It's insane what these people do. They're rewriting code from the 60s to use even less memory, have to test it in production without physical access, and it takes two days to see if anything changes. It's an insane piece of engineering and it's incredible that it's still sending useful data.
I'd love to see what their test environments are like. You can't test everything, but they can certainly test some things. A raspberry pi has more software capability.
Voyager 1, the farthest human-made craft from the Earth, is finally sending back data from all four of its scientific instruments, NASA said this week.
That means the agency is once more receiving its readings on plasma waves, magnetic fields, and space-bound particles.
In April, the agency got it to start sending back health and status information, then science data from two of its instruments in May.
Now, NASA says Voyager 1, which is over 15 billion miles from Earth, is “conducting normal science operations” and the agency just needs to resync its timekeeping software and do some maintenance on a sparingly-used digital tape recorder.
And despite occasional issues with it and Voyager 2, NASA keeps figuring out ways to squeeze more life out of the probes, like tapping into reserve power or firing up thrusters that hadn’t been used in nearly three decades.
Now seems like a great time to either remind you of or point you to the sick Voyager posters, like the one above, that NASA has published on its site.
The original article contains 234 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 26%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
With two exceptions*, the names are from Roman mythology. So I'd expect the new planet to get a definitive name from the same template. (Please be Janus. It's the gate of the solar system!)
*Uranus is from Greek mythology, with no good Latin equivalent. Terra is trickier; you could argue that it fits the template for Latin and the Romance languages, but most others simply use local words for soil, without a connection to the goddess. That is also called Tellus to add confusion.
This is what machine learning is useful for. Not to try to convince you that oranges are active and potatoes are passive, or to give you a thumbs up with 7~8 fingers. But to detect patterns and allow automation of repetitive tasks.
That’s how alot of these discoveries seem like. Partly it’s just science reporting hyping up anything that happens, but then for many of these astronomical discoveries, it’s just a couple of pixels on a screen. And then somehow they can infer all sorts of things about it based on that. It’s just mind-blowing to think of all the data they can get from that about stars that are millions of light years away.
I would like to understand how they infer these things without becoming a science major. Is it just math equations based on what they think is the distance to the planet and then more math based on what they think the atmosphere is, and so on? Because they can't actually see the planet.
I can't explain this one, but I'd like to offer some other identifiers used. When searching for likely planets, they observe stars for wobble in their position. Large planets like jupiter and Saturn have some hefty pull on our own star. The common orbital point between them, called the barycenter, is still inside the sun, but their great distance apart pulls that barycenter closer to the edge of the sun. Our sun has a pretty notable wobble as a result. That's the kind of thing they look for elsewhere. If there's no other star causing the wobble in a binary system, then it must be a planet pulling it.
By estimating the mass of the star by various observations of color, brightness, and brightness variation, they can do some "easy" algebra to calculate the size of the affecting planet. From there, they can scan for radiation frequencies in the darkness where they think a planet is sitting. Water has a frequency, hydrogen has a frequency, oxygen has a frequency, helium, etc. By stuffing objects close to home, we can extrapolate that info and apply it to further objects with some confidence. This is how organic compounds were discovered in Venus' atmosphere.
A lot of it is based on what we have at home, meaning we're largely looking for what we have and then identifying it as the same. There is uncertainty about some details, but that's how it always goes with science. It's always being updated. It's takes a lot of creativity to imagine what else might be out there and to devise how to look for it. Black holes are a pretty notable example. Since they're not observable directly, what do you look for? Well, you look for other things being eaten and hope the matter is hot enough to throw a lot of radiation. 80 years ago, they were just an idea. Now we have images of a few galactic-center black holes. Some have been observed free floating through space by distorting the apparent position of stars behind it. Do we absolutely know it was a black hole? No, but that's what solid theories can identify it as given the darkness and huge mass required to cause that kind of effect. But, as a result, estimates for dark and cold objects vary greatly because they're the hardest to observe. There's talk of finding more "hot jupiters" than expected, but it's totally valid that maybe wevre just missing the cold Jupiter's because they're hard to see.
This telescope, launched 18 months ago now, had as one of its express goals to deliver insights about the early Universe.
The most straightforward way of doing so is to collect the faintest, most distant light that has spent the longest time traveling to reach Earth.
In some eye-opening new results, the telescope has found and confirmed the discovery of a very bright galaxy that existed just 300 million years after the Big Bang.
The galaxy may not have the catchiest name—it's JADES-GS-z14-0, after the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey program—but in every other way, it's a remarkable find.
“All of these observations, together, tell us that JADES-GS-z14-0 is not like the types of galaxies that have been predicted by theoretical models and computer simulations to exist in the very early universe," the astronomers said.
"Its discovery has profound implications for the predicted number of bright galaxies we see in the early universe."
The original article contains 233 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 34%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I thought the torus shape was the accepted theory? Guess I haven't been keeping up on this.
Near the bottom of the article they mention that if the universe wasn't flat, we would see multiple copies of the universe in the sky. I'm not sure that is exactly true? Given the speed at which the universe is expanding, especially during the early period after the big bang, it seems reasonable that the light from most stars wouldn't have had a chance to loop back around yet. Even the light from the earliest stars is just reaching us, so I don't know why they think it would have had time to loop back around multiple times, unless there's something I'm missing?
And nothing in the article really touched on the "holes" mentioned in the title. Are they referring to the center of a torus, which isn't really a hole that we could observe? I don't get it.
Astronomy
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).