Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Extra Terrestrial Reactions

Has anyone had a look at how reactions proceed when off the surface of this planet ?

It occurred to me that our Standard Conditions may well be self-limiting.

Most models in chemistry are not confined to STP conditions.

Molecular Manipulations - 7-5-2015 at 14:22

Besides the vacuum, what other conditions do you mean?
I've done plenty of reactions under partial vacuum (I can do .0002 mm hg). Since vacuum doesn't really have much air in it, perhaps you mean without oxygen as well? Cause, although I lack a glovebox, I've done a few reactions under inert gasses too.
In the near zero Kelvin temperatures of space, certainly reactions would proceed much slower.
Or did you just mean on an airplane? :cool:

aga - 7-5-2015 at 14:26

I was thinking more of reaction conditions free (at least partially) from a large gravitational mass and a vast electromagnetic field.

DraconicAcid - 7-5-2015 at 14:33

I was thinking more of reaction conditions free (at least partially) from a large gravitational mass and a vast electromagnetic field.

Most reactions aren't affect much by either, apart from precipitations and crystallizations where the solids sink to the bottom of the beaker.

aga - 7-5-2015 at 14:35

Well, for sure there will be very few references to substantiate that claim.

blogfast25 - 7-5-2015 at 14:51

Well, for sure there will be very few references to substantiate that claim.

What claim specifically?

Zombie - 7-5-2015 at 16:08

Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid

I was thinking more of reaction conditions free (at least partially) from a large gravitational mass and a vast electromagnetic field.

Most reactions aren't affect much by either, apart from precipitations and crystallizations where the solids sink to the bottom of the beaker.

This claim.

This could be a very interesting topic.

Just as a kick start... I am curious if a crystallization could occur in another environment such as deep space.

The implications of this could be far reaching in how we view things.

Take the "big bang" theory... or absolute vacuum or black holes. All of our known rules that we assume worked in these major events could be meaningless, thereby negating what we think we know.

IF compounds can not form crystals in these conditions... what else can not happen?

Oscilllator - 7-5-2015 at 16:08

Well, for sure there will be very few references to substantiate that claim.

The ISS does reactions in a zero g environment. I believe zero g enables you to make crystals of delicate compounds such as proteins, so you can do x-ray crystallography on them etc.

Zombie - 7-5-2015 at 16:23

Interesting... The ISS is a micro gravity station, and not truely "0" gravity tho.
You also have to account for temperature here, and magnetic/electro magnetic influence.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022024801...

Abstract
The Center for Biophysical Sciences and Engineering (CBSE) at the University of Alabama at Birmingham has performed protein crystal growth experiments on more than 39 US space shuttle missions. Results from these experiments have clearly demonstrated that the microgravity environment is beneficial in that a number of proteins crystallized were larger and of higher quality than their Earth-grown counterparts. Improvement in crystal quality is judged by analysis of ultimate diffraction resolution, individual peak mosaicity, and electron density maps. There are now a number of protein crystals that exhibited resolution improvements of 0.5–1.5 Å. Mosaicity studies revealed dramatic decreases in peak widths for the microgravity-grown crystals. These microgravity results plus data from a variety of other investigators have stimulated various space agencies to support fundamental studies in macromolecular crystal growth processes. The CBSE has devoted substantial effort toward the development of dynamically controlled crystal growth systems which allow scientists to optimize crystallization parameters on Earth or in space. These systems enable monitoring and control of the approach to nucleation and post-nucleation growth phases, thereby dramatically improving the crystal size and X-ray diffraction characteristics.

I'm curious about heavier compounds like copper or metals.

[Edited on 5-8-2015 by Zombie]

Metacelsus - 7-5-2015 at 16:32

Radio and IR measurements are used to study chemistry in space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrochemistry

It's surprising how much complex stuff is out there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circu...

Molecular Manipulations - 7-5-2015 at 16:35

Exactly, some crystals are grown in space to prevent their delicate structures from being destroyed by gravity.
From Wikipedia:Space manufacturing is the production of manufactured goods in an environment outside a planetary atmosphere. Typically this includes conditions of microgravity and hard vacuum. Manufacturing in space has several potential advantages over Earth-based industry.

The unique environment can allow for industrial processes that cannot be readily reproduced on Earth.
Raw materials could be lifted to orbit from other bodies within the solar system and processed at a low expense compared to the cost of lifting materials into orbit from Earth.
Potentially hazardous processes can be performed in space with minimal risk to the environment of the Earth or other planets.
Items too large to launch on a rocket can be assembled in orbit for use in orbit.

As for the magnetic field of the earth, well first it's just photons that make it, and second, except near the poles, most of the photons are way, way above us. If they could interact with chemical reactions, you'd notice it more in space than on earth (except deep space). Photons of all wavelengths bump into substances all the time from other sources (namely the sun and background radiation) so why would these be any different?

Also photons can interact a little. They can "knock" electrons out of their orbits (for a short time). We would never notice this except that these free electrons allow materials to conduct electricity better than they otherwise would. This discovery was a huge step into quantum mechanics

blogfast25 - 7-5-2015 at 17:07

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

Potentially hazardous processes can be performed in space with minimal risk to the environment of the Earth or other planets.

Potentially hazardous for bank account, though...

Molecular Manipulations - 7-5-2015 at 17:38

"Potentially hazardous" might mean thermonuclear weapons, hardly a drop in the bucket of government funds if that's the case.
I think the "Potentially" part is unneeded for that though.

[Edited on 8-5-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]

Zombie - 7-5-2015 at 19:41

Well lets break it down into one simple thing.

Lets say a metal crystal. If you grew a crystal in "deep space" what would the difference(s) be?

From this maybe we can extrapolate the idea into other actions, re-actions, processes.

Molecular Manipulations - 7-5-2015 at 19:47

Probably nothing. Metal crystals are very strong (generally) and don't require anything special. It's when you get to the very fragile stuff that the Earth's gravity can damage it.

Zombie - 7-5-2015 at 19:55

Well that's kind of what I'm wondering about. Density.

Would a crystal grown in space be any less dense? What would the implications be on returning that crystal to gravity?

To top it off... I wonder what "could" be a crystalline structure in space that we do not think could be a crystal.

Water? Ice is a crystal, water in space is ice... What other implications are there?

[Edited on 5-8-2015 by Zombie]

[Edited on 5-8-2015 by Zombie]

Molecular Manipulations - 7-5-2015 at 21:51

About the density I also doubt that would be affected much. Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. The one that holds crystals together is the electromagnetic force, the second weakest. In ionic crystals (e.g. sodium chloride) the electrons are more or less given from sodium to chlorine and they are then very strongly bonded due to the opposite charges' attraction to each other. Thus they bond in a very ordered, repeating pattern. If one ion slides in one direction it will be next to a similarly charged ion, and a crack will form throughout the whole crystal causing the entire row to shift until it can escape somewhere to keep the like charges balanced by its opposite charge.

You would need some massive gravity to cause these electrons that 'hate' each other so much to compress to any reasonable extent. Gasses compress easily because they are mostly empty space, liquids compress very little and most solids even less.

Also, even if pressure, gravity or any other force caused a crystal to form more dense or less dense than on Earth, it's not like the crystal's density is 'set in stone' (although it literally is). The electromagnetic force is obviously still in play after the crystal forms. So if it's very compressed under pressure, as soon as the pressure is released it will revert to its standard density under the new conditions. Just like if you push two like poles of a magnet until they touch, once you let go they'll push apart again (or one will turn around so the opposite poles touch).

Regarding substances forming crystals in space that don't form crystals, IIRC most everything forms them. Ionic compounds because of attractions of charges, covalent crystals due to physical bonds from shared electrons, and the rest is something in between. Even most liquids are bonded together, in fact liquids near their melting point have only broken ~10% of the bonds normally in their strong crystalline structure.
I don't really know what you mean by most of the rest of your post, care to elaborate?

[Edited on 8-5-2015 by Molecular Manipulations]

blogfast25 - 8-5-2015 at 02:36

Would a crystal grown in space be any less dense? What would the implications be on returning that crystal to gravity?

In the vast majority of cases a crystal's properties are not (and CANNOT) be affected by gravity.

Take one of the simplest cases: sodium chloride ('table salt'). The crystal's properties (yup, all of them, crystal density included) depends entirely on how the sodium and chloride ions interact electrostatically and 'settle' into the well-known 'chequered flag' three dimensional lattice. Gravity does not affect the outcome.

In other cases, like ice, the interactions between molecules needed to keep the molecular lattice together are slightly different (but are still based on electrostatic attractions/repulsions) but are also unaffected by gravity. Ice = 'space ice'.

Metacelsus - 8-5-2015 at 05:30

The whole reason for growing crystals in space is that convection doesn't happen in microgravity, so crystal growth is more controlled and crystals can grow to larger size.

@Blogfast: Ice is a bad example, given that it can take multiple forms. You're right in general, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_ice#Amorphous_Ice_in...

blogfast25 - 8-5-2015 at 06:02

Quote: Originally posted by Cheddite Cheese

@Blogfast: Ice is a bad example, given that it can take multiple forms. You're right in general, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_ice#Amorphous_Ice_in...

Amorphous ice isn't crystalline but super-cooled liquids still arise from electrostatic interactions between molecules.

phlogiston - 8-5-2015 at 07:09

The reason they are trying to grow protein crystals in space is that they hope to obtain more regular crystals with less defects.
This is important to obtain good resolution in x-ray structure determination.

The bulk properties (density, etc) of the crystals are essentially identical to the crystals obtained on earth.

Mailinmypocket - 8-5-2015 at 10:36

Being a diabetic I was recently reading about different types of insulin (more specifically how one of mine, insulin glargine, works by forming crystals under the skin that slowly dissolve to produce a time release effect) and came across this and thought it was very interesting:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/no...

aga - 8-5-2015 at 12:30

As a chemist enthusiast, have you ever attempted to extract/fabricate insulin ?

Clearly it can be done, as you have a steady supply.

Personally if i were diabetic, i would be sorely tempted to systhesise my own, which would kind of square the body/mind thing neatly.

polypyrrole - 8-5-2015 at 13:17

Insulin is a hugely complex molecule, currently it's produced by genetically modified micro organisms that are infinitely better chemists than even our most gifted.

Total synthesis of insulin is beyond even the most well equipped high level research labs, as an enthusiast, you might as well be trying to turn lead into gold.

blogfast25 - 8-5-2015 at 13:19

Quote: Originally posted by polypyrrole

Total synthesis of insulin is beyond even the most well equipped high level research labs, as an enthusiast, you might as well be trying to turn lead into gold.

Which is true of the overwhelming majority of proteins...

Molecular Manipulations - 8-5-2015 at 13:21

Indeed, think this is in your reach aga?

polypyrrole - 8-5-2015 at 13:23

Quote: Originally posted by polypyrrole

Total synthesis of insulin is beyond even the most well equipped high level research labs, as an enthusiast, you might as well be trying to turn lead into gold.

Which is true of the overwhelming majority of proteins...

One day...

Zombie - 8-5-2015 at 13:36

This is insanely complex, and very interesting. I now wonder how much other stuff is happening every day the i / we have no clue about.

Ok, crystals are not really effected by conditions in space in any unexpected way.

How about things like the sodium / water reaction that was posted here awhile back.
The one that stated it was believed that an oxidation layer would/should prevent the spontaneous transfer of molecules that really is taking place?

Can you see a scenario where something like this reaction could occur with other chemical compounds or elements that would or should not take place? Perhaps two or more normally non reactive ingredients become reactive either due to vacuum, or lack of oxygen, nitrogen, gravity...

blogfast25 - 8-5-2015 at 14:04

This is insanely complex, and very interesting. I now wonder how much other stuff is happening every day the i / we have no clue about.

'Artificial life':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762

Zombie - 8-5-2015 at 14:21

Hell, At first glance all I could think of was the movie Terminator.

Then I got to this part:
"The advance did not pose a danger in the form of bio-terrorism, Dr Venter said.
"That was reviewed extensively in the US in a report from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a Washington defence think tank, indicating that there were very small new dangers from this."

I suddenly realized there was nothing to worry about. If the Defense Dept., and MIT say it's just a "very small new dangers", I'm fine with that.

Have these ape brained retards gone MAD?

[Edited on 5-8-2015 by Zombie]

aga - 8-5-2015 at 14:30

Quote: Originally posted by Molecular Manipulations

Indeed, think this is in your reach aga?

Absurdly Yes, despite my almost complete ignorance.

Me, as in my Body, makes it as an when required.

Yours still does, yet in insufficient quantity.

Sadly we have almost no understanding of how this happens, or how to do the same, external to our own bodies.

Quote: Originally posted by polypyrrole

Insulin is a hugely complex molecule, currently it's produced by genetically modified micro organisms that are infinitely better chemists than even our most gifted.

Total synthesis of insulin is beyond even the most well equipped high level research labs, as an enthusiast, you might as well be trying to turn lead into gold.

Extraction of Insulin turns pigs into Gold, and you get the bonus of selling the meat as well, which = more Gold.

It is extremely annoying that we embody all of these syntheses yet cannot accomplish even a tiny fraction of them.

Perhaps this could be the start of a new Science : manipulate syntheses inside our own bodies ?

Without a life-or-death requirement, it's unlikely that anyone would attempt to use their own body as an experimental reactor, unless they were truly insane.

phlogiston - 8-5-2015 at 14:50

I have actually worked in a laboratory where we used truly synthetic insulin (made by chemical methods, not biological) which was prepared for us by a collaborator for our experiment. So, while difficult, it is definately possible.

Simple, active proteins can be synthesized too by chemical means and in fact there are commercial services that will make peptides with as many as 100's of amino acids for you. I have used one such service to have them prepare an enzyme for me made entirely out of D-amino acids, because I needed a specific enzyme with the reverse stereospecificity. Worked like a charm (very costly though).

It is trivial to collect and purify insulin from a layer of the right cells growing in a culture flask, and the processes by which the cells make the insulin are quite well understood (but remains the focus of much research, and especially the regulation of its synthesis and excretion by the cells).

blogfast25 - 8-5-2015 at 15:40

Have these ape brained retards gone MAD?

Not sure who you're referring to but that kind unspecified fears (I suppose that's what they are, not sure about that either) should impress no one.

Zombie - 8-5-2015 at 17:30

It's not meant to impress anyone.

IF you can bio engineer any living organism you like simply by synthesizing its DNA, then how can anyone make the statement "very small new dangers"?

The implications of this are monumental.

blogfast25 - 8-5-2015 at 17:38

The implications of this are monumental.

I think you should probably read up on this technology before making Barnum-style statements.

What Venter and his time has done is extremely interesting but far less spectacular than I believe you imagine.

Do you have any idea for instance how exactly DNA codes the primary structure of proteins?

[Edited on 9-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Mailinmypocket - 9-5-2015 at 03:26

As a chemist enthusiast, have you ever attempted to extract/fabricate insulin ?

Clearly it can be done, as you have a steady supply.

Personally if i were diabetic, i would be sorely tempted to systhesise my own, which would kind of square the body/mind thing neatly.

I have considered trying to isolate the insulin from some expired vials I have. Since there must be about 100 penfills kicking around the fridge. But I never actually bothered because it just didn't seem like a useful idea. Not to mention the other stuff in there like phenol etc that would just complicate things. Trust me though, I've often thought of doing it!

Zombie - 9-5-2015 at 04:28

The implications of this are monumental.

In my simplistic understanding, DNA is the instruction set that determines what a cell will become.

So IF you are creating synthetic DNA to encode cells, you can pretty much create any living thing you wish. The way I see it the beginnings would be simple organisms such as bacteria , and or viruses.

Much like an early computer program, creating simple tasks.

Then , just as in programming exponential gains in understanding lead to longer "codes", and more complex programs or DNA sequences.

Combine synthetic DNA sequencing with stem cell research, and anything is possible... Jellyfish, frogs, mice, lion dogs, soldiers, presidents... It's just a matter of elongating the DNA sequence.

I think!

blogfast25 - 9-5-2015 at 08:20

[
Combine synthetic DNA sequencing with stem cell research, and anything is possible... Jellyfish, frogs, mice, lion dogs, soldiers, presidents... It's just a matter of elongating the DNA sequence.

I think!

Yeah, that's the 'Boys from Brazil' version of reality. But it's NOT reality. No wonder you're scared.

Although the DNA of an organism is <i>in principle</i> the blueprint for that organism, in reality we don't really know how that works at all (although we're learning, of course).

When we sequence the DNA of an existing organism, we've made a copy of the book but we don't really know what the book tells us yet.

What has been understood is how specific snippets of the book codify for specific proteins that make up the organism.

Venter's 'AL' cells are cobbled together from existing snippets of DNA and other bits and bobs that his team knows and understands. No 'new' code is being generated. It's a bit like writing a computer app from known, existing subroutines.

We're as far from creating fancy jellyfish as a man on the top of Empire State building is on his way to the Moon.

[Edited on 9-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 9-5-2015 at 11:36

The word exponential is the key to my thoughts on this.

Implanting "code" into anything, and having it work is the giant step toward that moon landing. From there I believe everything would be simpler to understand.

We as a species are on the top of the Empire State Bldg. in so many new technologies that the moment we are on the moon is just a breath away.

I liken it to my daily life.
I have 15 -20 different projects all underway at the same time. Everyday I complete one more step in some or all of them. Eventually they will all be complete, and I will have a whole new world to enjoy.

Science is exactly the same. There are so many projects so close to being breakthroughs...
I guess you can say I am concerned more than scared. Look at the history of the way life has gone in the past 100 years.
All of these "advancements that were promised to reduce human suffering, ease the individuals work load, make a safer, and more habitual planet have backfired or have had ulterior motives built in from the inception.

Just take a computer for example. The goal was to lighten an individuals work load. Let the science machine do the work...

Look at what we do today. At Least a weeks worth of work in one day. Transcribing, editing, calculations, ordering, inventory, the list is almost endless. If the true gaol was to make life easier... It was a complete failure.
We are all under so much more pressure to do a months worth of work in one week. A years worth of work in one month. I'm sure you see the point.

Now take the DNA guys, and the stem cell guys. Put them in a room together, and Super monkey tailed jellyfish that can fly, and run a nation.

I'm not scared, I can just see that we are too close to doing things that we know to little about.

What IF. One of these bacterium finds it's way onto a pant cuff (who wears cuffs? Scientists...) That pair of pants goes to the dry cleaners, and before you know it the owner of the shop has jelly fish all over the place.

Just sayin'

blogfast25 - 9-5-2015 at 12:19

If there’s one thing we can agree on, it’s that most technological developments are driven by commercial interests and not by concerns for humanity’s well-being. But that doesn't change anything.

Computers need electricity. What does that say about Thomas Edison? He wanted to be come as rich as the ocean was deep and willing to trample over dead bodies to achieve that goal (see his downright criminal behaviour towards Nikola Tesla, while conspiring with that other great villain, J.P. Morgan).

Would you argue that the electrification of the world was a Bad Thing?

How about moonshining? Even purely legitimate alcohol, as much as I enjoy it, has brought untold misery to millions. That’s a simple FACT! Prohibition, anyone?

Quote:

What IF. One of these bacterium finds it's way onto a pant cuff (who wears cuffs? Scientists...) That pair of pants goes to the dry cleaners, and before you know it the owner of the shop has jelly fish all over the place.

Where’s my ‘rolling eyes to heaven’ emoticon, when I need it? Fears about genomes ‘going beserk in the wild’ are as irrational as those very similar fears about GMOs (which you stated not to have a problem with).

Bottom line remains that most of your fears are largely the result of scant and cartoonish knowledge about genomics/proteomics and modern molecular biology.

A few extra syllables about 'synthetic life':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology#Synthetic_lif...

[Edited on 9-5-2015 by blogfast25]

AJKOER - 9-5-2015 at 13:18

Back on the thread topic of "Extra Terrestrial Reactions", as I previously commented on in SM, I came across an interesting article "OXIDATION OF CHLORIDE TO PERCHLORATE UNDER AMBIENT MARS CONDITIONS", by B. L. Carrier* and S. P. Kounaves, Department of Chemistry, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, link: http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2014/pdf/2570.pdf .

The point of the article is to explain the significant amount of perchlorate formation on Mars from chloride. An important quote, in my opinion, is:

"One possible pathway is the heterogeneous reaction of soil chlorides with atmospherically produced oxidants or oxidants generated photochemically at the surface. An ongoing source of perchlorate formation would indicate the likely presence of other oxychlorine species during the oxidation of chloride to perchlorate, such as ClO-, ClO2- and ClO2(g) as well as other possible radicals such as ●OCl, ●Cl, or ●OH. The presence of these intermediates has implications for the survivability of organics on the surface due to their high reduction potentials. The current research aims to investigate the formation pathway for perchlorate on mineral surfaces under current Mars conditions. "

My point here is that chemistry on other planets without our special (and rare) protective atmosphere can be a case of photolysis gone wild. Of course, if you are very far from your sun, then you are an ice ball.

[Edited on 9-5-2015 by AJKOER]

aga - 9-5-2015 at 13:41

You hit the nail on the head AJ.

Reaction conditions on this Planet are not the same elsewhere.

blogfast25 - 9-5-2015 at 14:03

Reaction conditions on this Planet are not the same elsewhere.

That's kind of true and false at the same time. For instance the chemistry AJ is referring to can be reproduced here on Earth easily.

If you're talking about reactions that specifically rely on atmospheric conditions of a specific planet then you're right but I would have thought that was self-evident.

The LAWS of the Universe, including those that rule chemistry, are the same throughout the Universe though. There's no reason AT ALL why you couldn't have a laboratory on Mars to study chemistry, of WHATEVER kind.

To reiterate your original question, "It occurred to me that our Standard Conditions may well be self-limiting", we study chemistry in an amazingly broad range of temperatures, concentrations, pressures and other variables.

aga - 9-5-2015 at 14:19

Good point.

We also study all physical laws from the standpoint of an ape on this Planet, with an ape brain to interpret it all, from that standpoint.

It would be immensely interesting to speak to an intelligent life form that evolved inside a Star.

The correlations and variances would be awesome.

Edit.

Made the S bigger.

[Edited on 9-5-2015 by aga]

Etaoin Shrdlu - 9-5-2015 at 17:36

This is insanely complex, and very interesting. I now wonder how much other stuff is happening every day the i / we have no clue about.

'Artificial life':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762

That story made me so happy when I heard it. That would have been pure science fiction when I was a kid.

Zombie - 9-5-2015 at 21:03

Isn't this going backwards?

I believe I asked what chemical reactions that we take for granted are different in different conditions.

I asked about crystals, and it was explained.

Now you are explaining there ARE differences in other reactions.

What are the implications?

Mesa - 10-5-2015 at 17:07

This is insanely complex, and very interesting. I now wonder how much other stuff is happening every day the i / we have no clue about.

'Artificial life':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762

My first impression when I skimmed the title and images was:

So he's showing them a PCR machine and calling it a breakthrough.

Then I read through it, and I'm still waiting for the punchline.

It's not like he discovered the translation coding himself, that was done decades ago.

And given he'll still require some kind of recombinant cell, I'm failing to see any possible application for this that that would be better than the current ones...

If God understood patent law he'd sue.

j_sum1 - 10-5-2015 at 20:54