Narrowing the task (methodology Astrobiology)

When looking for life on other planets, some simplifying assumptions are useful to reduce the size of the task of astrobiologists. One is to assume that the vast majority of life-forms in our galaxy are based on carbon chemistries, as are all life-forms on Earth.[22] While it is possible that non carbon-based life exists, carbon is well known for the unusually wide variety of molecules that can be formed around it. However, it should be noted that astrobiology concerns itself with an interpretation of existing scientific data; that is, given more detailed and reliable data from other parts of the universe (perhaps obtainable only by physical space exploration) the roots of astrobiology itself--biology, physics, chemistry--may have their theoretical bases challenged. Much speculation is entertained in the field to give context, but astrobiology concerns itself primarily with hypotheses that fit firmly into existing theories.

The presence of liquid water is also a useful assumption, as it is a common molecule and provides an excellent environment for the formation of complicated carbon-based molecules that could eventually lead to the emergence of life.[23] Some researchers posit environments of ammonia, or more likely water-ammonia mixtures.[24] These environments are considered suitable for carbon or noncarbon life, while opening more temperature ranges (and thus worlds) for life.

A third assumption is to focus on Sun-like stars. This comes from the idea of planetary habitability.[25] Very big stars have relatively short lifetimes, meaning that life would not likely have time to evolve on planets orbiting them. Very small stars provide so little heat and warmth that only planets in very close orbits around them would not be frozen solid, and in such close orbits these planets would be tidally "locked" to the star.[26] Without a thick atmosphere, one side of the planet would be perpetually baked and the other perpetually frozen. In 2005, the question was brought back to the attention of the scientific community, as the long lifetimes of red dwarfs could allow some biology on planets with thick atmospheres. This is significant, as red dwarfs are extremely common.

About 10% of the stars in our galaxy are Sun-like, and there are about a thousand such stars within 100 light-years of our Sun. These stars would be useful primary targets for interstellar listening. Since Earth is the only planet known to contain life, there is no way to know if any of the simplifying assumptions are correct.

Rare Earth hypothesis

In the book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist, propose that life as we know it is rare in the universe.[19][20] They suggest that microbial life, however, is probably common in the universe, because of recently discovered extremophiles.[21] The book argues that the chances of all the conditions that occurred to create the Earth occurring again would be rare; thus intelligent life would be rare. One important factor focused on in the book is planetary habitability (see section below).

Peter Ward, one of the authors, said the following:[1]

How do we define life as we do know it? Life on Earth has DNA, a specific genetic code. It also uses only 20, and the same 20, amino acids. Life is always cellular according to some people, but I think not. I personally define a virus as alive. As for other life, what could it be? Could there be non-DNA life? If such life does exist, what does chemistry permit? Certainly chemistry permits certain types of life on our planet and others not. But once we move out in the solar system, especially in the vast realm of cold, chemistry changes. There could be different information systems, different solvents, different membranes. And as we go from hotter to colder, when we go to Venus, out to Mars, to Europa, and to Titan, we really should expect radically different chemistries.

Rare Earth hypothesis

In the book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist, propose that life as we know it is rare in the universe.[19][20] They suggest that microbial life, however, is probably common in the universe, because of recently discovered extremophiles.[21] The book argues that the chances of all the conditions that occurred to create the Earth occurring again would be rare; thus intelligent life would be rare. One important factor focused on in the book is planetary habitability (see section below).

Peter Ward, one of the authors, said the following:[1]

How do we define life as we do know it? Life on Earth has DNA, a specific genetic code. It also uses only 20, and the same 20, amino acids. Life is always cellular according to some people, but I think not. I personally define a virus as alive. As for other life, what could it be? Could there be non-DNA life? If such life does exist, what does chemistry permit? Certainly chemistry permits certain types of life on our planet and others not. But once we move out in the solar system, especially in the vast realm of cold, chemistry changes. There could be different information systems, different solvents, different membranes. And as we go from hotter to colder, when we go to Venus, out to Mars, to Europa, and to Titan, we really should expect radically different chemistries.