Slashdot Mirror


Evidence For 200-Year-Old Comet Impact On Neptune

astroengine writes "Astronomers using ESA's Herschel space observatory have spotted evidence of a cometary impact in Neptune's upper atmosphere (publication, PDF). Whereas impact craters on rocky planetary bodies can remain for billions of years, an impact in the dynamic atmospheres of gas giants aren't obvious, especially if long periods of time have elapsed. This ultimate 'cold case' tracked the unusual distribution of carbon monoxide in Neptune's stratosphere, a sure sign it was deposited there by an external source. Once they realized they were looking at a comet impact, researchers were able to deduce when the impact occurred: 200 years ago."

11 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Impact probability by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Note that this hypothesis is more plausible than it might seem at first glance since we've seen comets impact gas giants before. Most famously, in 1994 Shoemaker-Levy 9 was observed directly impacting on Jupiter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9. This also isn't the first time this sort of technique has been used to detect historic comet impacts. As TFA notes, this technique was previously used to show that a similar event likely occurred around 230 years ago on Saturn.

    Although comets hit the outer planets frequently, this is due to a variety of issues including the large size of the planets and the exact orbit of Jupiter (which makes Jupiter very effective at clearing interplanetary debris). Thus, this sort of situation doesn't pose much of a risk for Earth. However, even a single such comet colliding with Earth would be an extinction level event. The asteroid that caused the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan is generally estimated to be around 10 km diameter and most comets are generally larger than that (Halley's Comet has a mean diameter of 11 km, and many have larger mean diameters). Comets are also much easier to spot generally than asteroids and so we have a better idea about their orbits and are more likely to have a lot of warning before a potential impact event on Earth. Asteroids are much harder to see and pose much more of a threat even though they are smaller objects (with the exception of a handful such as Ceres).

    1. Re:Impact probability by khallow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Note that this hypothesis is more plausible than it might seem at first glance since we've seen comets impact gas giants before. Most famously, in 1994 Shoemaker-Levy 9 was observed directly impacting on Jupiter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9. This also isn't the first time this sort of technique has been used to detect historic comet impacts. As TFA notes, this technique was previously used to show that a similar event likely occurred around 230 years ago on Saturn.

      So why do you think this technique shows evidence of a comet impact at a particular date? At best, it shows evidence of comet impact. Going from that to make a particular claim about the number of large impacts that could generate the observed atmospheric details, seems hasty. We may be seeing the results of many impacts over thousands of years rather than single large impacts a couple centuries ago.

    2. Re:Impact probability by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTFA.

      We're talking about the distribution of gases between layers of the atmosphere. This same technique could be used on earth to extrapolate when the industrial revolution started to have an impact on the upper atmosphere, and is based on a similar principle as analyzing ice cores to determine the composition of the atmosphere of the earth a thousand years ago, and as a result, make inferences regarding the general climate at the time. This isn't that far-fetched.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    3. Re:Impact probability by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      We may be seeing the results of many impacts over thousands of years rather than single large impacts a couple centuries ago.

      If your hypothesis was true - they wouldn't be a sharp gradient of CO concentrations between atmospheric layers. However, such a gradient was observed, showing the impacts occurred in a relatively short time frame a relatively short time ago.

    4. Re:Impact probability by euphemistic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Science is educated guessing. People get the facts and attempt to make the most plausible theory which fits said facts. When more facts are discovered, the theory is altered to fit said facts.

      All science should be therefore taken with a grain of salt, it's kind of the point. There is now a theory for a spot on Neptune, you aren't obligated to take it as some sort of absolute truth.

      And then to apply the 'logic' of "well we suck at this aspect of science so how could we be right about this other completely separate aspect", come on. You don't have to accept this at face value, but at least use a better argument than this.

      Just roll with the theories or feel free to put forward a new and better one - it's how science works.

    5. Re:Impact probability by radtea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe its just me, but it seems like an aweful lot of 'science' recently has been based on pure speculation.

      It is, indeed, just you.

      "Pure" speculation would be speculation without reference to facts or well established abstract principles.

      In the present case, there is a distinct feature in the upper atmosphere of Neptune. That is a fact. We also have a whole bunch of facts about the details of the feature. Furthermore, we have a bunch of facts about the properties of comets and the odds of a comet of a given size hitting Neptune in the past few hundred years. And finally, we have a bunch of facts about how the atmosphere of a gas giant reacts to being hit by a comet of a given size, as we have observed such impacts. And really finally, we have an enormous wealth of fact regarding the properties and behaviours of fluid systems. It's called 'fluid mechanics' and is one of the most well-established areas of physics, although it is not without it's ongoing challenges due to non-linearity.

      None of that is speculation. Zero. All facts, all the time. To be "pure speculation" something would have to not use any of those facts.

      Now, given those facts, we can extrapolate from what we know and ask, "Given the facts that we have about comets and gas giants and fluid mechanics and this specific feature on Neptune, can we interpret this specific feature on Neptune about which we have many facts as the result of a relatively recent cometary impact?" The answer is "yes".

      That is not speculation, pure or otherwise. That is science: rational inference from well-established facts and abstract principles.

      If you don't approve of science done in this way you should stop using your computer, cell phone, etc, and never drive a car or fly in a plane, as all of those technologies depend on scientific discoveries that are equally "speculative".

      Have you ever SEEN, for example, with your own eyes, the lift that a plane's wing provides? I don't think so. You just notice that planes have wings and that they don't fall down, and engage in some pure speculation" that wings provide lift. I call bullshit.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  2. Re:Whats in it for us? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    We are rapidly learning more about the cometary impact rate on Jupiter, and now Neptune. It should be possible to extrapolate from this to calculate the impact rate on Earth.

    Better extrapolation method: look at historic impacts on Earth. See Chapman's 1994 paper in Nature "Impacts on the Earth by asteroids and comets: assessing the hazard" v. 367, Issue 6458, pg. 33-40. This paper gives a good summary of the literature at the time (my impression is that this hasn't changed much since then but this is far from my area of expertise).

    We seem to be getting a handle on the risk from asteroids, but a comet can come our way without warning.

    Not exactly. Comets that are anywhere near the inner system become visible very quickly due to their outgassing. In contrast asteroids are much harder to spot. On the other hand, asteroids stay where they are supposed to and don't have wildly elliptic orbits so they are much easier to track in the long run and tag. So there's a mix here, but overall asteroids are more likely to strike without warning. Comets will likely give us at least a few days to have a giant orgy.

  3. Re:Whats in it for us? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Informative

    So there's a mix here, but overall asteroids are more likely to strike without warning.

    ...until we catalog them. We can do that from low earth orbit with infrared telescopes. The wise mission has massively increased the rate of discovery, which is why I think the uncertainty about impacts will come from comets in the future.

  4. If that is 200 earth years by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If that was 200 earth years ago that the comet hit, then Neptune has made less than 1.5 orbits around the sun since then.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  5. Voyager 2? by dpille · · Score: 3, Informative

    When the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter sixteen years ago, scientists all over the world were prepared: instruments on board the space probes Voyager 2, Galileo and Ulysses documented every detail of this rare incident.

    That's funny, because my back-of-the-napkin estimate is that at the time, Voyager 2 was 3 billion miles further away from Jupiter than the Earth is. Wonder what they thought they were gonna see with 15-year-old technology that they weren't going to see with, say, the Hubble telescope, new ground-based instruments, or hell, even the naked eye that was 3 billion miles closer to the event.

    1. Re:Voyager 2? by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

      PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
      JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
      CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
      NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
      PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

                                                    VOYAGER MISSION STATUS
                                                            August 1, 1994

                Both the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft are healthy and they are
      continuing to take data on fields and particles in interplanetary
      space.

                The Voyager 2 spacecraft used two of its scientific
      instruments to look at the impacts of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9
      fragments as they impacted Jupiter July 16-22. Both the
      ultraviolet spectrometer and the planetary radio astronomy
      experiments were used in the observations. Neither instrument
      detected any UV emission or radio signals during the impacts.
      The spacecraft began its observations of Jupiter on July 8 and
      will continue to observe the planet until August 17. At the
      time of the comet impacts, Voyager 2 was 6.1 billion kilometers
      (3.7 billion miles) from Jupiter.

                Voyager 1 is currently 8.4 billion kilometers (5.2 billion
      miles) from Earth. Voyager 2 is 6.4 billion kilometers (4
      billion miles) from Earth.

      My question would be, why not try? It's not like it took time away from mission-critical operations.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?