Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comet Lovejoy Plunges Into the Sun and Survives

Posted by timothy on from the part-of-brian-aker's-career-path dept.

boldie writes with a link to NASA's account of comet Lovejoy's close encounter with the sun. Excerpting: "This morning, an armada of spacecraft witnessed something that many experts thought impossible. Comet Lovejoy flew through the hot atmosphere of the sun and emerged intact. ... The comet's close encounter was recorded by at least five spacecraft: NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory and twin STEREO probes, Europe's Proba2 microsatellite, and the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. The most dramatic footage so far comes from SDO, which saw the comet go in (movie) and then come back out again (movie)." Here are larger QuickTime versions of the comet's entrance (22MB) and exit (26MB).

209 comments

  1. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Just!!

    1. Re:Awesome by durrr · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's actually an aerobraking alien spacebattleship. We're so fucked.

    2. Re:Awesome by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey that line about "comet Lovejoy plunging into the sun.."

      I just used it on some bird in the pub, and it worked!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Still playing Mass Effect, I see.

    4. Re:Awesome by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      It's actually an aerobraking alien spacebattleship. We're so fucked.

      Or it's refueling....

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    5. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you spell 'sun'?

    6. Re:Awesome by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I just used it on some bird in the pub, and it worked!

      That was the stuffed grouse in a box with the bottle of whisky.

      How did you know it worked? Apart from waking up this morning with a smile on your lips and feathers round your mouth?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. we are all doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's going to come back and smash into the earth in 2012.

    1. Re:we are all doomed! by jginspace · · Score: 1

      It's going to come back and smash into the earth in 2012.

      Quite possible as, quoting TFA:

      "There is still a possibility that Comet Lovejoy will start to fragment,"

      No telling which directions those pieces might fly off.

    2. Re:we are all doomed! by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's going to come back and smash into the earth in 2012.

      Quite possible as, quoting TFA:

      "There is still a possibility that Comet Lovejoy will start to fragment,"

      No telling which directions those pieces might fly off.

      Absolutely. When a single object slowly fragments due to thermal gradients, it ignores conservation of momentum and sometimes even conservation of mass. It's possible this ~100-500 m radius comet will launch a 50000 m chunk at us with a velocity of over half the speed of light!

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    3. Re:we are all doomed! by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      It may end the earth as we know it!...

      and I feel fine.

    4. Re:we are all doomed! by lazy+genes · · Score: -1

      we are SDOOO doomed

    5. Re:we are all doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. Apparently we have "an armada of spacecraft" out there to defend us.

    6. Re:we are all doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it ignores conservation of momentum and sometimes even conservation of mass."

      That only applies during apocalyptic years, like 2012.

    7. Re:we are all doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahaha. A comet flew into the sun. That's not a comet. Its a UFO. :-> They're coming.

    8. Re:we are all doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It may end the earth as we know it!

      Man, everything ends the earth as we know it.

      I could go out there and shit in the bushes and BAM, the earth as you knew it where that bush was shit free? GONE.

      btw, don't go out to your bushes for another few minutes. Bring toilet paper.

    9. Re:we are all doomed! by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Great, you just gave SyFy it's next disaster movie. And yet I'm still a sucker for them, heh.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    10. Re:we are all doomed! by impaledsunset · · Score: 2

      Meter is a unit of length, not mass, so you're obviously wrong! I'm already living in my bomb shelter

    11. Re:we are all doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you being sarcastic, or is this according to the latest branch of non-Newtonian mechanics?

    12. Re:we are all doomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So strange, so peculiar, and yet when I bang your mom -- life goes on! Huzzah!

      Captcha: "explicit" LOL! Robots are funnier than me.

    13. Re:we are all doomed! by sempir · · Score: 1

      If I had points to use, that would have got you a few more than one! Hit my funny bone...BAM.... I'm still laughing every now and then...Missus thinks I'm nuts.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    14. Re:we are all doomed! by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Stop hassling Hollywood with your "physics"! :P

    15. Re:we are all doomed! by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh great. A big ball of ice passes through fire, survives, catches on fire, and now it's coming for us. Ice on fire. How do we even stop that?

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    16. Re:we are all doomed! by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Comet Lovejoy flew through the hot atmosphere of the sun and emerged intact. ..

      Should it have not went back in time? I seem to remember that being a rule...

    17. Re:we are all doomed! by dwye · · Score: 1

      Comet Lovejoy flew through the hot atmosphere of the sun and emerged intact. ..

      Should it have not went back in time? I seem to remember that being a rule...

      Only if it was using Star Fleet technologies. Apparently, there is some interference between the warp or impulse engines and the solar core that causes it - perhaps there is a quantum black hole in the center or something, or else everyone would have done it at their own star and the Klingons, Romulans, or Borg would have conquered the galaxy by thousands or million of years before their founding.

    18. Re:we are all doomed! by Mateorabi · · Score: 1

      Uh, ST-IV they used a captured Bird of Prey, not a Star Fleet vessel. So at least the Klingons could do it...if their scientists were thoughtful enough.

      --
      "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

    19. Re:we are all doomed! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The problem as they put it in the movie was the calculations needed to make the time travel work. Spock had to do it in his head as the computer couldn't do it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. You can all thank Dr. Reyga... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    for a successful demonstration of Metaphasic Shields.

    1. Re:You can all thank Dr. Reyga... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Dr. Crusher was looking pretty hot in that episode.

    2. Re:You can all thank Dr. Reyga... by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Actually, that comet was Gomtuu trying to kill itself again.

      --
      Jonathanjk.com
  4. Misleading title by aneroid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds a lot more sensational when you compare the title's "comet plunges into sun and survives" event vs the actual "comet flew through hot atmosphere of the sun".

    /. worthy event nevertheless.

    1. Re:Misleading title by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Informative

      You realize that the sun doesn't actually have a surface, right? It's increasingly dense atmosphere all the way down.

    2. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Yes, all the way to the marble sized iron core.

    3. Re:Misleading title by tqk · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot more sensational when you compare the title's "comet plunges into sun and survives" event vs the actual "comet flew through hot atmosphere of the sun".

      Isn't the Sun's atmosphere supposed to be holy freakin' hell hotter than the Sun itself? Me, I'll just say "Way to go, Lovejoy!" (as in "Hunt for Red October").

      Cool stuff.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Misleading title by jd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Iron takes more energy to fuse than it releases. Any star with more than a trivial amount of iron tends to go kablooey, for that reason. Mainstream stars like the sun don't do that because they just don't have iron cores.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
      Maybe that depends on your definition of a surface?

    6. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that stars, any star really, is continually increasing its stock of heavier elements. From Helium to Iron, and that these elements settle in the core in a layered fashion ordered by their atomic weights.
      Then as it goes through its life cycles the star is progressively consuming heavier and heavier elements until there's little more than Iron left in the core and only then does it go kablooey.

      I am not a phycisist, but i guess i don't see how you can avoid a build up of heavier (than hydrogen) elements when the product of fusion is heavier elements?

    7. Re:Misleading title by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Cool stuff.

      Or maybe, not.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    8. Re:Misleading title by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sounds a lot more sensational when you compare the title's "comet plunges into sun and survives" event vs the actual "comet flew through hot atmosphere of the sun".

      Isn't the Sun's atmosphere supposed to be holy freakin' hell hotter than the Sun itself? Me, I'll just say "Way to go, Lovejoy!" (as in "Hunt for Red October").

      Cool stuff.

      I think it might be something like the Leidenfrost effect. The sun's atmosphere vaporizes comet, and these vaporized comet parts shield the rest of the core from vaporizing. Only, this would have to work with the vapor blocking the radiation heat rather than the convection/conductive heat that the typical Leidenfrost uses. a.k.a. a sort of über-Leidenfrost effect.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    9. Re:Misleading title by reverseengineer · · Score: 5, Informative
      The sun's corona is intensely hot- about 1 million kelvin, much hotter than the photosphere beneath, but the plasma is very diffuse. The photosphere, the layer that appears to us to generate the opaque disk of the sun (and is the closest thing it has to a surface) is a mere 6000K, but it's 10^12 times denser than the corona. In turn, the photosphere is about one ten-thousandth of the density of Earth's atmosphere at sea level. This really skews notions of "temperature" when we talk about a star. On Earth, we're used to objects placed in a medium fairly rapidly equilibrating to the temperature of that medium. We realize that some substances conduct faster or slower than others, but overall putting something in a hot environment makes it hot.

      For all but the most finicky of physics experiments, if we had pressure conditions of the density of the sun's corona, it would be "high vacuum." Very little conduction of heat from the plasma to a comet is going to take place. The bombardment by solar photons and the gigantic magnetic and gravitational fields of the sun play a greater role here than the actual material of the sun, and thus NASA can be pleasantly surprised by Comet Lovejoy's survival of its close encounter. But it's the wrong idea to picture this comet plunging into some sort of molten inferno. Of course, the sun's core is another story. 15 times denser than lead and 16 million kelvin. I'll like to see the comet that survives that.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    10. Re:Misleading title by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is true to a small extent, but there's a feedback loop where the star gets bigger and cooler if the fusion rate increases. This results in (predominantly) only one element being fused at a time, so you have Hydrogen->Helium (with some slightly heavier elements, C,N, and O can be involved) until the star is almost out of hydrogen, then Helium->Things between LIthium and Oxygen, and after that the star goes boom pretty quickly (or lacks the mass to go any further).
      By comparison the amount of fusion of elements heavier than the one it is burning at the time is extremely small.
      The majority of all stars (such as our own) are burning Hydrogen.
      The majority of all heavy elements come from supernovae (the stars that our sun was made of before it became a star again).
      That being said, there is probably a large chunk of iron and other heavy elements (from past supernovae) in the middle of our sun, but we generally ignore it because it is such a small percentage.

    11. Re:Misleading title by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      note to self, read preview when it comes up

    12. Re:Misleading title by Zarhan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was under the impression that stars, any star really, is continually increasing its stock of heavier elements. From Helium to Iron, and that these elements settle in the core in a layered fashion ordered by their atomic weights.
      Then as it goes through its life cycles the star is progressively consuming heavier and heavier elements until there's little more than Iron left in the core and only then does it go kablooey.

      "The onion of elements" happens at the end of star's life (or exiting of main sequence), but until then, there's plenty of hydrogen in core. Once star goes red giant, it has a helium core fusing to carbon (and hydrogen still fusing to helium in the mantle). If there's enough mass, the carbon core can start fusing neon, and so on all the way to iron. However, the full range with all the layers only happens in the most massive stars that finally explode as supernovas. And the main sequence is all about fusing hydrogen.

    13. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BWAH-hahahaha! Oh my, that's hilarious, the things people will believe.

    14. Re:Misleading title by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was under the impression that stars, any star really, is continually increasing its stock of heavier elements. From Helium to Iron, and that these elements settle in the core in a layered fashion ordered by their atomic weights.

      This happens once during the life of certain stars. Typically supergiants, and typically a second or two before a massive solarsystem devastating explosion.

      The entire mess of nuclear reactions in a star make the core heavier and heavier UNTIL it fuses to iron. At that point there's no where left it go, it collapses, and violently ejects most of the outer layers. From what I've read over the billion year life of a star this all holds together for no more than a few seconds.

    15. Re:Misleading title by bocin · · Score: 0, Troll

      How does the heat from the core bypass the "surface" and heat the photosphere to 1mil. kelvin? Is there any observable evidence to support the theory that the core is so dense and hot? No. The current cosmological model has left the lab and gone off into the imaginary realms of mathematics. This semi-mystical approach toward truth is as far-fetched as the old idea that the sun was a big piece of coal! There is, however, evidence to indicate that the sun is a positive anode discharging into the negatively charged space around it. Gravity Sucks. Electricity Rules!!

    16. Re:Misleading title by bocin · · Score: 0

      For more info on the electric universe: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

    17. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot more sensational when you compare the title's "comet plunges into sun and survives" event vs the actual "comet flew through hot atmosphere of the sun".

      My first take on the 'headline' was: I just passed my finger through a candle flame and it survived.

      Wooo-peee-dooo

    18. Re:Misleading title by PyroMosh · · Score: 5, Informative

      The effect we're discussing is easily observable to anyone who's reasonably familiar with a kitchen.

      Ever fry french fries in oil? This is typically what? 350F?

      Baking a pizza will typically be around 450F.

      Yet it's easy to reach into a 450 degree oven and remove the pizza. As long as you use a towel or a tool, your hand can be in the same environment that just cooked the pizza for a relatively long time..

      But any fool knows that reaching into the oil with your bare hand *at all* will burn your skin in less than a second. Even though the oil is 100 degrees cooler than the oven.

      It's just a dramatic, every-day example of the difference in heat transfer between mediums (in this case, oil vs air).

      --
      Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
    19. Re:Misleading title by turing_m · · Score: 4, Funny

      And here I thought it was turtles.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    20. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is there any observable evidence to support the theory that the core is so dense and hot?

      Neutrino measurements and extensive helioseismology.

    21. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Started reading that site, seemed kinda interesting, got to the solid calcium ferrite surface layer .. ... WTF?

    22. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's quite a bold statement!

    23. Re:Misleading title by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought after I posted the comment too. I wish I could remember where I first heard that story. I want to say it was during a tour at the Palomar Mountain Observatory, but I'm probably mixing memories. It's only in the last five or six years that I've realized how many people know it, and how common a comment it is.

    24. Re:Misleading title by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Of course, the sun's core is another story. 15 times denser than lead and 16 million kelvin. I'll like to see the comet that survives that.

      - you probably wouldn't like to see the comet that does that with our Sun and survives, because for a comet to do that, it would be a neutron star or a black hole and not a comet and it's not clear that our Sun wouldn't then have an explosion within it, that would cause massive problems for our little rock here at the very least with the enormous amount of radiation, even in gamma spectrum and a possible orbit change causing some real problems later on.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    25. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Simple chemistry, im only just testing out of general chem I accredited and I can figure it out. PV=nRT.

      Pressure x volume equals
      Moles x .08206 x temperature

      Combined with Q=mc[delta]T

      Joules equals
      Mass x specific heat x change in temperature

      And the various gas laws especially, and the relationship between energy, speed of light constant, nu and lambda.

      My guess is (i am no astrophysicist, majoring in computer engineering) that the gravity exerted by the sun is able to force elements at high enough energy (joules) to maintain a gaseous state but rigidly forced into a solid state, thereby presenting a plasma solid. Sorry if i sound stupid, i dont study this.

      My real take? Its a sun. There is bound to be a layeer so energetic that you would prwfer to come into rough contact with roughly two million brick suefaces per second rather than be near it out of mere survival instinct alone. And you want to scoff at its state?

    26. Re:Misleading title by Charliemopps · · Score: 0

      At a certain point the "atmosphere" has the density of lead... so you could literally stand on it. So your distinction is purely academic. You're the type of person that would, at a party, argue with everyone about weather a tomato were a fruit.

    27. Re:Misleading title by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No you couldn't.

      At a certain point you'd reach neutral bouyancy and stop sinking (ignoring the part about you vaporizing from the temperature). This is still not the same as there being a surface (and in point of fact is COMPLETELY unrelated to what is usually referred to by the term "surface of the sun"). There is no meaningful line of demarcation between "below the surface" and "above the surface," and the term surface NECESSARILY implies a demarcation. The use of the term "surface" in the case of stars (and gas giants) is purely terrestrial metaphor, and it's fine as far as that goes--but only that far. Take the metaphor further (as my parent did in taking it literally), and you wind up reaching physically absurd conclusions (as you also have).

      As for tomatoes, all I care about is that they're fucking delicious.

      You'd be better off trying to claim that black holes have a surface. They don't, but at least they do have a clear demarcation between above and below their "surface." Stars do not.

      FWIW, real astrophysicists define the surface of the sun as the radius which equals an optical depth of 2/3. This is a useful demarcation (though not a terribly clear one, since the optical depth is wavelength dependent) for observational purposes, but not for kinematic ones (such as when talking about comets flying into, and out of, the sun).

    28. Re:Misleading title by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I thought the GPs post was more about deep fried ice cream than putting hands in the oven.

    29. Re:Misleading title by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Then again, I might be looking at the wrong GP, a post about the Leidenfrost effect appeared above the GP when I was reading this.

    30. Re:Misleading title by Surt · · Score: 1

      That iron core is still a gas. We're just not used to iron being a gas because we live at such cold temperatures.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    31. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that the sun doesn't actually have a surface, right? It's increasingly dense atmosphere all the way down.

      That's a bit disingenuous, as the photosphere is often referred to as "the surface of the Sun". You know, when people talk about, "the temperature at the surface of the Sun." There's a very clear delineation at that point, because the layer below the photosphere is opaque to light.

      I'm with the GP here in that "plunging into the Sun" should mean plunging into the photosphere. Entering the corona is not plunging into the Sun anymore than you'd call an asteroid that grazes Earth's atmosphere an asteroid that "plunged into the Earth"

    32. Re:Misleading title by JTW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A thought experiment worthy.

      If you took a ball of Iron the size of say planet Earth, and it were to plunge into the heart of the Sun. What would be the result.. a Nova, SuperNova.. fizzle.

      And what if it were slightly off target and merely circled the center for a while.. would it retain its shape or spinout into a smeared ball of plasma.. undoing the star?
      Something somewhat like this probably already happened.. the Lithium content of our star for example.. guess it just wasn't significant emough.

    33. Re:Misleading title by berbo · · Score: 1

      You realize that the sun doesn't actually have a surface, right? It's increasingly dense atmosphere all the way down.

      an increasingly dense atmosphere of turtles, to be precise.

    34. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The sun is so hot that everything on it is a gas: iron, copper, aluminum, and many others!"

    35. Re:Misleading title by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Quick question to someone who seems like he might know: is the current stock of hydrogen in the universe all that will ever exist, or does the stock get replenished (so to speak) during a supernova as heavier elements get split into lighter ones? Just wondering if there could ever be a point in the lifetime of the universe when light elements like hydrogen and helium simply don't exist any more.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    36. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bit gassy for my preference.

    37. Re:Misleading title by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot more sensational when you compare the title's "comet plunges into sun and survives" event vs the actual "comet flew through hot atmosphere of the sun".

      Isn't the Sun's atmosphere supposed to be holy freakin' hell hotter than the Sun itself? Me, I'll just say "Way to go, Lovejoy!" (as in "Hunt for Red October").

      Cool stuff.

      It is true that the Sun's corona is extremely hot, but it also has an extremely low density. Together that means that the corona may not impart much of an energy flux to the surface of the comet. Without knowing the numbers, my guess would be that radiation from the sun is a more important contributor to melting of the comet.

      Consider another situation: the temperature of the plasma in the earth's magnetosphere can be thousands of degrees, and yet spacecraft don't melt in it, for the same reason.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    38. Re:Misleading title by dwye · · Score: 1

      > It's increasingly dense atmosphere all the way down.

      Actually, at the "surface" it is an increasingly less hard vacuum. As I recall, the glowing surface is a vacuum, harder than we could achieve before 1960 or so, with the transparency or lack thereof of a London Pea-souper fog.

      As long as the comet has a low enough albedo, I can see no problem with it diving below the chromosphere surface, given that it is a surface in the mathematical sense more than anything else, with very little heat conductance due to its low (effectively zero) pressure.

    39. Re:Misleading title by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Any star with more than a trivial amount of iron tends to go kablooey

      I'd like to see that tested on Mythbusters, especially when they jack the iron way up for an encore.

      Or, did you mean Hollywood stars?
       

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    40. Re:Misleading title by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      As far as I know, supernova only fuse elements, they don't do fission. The only way to get more hydrogen in a natural way is probably waiting for elements to decay by themselves. Maybe if the supernova makes heavy, unstable elements, those will fall apart and give you some hydrogen back. But apart from that, if I am not mistaken, supernovas only make heavier elements.

    41. Re:Misleading title by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      Wild guessing, but if there was any significantly increased out-gassing it might have further reduced the heat conductance.

    42. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't argue about tomatoes, but I would ridicule your bad spelling.

      weather a tomato were a fruit

    43. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      you forgot to mention that your lord and savior ron paul promises to lower taxes and eliminate everything resembling regulations, so that the invisible hand of the free market will be able to physically reach up and catch that comet to prevent it from harming us.

    44. Re:Misleading title by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps something like this?

    45. Re:Misleading title by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      There are a whole host of unexplained phenomena related to the sun's activities that still baffle gas model theorists to this day because they fail to recognize the existence of an iron alloy transitional layer that rests beneath the visible photosphere.

      Crank alert.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    46. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've read it first in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, but it turns out of course there's a Wikipedia page on the subject:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

    47. Re:Misleading title by justthinkit · · Score: 1
      Quoting wiki: "In larger stars, fusion continues until the iron core has grown so large (more than 1.4 solar masses) that it can no longer support its own mass. This core will suddenly collapse as its electrons are driven into its protons, forming neutrons and neutrinos in a burst of inverse beta decay, or electron capture. The shockwave formed by this sudden collapse causes the rest of the star to explode in a supernova."

      So don't expect much to happen unless you have 1.4 solar masses worth of iron to toss into the sun. Expect a fizzle.

      --
      I come here for the love
  5. Composition? by martas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What the hell is that thing made of? Article doesn't seem to say, and I'm sure nobody is 100% certain, but any guesses as to its composition based on its orbit? Also what would the temperature of such an object likely be?

    --
    weinersmith
    1. Re:Composition? by galaad2 · · Score: 1

      Orbit? that thing no longer has a stable orbit... at least for a while it won't have, until it stabilizes.

      have you seen those two movies? its exit is like an out-of-control fire hose with afterburners.

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
    2. Re:Composition? by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      Stabilize? Once it's out of the corona it should have a normal orbit.

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    3. Re:Composition? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Just because the tail of Lovejoy was bouncing around in the solar wind doesn't mean the comet's orbit is unstable. Perhaps the orbit was changed a bit by it's close encounter with the Sun but that doesn't mean it isn't stable..

  6. Klingon Bird-of-Prey by JO_DIE_THE_STAR_F*** · · Score: 4, Funny

    That wasn't a comet it was Kirk and company in a Klingon Bird-of-Prey trying to get back to the 23rd century.

    1. Re:Klingon Bird-of-Prey by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Funny

      That wasn't a comet it was Kirk and company in a Klingon Bird-of-Prey trying to get back to the 23rd century.

      Those thieving bastards just took off with a pair of my whales too. -Ismael

    2. Re:Klingon Bird-of-Prey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was Chuck Norris' Chariot.

    3. Re:Klingon Bird-of-Prey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has always perplexed me. Who let greenpeace write a Star Trek movie plot?

    4. Re:Klingon Bird-of-Prey by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      People who did a little too much LDS in the '60s.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    5. Re:Klingon Bird-of-Prey by jbengt · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who let greenpeace write a Star Trek movie plot?

      People who did a little too much LDS in the '60s.

      What did the Mormons have to do with Start Trek?

    6. Re:Klingon Bird-of-Prey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who let greenpeace write a Star Trek movie plot?

      People who did a little too much LDS in the '60s.

      What did the Mormons have to do with Start Trek?

      At least they probably saw that movie :P

    7. Re:Klingon Bird-of-Prey by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2

      Nothing -- that was Battlestar Galactica.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    8. Re:Klingon Bird-of-Prey by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Did Kirk ever visit planet Kolob?

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  7. Better title: by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The Sun somehow survives close call with badass comet Lovejoy. Meekly vows to be more respectful next time."

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Better title: by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      hmm, lovejoy is that a new name for chuck noris?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:Better title: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      With a name like lovejoy, it would be a gay chuck norris.

    3. Re:Better title: by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      Pah, Chuck Norris is a wimp.

      http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=101063

      Afraid of Obama!

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    4. Re:Better title: by Surt · · Score: 1

      Show a little respect. Reverend lovejoy is a badass preacher who can take on a tribe of baboons bare handed. Being gay wouldn't be compatible with his christian values, and you can tell he's not gay because he has kids with his beard, I mean, his wife.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:Better title: by HyperVerbal · · Score: 1

      lol

      --
      Stan M. ~~~Verbal~~~
  8. Energy Depleted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The comet's fuel reserves were low; flew into a star to recharge.

    1. Re:Energy Depleted by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2, Informative

      nice Stargate Universe reference

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:Energy Depleted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it is an Elite reference.

    3. Re:Energy Depleted by PlasmaEye · · Score: 2

      It could also be a reference to Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama.

    4. Re:Energy Depleted by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      I think Ren and Stimpy did something similar in the Space Madness episode.

    5. Re:Energy Depleted by barry99705 · · Score: 1

      That was a pretty cool game for it's time.

  9. Of course it is possible .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just as you can plunge your hand in a dewar of liquid nitrogen and not have your hand immediately frozen, a comet will survive for the same reason. With your hand, the liquid nitrogen boils from the heat of your hand creating an insulating layer of air between your hand and the liquid nitrogen. With the comet, the comet evaporates creating an insulating layer of gasses that protect the entire from immediately evaporating.

    I've kept my fist in liquid nitrogen for a total of 38 seconds. (Not the smartest thing I've done.) I had a touch of frost bite on the pads of my fingers where liquid nitrogen seeped into my fist and the gasses escape properly and couldn't insulate as needed. The rest of my hand was just fine and I could have probably left it in there longer had I chose with little ill effects -- other than on the pads of my fingers.

    1. Re:Of course it is possible .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Indeed, that's a direct correlation to the hour the comet spent in the corona.

    2. Re:Of course it is possible .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That works because gases are much less ddense than liquids, and thus conduct less heat.

      Since the solar corona is less dense than most high vacuum facilities you'll find in Earthbound laboratories, conductiion is neglligiiblle. Water vapor can't produce equivalent resistance to radiative heat transfer -- enough dust might, but that's an entirely different argument to the one you're makiing.

    3. Re:Of course it is possible .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've kept my fist in liquid nitrogen for a total of 38 seconds. (Not the smartest thing I've done.)

      May not be the smartest thing you have done. But I suppose it is the coolest thing you have done.

    4. Re:Of course it is possible .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you even think of doing this? Are you freaking nuts? So let's have a contest on who can keep their hand in liquid nitrogen for the longest - sounds like a losing proposition literally. Are you sure this wasn't part of a jackass movie? Bad science at its worse.

    5. Re:Of course it is possible .... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Though, to be fair, the comet had slightly more mass than his balled fist.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:Of course it is possible .... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you forgot the "don't try this at home, kids"

      no, seriously

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:Of course it is possible .... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      you forgot the "don't try this at home, kids"

      Especially since his story is almost certainly bullshit. I've never worked with liquid nitrogen, but I do work with liquid oxygen. To freeze an apple to the point where it will shatter when thrown takes about 45 seconds to a minute. I've seen guys get the equivalent of second-degree burns just from getting splashed - they couldn't have been in contact with the liquid for more than 5 seconds.

      His explanation for WHY he didn't get injured would have made sense if he claimed to have done it for a split-second ... but 35 seconds? Bullshit.

      So I'll do it for him: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. People on the internet lie, all the time. Don't be a gullible idiot.

  10. That was no comet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was Chuck Norris.

  11. umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kinda late on this one

  12. I'm surprised they're surprised. by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Basic chemistry tells us that heat transfer isn't instantaneous, that solid objects remain at melting point until fully melted, and that heat != temperature. It's why you can walk over hot coals without burning yourself. The composition of the comet would be easy to determine, since absorption spectrometry will tell you what the tail is made of. We also know, from the Giotto probe, that comets don't evaporate from the outside. That was one of the biggest blunders in the mission. Never, ever make assumptions in science because it WILL bite you. Facts are the only acceptable currency.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's the weirdest combination of terrible and excellent science education ever. Congrats.

    2. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's why you can walk over hot coals without burning yourself.

      A perfect analogy for a comet that spent approximately one hour immersed in temperatures of several million degrees.

    3. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank You Dr. Spock...I Bet This Whole thing Got You Pointy Little Ears Waxed Up.....I Like The Technical Explanation Though...This Explains Why I De-Hydrate When Sun Bathing...I Just Pee a Trail of Used Ice Cubes...

    4. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The walking on hot coals analogy is pretty terrible. The comet clearly ablated huge amounts of material. If that were the mechanism at work for fire walkers they would have to leave some large fraction of their feet behind to burn in the coals.

      Ablation is a really good way to remove heat. Accumulate heat in the outermost layer and then space it. Rinse and repeat until the heat source is gone. The comet had the good fortune of doing this efficiently (due to composition) and enough mass to survive the interval.

    5. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Especially since often the "hot coals" turn out to be christmas lights.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by CODiNE · · Score: 2

      It's why you can walk over hot coals without burning yourself.

      Actually it's the Leidenfrost effect. Try that with dry feet and let me know how long it is before you can walk again.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    7. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hot coals that have been prepared right and raked out do not have much heat capacity on their surface and low heat conductivity. The Leidenfrost effect is not needed as seen in demonstrations using nylon stockings or other ways of exposing a dry surface to the coals.

    8. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's why you can walk over hot coals without burning yourself.

      A perfect analogy for a comet that spent approximately one hour immersed in temperatures of several million degrees.

      Please educate yourself on the difference between temperature and heat before you continue spamming your same idiotic one-line response.

    9. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Yes and ice cubes are even easier to walk over. Perhaps wearing shoes can prevent getting paint on ones feet, thereby eliminating the Leidenfrost effect entirely.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    10. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Wet skin conducts heat better than dry skin, so it's often recommended to firewalk with dry feet rather than wet feet.

    11. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You asked someone to try it with dry feet and let you know how long it is before they can walk again... people have, and the answer is "right away" because it works with dry feet too. And the demonstrations with stockings/pantyhose are quite far away from using shoes considering how thin they are, and how they would be quickly damaged by temperatures of around 200 C (the coals used typically have temperatures around 600 C). You can find other variations around, as it is something motivated physics professors will do for public science demonstrations.

    12. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by chocapix · · Score: 2

      And the best is to have cold feet.

    13. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by jd · · Score: 1

      See CODiNE's response for why humans do indeed ablate material.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    14. Re:I'm surprised they're surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, the surface of the Sun (the gas that emits the light we see) is supposed to be heated to something like 6000 Celsius, If it were several million degrees, it would emit X-rays, not yellow light.

  13. Coolness factor re: comet passes "through the Sun" by RichZellich · · Score: 0, Redundant

    At least as cool as the actual event is the phrase "This morning, an armada of spacecraft..." - did you think you'd ever hear that phrase in a news report in your lifetime?

  14. No Audio by Cylix · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm pretty sure it was shouting, "Hot hot hot hot!"

    I'm fairly certain comet love joy won't be taking on any more dares for a while.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    1. Re:No Audio by Krishnoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm pretty sure it was shouting, "Hot hot hot hot!"

      Shortly after which it reported, 'I got a little cooked but I'm ok'.

    2. Re:No Audio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey That is Really Funny....Really Funny...NO MORE DARE"S FOR THAT 'Big Boy"...lolo....That Comet has to get Off that Meth-aim-gas....Probably a "Crack Smoker" after that Little Stunt......

    3. Re:No Audio by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      And before that, it was saying "What's this thing coming towards me very fast? So big and fat and round, I think I'll call it... Sun. That's a good name - Sun! I wonder if it will be friends with me"

    4. Re:No Audio by MLease · · Score: 2

      Oh, no, not again.

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
    5. Re:No Audio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This baby can take temperatures of up to 9000 degrees.

  15. Velocity of Comet by dispersionrelation · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I went ahead and calculated the velocity of the comet at its Perihelion (closest distance to the sun) to be or 618km/s which is the same as 383 mi/s which is the same as 0.2% the speed of light, very fast!

    1. Re:Velocity of Comet by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sound like the ideal place to start your interstellar ramjet engine.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Velocity of Comet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so not warp 7.

    3. Re:Velocity of Comet by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think that's slightly above the solar escape velocity, so we can kiss this one goodbye. Don't worry boys, he won't be coming back.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Velocity of Comet by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Which explains why it didn't evaporate. Time contraction!

    5. Re:Velocity of Comet by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      But wasn't it in some sort of orbit around the sun before? Where did it pick up the extra energy to get away from the sun, then? If anything, I would have expected its orbit to shrink.

    6. Re:Velocity of Comet by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The gases boiling off the comet effectively give it a rocket engine. One of the proposed methods to deflect a comet on a collision with earth is to shine sun on it with giant mirrors.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
    7. Re:Velocity of Comet by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 1

      The time dilation factor is 1.0000021136121362, so no.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
    8. Re:Velocity of Comet by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      But that "rocket engine" would work in opposite ways on arrival and departure, either slowing it down or speeding it up (not sure) when it's coming in and doing the exact opposite when it's emerging again. So that would not give it a net extra energy. Or am I missing something?

    9. Re:Velocity of Comet by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I wasn't entirely serious, but thanks for checking ;-)

    10. Re:Velocity of Comet by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 1

      I didn't think you were really, but I just wanted to show how tiny the time dilation effect is, its barely noticeable until very high speeds. 86% light speed gets you only double the time dilation.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
    11. Re:Velocity of Comet by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      I haven't worked through this in any detail, but it seems plausible that there could be a net push away from the Sun on the basis that the incoming comet is larger and hence has a lower surface area to mass ratio.

    12. Re:Velocity of Comet by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      From a near miss. The sun's gravity accelerates it as it falls close in to the sun - gravity is dependent on the inverse of the distance squared. So as it gets very close the gravitational pull grows along square function. By not actually hitting the sun, it manages to keep some of that energy (and the sun loses the same amount in angular momentum - but for the sun it's a negligible amount of spin so you won't notice). Because its velocity is far, far greater than the (I believe it's 33km/s) escape velocity - it will slow down a little on its way out, but it's never, ever coming back. Not only that, but inverse of distance squared. It's not going to slow down much more due to gravity - most of the slowing down was done within a few solar radii.

      This technique of hitching a ride on another celestial body's gravity well has been used for space probes, and you can read a dramatization of "aerobraking" in Arthur C Clarke's 2011 novel.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    13. Re:Velocity of Comet by Solandri · · Score: 2

      The comet shrinks as it gets sublimated away by the heat. This leads to both a decrease in mass and surface area. Modeling it as a sphere:

      m ~ V (mass is proportional to volume)
      V = 4/3 pi * r^3
      so r ~ m^(1/3)
      surface area = 4 pi * r^2
      so SA ~ m^(2/3)

      Assuming the velocity of a vaporization jet is constant (constant sublimation temperature means gas molecules have constant kinetic energy), the force is proportional to the amount of escaping gases. The amount of escaping gases is proportional to surface area, so:

      F ~ SA = m^(2/3)
      a = F/m
      a ~ m^(2/3) / m
      a ~ m^(-1/3)

      The smaller the mass of the comet, the greater the acceleration.

      When the comet is approaching the sun, m is large, so vapor jets contribute acceleration away from the sun (slows the comet down).
      When the comet is leaving the sun, m is small, so vapor jets contribute greater acceleration away from the sun (speeds the comet up more than it was slowed down before).

    14. Re:Velocity of Comet by DadLeopard · · Score: 1

      Forget the comets "jet"! For a simple explanation of the effect on the comet, see The Rollings Stones by Heinlein! To gain velocity dive toward a planet or sun and reduce the mass of your craft on the way in, via whatever means, then you have a net gain in velocity on the way out!

    15. Re:Velocity of Comet by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      No, that's definitely not how it works. For a small object passing close to a massive object, if no other forces like friction or electric forces exist, and disregarging relativistic effects, the exit velocity will be exactly equal to the approach velocity. The sum of potential and kinetic energy remains the same: as it loses potential energy in the gravitational field by coming closer, it will speed up and it will lose this speed again when going back up in the gravitational field. The decelleration while going away is exactly the same as the accelleration on the way in. Any extra speed would have to be caused by some sort of magnetic effects or solar wind. The most likely reason seems to be one that someone else has pointed out elsewhere in this thread: the comet gets smaller, so the ratio between surface area and mass gets larger (mass being proportional to radius^3 and surface area only to radius^2), so the push from the solar wind will be stronger on the way out. Gravitational accelleration will be the same though, no matter what the mass is.

      Also, I don't think the spin of the sun would have any effect apart from a very, very tiny relativistic frame dragging effect. So that's not it either, I would think.

      Slingshot manoeuvers work quite differently: they work by approaching a planet from a different direction and leaving it in the same direction as the planet is moving in. The exit velocity relative to the planet is the same as the approach velocity, but since you are leaving in the same direction the planet is moving in, you are basically adding its speed to your own. The ideal example would be approaching a planet in the opposite direction of its trajectory and turning around it 180 degrees to leave in the same direction it's going in. This would add twice the planet's speed to your own. A less ideal but more realistic example is approaching perpendicularly and leaving in the direction of the orbit, adding only once the planet's speed to your own. But in the case of the sun, which we would consider pretty much stationary in our solar system, you wouldn't gain anything.

    16. Re:Velocity of Comet by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      But surely accelleration in a gravitational field does not depend on your mass? The force of gravity is proportional to your mass, so the accelleration is the same! Any object with any mass will, given the same starting position and velocity, leave the planet or sun with exactly the same speed. Shedding mass will only work if you shed it in the direction opposite to the direction you want to accellerate in. Simply "losing weight" does nothing to change your orbit.

    17. Re:Velocity of Comet by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      That's a very logical explanation. And maybe the solar wind could have something to do with it too, because that would also be proportional to surface area.

    18. Re:Velocity of Comet by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Rotation can change that. Depending on the direction, rotation will either move the hottest (most active part of "rocket engine") to the front, slowing down the comet, or to the back, speeding it up. I have no idea whether that is the explanation here, though, or, indeed, whether we are in need of an explanation, or in need of checking calculations.

  16. That's not a comet. by catmistake · · Score: -1

    If that was a comet, when it emerged from the solar atmosphere, the tail would be blowing in the opposite direction ... AWAY from the Sun, due to solar wind. Whatever the Hell that is, it is no comet.

    --
    The Admin and the Engineer
    1. Re:That's not a comet. by Inigo+Montoya · · Score: 2

      ...maybe it was the Destiny.

    2. Re:That's not a comet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uh, the tail WAS blowing away from the sun. Take a look at the coronograph footage for a view that isn't wildly foreshortened:

    3. Re:That's not a comet. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      TFA has some speculation regarding that phenomena. Solar wind, magnetics, gravity, who knows at this point? Are you suggesting that it was really a rocket?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:That's not a comet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's no moon...

    5. Re:That's not a comet. by catmistake · · Score: 0

      not sure why you haven't been modded up... I was actually trolling for exactly this, thx.

      --
      The Admin and the Engineer
    6. Re:That's not a comet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that looks very similar to The Destiny from SGU, maybe this is some weird advertising stunt for a movie?

    7. Re:That's not a comet. by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      That's weird, in the other video of the comet emerging from the sun, it seemed to be dragging its tail behind it. I was wondering exactly the same thing as catmistake.

    8. Re:That's not a comet. by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Uh, the tail WAS blowing away from the sun. Take a look at the coronograph footage [nasa.gov] for a view that isn't wildly foreshortened:

      Exactly. Therefore the matter in the vids was the comet losing mass.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    9. Re:That's not a comet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I can't tell anything from the videos without sub-titles...
      Anyone know when a sub'd release will be available?

    10. Re:That's not a comet. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The exit video I saw was very close to the Sun. If the comet's moving moving faster than the solar wind can push the tail particles the tail will stay behind. At some point the comet slows enough for the tail to rotate to away from the Sun. That would be interesting to see.

  17. Maybe it's made of a great material by Squiddie · · Score: 2

    It would be cool if that were the case, then we would just have to make some ships or probes from that. Indestructible space-craft. Might be nice.

  18. Whaaat? by rev0lt · · Score: 1

    Is this a Simpson's prank?

  19. Oh my by lxs · · Score: 3, Funny

    "What," said Trillian in a small quiet voice, "does sundive mean?"

    "It means," said Marvin, "that the ship is going to dive into the sun. Sun... Dive. It's very simple to understand. What do you expect if you steal Hotblack Desiato's stunt ship?"

    "How do you know..." said Zaphod in a voice that would make a Vegan snow lizard feel chilly, "that this is Hotblack Desiato's stuntship?"

    "Simple," said Marvin, "I parked it for him."

    "The why... didn't... you... tell us!"

    "You said you wanted excitement and adventure and really wild things."

    If DNA was still alive he'd have to do a lot of rewriting.

    1. Re:Oh my by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fortunately any occupants of that comet have long since used the partly working teleport to get the hell out of our solar system.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  20. Locomotive zipper leather skirt with replica Dior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Locomotive zipper leather skirt with replica Dior handbags
    The design of the zipper design seemingly neutral even garment leather skirt, choose collocation of pure white hair thick coat, big knitting collarband collar let modelling look more rich administrative levels. White slender waist girth curve with used to outline, horizontal and vertical lines interwoven in the black and white and break the 60 s elegant temperament restoring ancient ways. Even mention black dress leather skirt, girls just love and hate to it. The cortex rigid simple sense, handsome little sexy become fashionable style fusion of pioneer elements. But because of the cortex massiness and airtight feeling, is the single wear still inside take, and to be fashion tie-in problem. The replica Dior large black printed canvas panarea shopping bag is a nice handbag , this replica Dior handbags is large black canvas shopping bag printed with multicoloured confetti motif , its outside has 'D.i.o.r.'letters in silver-tone metal. This functional,modern bag can change shape thanks to an interior fastening system. There are double handles for hand or shoulder carried , this replica Dior handbags is deserve for you have one.

  21. Superman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a bird, it's a plane...

  22. Bill says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comet goes in, comet goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.

  23. Re:Coolness factor re: comet passes "through the S by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    I keyed on that "armada" myself. Had to read TFS, so see where this "armada" came from. Unfortunately, the word has no bearing on the story - it was just thrown in there, much as the word "decimate" is oftentimes improperly used to generate attention.

    One would expect an "armada" to, at the least, come under one common authority, and to share a common mission.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  24. The thick grey nylon cloth fabric down jacket with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    The thick grey nylon cloth fabric down jacket with replica Gucci handbags
    The thick grey nylon cloth fabric let this kind of down jacket handsome neutral and with some students gas, can remove the cap design let wear take even more possibility, you wear it absolutely is a lively large and beautiful girl. A cold weather we will have to put down from the closet out, it never popular, also had never gone, at this time of year it will all diligently to play my part, thus. It design comfortable, warm top-ranking result, texture is soft, optional collocation, because of this winter street always without it. In Europe and America street, down jacket has appeared, in addition to study their tie-in skill beyond, Christmas sale season, the five styles you worth of down. The replica GUCCI craft' medium tote is a nice handbag , this replica GUCCI handbags is the bag with detachable pocket beige/ebony GG fabric with light brown leather trim , its outside has light gold hardware and detachable leather zip-top pocket with embossed vintage gucci trademark. There are double braided handles with 20 cm drop , you could carry this replica GUCCI handbags on hand , it is deserve for you have one.

  25. Friv 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Flash games are normally very easy to play especially, for children, these flash games looking quite interesting ads they need less or even no time to learn. Here you can play and enjoy any flash game instantly like here friv247.com
    Friv 2

  26. Misleading subject by harris+s+newman · · Score: 1

    Into Near If the comet had truly plunged into the Sun, it would not be in orbit around it. It's trajectory never was into anything.

  27. Re:Coolness factor re: comet passes "through the S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and to share a common mission.

    Science, bitches.

  28. time travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question is, did it travel back in time ?!

    1. Re:time travel by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      No, it didn't go at Warp speed.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  29. Comet goes in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...comet goes out. You can't explain that! -- Bill

  30. ZOMG!!1 by tusam · · Score: 1

    Youtube PLS!!1

    1. Re:ZOMG!!1 by tusam · · Score: 1

      Might have guessed, all of them seem to feature ridiculous music, unnecessary commentary and/or run of the mill conspiracy theories/end of the world prophecies.
      Would've hoped http://www.youtube.com/user/nasatelevision had something but so far the most informative I came across was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DE6sPnm4Pk (at least you can mute it)

  31. SIGI!! by b_dover · · Score: 1

    I love Seeing It Go In and come back out again.

  32. Wow! by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    What an awesome solar system we've got!

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  33. Reminiscence of a Jello Biafra-for-mayor slogan by retiarius · · Score: 2

    When the Dead Kennedy's Jello-of-"California Uber Alles"-and-"Holiday in Cambodia"-fame
    (amongst other faves) was running for mayor of San Francisco,
    one of his heartfelt pleas was that he'd be the first politician to spearhead the idea of
    "landing a man on the sun".

  34. Timecube, all over again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That site is only slightly less believable than the Tome of Truth known as Timecube.

  35. icce melts by xmorg · · Score: 0

    so the ridiculous notion that comets are made of ice has finally been debunked.
    comets are actually microcores of stars that never really took off. They are made of an unknown substance.

    1. Re:icce melts by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows they're made of turtles.
      Turtles, all the way down.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  36. Snowball in a Hot Place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Snowball's chance to survive in Hell was just experimentally verified. Snowball survived, myth busted!

  37. I don't want to know by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be better, since there isn't a d*mn thing we can do to stop it, to NOT KNOW if some stupid asteroid is going to wipe us out like the dinosaurs? We'd just run around like a bunch of idiots doing the rape, pillage and plunder, and for what? Nothing. How about NOT telling us anything, and we'd just wonder why the sky is getting so dark, then BOOM! We'll all toast. ;)

    1. Re:I don't want to know by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      No.

  38. And now we know... by Chelloveck · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, a snowball really does have a chance in hell.

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  39. Something is wrong by Corson · · Score: 1

    There is something wrong with the exit movie. Normally, the comet tail runs aways from the Sun but in this video it appers to run in the opposite direction.

  40. What about the tail on EXIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMHO the tail is pointing to the wrong direction on exit. Or am I making a mistake? Can anybody explain this to me. The tail should be heading the body. In the movie it is the other side around.

    So no comet? UFO? What else?

    Warm greetings,

    Dzyan

  41. we have that many cameras pointed at the sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why don't we have 'live streaming sun cams' ??

  42. Someday I hope we can follow by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    Like in Arthur C. Clarke's story "Sunrise" (I think), a spaceship gets very close to the sun by remaining in the shadow of a sun grazing asteroid.

    Probably wouldn't be a good idea to use a comet because of all the outgassing (in addition to being dangerous and literally blowing you away, it would mess up the measurements). Also, a quickly rotating asteroid wouldn't be good as the surface would be re-radiating the heat directly below you. If we could find a sufficiently large asteroid (for it's heat capacity) that wasn't rotating at all (could we stop one?) we could bury the ship inside and get really really close to the sun, much closer than even the upcoming Solar Probe to be launched in 2018 (I think).

    If no such asteroid exists that's in the proper orbit, I guess we could move one. Then again, with that kind of technology we could probably just turn on our metaphasic shields and go.

  43. Speed & size of the comet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was the speed and size of this comet? I mean, Sun's circumference is 4.3M kilometers - how much time did it spend within? I don't see any non-planet size rocky thing to blast through that much of hot "stuff" if it didn't go about speed of light.

  44. Lovejoy and Tinker... by Maxmin · · Score: 2

    ...must be laughing right now over another narrow escape.

    --
    O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  45. I'd give it a new name ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    ... Comet Annealed.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  46. Warp factor 9 by madhi19 · · Score: 1

    Next stop San Fran to save the whale!

  47. Comet saved itself... by EricTheO · · Score: 0

    ...saved itself from being renamed "Comet Killjoy" if it burned up in the Sun.

    --
    -Eric
  48. new basis for probe? by awollabe · · Score: 0

    Any chance we could do something similar with a probe and get a little bottle of the sun's gas to look at? It looks like we already plan on crashing a probe into the sun in a decaying orbit: http://solarprobe.jhuapl.edu/ , but I don't think anyone considered the possibility of its survival. We could still take magnetic measurements on the way in, and maybe an initial layer of ice could help boost it back out, too...

  49. Just goes to show you.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... Nothing is more powerful than love.

    NOT EVEN A STAR!

  50. Kirk Physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're forgetting about what you learned in Star Trek. The comet that entered the sun was a far older version of the one that emerged from time/space a few minutes later.

  51. Bottle rocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else think that looked like a bottle rocket flailing toward the sun?

  52. It's a religious conclusion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone from India described a Norse legend that a world was build ontop of a giant turtle in a lake and the earthquaking was from that turtle moving. Problem with all these myths and legends is that they are actually true: to the extent they were mis-interpreted, they are preserved only to those that comprehend them.

  53. lovejoy! by joleonard1 · · Score: 1

    My new favorite comet

  54. Nasa.gov website unavailable in Russia by pipy · · Score: 1

    Strangely enough, I'm unable to reach neither http://nasa.gov/ nor http://science.nasa.gov/. Other web sites and services are working perfectly well. Anyone experiencing the same issue? I'm using Corbina/Beeline, one of the largest internet providers in Moscow...

    1. Re:Nasa.gov website unavailable in Russia by pipy · · Score: 1
      Switching to Google Public DNS fixed the issue.

      Strangely enough, I'm unable to reach neither http://nasa.gov/ nor http://science.nasa.gov/. Other web sites and services are working perfectly well. Anyone experiencing the same issue? I'm using Corbina/Beeline, one of the largest internet providers in Moscow...