NASA's Voyager 1, the furthest spacecraft from Earth, simply refuses to die.In a recent update, the space agency revealed that the little probe that could has once again sputtered back to life thanks to some remote magic done on its thrusters from 15 billion miles away.Launched nearly 50 years ago, just after its twin craft Voyager 2, the probe has been plummeting through interstellar space for decades at speeds of more than 38,000 miles per hour. Along with discovering new moons and rings on Saturn and Jupiter, Voyager 1 has also been slowly going mad and dying — but NASA is not letting it go down without a fight.The spacecraft's mission team decided to see if they could fix its thrusters, which have been "deemed unusable" since 2004 and have been relatively dormant ever since.Notably, the craft does have a second pair of thrusters that were revived in 2018 and 2019, but they're unable to induce the roll motion that "rotatesantenna like a vinyl record to keep each Voyager pointed at a guide star it uses to orient itself," per NASA.When those primary roll thrusters first began to peter out, it wasn't seen as the end of the world."I think at that time, the team was OK with accepting that the primary roll thrusters didn’t work, because they had a perfectly good backup," explained Kareem Badaruddin, the Voyager mission manager at NASA, in the agency's update. "And, frankly, they probably didn't think the Voyagers were going to keep going for another 20 years."As the years went by and it became clear that the thrusters could be fixed, NASA began to investigate the issue and found that those primary thrusters could be fired with the help of some very sensitive instructional programming from Earth.It took nearly a full day for NASA to send its instructions to the probe, so the mission team was mostly left in the dark, so to speak, trying to figure out whether it had worked.Despite the communication blackout, the Earth-bound Voyager team saw within 20 minutes that the probe's thruster temperature had risen just enough to have been successful — an indication that the gambit paid off."It was such a glorious moment," enthused Voyager propulsion lead Todd Barber. "Team morale was very high that day.""These thrusters were considered dead. And that was a legitimate conclusion," he continued. "It’s just that one of our engineers had this insight that maybe there was this other possible cause and it was fixable.""It was," Barber said, "yet another miracle save for Voyager."More on unlikely space: Scientists Just Moved Up the Death Date of the UniverseShare This Article #zombie #voyager #spacecraft #resurrects #its

Earth has been home to life for billions of years, but could the planet itself be considered a living thing? Most people simply think of Earth as a giant rock — one with the perfect conditions to nurture life as we know it today, from animals and plants to microscopic bacteria. But English environmental scientist James Lovelock thought differently. Departing from traditional scholarly views, Lovelock collaborated with American evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis in the 1970s to develop a new perspective called the Gaia hypothesis. This idea frames Earth as a living system in which all organisms influence the surrounding environment to maintain homeostasis (in other words, stability). Although the hypothesis remains highly controversial to this day, it has broadened scientific dialogue about the identity of our planet. The Gaia HypothesisIn formulating the Gaia hypothesis, Lovelock took inspiration from ancient Greek mythology. Gaia, the Greek goddess of Earth, was worshipped as the mother of all creation. In a chapter of the 1988 book “Biodiversity,” Lovelock insinuates that the idea of a living Earth is deep-rooted in humankind, but was largely lost in the scientific community after the 19th century. The Gaia hypothesis revived this buried idea, proposing that Earth is a whole living entity, essentially a superorganism composed of many parts acting in synergy (much like an ant or bee colony). Earth lives and breathes, Lovelock suggested, by way of closed feedback loops that balance the planet’s conditions and keep them favorable for life. By this hypothesis, organisms are said to facilitate processes that regulate things like atmospheric temperature and ocean salinity, for example. Criticisms Against the Gaia HypothesisMost criticisms that initially surfaced from opponents of the hypothesis asserted that Earth and living organisms could not be acting to support the planet consciously, with an intentional goal in mind. Staunch proponents of Darwinism didn’t believe that organisms could “reach a common good by natural selection and that natural selection cannot act on the whole planet,” in the words of a 2021 EarthArXiv preprint paper.Others argued that the hypothesis was more of a metaphor, since it couldn’t be tested for validity. Scientists debated the Gaia hypothesis over the course of four Gaia conferences, trying to resolve disagreements. In the second Gaia conference, held in 1988, Lovelock responded to criticism by developing a mathematical model called Daisyworld. Here, a hypothetical planet modeled after Earth contains two types of daisies: black daisies that absorb light and warm the planet, and white daisies that reflect light and cool the planet. The model suggests that the daisies stabilize the climate in a way that allows the planet to maintain an optimal temperature for both types to live. Daisyworld would not silence critics entirely, as they would continue to find issues with the lack of additional contributing factors that could affect life and cause the system to become unstable. For example, a system could have “cheaters” — selfish organisms that don’t work toward a planet’s stability. Making Our Planet More IntelligentEarth may not be alive in the traditional sense, but does it have a mind of its own? Scientists pondered this question in a 2022 study published in the International Journal of Astrobiology.Partially inspired by the Gaia hypothesis, researchers presented the concept of planetary intelligence, explaining how collective activity can create a self-sustaining system on Earth. The study states that the planet is currently in a stage called the “immature technosphere,” in which technology has not yet been fully implemented to drive Earth’s systems. Right now, we’re still exhausting natural resources like fossil fuels without benefiting the planet in return. Eventually, though, we may unlock the next stage of planetary intelligence, what the researchers call the “mature technosphere." This would require technology to directly support Earth’s well-being without inflicting negative impacts. Although there is no telling when we would reach this point, the researchers say making Earth more intelligent with technology could help in the fight against climate change.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Biodiversity. The Earth as a Living OrganismEncyclopedia of Ecology. Gaia HypothesisReview of Geophysics. Daisyworld: A reviewInternational Journal of Astrobiology. Intelligence as a planetary scale processJack Knudson is an assistant editor at Discover with a strong interest in environmental science and history. Before joining Discover in 2023, he studied journalism at the Scripps College of Communication at Ohio University and previously interned at Recycling Today magazine. Source: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/could-earth-develop-its-own-consciousness-the-gaia-hypothesis-offers-an #could #earth #develop #its #own #consciousness #the #gaia #hypothesis #offers #unorthodox #answer