Slashdot Mirror
Wild 2 Comet Analyzed
Mz6 writes "Back in January Slashdot reported about the Stardust probe and its capture of particles from the tail of Wild 2 (pronounced 'Vilt 2'). You might also remember about how it snapped 72 images of the comet and sent them back to JPL. Well, after a detailed analysis of the comet Wild 2 and building upon preliminary analysis in March, it has left astronomers at JPL astounded at an object that has no known peers in the solar system. The comet has towering protrusions and steep-walled craters that seem to defy gravity, more than a dozen jets of material shoot out from its insides, dust swirls around the comet in unexpectedly dense pockets, and boasts 2 large 'footprints', aptly named Left and Right."
Ok... Well when I submitted this story I forgot to include links to the Stardust Website, Wild 2 Photos, and some interesting Wild 2 Stereo Photos (2.0 MB). Best of all.. there's minimal reading, just pretty pictures. Enjoy :)
Hmmm.
I know that there are countless countless objects in space... but I think they could come up with something better than left and right :)
Sounds to me like this is just an inter-stellar traveller from afar making his daily rounds. I'm going to laugh if we try to land a probe on a comet and some windshield wiper-like apparatus fires up and sweeps the probe off.
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
Show us your craters! Show us your craters!
The features have been named Left Foot and Right Foot in a new map of the comet, which is roughly 3 miles (5 kilometers) wide.
That's one big map!
Have you read my blog lately?
The article mentions Wild 2's low gravity, but I did not find mention of a gravity defying crater. Anyone care to share more about this?
I think a distinct lack of gravity might be the cause of this.
The comet has towering protrusions and steep-walled craters that seem to defy gravity
Really? On an object flying in space? Whodathunkit?
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
I know it's a dirty snowball but I'm really curious about how much is water, how much is ammonia and other stuff and how much is rock. In the crazy proto-science of terraforming, comets are earmarked for use as atmosphere builders. Depending on the general makeup of the objects, it could drastically change the models for terraforming Mars, Venus and other places.
Blaze a trail to the New World
And the 2, how do I pronounce that? Just asking...
I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
I mean, we already know they're pieces of rock, ice and other minerals, in a near future, what possibilities could we have to extract those rare metals or compounds...? (forget any mention of Armaggedon and Deep Impact)
...you mean that stupid, stupid movie (Armageddon) actually might have had the look of a comet right? Who'd have thought.
;)
--I no longer spellcheck - it cost me 5 points.
Much hotter then other space bodies, that much is known.
The comet has towering protrusions and steep-walled craters that seem to defy gravity...
A comet would have practically zero gravity
> you mean that stupid, stupid movie (Armageddon) actually might have had the look of a comet right?
Well, this is made even funnier by the idea that Armageddon was a movie about a meteor, not a comet. Carry on.
Virg
It must be full of "alloys" that our scanners can't analyze if it is from someplace we haven't been before.
And of course alloy refers to the same subset of materials that thing refers to.
If we can expect Star Trek to teach us anything this is one of the <laugh>Prime Directives</laugh> that must be true.
The thing is, that doesn't seem right. You shouldn't be able to "jump into orbit" anywhere (barring atmospheric braking, a change of mass, additional thrust applied, etc, to change your velocity). Your path will either intersect the object you're jumping from, or break its escape velocity. Perhaps this is different for irregularly shaped bodies with irregular gravitational fields, but good luck trying to establish a stable orbit there through "jumping"....
;)
Now, you *could* "run into orbit", assuming you can get the traction to do so, on a perfectly smooth low gravity atmosphere-less body - you run up to orbital velocity, then curl your body up, and you'll orbit at the altitude of your center of mass. But, if you were to have any significant "jumping" component, you'll likely make yourself intersect the body you're trying to orbit.
Also, you could jump up and throw a rock and enter orbit that way. However, in the case that you're dealing with a uniform graviational field around a perfect sphere, and the rock that you throw has the same mass as you, you'll hit it on the other side
You know when it's okay to shout fire in a crowded theatre? When it's on fire.
Or anywhere near that part of the country, nobody knows what is in this capsule.
As much as we know it can contain some strange alien material that may have an 'explosive' reaction to our atmosphere. Or better yet, life in the form of bacteria or a virus.
Yes, I've watched WAY TO MUCH of the Outer Limits and Twilight Zone!
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
If you browse around the Stardust website a bit more you will find a report that scientist were disappointed in the mission becuase it grabbed a lot less material then they had at first thought. It's still on par to land in 2006, in a very remote part of Utah -- the desert.
Hmmm.
Sounds a bit like scoop.
Like when Reed and Mayweather did...
Just be sure you get back to the ship before the comet's orbit changes causing ....Umm...nevermind..wrong reality..
LFS. Have you built your system today?
You might try reading the rest of the article before you go all asshat. This is the comet's first trip thru the inner solar system.
"In 1974 it had a close encounter with Jupiter and was thrown onto a new orbit that brings it closer to the Sun. A comet loses material when it approaches the Sun, as solar radiation causes ice from its surface to "sublimate" into space, carring dust and larger particles with it. The process creates a cloud of material that reflects sunlight and creates the familiar head of a comet (scientists call it a coma) and sometimes a tail."
But if you do RTFAs, you learn that Wild 2 had a recent close encounter with Jupiter that substantially changed its orbit, so it's likely that it has received substantially more solar heating in recent decades.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
Secondly, as the article says, "In 1974 it had a close encounter with Jupiter and was thrown onto a new orbit that brings it closer to the Sun. A comet loses material when it approaches the Sun"
Thirdly, if it had been a constant rate, it would have been 93210 miles, not 937.
Hope this helps...
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
"If the planet has lost about 1 meter worth of material since 1974 then at that rate it would have lost about 937 miles worth of material at a constant rate since its "birth" "4.5 billion" years ago."
I guess it's too much to expect people here to have actually _read_ the article before they start claiming that the authors are idiots?
"Comet Wild 2 probably gathered itself together 4.5 billion years ago, just after the Sun was born, in a region beyond Neptune known as the Kuiper Belt. _In 1974 it had a close encounter with Jupiter and was thrown onto a new orbit that brings it closer to the Sun_."
yes, but if you read the article, you would have seen that "In 1974 it had a close encounter with Jupiter and was thrown onto a new orbit that brings it closer to the Sun. A comet loses material when it approaches the Sun, as solar radiation causes ice from its surface to "sublimate" into space" So in no way could you say that the loss is "uniform" before 1974, it would have lost damn little of it's mass
The QuickTime videos that JPL has on the stardust site are horrible. 66Mb for barely 5 seconds of video? Ridiculous.
The pictures are quite amazing. It is very puzzling why so small an icy body can have flattened crater floors. It does not take much gravity to
allow warmed ice to viscuoously relax apparently.
When I look at the images of those amazing spires
on the comet limb. I can't help but think about
the descriptions of Comet Haley's surface in
Arthur C. Clarke's 2061. That guy has spooky prescience.
an ill wind that blows no good
Wait... it sent 72 images of the comet to John Peter Lewis? Why? I guess he needed something to do after he got voted off American Idol...
It seems you are the one doing the crap science. If you would have read the article, you would have noticed it said, "In 1974 it had a close encounter with Jupiter and was thrown onto a new orbit that brings it closer to the Sun. A comet loses material when it approaches the Sun, as solar radiation causes ice from its surface to "sublimate" into space, carring dust and larger particles with it. The process creates a cloud of material that reflects sunlight and creates the familiar head of a comet (scientists call it a coma) and sometimes a tail." So for most of it's existance, it would not have sublimated and hence remained unchanged.
"Only two other comets have been seen up close, but both appeared fairly smooth and were nowhere near so heavily cratered."
Well with such a HUGE sample pool, I can see how they're able to make such firm analysis of this meteor! I mean, really - both the others they've seen up close didn't look at this one, so clearly this one is completely unique in the solar system!
Sigh.
Ven veelll the ting be "svelt", mahnn?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
From the NYT article: "Flying through the dust around Wild 2, the spacecraft gathered thousands of particles that are now being returned to Earth for closer investigation. A capsule holding the exotic cargo is to make a soft landing in the Utah desert in January 2006."
Time to start "Andromeda Strain" midnight showings in local theaters!
(Give me back my Sterno, you crybaby!)
Bureaucracy loves company.
heh heh heh - quality comment!
He referred to "evolutionary dogmatics." This boy won't read nuthin but the bible.
All of us geeks are trying to generate good images/movies of 43D models for Pr0n sites....
of course you can jump into orbit, and out of orbit. you seem to be assuming you can run faster than you can jump. in low-gravity, running is very difficult, jumping is easy. and in low-gravity, escape velocity is very low.
see subject...