? For weather satellites, that’s been worked out. For space weather monitoring and forecasting, it’s less clear.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Given the importance of solar weather forecasting to the military it might be a job for the U.S.S.F. Also the owners of commercial communication satellites would find it valuable, making them supporters of the U.S.S.F. if they create such a network.

            Yes, a satellite in the L3 position would need to relay its observations through the other two satellites. But you could do without it an still get good coverage of the Sun.

  6. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    So, from now on any Venus atmosphere probe will need full planetary protection processing?

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      That’s possible but it’s not obvious. If it’s a decent probe like the DAVINCI proposal, it might only spend a short time at the right altitude. Venus definitely isn’t habitable at all altitudes, just a narrow range (ten or twenty kilometers or so) above the clouds, the high pressure and the high temperature. If a probe only spends a short time at those altitudes, someone might argue that there is little risk of forward contamination. And then the probe would decent to altitudes where the temperature and acid vapors would sterilize it. But there will definitely be a long discussion about what planetary protection measures should be required.

      • Ben Russell-Gough says:
        0
        0

        Yeah, I was thinking something more like JPL’s Venus Atmosphere Probe proposal from the 1980s: The long-duration hydrogen balloon-carried high-altitude meteorological probe.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          That would be harder if Venus were under Mars-like planetary protection standards, but there might still be some wiggle room. They might not have to sterilize the contents of a sealed electronics box. For a Mars lander, they would (or demonstrate the box really, really was sealed and nothing would leak out for decades.) For a long-duration Venus balloon, they might be able to claim the sealed container would remain sealed for months (duration of the mission) and then descend into a truly sterilizing environment. But the outside of the balloon, and anything in communication with the outside (e.g. instruments measuring the atmosphere and therefor connected to an inlet) would have some serious sterilization requirements.

  7. Alex Heydon says:
    0
    0

    Planetary scientists have learned from Alan Stern that they have to lobby aggressively if they want their ‘pet’ planet to get research funding. David Grinspoon has long lamented that Venus just doesn’t get the money that Mars gets, largely because the planet has a low potential for harboring life. Now, if they can convince the public that Venus is also an astrobiology prospect, what money is available may be split more equitably in the future – even if it takes some smoke and mirrors.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      Just don’t mention that Mars’s bioshere probably tops out on amoeba that eat the fungal mycelium that’s the top of the plant kingdom and Venus’s biosphere probably tops out with phages that hunt extremophile bacterium.