Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Crashed Spacecraft Yields Data on Solar Wind

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the best-of-a-bad-situation dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "After the Genesis mission spent 27 months in space gathering tiny samples from different types of solar wind, Hollywood stunt pilots swooped in with a helicopter to catch the falling capsule when it returned to earth. Unfortunately the spacecraft's parachute did not open, and the spacecraft ploughed a hole into the desert. Now scientists are starting to recover data from the salvageable pieces of Genesis. Nature Magazine reports that an analysis of isotopes of neon and argon shows that the elements of main interest to the researchers have the same isotopic signature in the solar wind as in the Sun itself. Because dirt contains relatively little neon and argon, the current Science study wasn't affected too much by contamination and the the team remains hopeful that they will be able to get results on oxygen and nitrogen isotopes from the mission."

44 comments

  1. Metric to Imperial measurement error? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me thinks so...

    1. Re:Metric to Imperial measurement error? by ceroklis · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, accelerometer mounted in the wrong orientation

    2. Re:Metric to Imperial measurement error? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Well, that was just a sign fault. If the programmer had taken the absolute value of the data it may have worked.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:Metric to Imperial measurement error? by shotgunefx · · Score: 1

      Actually, multiple accelerometers mounted in the wrong orientation, spring type so no ABS would have save it.

      --

      -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
  2. Delicate uncontaminated dust samples by j-stroy · · Score: 1

    I'll never forget that crashed UFO in a crater picture. Bravo for the humpty dumpty project's success!

    1. Re:Delicate uncontaminated dust samples by lixlpixel · · Score: 3, Funny

      i remember reading the thread on fark and laughing so hard, that i had tears running down my face...

      scroll halfway down - it's comedy in realtime

    2. Re:Delicate uncontaminated dust samples by pallmall1 · · Score: 1

      I'll never forget that crashed UFO in a crater picture.
      It looks like a turd waiting to be painted gold.

      Yeah, the instruments and samples were so delicate that the researchers were afraid that a parachute landing would be too hard and destroy the samples. But, but, wait! We really didn't need the helicopters.

      And parachutes? We don't need no stinking parachutes!.
      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
  3. And so it begins by ClubStew · · Score: 3, Funny

    Surely it picked up alien spores that are now loose in our deserts. Isn't this how many bad sci-fi movies begin?!

    1. Re:And so it begins by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure.... however, this probably has a higher chance of reproducing and ruining the planet...

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    2. Re:And so it begins by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      Spores?? Spores can't cut the parachute loose. Must have been something a bit bigger.

    3. Re:And so it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all this time I had considered The Andromeda Strain a good movie.

      But holy crap I need to have a talk with my mother. I remember watching this movie at a matinée on one of the many Saturday afternoons when my mother dropped me and my sister off so she could have time for herself. Shit! I was only 4 years old in 1971. No wonder I remember watching this movie from the lobby through the crack in the theater doors.

    4. Re:And so it begins by Annymouse+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Joke -woosh---> O

    5. Re:And so it begins by Annymouse+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      damn it, hit submit instead of preview. I meant:
      Joke -woosh--->
      O <--you
      /|\
      / \

  4. Brilliant! by pla · · Score: 1

    Because dirt contains relatively little neon and argon, the current Science study wasn't affected too much by contamination and the the team remains hopeful that they will be able to get results on oxygen and nitrogen isotopes from the mission.

    ...Because, of course, air contains relatively little oxygen and nitrogen, right?



    Also, one peeve - You only capitalize "science" if speaking about the magazine.
    1. Re:Brilliant! by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Interesting

      argon makes up about 1% of our atmosphere while neon takes up a smaller amount of our air. though I suspect that the gas was contained enough so that had enough to sample sections that had little or no visible contamination. had there been any real significant contamination from gases in our air, it is just as likely that the gases in the samples escaped, thus there wouldn't be much to sample. in addition to that, we know the general composition of the sun which shouldn't deviate too much from the composition of soalr wind so if we find something statistically off about the oxygen/nitrogen composition then we know that it is likely that the samples were contaminated.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Brilliant! by pallmall1 · · Score: 1

      in addition to that, we know the general composition of the sun which shouldn't deviate too much from the composition of soalr wind so if we find something statistically off about the oxygen/nitrogen composition then we know that it is likely that the samples were contaminated.
      In other words, if they find only what they expect (or want) to find, they can conclude that the samples are valid? Or, conversely, if they find something that is different than their theories predict, they can conclude that the samples must be contaminated?

      Why did they even bother to launch the probe?
      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    3. Re:Brilliant! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      There are probably several isotopes in the atmosphere, and several that aren't. If you find a lot of certain isotopes that are rare locally, then it's reasonable to suggest that it had come from elsewhere.

    4. Re:Brilliant! by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Why did they even bother to launch the probe?
      we know from the light spectrum of the sun what elements are in the sun and what amounts of each, pinpointing the isotopic composition however is more difficult. what I meant by the part

      if we find something statistically off about the oxygen/nitrogen composition then we know that it is likely that the samples were contaminated.
      was that if we find that the sample consists of mainly oxygen and nitrogen with little hydrogen or helium, it isn't likely to be part of the solar wind- more likely it's contaminated.
      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    5. Re:Brilliant! by lexarius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why did they even bother to launch the probe? Because they weren't planning to smash it into the ground, possibly contaminating the sample? It did crash, though, and with all the money they spent on it, they're working diligently to get what they can out of it.
    6. Re:Brilliant! by nusuth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      in addition to that, we know the general composition of the sun which shouldn't deviate too much from the composition of soalr wind so if we find something statistically off about the oxygen/nitrogen composition then we know that it is likely that the samples were contaminated. In other words, if they find only what they expect (or want) to find, they can conclude that the samples are valid? Or, conversely, if they find something that is different than their theories predict, they can conclude that the samples must be contaminated? Obviously, we also know the composition of the atmosphere. If the isotope ratios are different from solar wind and they are actually more similar to terrestrial sources, the scientists might conclude the samples are contaminated while they are not. In all other cases, the analysis will produce correct results.
      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    7. Re:Brilliant! by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      Because dirt contains relatively little neon and argon, the current Science study wasn't affected too much by contamination and the the team remains hopeful that they will be able to get results on oxygen and nitrogen isotopes from the mission.
      ...Because, of course, air contains relatively little solar oxygen and nitrogen isotopes, right?

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  5. Argon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because dirt and air from Earth contain relatively little neon and argon, the current Science study was not much affected by this type of contamination, says Wiens.
    What is this guy smoking? Earth's atmosphere is about 1% argon, it's everywhere.
    1. Re:Argon by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From what I remember about the original experiment. The colector plates that were exposed to the solar wind used layers to trap the solar wind particles. They were driven deep into the samples by the speed of the solar wind. Argon while present in the earths atmosphere is not as told by the researchers in the soil. Exposer to the air itself wont much contaminate the samples as there is no way to DRIVE the gas particles into the sample medium.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  6. The magazine it is by l2718 · · Score: 2, Informative

    TFA explains that they are publishing a series of papers. The quoted paragraph is about results on Neon and Argon which were published in Science. Other results were published elsewhere, such as Space Science Reviews.

  7. "Murphy's Law", corrected and correctly applied by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I found it interesting that the article describes how Murphy's Law was not as general as most of us know it, stating more specifically that things that can be installed backwards eventually will be installed backwards, and that this is precisely what caused the parachutes to fail to deploy.

    Also can't say that I knew Murphy was a "rocket scientist", literally. How ironic. You'd think NASA would have learned from him by now?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:"Murphy's Law", corrected and correctly applied by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also can't say that I knew Murphy was a "rocket scientist", literally. How ironic. You'd think NASA would have learned from him by now?

      Only a fool believes that Murphy can be circumvented - in the long run he always wins.
    2. Re:"Murphy's Law", corrected and correctly applied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also can't say that I knew Murphy was a "rocket scientist", literally. How ironic. You'd think NASA would have learned from him by now?

      They have. Nobody named "Murphy" works at NASA any more. ...we'll need a new law, though.

    3. Re:"Murphy's Law", corrected and correctly applied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      NASA thought they understood Murphy's Law correctly - that's why they delibertely installed the parachute backwards.

  8. KHAAAAAAN! by cnettel · · Score: 3, Funny

    Genesis was no failure. Dr. Marcus was indeed very proud over it.

    1. Re:KHAAAAAAN! by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      No, obviously this didn't work at all: There was no Genesis effect, otherwise I wouldn't be able to write this.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  9. I thought it was called 'Project Scoop'? by Zymergy · · Score: 1

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066769/
    http://www.1000misspenthours.com/reviews/reviewsa-d/andromedastrain.htm

  10. Ploughed??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If "draught" = "draft", does "ploughed = ploffed"? or "ploft"? WTF is ploffed? ITS "PLOWED".

    Effin' brits. Keep your tea, your teeth, and your F'd up spelling.

    1. Re:Ploughed??? by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Also, please keep Madonna.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  11. Uhh, *solar* wind by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Solar wind comes from the sun, so why should the particles be any different than the measurements taken from the sun? It is nice to confirm that solar wind really comes from the sun, but hasn't that been confirmed a long time ago by simply looking at the direction of the flow?

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  12. NASA's big Divot by TheHawke · · Score: 4, Informative

    I watched it on NASA TV when it came in. It had a pretty good wobble, coming in at a 90 degree angle relative to the earth. Folks had kinda figured that it was going to do a pretty good job of splattering itself on the desert floor. Was a pretty good surprise when it just dug a divot and stayed pretty much intact. Some folks think that most of the lake beds are hard as rocks through and through. Some are not so.
    Back in the 60's, legends Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong took a Beech twin up for some landing practice on some of the salt flats. Neil set up on a approach for one such flat, on his judgment that it was dry and stable.. Yeager, being the "desert rat" knew of certain flats that stay muddy under the salt crusts, and the one they set up to land was just that. He told Neil that he should abort and go find another flat. Neil, being the analytical computer, declared that it would hold. The Beech's tires touched down on the crust, and proceeded to keep going down into the muddy substrate, sinking up to the struts, coming to a halt.
    So the Beech sat there shaking and vibrating, engines going at full throttle. Chuck, ever being the wisecracking pilot turned and said to Armstrong "I told you so". Neil turned to respond, and his computer for a brain clicked and went kerCHUNK! He had nothing to say in return. They hiked to another flat so a DC3 could pick them up on the run.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    1. Re:NASA's big Divot by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      Armstrong with nothing to say? He was an awesome choice for first man on moon, but I wish that he felt some kind of obligation to talk about it more. He basically said thanks for the trip, now I'm going to retire leave me alone k thx bye.

      He's an inspiring man, I just wish he'd talk about it more.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    2. Re:NASA's big Divot by TheHawke · · Score: 1

      They were hired to do a job, not get blasted by the limelight. Most of the astronaut corps is like that. They got work to do, not play reporter.

      --
      First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  13. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new solar wind blowing overlords!

  14. *Brazil'd* by LEX+LETHAL · · Score: 2

    "They've switched back to metric again without telling us."

  15. Never mind those stupid inert gases! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Hydrogen we need!

    Wasn't there any hydrogen captured?

    How will we power our SUVs on this stupid inert crap? Somebody tell NASA to look for the valuable stuff!

  16. So....What? by Anachragnome · · Score: 2

    "Because dirt contains relatively little neon and argon, the current Science study wasn't affected too much by contamination and the the team remains hopeful that they will be able to get results on oxygen and nitrogen isotopes from the mission."

    Does the "Five-second Rule" apply here?