backtop


Print 37 comment(s) - last by jeff834.. on Oct 16 at 11:52 PM

Don't worry the spacecraft is ours

Sending a spacecraft to orbit Venus to scan for signs of life on Earth may sound a bit strange. Despite how odd a mission to scan the Earth for life from afar sounds, a mission doing exactly that has been underway with the European Space Agency (ESA) since November of 2005.

The ESA launched the Venus Express satellite with the initial intent to study Venus. After the initial 243-day mission ended, the satellite was tasked with a different mission -- to look at the earth from orbit around a distant planet and attempt to find new methods of determining life on the planet.

Space.com reports that from Venus orbit, the Earth is smaller than a single pixel in the spacecrafts cameras and no surface details are present. The idea behind the mission is to help scientists discover better methods for determining if life is flourishing on a planet. Once the methods used to determine the presence of life are optimized, scientists will use them to help find Earth-like planets in other solar systems that support alien life.

David Grinspoon, a scientist working on the Venus Express project, told Space.com, "We have initiated the first sustained program of Earth observation from a distant platform. We want to know what can we discern about the Earth's habitability based on such observations. Whatever we learn about Earth, we can then apply to the study of other worlds."

Venus Express is currently in orbit at about two million miles from Earth and is imaging Earth via its Visible and Infrared Thermal Imaging Spectrometer. According to Space.com, the project has so far determined that detecting signs of life from a long distance is not easy.

According to scientist Giuseppe Piccioni, Venus Express is able to observe the Earth two or three times per month and has taken about 40 images of the Earth in the last two years.

Piccioni said, "We see water and molecular oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, but Venus also shows these signatures. So looking at these molecules is not enough." The scientists are hoping to use a phenomenon known as the red edge as a more accurate determination of life on distant planets. Red edge is the infrared signal caused by photosynthetic life. Green plants are bright in near infrared.

Analysis of the data gleaned by Venus Express about the Earth is only in the first stages of being analyzed. Scientists hope to determine from the data if the Earth's red edge is visible from a distance.

Scientists are finding distant planets at an impressive rate; over 300 extrasolar planets have been discovered since 1995, and we get closer to finding Earth-like planets every day. Data from the Venus Express could help the scientists determine if life on Earth-like planets actually exists.

With new detection techniques Grinspoon says, "We are now on the verge of finding Earth-like planets." However, it will likely be years before any practical application of discoveries made from the Venus Express data can be applied. If scientists are having a difficult time finding signs of life from Venus orbit, a short jaunt of only 2 million miles by space travelling standards, applying any techniques discovered to extrasolar planetary observation will be incredibly difficult.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No signs of life?
By morikaweb on 10/15/2008 1:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
Er, did they scan the RF spectrum? I can use a dollar store radio and prove there is life on earth. Surly that probes antenna array can pick up all kinds of RF pollution from Earth.




RE: No signs of life?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/15/2008 1:40:56 PM , Rating: 5
The goal isn't to prove the Earth has intelligent life...we're fairly sure of that already, most days at least. Rather, the object is to develop tests which can be applied to other extrasolar planets to determine biologic activity of one sort or another.


RE: No signs of life?
By MrBungle123 on 10/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: No signs of life?
By bunnyfubbles on 10/15/2008 2:41:30 PM , Rating: 5
The unoriginality of your poor attempt at a joke is a better sign of lack of intelligence than the joke itself...


RE: No signs of life?
By Dove2Three on 10/16/2008 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, why so hostile?


RE: No signs of life?
By drwho9437 on 10/16/2008 8:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
No doubt because he know hostility is the main thing rewarded by these kinds of good comment bad comment systems.


RE: No signs of life?
By dice1111 on 10/16/2008 9:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
Are we really sure there is intelligent life here? Sometimes I wonder...


RE: No signs of life?
By Emryse on 10/16/2008 11:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you posted a comment... and I posted a comment.

So I say "Yes".


RE: No signs of life?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: No signs of life?
By jeff834 on 10/16/2008 11:52:01 PM , Rating: 3
You should read the article before you comment. The craft was launched to study Venus, which it did successfully, then once it was done they figured hey why not use it to see if we can come up with some new ideas. Personally I don't think figuring out new things and testing new ideas is ever a waste of money. If that was the case we'd still be in the dark ages.


RE: No signs of life?
By AssBall on 10/15/2008 1:46:27 PM , Rating: 4
SETI already scans the RF spectrum of most of the sky.


RE: No signs of life?
By SpaceJumper on 10/15/2008 9:36:48 PM , Rating: 1
SETI found ET has enough and wants to go home.


RE: No signs of life?
By SpaceJumper on 10/15/2008 9:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
Alien may not be using electromagnetic waves for RF transmission. Alien could be transmitting gravity encoded wave. Gravity wave is clean and does not interfere by the magnetic waves occurring naturally from space.


RE: No signs of life?
By CurseTheSky on 10/15/2008 10:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... gravity waves for transmission...

"Oh sure, John, you HAVEN'T been downloading porn all day again. Your chair just MAGICALLY got sucked next to the wireless router!"

Oh well, I guess it would be one step closer to being able to punch people in the face over standard TCP/IP.


Our servey says....
By jadeskye on 10/15/2008 12:32:19 PM , Rating: 5
Result: No intelligent life found.

Moving on to Proxima Centauri.




RE: Our servey says....
By IraeNicole on 10/15/2008 12:47:36 PM , Rating: 4
Hah, I hope that the misspelling was intentional.


RE: Our servey says....
By jadeskye on 10/15/2008 1:11:24 PM , Rating: 3
the unfortunate result of no sleep in over 40 hours :p


RE: Our servey says....
By therealnickdanger on 10/15/2008 2:44:16 PM , Rating: 4
Don't worry about, it makes the post even funnier!


RE: Our servey says....
By KaiserCSS on 10/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Our servey says....
By masher2 (blog) on 10/15/2008 1:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "It couldn't possibly support life as we classify it"

We don't know nearly enough about stellar astronomy and astrobiology to make such a claim with certainty. While it's true that Proxima Centauri should lack the large, stable habitable zone that one would expect would be required for the development of life, the fact is that all such assumptions are simply extrapolations from conditions here on earth, and lack hard data to back them up.

> "if we intend on ever discovering intelligent life anywhere else in this universe, we're going to have to cheat the speed of light"

To meet and communicate with, we will. But simple discovery can easily take place at lightspeed...that's the goal of SETI, after all. Of course, the civilization may be long-dead by the time we actually discover them.


RE: Our servey says....
By sgw2n5 on 10/15/2008 1:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.

Besides, "life" doesn't necessarily mean a carbon based life form either.

The environment on earth was apparently good enough for carbon based life forms to appear on earth and subsequently evolve, who is to say what circumstances would or would not result in an entirely different form of life elsewhere?


RE: Our servey says....
By Crotius on 10/16/2008 3:08:10 AM , Rating: 1
And..... you miss the point of his post entirely, thereby making his/her point all the more valid.

I just HAD to turn my lurk shields off for this one.


RE: Our servey says....
By SpaceJumper on 10/15/2008 12:58:45 PM , Rating: 1
No life on Earth, just a bunch of human being.


RE: Our servey says....
By Oregonian2 on 10/15/2008 1:22:40 PM , Rating: 3
... and Wall-E


RE: Our servey says....
By nugundam93 on 10/15/2008 1:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
ROFLOL! you sir deserve a 6. :)


earth-like planets
By hellokeith on 10/15/2008 7:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we get closer to finding Earth-like planets every day


Logically, this statement is untrue. You can logically say "I am closer to dying every day I live" because biological death is certain. We scientifically do not know when or if ever we will find an "earth-like" planet. It is not a logical certainty.

And before someone says "but but but the universe is big", you are, as Asher or Mick might say, guilty of Anthropological Bias. Size does not automatically make something more statistically significant, and in fact sometimes does the opposite.




RE: earth-like planets
By Yossarian22 on 10/15/2008 7:50:22 PM , Rating: 5
Nothing is ever "logically" untrue. Logic is devoid of truth claims. Something is either logically valid or invalid. You also commit the same fallacy you accuse the author of. You can't logically claim "I am closer to dying every day."
1: All known humans in history have eventually died.
2: Therefore all humans will die eventually.
That is a clear inductive fallacy. Similarly, it is not an Anthropological Bias so much as a rephrased defense attorney's fallacy.

If you are going to bit nitpicky about logic, try not to suck at it.


RE: earth-like planets
By masher2 (blog) on 10/15/2008 8:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
> "you are, as Asher or Mick might say, guilty of Anthropological Bias"

To be precise, I'd say anthropomorphic bias. :)

> "We scientifically do not know when or if ever we will find an "earth-like" planet."

Well, if one defines "earth-like" as a planet approximately the same mass and density, with large amounts of water and a surface temperature to allow that water to remain liquid -- then such planets are indeed a virtual certainty, from sheer statistics alone. By that

The only real wrinkle in the equation is whether or not an abnormally massive satellite (such as Luna) is required, to strip away excess atmosphere and/or stabilize axial tilt. However, if the other parameters were met, I think we'd call such a planet "earth-like" whether or not it had a large moon.


RE: earth-like planets
By hellokeith on 10/16/2008 2:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To be precise, I'd say anthropomorphic bias


Ah, thanx for the correction. :)

quote:
such planets are indeed a virtual certainty, from sheer statistics alone


Statistics based on a non-existent dataset?

Towards the end of Carl Sagan's life, he confided in his son that he no longer believed in an abundance of life in the universe because no scientific evidence supported that assumption, and this prompted Sagan to be more vocal about human usage of earth's resources.

If Hubble has proved anything it proved time and time again that we know very little about the universe and are just now beginning to learn. This is not an insult against science, in fact science is driven by the quest for knowledge. But don't short-change scientific progress by making science-sounding claims which have no evidence. It is like trying to prove man-made global warming with bad data and incomplete models. If you are really interested in the science, don't go into it with an unbreakable assumption, but do the science right, with good evidence.


RE: earth-like planets
By foolsgambit11 on 10/16/2008 6:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'll throw my hat in here. The author didn't specify what he meant by Earth-like planets. If he's talking about planets close to their suns of approximately the same size as Earth, then it is a logically valid assumption that as our ability to probe the heavens improves, we are getting closer to having the ability to find planets that fit those criteria. I think you agree that much. Whether we find them or not is based on the assumption of whether planets that fit those criteria exist (besides the four inner planets in our solar system, of course). Therefore, you are not critiquing his logic, you are critiquing his assumptions (the givens).

If we escape the realm of pure logic, though, and look at the patterns, we'll see that the better our technology gets, the more extra-solar planets we find. It stands to reason that extra-solar planets are not a total rarity.

Givens: the fact that there are so many stars out there; the fact that the greater the precision of our sensors, the greater the number of planets found.
Common Sense Conclusion: our sensors will continue to improve, and continue to find more and more planets - making the 'universe is big' an argument that supports the likelihood of Earth-like planets (increasing the statistical likelihood).

I know this line of reasoning is guilty of the same fallacy your 'closer to dying' analogy is guilty of - induction is a natural process of the human mind.


Subtitle
By Raidin on 10/15/2008 3:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
The subtitle, read from the main page, was golden.

Thanks for the laugh. =)




RE: Subtitle
By boredg on 10/15/2008 3:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.


Photosynthesis
By Chemical Chris on 10/15/2008 6:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Red edge is the infrared signal caused by photosynthetic life

Well, thats all fine and dandy for earth, but whose to say that alien worlds will have photosynthesis! The light from their star may put out more accessible energy along a different wavelength (earth: 680 and 700nm), so the alien life might utilize, say, 850nm, causing some difficulty.
So while the idea is sound, its not like we are expecting to find alien worlds with life similar to ours (possible, of course, but not likely. There will be similar functions, but vastly different ways of going about it). There should still be a similar effect, just not necessarily at the same wavelength as we're expecting.

ChemC




RE: Photosynthesis
By Alareth on 10/15/2008 9:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
We have to start with what we know as a baseline and work out from there.


One Pixel?
By zeestephen on 10/16/2008 2:34:39 AM , Rating: 2
The Earth, seen from the orbit of Venus, produces less than one pixel of visible light?

I can stand in my suburban front yard and see Venus and Mars with my eyes.

And the satellite is two million miles away, orbiting Venus?

I think this article needs an editor.




RE: One Pixel?
By Felofasofa on 10/16/2008 9:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
Budget cuts, they could only afford a 4 mega-pixel compact with 3x zoom.

Seriously, well spotted.


Two million miles?
By PrinceGaz on 10/15/2008 1:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Venus Express is currently in orbit at about two million miles from Earth...


That can't be right as it is actually orbiting Venus, and at a lot less than two million miles from it. Therefore its distance from Earth will vary between about 25 and 160 million miles.




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki