Space, Planets and eclipses

[ghost2509]

NASA Has a Theory for Why We Might Be Alone in the Universe

DAILYBEAST
yahoo.com
David Axe
November 11, 2022

More and more astronomers are coming around to the idea that we’re not alone in the universe. To them, it’s a matter of math, and humility. With potentially trillions of life-supporting planets out there, why would ours be the only one to evolve a high-tech civilization?

But if extraterrestrials do exist, we still haven’t met them yet. (Probably.) You’d think out of trillions of chances for life to spawn in the universe, we’d have found signs of other intelligent life by now, right?

Now a team based at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California is revisiting an old theory to explain why. The “Great Filter” theory posits that other civilizations, potentially many, have existed during the history of the universe, but they all wiped themselves out before they got a chance to make contact with us.

Even more chillingly, we’re on track to “filter” ourselves out of existence as well, so to speak. In that sense, understanding why we haven’t met other civilizations—that is, what aliens may have done to destroy themselves—could hold the key to saving our own civilization.

“The key to humanity successfully traversing such a universal filter is… identifying those attributes in ourselves and neutralizing them in advance,” JPL astrophysicist Jonathan Jiang and his coauthors wrote in a new study that appeared online on Oct. 23 and has not yet been peer-reviewed.

Not everyone in the sciences buys the idea of the Great Filter. “It feels overly deterministic, as if the Great Filter is a physical law or a single looming force that confronts every rising technological civilization,” Wade Roush, a science lecturer and author of Extraterrestrials, told The Daily Beast. “We have no direct evidence of such a force.”

But there’s no disputing the theory’s impact. The Great Filter was originally proposed by Robin Hanson, a George Mason University economist, back in 1996. It has since become a staple of science-fiction worldbuilding. And for good reason: it’s dramatic. “The fact that our universe seems basically dead suggests that it is very very hard for advanced, explosive, lasting life to arise,” Hanson wrote.

By “explosive,” he’s referring to the possibility of a civilization achieving cheap spaceflight and colonizing a lot of other planets, fast. In Hanson’s theory, there’s something—or a lot of somethings—that prevents intelligent life from thriving on its home planet, expanding to other planets and surviving long enough to make contact with aliens such as us.

At least one leading advocate of the search for alien life has no objections to the theory. “I think it is plausible,” Avi Loeb, a Harvard physicist, told The Daily Beast.

To understand the Great Filter, Jiang and his coauthors turned a mirror on humanity. Whatever seems likeliest to kill us might also pose an existential threat to intelligent life on other planets, they proposed. They drew up a short list of the biggest threats to the human species, all but one of which are entirely our own fault.

Sure, an asteroid might hit Earth with enough force to kill pretty much everything on the planet. That’s not necessarily something we can prevent. But the other civilization-killers the JPL team think are likely are also self-inflicted. Nuclear war. Pandemic. Climate change. Runaway artificial intelligence.

Jiang’s team chalks up these existential risks to what they describe as deeply ingrained dysfunction in intelligent beings such as humans. “Dysfunction may snowball quickly into the Great Filter,” the researchers wrote.

But dysfunction isn’t inevitable, Jiang and his coauthors stressed. “The foundation for many of our possible filters finds its roots in immaturity,” they wrote. We could grow up as a species, dismantle our nukes, switch to clean energy, tamp down on the zoonotic viruses that cause the worst pandemics and even develop better technology for deflecting planet-killing asteroids.

All of these reforms require humanity to work together, the JPL team wrote: “History has shown that intraspecies competition and, more importantly, collaboration, has led us towards the highest peaks of invention. And yet, we prolong notions that seem to be the antithesis of long-term sustainable growth. Racism, genocide, inequity, sabotage… the list sprawls.”

With peace, love and understanding—and some major technological breakthroughs—we just might survive our own self-destructive tendencies and defy the Great Filter. And if we can work together to get past the filter, it stands to reason other civilizations could, too. Our own survival should give us hope that someday, somehow, we’ll meet the other Great Filter survivors.

Or maybe not. Hanson himself thinks Jiang and company got the Great Filter, and the potential solutions to it, partially wrong.

The global cooperation Jiang and company advocated as the means of our survival could be the very thing that ends up destroying us, Hanson told The Daily Beast. “Clearly they recommend more centralized control and governance of our civilization,” Hanson said. “But I actually see excess governance centralization as the most likely contribution to our future Great Filter.”

In Hanson’s conception, the more we decentralize, the more likely some of us to survive and thrive. Imagine isolated homesteaders riding out a devastating pandemic, or private space-explorers—your Jeff Bezoses and Elon Musks of the world—establishing off-world colonies on the moon or Mars. Colonies that could endure even as some calamity wipes out everyone on Earth.

Other critics think the entire Great Filter theory is bunk. It’s possible we haven’t met aliens yet not because they’re all dead, but because… well, we haven’t met them yet. The universe is vast. Even if there are billions of thriving alien civilizations, they’re almost certainly very far away. It’s going to take patience, and a lot of searching, to eventually find them.

“The Great Filter theory depends on the assumed observational result that nobody is out there,” Seth Shostak, an astronomer with the California-based SETI Institute, told The Daily Beast. “But that conclusion is far too premature. We’ve just begun to search.”

[ghost2509]

Scientists discover a mysterious solar system. It's nothing like ours.

Mashable
msn.com
Mark Kaufman
Nov. 13, 2022

We know space is teeming with mystery. Adding intrigue, astronomers recently found an ancient solar system that's far different from our cosmic home.

Some 90 light-years away, the researchers spotted an over 10 billion-year old white dwarf star — meaning the remaining hot core of a dead star similar to the sun — that's surrounded by a graveyard of broken apart chunks of planets, called planetesimals. The faint star has pulled in debris from these objects. But this solar system is unlike anything around us. It teems with elements like lithium and potassium. Crucially, no planets in our solar system have such a composition.

Why was this ancient solar system in our early Milky Way galaxy so different? How did it become rich in these materials, which were rare at the time?

"It is a complete mystery," Abbigail Elms, a PhD student at the University of Warwick who researches white dwarfs, told Mashable. The research was published this week in the science journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

As noted above, this solar system is old. That means the white dwarf (called WDJ2147-4035) and its surrounding solar system formed, and died, before the sun and Earth were even born. In fact, the chunks of former planets around WDJ2147-4035 are the oldest planetesimals that have ever been found in our galaxy around a white dwarf, Elms noted.

How do astronomers know what this archaic solar system was composed of?

They discovered this white dwarf, and another one of a similar age, using an observatory in space called Gaia. While orbiting the sun, this distant spacecraft is mapping out stars and galaxies in the cosmos. After spotting these white dwarfs, the researchers then turned to an instrument called the "X-Shooter," located at a high elevation in Chile, to detect what is and isn't present in the stars' atmospheres (X-Shooter is a type of profoundly valuable astronomical tool called a "spectrometer"). In WDJ2147-4035, they found chemicals like lithium, potassium and sodium had accreted — or got pulled in by gravity and amassed around — the ancient star. White dwarfs are made of hydrogen or helium, so the rocky remains of planets were responsible for supplying the other unique elements, the researchers concluded (by running simulations of this solar system's evolution).

Interestingly, the other white dwarf (WDJ1922+0233) they discovered was significantly different than the mysterious one. It's more familiar. They determined this star had pulled in planetary debris that's similar to Earth's rocky crust. So although one solar system remains an anomaly, the other one shows that Earth isn't so unique in the cosmos: There are other solar systems out there somewhat like it.

These two solar systems, however, are filled with graveyards of former planets. Over 95 percent of stars, like the sun, evolve into white dwarfs. Near the end of their lives, they expand into colossal red giant giants, destroying or disrupting nearby objects. When our sun expands, it will engulf planets like Mercury, Venus, and maybe even Earth, before it sheds its outer layers. The red giants will leave behind relics of broken apart planets and moons. The remnant star itself will be a white dwarf.

This is our cosmic destiny. Just not for a long, long, long time.

"Our sun will evolve into a white dwarf, in approximately 5 billion years," Elms said

[ghost2509]

NASA's Artemis rocketship on course for moon after epic launch

REUTERS
MSN.COM
By Joey Roulette and Steve Gorman
Nov. 16, 2022

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - NASA's huge next-generation rocketship was on course Wednesday for a crewless voyage around the moon and back hours after blasting off from Florida on its debut flight, half a century after the final lunar mission of the Apollo era.

The much-delayed launch kicked off Apollo's successor program, Artemis, aimed at returning astronauts to the lunar surface this decade and establishing a sustainable base there as a stepping stone to future human exploration of Mars.

The 32-story-tall Space Launch System (SLS) rocket lifted off from NASA's Kennedy Space Center at 1:47 a.m. EST (0647 GMT), piercing the blackness over Cape Canaveral with a reddish-orange tail of fire.

About 90 minutes after launch, the rocket's upper stage successfully thrust the Orion capsule out of Earth orbit and on its trajectory to the moon, NASA announced.

LAUNCH PAD DRAMA

Liftoff came on the third attempt at launching the multibillion-dollar rocket, after 10 weeks beset by technical mishaps, back-to-back hurricanes and two excursions trundling the spacecraft out of its hangar to the launch pad.

About four hours before Wednesday's blastoff, crews had to deal with a flurry of simultaneous issues, including a leaky fuel valve.

Quick work on the launch pad by a special team of technicians, who tightened down a loose connection well inside the "blast zone" demarcated around a nearly fully fueled rocket, was credited with saving the launch.

The three-week Artemis I mission marks the first flight of the combined SLS rocket and the Orion capsule together, built by Boeing Co and Lockheed Martin Corp, respectively, under contract with NASA.

After decades with NASA focused on low-Earth orbit with space shuttles and the International Space Station (see graphic), it also signals a major change in direction for the agency's post-Apollo human spaceflight program.

Named for the ancient Greek goddess of the hunt - and Apollo's twin sister - Artemis aims to return astronauts to the moon's surface as early as 2025.

More science-driven than Apollo – born of the Cold War-era U.S.-Soviet space race that put 12 NASA astronauts on the moon during six missions from 1969 to 1972 – the Artemis program has enlisted commercial partners such as Elon Musk's SpaceX and the space agencies of Europe, Canada and Japan.

The Artemis I mission entails a 25-day Orion flight bringing the capsule to within 60 miles (97 km) of the lunar surface before flying 40,000 miles (64,400 km) beyond the moon and looping back to Earth. The capsule is expected to splash down at sea on Dec. 11.

'YOU COULD FEEL IT' The thunder of 8.8 million pounds of thrust produced at launch by the rocket's four main R-25 engines and its twin solid-rocket boosters sent shock waves across the Kennedy complex, where crowds of spectators cheered and screamed.

"It was just incredible to see. It was so bright, so loud, you could feel it," said NASA astronaut Jessica Meir, among those who could be selected for a future Artemis crew.

The Orion capsule will have some company around the moon from a tiny satellite, CAPSTONE, that reached its intended lunar orbit on Sunday to test a complex gravitational parking position called a "near-rectilinear HALO orbit."

That position would be home to a future lunar space station called Gateway, slated for deployment later this decade as part of the Artemis venture.

The first Artemis voyage is intended to put the SLS-Orion vehicle through its paces in a rigorous demonstration flight, pushing its design limits to prove the spacecraft is safe and reliable enough to fly astronauts.

If the mission succeeds, a crewed Artemis II flight around the moon and back could come as early as 2024, followed within a few years by the program's first lunar landing of astronauts, one of them a woman, with Artemis III.

Sending astronauts to Mars, an order of magnitude more challenging than lunar landings, is expected to take at least another decade and a half to achieve.

Billed as the most powerful, complex rocket in the world, the SLS represents the biggest new vertical launch system NASA has built since the Saturn V of the Apollo era.

Although no people were aboard, Orion carried a simulated crew of three - one male and two female mannequins - fitted with sensors to measure radiation levels and other stresses that astronauts would experience.

A top objective is to test the durability of Orion's heat shield during re-entry as it hits Earth's atmosphere at 24,500 miles (39,400 km) per hour - much faster than re-entries from the space station.

The spacecraft also is set to release 10 miniaturized science satellites, called CubeSats, including one designed to map the abundance of ice deposits on the moon's south pole, where Artemis seeks to eventually land astronauts.

More than a decade in development with years of delays and budget overruns, the SLS-Orion spacecraft has cost NASA least $37 billion. Its Office of Inspector General has projected total Artemis costs at $93 billion by 2025.

NASA says the program also has generated tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in commerce.

[alexora]

To the Moon and beyond!

You Tube

You Tube

[Tallifer]

I don't get why there was such an air of schadenfreude in the media over the first few delayed launches. What's the harm in making sure it's launched safely and reliably. I've not worked in such a critical industry but in my business we have rolled out all sorts of systems 'on time' so contractors get bonuses and walk away leaving us picking up the aftermath of IT systems that don't work properly.
Theres no harm in trying to get things working properly. It's frustrating and expensive to be delayed but it's worth it if it's a success over a disaster.

[alexora]

Originally Posted by Tallifer

I don't get why there was such an air of schadenfreude in the media over the first few delayed launches. What's the harm in making sure it's launched safely and reliably. I've not worked in such a critical industry but in my business we have rolled out all sorts of systems 'on time' so contractors get bonuses and walk away leaving us picking up the aftermath of IT systems that don't work properly.
Theres no harm in trying to get things working properly. It's frustrating and expensive to be delayed but it's worth it if it's a success over a disaster.

This is how it's done: extensive testing before initiating the first lift-off.

Problems can then be identified and remedied in advance before lighting that candle.

The Artemis 1 travels with an unprecedented 18-minute burn, able to take to the Moon a payload way beyond anything achieved so far.

The aim is to take enough material to build a Moon station, that will eventually serve as the staging post to manned Mars missions.

You have got to measure twice (or more), cut once...

[maxhitman]

Originally Posted by alexora

The aim is to take enough material to build a Moon station, that will
eventually serve as the staging post to manned Mars missions.

GREAT!
When can I move in into my new apartment ?

I want a window "moon view" of the Sea of Tranquility where
Apollo 11 astronauts landed on the Moon in 1969.

[alexora]

Originally Posted by maxhitman

GREAT!
When can I move in into my new apartment ?

I want a window "moon view" of the Sea of Tranquility where
Apollo 11 astronauts landed on the Moon in 1969.

I'd rather have one where one can view the 'earthrise'...



Jokes aside, I would imagine that astronauts (for obvious reasons no cosmonauts) with experience of living on the International Space Station (i.e. with proven experience of living off world in cramped conditions and still be functional in their chosen field) would be at the top of the list of candidates.

[maxhitman]

Originally Posted by alexora

I'd rather have one where one can view the 'earthrise'...

Don´t forget, the area of "the sea of tranquility" does have an
Earth-view.
The Planet Earth is there to view 24/7 days of the week. The moon does
not spin around completely and the astronauts when they landed in that area, always took nice photos of the Earth in the background.

Here is an old photo of them with the flag and the earth in
the background.


But considering how things are here on Earth, we might have blown up
the entire planet by the time we have a moon station

[Don-Juan]

About the whole "Great Filter" thing. I think maybe fiction has also bloated our expectation by now. We expect life out there to be all highly advanced sci-fish or at least on par with us. We want to snapchat with aliens! If life somewhere out there is "just Trilobites" again, we feel let down and will never know anyway, 'cause they're too far away and can't call us back. Chances are other life exists out there, but we just can't know. Further, I've also heard a theory saying that we just live in a deserted part of space. Like we are stuck in the Nevada desert, can't leave and have no idea Las Vegas is "just a few miles away".