Five news items about extraterrestrials

{ "translated_text": "And on the eighth day did the Creator create aliens?\nAmong other things, the Vatican also has an authoritative scientific institution — the Vatican Observatory. Until recently its director was the American Jesuit George Coyne. In accordance with the decision of Pope Benedict XVI, Coyne was sent into retirement (but retained the post of president of the Vatican Observatory Foundation), and Argentine priest Jose Funes was appointed in his place.\nHaving given several interviews about the new appointment, Funes denies that Coyne lost his position because of his adherence to the theory of the evolutionary origin of man and criticism of creationism. The new pope himself is a proponent of intelligent design (not to be confused with “scientific creationism” — a parody of both science and faith). The successor of the observatory’s director highly praised the work level of his predecessor and refused to answer provocative questions about his own attitude toward the theory of evolution. Funes stated that he advocates good science and good theology, and nothing more. However, he himself touched on another acute topic — extraterrestrial life.\nFunes said that recent discoveries increase the probability of detecting extraterrestrial life. The “chief astronomer” believes that such a discovery will not create insurmountable problems for theology: aliens should be regarded as our brothers and the creation of God. Christian theology has already addressed this issue and concluded that Christ should be considered the savior of aliens as well. Nevertheless, a number of problems remain — from the spread of original sin to alien life to the question of a common cosmic Adam. It seems that there are more grounds for reaching anti‑church conclusions in this (still speculative) problem than in the relatively clearer question of the evolution of terrestrial life.\nSome commentators think that such statements by a high‑ranking priest‑scientist may reflect data on extraterrestrial life available to the Vatican. However, it is more likely that both Funes’s words and the commentators’ hopes merely express humanity’s long‑standing desire not to feel alone — that very feeling that is one of the nourishing sources of faith itself.\n\nSpace Walks\nDutch biologists investigated the possibility of lichen survival in open space on the Russian satellite \"Photon‑M2\", which was launched into orbit last summer. Two lichen species successfully endured vacuum, harsh radiation, and large temperature fluctuations for two weeks. In space the lichens suspended their metabolic activity, and upon returning \"home\" they resumed growth as if nothing had happened (they only needed protection from overheating during launch and landing).\nA lichen is a symbiotic organism consisting of a fungus and an alga, essentially a mini‑ecosystem. Thus, a complex of fungi and plants can travel in open space. What about animals?\nThe same lichens host tardigrades — eight‑legged organisms less than a millimeter long. It is known that a desiccated tardigrade can withstand even harsher conditions than those endured by the lichen. When placed in water, the tardigrade revives and becomes active. According to some data, the lifespan of this low‑mobility creature can exceed one hundred years (though it consists of short periods of activity interspersed with a half‑life in a desiccated state).\n[IMG_1]\nThus, it can be assumed that representatives of all three main groups of terrestrial life are capable of traveling in open space. Such a \"gift\", landing on a suitable planet, would immediately generate a rich and diverse biosphere there.\nIt is a pity that the Dutch sent lichen samples into space without tardigrades.\n\nAnd the comet, no pity?\nOn July 4, Independence Day in the USA, America will launch a missile strike on comet Tempel‑Tuttle (Tempel 1). More precisely, not America, but the American spacecraft \"Deep Impact\", launched about six months ago. One day before the \"C\" time it will release a self‑guiding rocket weighing half a ton, which will collide with the comet. The result of the collision will be observed by the \"aggressor\" from a distance of 500 km.\nThe planned event is compared to an attempt to hit another moving bullet with a single flying bullet and also watch the impact. The surreal nature of this venture is reflected even in the name of the spacecraft: \"Deep Impact\" — the title of a 1998 science‑fiction film about a comet bombarding Earth (in the Russian release — \"Collision with the Abyss\").\nWhy is this costly experiment needed? The public was given the following explanation: by destroying the comet we could determine what material it is made of, which would aid scientific progress. Another reason is to protect Earth from possible dangerous contacts with asteroids and comets. One should not forget the purely military significance of the project (a rocket could also be aimed at a spacecraft), and simply the staged demonstration of technological power tied to a national holiday.\nAwaiting another triumph of human intellect, let us consider the consequences of the experiment. What will happen to the comet is uncertain. Most likely, the impact will punch a crater on the surface of its nucleus (approximately 6 km across) the size of a football field, although more catastrophic scenarios are possible. In any case, the resulting fragments would apparently pose no danger to our planet. But is the tailed star itself not worthy of pity?\nComet Tempel‑Tuttle, discovered by the German astronomer Ernst Tempel in 1867, orbits the Sun with a period of five and a half years. Like any comet, it gradually \"loses mass\" under the influence of the solar wind (producing the Leonid meteor stream), so the destructive experiment would only slightly accelerate a natural process.\nAccording to one viewpoint, unique objects that cannot be reproduced by humans should be protected — not only for any potential benefit they might bring, but also simply for ethical reasons. Every species on our planet is unique, every human personality is unique, every work of art created by human genius is unique, and every comet in the heavens above our heads is unique. You may say that a comet is doomed to die without our intervention. But the fact that species go extinct, people die, and masterpieces are destroyed does not make their destruction ethically acceptable.\nNevertheless, the lamentations are belated; the project was planned five years ago and will now surely take place unless some technical malfunction interferes. Scientists will feel satisfaction from solving a complex engineering problem, and laypeople will marvel at the possibilities of new technologies. But can we guarantee that witnesses to the comet’s destruction will not experience a fraction of the thrill that inspired the vandals who once stormed Rome?\n\nWe are tired of loneliness\nIn the days since the last issue of \"Kompyuterrra\" was released, a major sensation has both emerged and faded. The expedition of the Siberian public‑state fund \"Tunguska Space Phenomenon\" visited the site of the 1908 explosion. According to expedition members, a series of technogenic structures were allegedly found there, in particular rods of various sizes. Their composition has not been fully determined, but appears unusual. It is emphasized that the study of the finds will continue. It seems that the factual side of the case is exhausted.\nThe media supplied information about the expedition’s finds with their own commentary and photographs taken from other sources. Foreign experts expressed well‑grounded skepticism. The wheels turned…\nHowever, something else is interesting. The facts obtained were enough for the expedition participants to hypothesize that an extraterrestrial civilization diverted a large meteorite away from Earth using a spacecraft. The meteorite entered the atmosphere tangentially, and the ship (or its module) was destroyed. Its remnants are now found in the taiga. The main flaw of this explanation is obvious: it fits the current popular discourse on the search for aliens and protection from meteor threats.\nThe notion that humans interact with the world not directly but through cognitive models has been noted for many centuries (if not millennia), yet the topic has not lost relevance at all. Depending on the observer’s education and interests, different models will be activated. It is quite likely that phenomena once interpreted in the Middle Ages as the mischief of angels and demons are now attributed to alien actions. The essence of the event lies beyond explanation, and the explanation conforms to common mythology.\nAlas, accounting for the mythology of our times is absolutely necessary. Consider one example. NASA, in cooperation with several American universities, designed a device for searching for life on other planets, called Zoe. This mobile device can traverse rugged terrain, collect samples, and identify various forms of life. During field tests this autumn, a prototype of the device is planned to be launched on an autonomous journey across the Atacama Desert in northern Chile. It is likely that the costly instrument will still be monitored, although its purpose is to operate in complete isolation.\nWhat will a local resident feel upon accidentally encountering such a device? How will he interpret its origin and purpose? What should designers do to steer the thoughts of a person who finds a strange mechanism in a rational direction?\nOne solution comes to mind: place a label on the device explaining who created it and why. A Chilean would probably understand the label not in English but in Spanish. And how to compose it so that it inspires trust? Or should it be a speaker broadcasting a heartfelt voice?\nProbably, when the final version of the device is sent to Mars, similar explanations will have to be written in Martian?\n\nAliens use cable television\nFrank Drake, one of the most authoritative specialists in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, noted that cable and satellite television significantly reduces the flow of radio waves scattered by our planet into space. In recent decades Earth’s \"tele‑radiation\" has grown rapidly. We have formed a \"bubble\" with a radius of several tens of light‑years, continuously expanding and carrying ever farther into space the evidence of our folly, poured into the ether. Extrapolating our own trends, we could expect that an advanced alien civilization would be a powerful source of radio waves. However, a new technological zigzag has sharply reduced the informational pollution of outer space. And the probability of detecting fellow intelligent beings is assessed based on models that, among other factors, take into account the duration of potential contact periods of other civilizations.\nRemember the old joke — during excavations of 16th‑century deposits in Russia no wire was found, therefore a wireless telegraph was already used at that time? Now we know why we do not hear aliens — they use cable television!\n\nD. Shabanov. And on the eighth day did the Creator create aliens? // Kompyuterrra, M., 2006. – No. 32 (652)\nD. Shabanov. Space Walks // Kompyuterrra, M., 2005. – No. 44 (616)\nD. Shabanov. And the comet, no pity? // Kompyuterrra, M., 2005. – No. 23 (595)\nD. Shabanov. We are tired of loneliness // Kompyuterrra, M., 2004. – No. 29–30 (553–554). – pp. 15–16\nD. Shabanov. Aliens use cable television // Kompyuterrra, M., 2004. – No. 33 (557)" }