Outer Space Thread

[Vidor]

Oh, and for a very entertaining novel that's getting made into a Matt Damon movie, go here

http://www.amazon.com/The-Martian-Novel ... B00EMXBDMA

[IMADreamer]

That was a great read. I feel sorry for the kid that just wants to go to space and dumped his girl to focus on it.

I liked the technical musing on just how goddamn hard it would be to sustain human life on Mars. Just getting there would be pretty difficult with the lengthy spaceflight.

It really is mind boggling when you think about it. Kind of makes me think that unless there is some pretty big leap in technology where we could actually terraform another planet we are pretty much stuck here on earth. Which is scary since we have kind of trashed it.

[Vidor]

Photos of Philae bouncing off comet

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... photo.html

[TimeForGuinness]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... ace-wrench

[pioneer98]

Quanta - A new physics theory of life

I haven't even read this one yet, but it is long and probably a tough read. I did read this shorter one on the same topic. It does a good job of explaining the science in an understandable way, but I don't like the stupid culture war slant they gave it.

I'll try to explain: this guy at MIT has a theory backed by models and physics principles which looks promising that could explain why life might emerge in certain conditions. Atoms that are driven by an external energy source (such as sunlight or heat) and surrounded by a "heat bath" (like an ocean or an atmosphere) will gradually re-organize themselves to dissipate more energy. This theory is really about explaining any "order" that comes out of random atoms, not just life. Tornadoes or lightning strikes are other examples of order coming out randomness.

The idea that organization like this can emerge does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because that applies only to closed systems. We have a constant source of energy in the Sun that keeps dumping more and more energy into our "system". If you included the Sun and every external energy source in the "system", then the 2nd law would still apply, but that's a pretty enormous system.

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

No big bang, maybe? Or dark matter?

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... verse.html

Edited to say: Anything that does away with dark matter/energy and/or singularity makes a whole lot more sense to me. Or makes it a whole lot more believable. Not that I what I believe matters as I can't understand the vast majority of the science behind singularity

[Vidor]

Four months untii the New Horizons probe makes its long-awaited rendezvous with Pluto

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... ation.html

[go birds]

http://www.space.com/27946-pluto-spacec ... akeup.html

basically the same as the article above, but the first poster in the comments section does pose a good question--why cant Hubble take detailed pictures of Pluto?

[TimeForGuinness]

http://www.space.com/27946-pluto-spacec ... akeup.html

basically the same as the article above, but the first poster in the comments section does pose a good question--why cant Hubble take detailed pictures of Pluto?

http://www.quora.com/Despite-having-tel ... e-a-smudge

In short, Pluto is too close.

[go birds]

http://www.space.com/27946-pluto-spacec ... akeup.html

basically the same as the article above, but the first poster in the comments section does pose a good question--why cant Hubble take detailed pictures of Pluto?

http://www.quora.com/Despite-having-tel ... e-a-smudge

In short, Pluto is too close.

ahh makes sense. thanks.

here's a pic of mars, venus and the moon in the same frame