Mooney Tunes: The Fantasy Moons of Astrobiologists Leave Science Far Behind

You could be an astrobiologist, too.
Just make up imaginary worlds
filled with imaginary life.

If life happened here, evolution-trusting astrobiologists think, it might be happening elsewhere, even if we can’t observe it. But does “might” make right? Somewhere back when, astrobiologists left epistemic modesty in the trash can. Speculation rules!

Some of Uranus’ moons might be able to support life. Here’s what a mission might reveal (1 Oct 2024, Space.com). Here’s the reasoning: life requires water. Some of the moons of Uranus might have subsurface oceans. Conclusion: Those moons might have life! This is the myth of hydrobioscopy that NASA keeps repeating: “follow the water” because life “might have” evolved there. It was picked up uncritically by reporter Conor Feehly:

Increasingly, the astrobiology community has been looking beyond the Jupiter and Saturn systems. They’re calling for a mission to Uranus and its moons, as a number of Uranus’ moons have displayed telltale signs of having internal liquid oceans and chemical compositions that could be favorable to life. 

Charon from New Horizons, with starfield. (NASA). With your eyes closed, you can imagine it forming.

James Webb Space Telescope deciphers the origins of Pluto’s icy moon Charon (1 Oct 2024, Space.com). What does Pluto’s moon Charon have going for storytellers? It has carbon dioxide on its surface. It has hydrogen peroxide, too! Planetary scientists put on their magic glasses and envision the moon forming long ago. Robert Lea is the accomplice in this cosmogonical myth:

Using the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), astronomers have detected carbon dioxide and hydrogen peroxide on the frozen surface of Pluto’s largest moon, Charon. Detecting these molecules could tell scientists how Charon and other icy bodies at the solar system’s edge were born.

UTA physicists explore possibility of life beyond Earth (1 Oct 2024, Univ of Texas at Arlington). The faces of three young converts into bio-astrology begin this press release. They studied F-type stars that astrobiologists often ignore, because those star’s lifetimes are considered too short for life to emerge (not enough for the moyboys). But some of them have a larger habitable zone (HZ) where liquid water might be stable. So never despair: exoplanets orbiting the ugly-duckling F-type stars might have exo-moons. And those exo-moons might have exo-life!

“F-type stars are usually considered the high-luminosity end of stars with a serious prospect for allowing an environment for planets favorable for life,” Dr. Cuntz said. “However, those stars are often ignored by the scientific community. Although F-type stars have a shorter lifetime than our sun, they have a wider HZ. In short, F-type stars are not hopeless in the context of astrobiology.”

“F-type star systems are important and intriguing cases when dealing with habitability due to the larger HZs,” Patel said. “HZs are defined as areas in which conditions are right for Earth-type bodies to potentially host exolife.” Exolife is the possibility that life may exist outside our solar system.

Well, then, if it “may” exist in such places, it “must” exist there, right? Sure. It “could” happen. Such exomoons “potentially” have exolife. Send more funding!

In future studies, our work may serve to investigate the existence of Earth-mass planets and also habitable exomoons hosted by exo-Jupiters in F-type systems.

Let’s review the reasoning in these 3 articles:

• Observation: Some moons of Uranus might have subsurface oceans. Conclusion: We can imagine life down there!
• Observation: Charon has CO₂ and hydrogen peroxide. Conclusion: We can imagine Charon forming!
• Observation: F-type stars might have habitable zones. Conclusion: We can imagine exolife under exomoons around exoplanets!

What’s the shortcut code for exo-Jupiters with exo-moons that might have exo-life? XOXOXO: hugs and kisses to all the taxpayers that allow us astrobiologists (better, bio-astrologers) to enjoy job security for storytelling. Empiricism? What’s that?

Goofy is smarter than astrobiologists. At least he looks puzzled by hearing “scientists” making unsubstantiated claims.