On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Keith Hudson wrote:

> At 15:39 12/09/2012, Arthur wrote:
> > Subject: FW: How we got to Mars A MUST SEE
> > http://www.youtube.com/embed/XRCIzZHpFtY?rel=0
> 
> I'm puzzled. This must have been the simulation of a previous proposal. 

This was for the Spirit/Opportunity landings in '03. If you strip off
the "embed" in the link you get 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCIzZHpFtY
which gives you all the information. As with the link you give, it is
a heavily CGI'ed post-production mixing live action with animation.

> For
> one of the recent Curiosity landing see:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9hXqzkH7YA

I happened to watch this one live - the youtube version is greatly 
compressed, of course. I was sitting down to check the news on the CBC 
website one night, and found a note saying the landing would be 
occurring shortly, and CBC had a direct feed from NASA. As it turned 
out, I had opened the CBC site about five minutes before the landing, 
improbably enough, and got to watch the whole thing. I took the time to 
check the NASA and JPL sites, and found they were overloaded, so I was 
doubly fortunate to find the CBC stream. The feed was in HD, and the 
euphoria in the JPL control room was fascinating to watch bubble up and 
explode in real time. The hugs and cheers and bubbly went on for about 
ten minutes, and then only tapered off a little. The feed went on for 
about 45 minutes, til the lander went round the horizon from the 
relaying orbiter. 


> 
> Brunel would be very proud of what engineers are achieving today. I'm greatly
> looking forward to the results of rock analyses in a few weeks'/months' time.
> Will there be any signs of DNA there?  If so, will it have the same four
> nucleobases as earth's lifeforms? If not, it will suggest that life arose
> separately on Mars and Earth. It's all very fascinating.

I will be surprised if evidence of anything like life is found on 
Mars. I am not convinced that it retained a hospitable atmosphere 
and climate for a long enough period, considering its low mass and 
lack of strong magnetic field.

> 
> What's so extraordinary about life is that it can only grow and evolve 
> in a universe in which several sub-atomic parameters are set so 
> precisely and so narrowly that only one in a quintillion of slightly 
> different universes would qualify.

Of course, those universes would not have anyone there to see them, so
they rather self-deselect. If we're looking, we have to find ourselves 
somewhere we can exist.

> Adverting to Natalia's mention of Bell's Theorem yesterday which 
> suggests a sub-atomic informational field below the level that we 
> think of as reality maybe there's a dialogue going on. Maybe the 
> universe is riddled with lifeforms.

Yes, it would seem the numbers are strongly in favour of this. The 
Kepler probe currently has posted over 2300 planetary candidates, in an 
incredibly restrictive sample - the region a little off the centreline 
of the milky way is less than ten degrees on a side, so around 1/1300th 
of the sky. The stars considered are above 14th visual magnitude, so 
only within about 3000ly, say 3% of the length of the galaxy. And the 
detectable planets must be aligned with our point of view, which is a 
tiny fraction of possible orbital orientations. For big, close-orbitting 
planets, this can be maybe 1-2% of possible orientations, but for small 
planets far from the star, such as ourselves, the detectable 
orientations represent 0.1% or less. In fact, the system's sensitivity 
is such that planets such as our own are so small and far from their 
stars that they are on the rolloff slope of detectability, basically 
just getting into the noise. Nevertheless, so far, there appear to be 
around 50 that are within the habitable temperature range, and three or 
four that are less than twice our diameter, so not too gravitationally 
unpleasant. A very naive back-of-envelope calculation based on these 
numbers suggests that conservatively, those three or four therefore 
expand to around 50 million over the extent of just our galaxy, which 
of course is just one of *billions*. It would be very hard to imagine 
there not being inconceivable quantities of life out there.

http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/kepler

 -Pete

> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
>    
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to