Slashdot Mirror
SOFIA Sees Jupiter's Ancient Heat
astroengine writes "The flying telescope SOFIA took its maiden flight on Wednesday, and its 'first light' images have already been released. The cool thing about SOFIA is that it flies high enough (integrated inside a converted 747, taking it to an altitude of 41,000 ft) to carry it above 99% of the atmosphere's infrared-absorbing water vapor. This means it can collect 80% of the IR radiation that hits orbital telescopes (like NASA's Spitzer) but without the huge cost of being launched into space. Also, SOFIA is expected to last 20 years, many times the operational lifespan of space missions. Already, SOFIA has returned stunning results, including the observation of heat leaking through Jupiter's clouds, heat that was generated billions of years ago when the gas giant was forming."
So does it 'fly' at high altitude for 20 years, or orbit?
Really? I could swear the hubble has been up for 20 years.
I heard about this a while back and am still puzzled as to how you isolate a space telescope from vibrations while its still somewhat within the atmosphere. Is there very little or no turbulence at its flight altitude?
IT never fails to amaze me that NASA does not send a balloon to 100,000 feet and load it up with all kinds of scientific equipment. That way, they would have advantages of being almost in space, but for a fraction of the cost of sending anything in space.
It obviously does have advantages so far as costs go, though only time will tell just how many observing hours it clocks up
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
AC flame-bait, DON'T feed that troll...
AC flame-bait, DON'T feed that troll...
Asking for scientific evidence to back up an assertion that was made as factual is flame-bait? Really? I thought this was science, not religion.
You're demonstrating the very mentality GP talked about. "Oh no, he questions the mainstream, what a troll he must be!" Such a "troll" can be silenced easily enough: give him evidence. You won't. What am I supposed to think, except that this is a religion that uses scientific language?
First of all, this is a news article, not a research paper, so it doesn't need to provide evidence for something that isn't even primary to the article in the first place. Secondly, the OP spent much of the rest of his/her post referencing an alternative theory of the universe that has not been supported by evidence and certainly doesn't compete with the current models. His post reeks of the same kind of persecutionism that bullshit artists typically use when those who know what they are talking about call them out on their bullshit.
Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true you're a pal and a cosmonaut.
And if you through a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say thank you for being a friend.
I feel bad posting this as I agree that this may be considered feeding a troll, but honestly, in the future phrase your arguments without such an arrogance.
For some reason astronomy and cosmology are full of "statements of fact" that aren't factual at all.
Using statements like these, people that might have loved to talk with you, or even have an intelligent debate, are turned off when you say "screw your field" up front. This is Talking To People 101. Lastly,
"Oh no, he questions the mainstream, what a troll he must be!"
We do not think you are a troll, question the mainstream, ask questions politely and specifically presenting your facts up front: this is how scientific discoveries are made! But if I am going to refute a mathematical proof of a colleague, I present evidence, I do not just say "this has been proven wrong"!
Don't stoop to the level of Scientology - provide links, citations, and an open mind.
It's anybody's guess - since the tracking software crashed :-)
http://spitzer.caltech.edu/mission/where_is_spitzer
Personally I am attracted to the alternative Electric Universe theory because they recognize a need to back up their statements with laboratory experiments, and with theories that do have a great deal of proof behind them, such as the behavior of plasma.
LOL.
Electric Universe holds that the solar wind is caused by the sun's electric charge, creating a current of protons outward.
Actual experiment indicates that the solar wind is comprised of roughly equal amounts of protons and electrons traveling outward from the sun. With no net movement of charge there is no current, and Coulomb's Law says an electric field cannot move oppositely charged particles in the same direction, both indicating (though it's really one thing, the Theory of Electromagnetism) that the Sun has no net charge.
As one would expect from the well-verified theory of plasma behavior, the majority of which are quasi-neutral, with those that aren't being necessarily non-dense.
So, yeah, they ignore experiments that prove their most basic premises wrong, and don't even understand the well-established theory their ideas are allegedly based on.
But hey, I can't tell you who you should be attracted to.
The enemies of Democracy are
Good name for a Peter Gabriel single.
Jupiter's heat is not billions of years old - the planet keeps shrinking, and thus keeps producing heat.
And it is not 20 years of continuous operation, it is "two to three times a week for the next 20 years" (from the Discovery.com article). This is 28%-43% of the time
5.6-8.6 years of continuous operation. Plus there are the infrared camera plus "seven other instruments" which means that each instrument may only get 1/8th of the flight time.
While an interesting project, crowing about the 20 year life is not a selling point.
You post makes a good example of why I'm always saying that "science is the new religion."
It seems the scope is at the rear of the plane, unpressurized, and the front of the plane is pressurized and has the science area.
Why not reverse that? In the front of a 747 there is a LOT more room due to the expanded fuselage. Why didn't they put the science area in the back, where you don't need that much space for small people and instruments, and put the scope in the larger area in front so you wouldn't be quite so space constrained? Anybody know? I'm sure there is a good reason, I just don't see it.
The U-2 can reach 70,000 feet, compared with the 474's 40,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 There should be U-2s available now that they've been retired. Assuming it has enough payload capacity to carry the SOFIA, more resolution would be available.
So, CO2 is now (however wrongheadedly) officially a "pollutant". How is it that water vapor, a much stronger greenhouse gas, isn't considered such?
If you think human produced water vapor isn't an issue, I suggest you research the historical humidity record in erstwhile dry spots like Phoenix, AZ and inland southern CA.
The true answer is neither is a pollutant, and the human contribution to any warming of the Earth is negligible. The odds favor a cooling trend for a few decades regardless.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Sounds like you have yourself a religion there too, pal. Repeating the same thing always? Methinks you're not quite as clever as you think yourself to be... Any friends in real life? Pets?
And no joke, the captcha is "pathetic"...