Voyager 1 transmitting data again after NASA remotely fixes 46-year-old probe

[Bob Crowley]

There's a scene in the SF comedy "Absolutely Anything" where some aliens capture a probe sent by earth. They find a template similar to this CD with a message like "We come in peace!".

They break out in guffaws of laughter and toss it onto a whole pile of other similar plaques and space probes sent out by various intergalactic races.

I thought it was pretty funny.

 

[AlexB23]

While it may have been really more for us -- the Earth audience, the people in favor of NASA -- the Voyager spacecraft also included a gold disk in the old fashioned manner of a vinyl record and a plaque about us, helping point to our solar system also. Of course, you'd not want some hostile alien civilization to find that.

But I think no worries. I think no such exist, neither friendly ones either for that matter I think. (and there might not be a way to do FLT either, etc.) I'd be delighted to be wrong -- and us find a friendly alien civilization, but I read a lot of astronomy reports and we have continued to learn how commonplace natural phenomena are in star systems generally that would too soon sterilize a planet with early life.

I enjoy science fiction though, and aliens are a lot of fun in story form. They make great metaphors for parts of the human psyche. Endless fun stories.

But I think these records below on the Voyagers were more for us than them even back then. I favored it myself, way back, as a kid, where the SF was that aliens would be more like Star Trek: where most would be amenable to some non war relationship.

On the Voyagers:

Yes, the Golden Records. By the way, these records have images stored on them. And yes, if aliens do exist, hopefully the species are friendly. Maybe the aliens who were unfriendly wiped themselves out: Great Filter theory could explain why ET's not answering

 

[SelfSim]

.. Maybe the aliens who were unfriendly ...

Its a common error to slip in the undistinguished implication like 'the aliens' actually did exist, by leveraging merely word meanings, in order to play around with logical syllogisms having that flawed assumption as the sole basis. Ie:

wiped themselves out: Great Filter theory could explain why ET's not answering

Its called gaslighting in politics, yet there doesn't seem to be a term for it in scientific discourse .. other than 'Junk' science.

 

[AlexB23]

Its a common error to slip in the undistinguished implication like 'the aliens' actually did exist, by leveraging merely word meanings, in order to play around with logical syllogisms having that flawed assumption as the sole basis. Ie:

Its called gaslighting in politics, yet there doesn't seem to be a term for it in scientific discourse .. other than 'Junk' science.

Yeah, I have no idea why someone came up with the Great Filter Theory, but I posed it to try to explain to @Halbhh one of the potential reasons why we have not made any contact with ET. But yes, I totally agree with you that the Great Filter Theory has no basis in science. In fact, I try not to discuss about aliens, as there is no proof of aliens. This is the dude who came up with the Great Filter Theory. He isn't even an astronomer, but instead an economist who wants his brain frozen when he passes away (he is a strange dude, if you ask me): Robin Hanson - Wikipedia

By the way, I dislike gaslighters as well, and some political figures in our society have used it against us.

 

[Ophiolite]

Its a common error to slip in the undistinguished implication like 'the aliens' actually did exist, by leveraging merely word meanings, in order to play around with logical syllogisms having that flawed assumption as the sole basis. Ie:

I see you are still promoting your obtuse argument re-aliens. I have no intention of re-entering that fruitless discussion with you. I just don't think slipping in your nuanced statement should go unremarked. (So that was the remarkl.)

Oh, in cross-posting I see you have disciple.

 

[SelfSim]

I have no intention of re-entering that fruitless discussion with you. I just don't think slipping in your nuanced statement should go unremarked. (So that was the remarkl.)

Yes .. I also think its pretty redudant to make a post announcing why one is not posting .. thank you for pointing that out in your unremarkable post there.

Oh, in cross-posting I see you have disciple.

Hmm .. I'm not really interested in disciple-ism commentaries .. are you?

 

[Estrid]

Yeah, I have no idea why someone came up with the Great Filter Theory, but I posed it to try to explain to @Halbhh one of the potential reasons why we have not made any contact with ET. But yes, I totally agree with you that the Great Filter Theory has no basis in science. In fact, I try not to discuss about aliens, as there is no proof of aliens. This is the dude who came up with the Great Filter Theory. He isn't even an astronomer, but instead an economist who wants his brain frozen when he passes away (he is a strange dude, if you ask me): Robin Hanson - Wikipedia

By the way, I dislike gaslighters as well, and some political figures in our society have used it against us.

'No idea why"
Do you suppose it would have been to the Incas
and Aztecs advantage to keep the Spaniards from
finding out about them, or to have advertised
their existence?


You might enjoy reading The Three Body Problem.


Re not not discussing that for which there is no oroof
doesn't that cut you off from discussion of anything
but math and spiritus frumenti?

 

[AlexB23]

You might enjoy reading The Three Body Problem.


Re not not discussing that for which there is no oroof
doesn't that cut you off from discussion of anything
but math and spiritus frumenti?

Yeah, the second part of your post is true. So, I like discussing hypotheticals.

 

[Estrid]

Yeah, the second part of your post is true. So, I like discussing hypotheticals.

Check edited post.

And Three Body Problem if you like sci fi

 

[Ophiolite]

Hmm .. I'm not really interested in disciple-ism commentaries .. are you?

I'm interested in almost any commentary on anythings since it represents another perspective. If you map rock outcrops you can predict the subsurface geology. So it is with humans.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm interested in almost any commentary on anythings since it represents another perspective.
...
So it is with humans.

Yes .. always the human perspective .. which is demonstrably rife with beliefs about what exists .. like ETIs.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes .. always the human perspective .. which is demonstrably rife with beliefs about what exists .. like ETIs.

There are sound reasons to consider ETIs may exist. There are sound reasons to consider we currently lack the data to assess the probability that they do. I'm unable to view this from the perspective of a geranium, or a highly siliceous lava, though I likely share with them the condition of having no beliefs.

 

[SelfSim]

There are sound reasons to consider ETIs may exist.

Hypothetical predictions, (or 'sound reasons'), for the existence of ETI, are no more than restatements of the evolutionary pathway of our own intelligence. From the mass of evidence taken from the backdrop of the evolutionary history of Earth's biosphere, we also know that the specific pathway which leads to human intelligence, is unique within that biosphere's evolution.
Predictions (or 'sound reasons') about existence, or otherwise, on top of that, adds no new, useful (or objective) information about ETI.

There are sound reasons to consider we currently lack the data to assess the probability that they do.

Lacking the relevant data for the existence of ETI, is a demonstrable fact. No such data has ever been collected.
Reasoning soundly from that, leads to objectively gathering and organising relevant data as we encounter it, whilst deliberately not treating that data from the viewpoint of reinforcing the belief of 'assessing the probability that they do'.

I'm unable to view this from the perspective of a geranium, or a highly siliceous lava, though I likely share with them the condition of having no beliefs.

I'm pretty sure that the human mind can't be completely free from beliefs, (though, with full disclosure here; I wouldn't even have a clue about how to demonstrate that, myself).
The aim is to be clear about the basis of such predictions, (or 'sound reasons'), leading to inferences of: 'existing, true, must exist, must have existed, likely, probable, (etc)'. That basis, is just (lazily) believing it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hypothetical predictions, (or 'sound reasons'), for the existence of ETI, are no more than restatements of the evolutionary pathway of our own intelligence. From the mass of evidence taken from the backdrop of the evolutionary history of Earth's biosphere, we also know that the specific pathway which leads to human intelligence, is unique within that biosphere's evolution.
Predictions (or 'sound reasons') about existence, or otherwise, on top of that, adds no new, useful (or objective) information about ETI.

Lacking the relevant data for the existence of ETI, is a demonstrable fact. No such data has ever been collected.
Reasoning soundly from that, leads to objectively gathering and organising relevant data as we encounter it, whilst deliberately not treating that data from the viewpoint of reinforcing the belief of 'assessing the probability that they do'.

I'm pretty sure that the human mind can't be completely free from beliefs, (though, with full disclosure here; I wouldn't even have a clue about how to demonstrate that, myself).
The aim is to be clear about the basis of such predictions, (or 'sound reasons'), leading to inferences of: 'existing, true, must exist, must have existed, likely, probable, (etc)'. That basis, is just (lazily) believing it.

I've just figured out (I can be quite slow) that you are attacking , for the most part, a strawman. The exception lies in your opening paragraph: only the last portion of the pathway leading to human intelligence is unique, most of it is shared with other animals. And the remarkable intelligence of squid was arguably reached by a more distinctive pathway than that of humanity.

However, this is off topic for this thread. If you wish to discuss this further intitiate a thread for that purpose.

 

[SelfSim]

I've just figured out (I can be quite slow) that you are attacking , for the most part, a strawman. The exception lies in your opening paragraph: only the last portion of the pathway leading to human intelligence is unique, most of it is shared with other animals.

Hmm .. interesting. I'm open to being shown how I'm arguing against a strawman(?)
Do you agree that the pathway to modern-day human intelligence is unique, regardless of other in-common (approximate) features shared across other species?

To be clear, the unique human intelligence I'm speaking about here, is the type which demonstrates the ability to communicate in the RF or optical domains, (or in the case of Voyager messaging: physically), across vast distances. I am not aware of any other species in our biosphere capable of sending or receiving intelligible messages that way(?)

And the remarkable intelligence of squid was arguably reached by a more distinctive pathway than that of humanity.

Squid do not meet the criteria I outline above. I hope my clarfication is sufficient to escape your strawman inference(?)
Squid are also, (presumably) unique within their own niches .. which is different from the niche in which we find human intelligence.
SETI is not seeking out squid intelligence over astronomical distances.

However, this is off topic for this thread. If you wish to discuss this further intitiate a thread for that purpose.

I'm unclear about the need for another thread. Voyager contains a prominent attempt at SETI messaging.
There still exists the possibility of resolving this matter fairly quickly in this thread, by confining discussion to the scope of Voyager's intended messaging capabilities, coupled with the clarifications I just provided(?)

 

[SelfSim]

Hmm .. interesting NASA press release today:
Earth just received a laser message from 140M miles {1.51 AU) away, NASA says (just beyond Mars' orbit):

.. During the latest test, the spacecraft transmitted data at a rate of 25 megabits per second. While this might sound low, NASA says it far surpasses the project's goal of proving at least one megabit per second was possible at that distance.

(As a comparative reference: Voyager 1 is at about 162 AU in April 24).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hmm .. interesting NASA press release today:
Earth just received a laser message from 140M miles {1.51 AU) away, NASA says (just beyond Mars' orbit):

(As a comparative reference: Voyager 1 is at about 162 AU in April 24).

And about 160 bits per second. (0.00016 mega bits per second)

 

[SelfSim]

And apparently, RF beats optical over big distances .. at least based on these papers, which may be a little out of date (and I note that it is dependent state of development of the technology).

1. Comparison of microwave and light wave communication systems in space applications (2005):

6. CONCLUSION
Achievable data rates of RF and optical communication systems were compared as a function of the communication link distance, using system parameters based on currently available technologies for the link budget analysis. Despite the fact that only very specific parameters were considered for the optical systems, the RF communication system tends to be better suited for distances beyond 10^7 km. For near-Earth communication links such as the Moon-to-Earth communication link at around 4 × 10^5 km, an optical system with optical preamplification is best suited. It is also best suited for high-data-rate, short-link communications. The choice of a suitable space communication system must also take into account the terminals' mass, power, volume, regulatory restrictions, etc. RF communication systems will be preferable in deep space communication links for the time being, maybe until quantum communications technology makes a big leap forward.

and;
2. Morimoto, T. Toda, T. Takano, Study of Application Fields of Lightwave Communications in Space, 22nd ISTS Symposium, 2000:

One basic characteristic of optical systems is that the electrical power of the signal is proportional to the square of the received optical power. This is in contrast to RF systems, where the electrical power of the signal is proportional to the received RF power. The received optical power is inversely proportional to the square of the link distance, so the signal-to-noise ratio of optical systems degrades more quickly over increasing distance than with RF systems. We examined two optical systems and one RF system, and concluded that optical systems are more suitable for communicating over a relatively shorter distances in space than RF systems.