Slashdot Mirror


Rosetta Results: Comets "Did Not Bring Water To Earth"

An anonymous reader writes with findings from the Rosetta mission which suggests water on Earth probably came from asteroids, and not comets."Scientists have dealt a blow to the theory that most water on Earth came from comets. Results from Europe's Rosetta mission, which made history by landing on Comet 67P in November, shows the water on the icy mass is unlike that on our planet. The results are published in the journal Science. The authors conclude it is more likely that the water came from asteroids, but other scientists say more data is needed before comets can be ruled out."

135 comments

  1. The wet ones did! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Funny

    They got it wrong. The dry comets are lighter and so are still flying around. The wet ones were heavier and so fell to Earth.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:The wet ones did! by felixrising · · Score: 1, Funny

      Someone mod him down.... if you're in orbit... mass has nothing to do with it.

    2. Re:The wet ones did! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure he was joking.

    3. Re:The wet ones did! by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Funny

      That whooshing sound you heard was not a comet passing over your head, it was the joke.

    4. Re:The wet ones did! by felixrising · · Score: 4, Funny

      Someone mod this guy down too... there is no air in space and hence no sound... there is therefore no "whooshing" sound.

    5. Re:The wet ones did! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mass has everything to do with it. You're thinking "weight", dumbass.

    6. Re:The wet ones did! by TheCreeep · · Score: 1

      If there is no air, and no sound in space, then can you still hear the voices in your head?

    7. Re:The wet ones did! by asylumx · · Score: 2

      That's simple. Clearly there is still air in your head.

    8. Re:The wet ones did! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also if you're in orbit you're falling towards the earth because gravity is pulling on your mass. You do have a weight. What you don't have as an astronaut in a space craft is a weight relative to the ship you're in.

    9. Re:The wet ones did! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you don't have a weight in free fall. What's the weight of the Earth? Zilch. It's in orbit!

    10. Re:The wet ones did! by Calavar · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it doesn't.

      F_g = GMm/r^2

      F_c = mv^2/r

      Combine the two, and you get

      GM/v^2 = r

      So the orbital radius of an object around the sun depends only on the mass of the sun and the velocity of the object. The mass of the object doesn't matter. This is high school level physics, buddy.

    11. Re:The wet ones did! by Calavar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Weight is defined as the force of gravity that is acting on an object. When you are in orbit, weight is serving as the centripetal force that is keeping you on a circular orbit. So if an object was weightless, it would fly off in a straight line instead of orbiting. GP is almost right. The weight of the space ship is going to be much greater than the weight of the astronaut inside simply because the spaceship is more massive (and F_g = GMm/r^2, so weight increases linearly with the mass of the orbiting object), but the astronaut feels weightless because he/she has the same acceleration as the space ship.

    12. Re:The wet ones did! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The wet comets whoosh, the dry ones make a kind of scraping noise.

    13. Re:The wet ones did! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares? He's still a moron.

    14. Re:The wet ones did! by rizole · · Score: 1

      In space, no one can hear you whoosh.

    15. Re:The wet ones did! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, they whoosh pretty nicely once they hit the atmosphere.

    16. Re:The wet ones did! by careysub · · Score: 1

      Some on with mod points please mod Calvar up. He has it exactly correct.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    17. Re:The wet ones did! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the real world astronomy, especially for smaller bodies over long time period, mass has a lot to do with it due to things like differential heating and light pressure. The real world involves things beyond high school physics.

    18. Re:The wet ones did! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So George Lucas made a fool of me all of this time ?
      Damn you George Lucas.

    19. Re:The wet ones did! by Calavar · · Score: 1

      Either way, GGP's assertion that mass is relevant but weight somehow isn't makes no sense.

  2. Water came from asteroids... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Didn't planet earth come from 'asteroids'?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Water came from asteroids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      God damn it, another drug scandal for planets. Some of the dwarf planets used ass steroids to get bigger and now they are real planets. But it caused them to be covered with a lot of water. Figures...

  3. Oh it's asteroids now? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why does the water have to have come from comet/asteroid/whatever impacts? Maybe it just kind of seeped out of rocks or something. Hydrogen and oxygen are pretty common.

    1. Re: Oh it's asteroids now? by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      The theory is that the protoearth lost all its water when the impact that formed the moon happened. That impact reliquified the planet, driving off the lighter elements. Ergo we had to be reseeded somehow.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re: Oh it's asteroids now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the scientists are obsessed with this 'water came from comets/asteroids' because they believe Earth lost it once and had to receive it again?
      Sounds far fetched to me.

    3. Re: Oh it's asteroids now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, the scientists are obsessed with this 'water came from comets/asteroids' because they believe Earth lost it once and had to receive it again?
      Sounds far fetched to me.

      Ofcourse scientists are obsessed about things like this. This method of operation is the quintessential Scientific Method. You create a model based on what you know and the model will predict certain things that you can look for. This is exactly the same reason the large particle accelerators exist, the Standard Model (Particle Physics) predicts the existence of particles and a method to find them and that method is the accelerator.

      If something you find doesn't fit the model, you either trash it or modify it. It's not like the scientific models pop magically into being, there's someone behind it, who has sufficient training in the field in question, to make reasonable guesses on how things might fit the empirical data based on his/her previous experience.

    4. Re:Oh it's asteroids now? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't have "seeped out", but you're on the right track. hydrogen + oxygen + energy = water. and water + energy = hydrogen + oxygen. We understand a lot of the surface chemical processes on this planet. We don't understand all the subterranean processes, but we have an idea.

      Non-terrestrial bodies can carry water. Landing on a single comet and saying "no comets have Earth-like water" is like saying "We've only found life on Earth, therefore no other life exists."

      I think some people have a very homogenous view of the universe. Once you've sampled a few, you've sampled them all.

      Even on the Earth, there isn't a lot of water. This may give a better visualization.

      http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    5. Re:Oh it's asteroids now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > hydrogen + oxygen + energy = water. and water + energy = hydrogen + oxygen
      does not compute

      > We understand a lot of the surface chemical processes on this planet
      who is this we you speak of?

    6. Re: Oh it's asteroids now? by whopis · · Score: 2

      >> hydrogen + oxygen + energy = water. and water + energy = hydrogen + oxygen
      >does not compute

      Technically it is:
      2H2 + energy = 4H
      O2 + energy = 2O
      4H + 2O = water + energy

      Then the equations are reversable.

    7. Re: Oh it's asteroids now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point was that the one process is endothermic and the other is not. Primary school mathematics still holds here.

    8. Re: Oh it's asteroids now? by Drethon · · Score: 2

      And does the evidence we have to date support the loss of all water at some point as the most likely or are there other theories that fit the data equally well but are pushed to the side? In pure science theories are based on evidence, in human science theories are affected by politics.

    9. Re: Oh it's asteroids now? by Sam36 · · Score: 0

      If that were true, the moon would be very earth like in its composition. But is it not....

    10. Re:Oh it's asteroids now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does the water have to have come from comet/asteroid/whatever impacts? Maybe it just kind of seeped out of rocks or something. Hydrogen and oxygen are pretty common.

      Then where did all the rocks come from? Surely not asteroids, right?

    11. Re: Oh it's asteroids now? by careysub · · Score: 2

      Because Earth has very unusual moon. Some good models exist to explain how it came it existence, and how the present system evolved, and can explain the isotope and elemental composition data we have for the Moon, and explain all currently discernible features of the system rather well. But they start with a massive planetoid collision on the early Earth that lofted enough material (combined from Earth and the impactor) to create that little twin planet of the Earth called Moon. Available evidence favors this model much more strongly than any contenders, and this collision event would have driven off the volatiles. It is a very difficult conclusion to escape from, and requires later acquisition of material.

      Seems far-fetched? "Fetch distance" is not generally a useful tool to judge a theories plausibiity.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    12. Re: Oh it's asteroids now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the collision was in early stages when earth was hotter and had less volatiles around? What if the volatiles did not disappear at all?
      The creation process of inner planets seems very similar, did venus or mars receive more volatiles because they did not need to refill and had more time to accumulate volatiles?

  4. Actually... by NotSanguine · · Score: 4, Informative

    The more informative article from the ESA website says that the Deuterium/Hydrogen (D/H) isotope ratio is significantly higher (more than three times, in fact) than that of water found on Earth.

    However, The comet in question is not of the same type and composition as *all* comets. In fact, comets (even those that generally share orbits with the one sampled) vary widely in their D/H ratios. As such, the paper does not claim that comets didn't bring water to Earth, merely that comets like the one sampled (comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko) by ROSINA did not bring water to Earth.

    From the better TFA:

    Previous measurements of the deuterium/hydrogen (D/H) ratio in other comets have shown a wide range of values. Of the 11 comets for which measurements have been made, it is only the Jupiter-family Comet 103P/Hartley 2 that was found to match the composition of Earth’s water, in observations made by ESA’s Herschel mission in 2011. [Emphasis added]

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    1. Re: Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what they're saying is that this comet, which obviously never struck Earth, was not responsible for delivering any of our water.

      No argument here.

    2. Re: Actually... by NotSanguine · · Score: 0

      So what they're saying is that comets which formed in proximity to where the sampled comet formed, were not responsible for delivering significant quantities of our water.

      No argument here.

      There. FTFY. Not sure if you were being obtuse in attempt to be amusing or if you're just dumb as a box of rocks. Either way, have a wonderful day!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    3. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it also possible that no comets will have the right D/H ratio due to that fact the there is no guarantee all the comets that hit earth had the same d/h ratio.

    4. Re:Actually... by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Isn't it also possible that no comets will have the right D/H ratio due to that fact the there is no guarantee all the comets that hit earth had the same d/h ratio.

      Anything is possible. Even time travel into the past (with certain limitations).

      However, since the article I linked (and quoted/bolded the relevant text) states that they have sampled a comet that has a composition matching the D/H ratio as found here on Earth, it seems reasonable to conclude that other comets, some of which hit the Earth and some of which did not, have Earthlike D/H ratios.

      What is more, since all material in the solar system coalesced from the same molecular cloud that collapsed into our star, there are likely many similarities between objects in the solar system.

      N.B. I am not a planetary scientist or an astronomer studying comets, so YMMV.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    5. Re: Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what they're saying is that WHOOSH.

      No argument here.

      There. FTFY. Not sure if you were being obtuse in attempt to be amusing or if you're just dumb as a box of rocks. Either way, have a wonderful day!

      FTFY

    6. Re:Actually... by Drethon · · Score: 1

      In the same matter I wish cosmology would create less theories based on on a single observation as one observation can neither prove or disprove theories.

    7. Re:Actually... by asylumx · · Score: 1

      This was the first thing that came to mind for me, too. There's no way any researcher worth a snot would take a sample from one comet and claim that all comets must be like this.

    8. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, clearly, if the comet has a higher D/H ratio, and Earth's water came from comets, then much of our deuterium has gone somewhere. Thus proving that the dinosaurs had an advanced technological civilization based on deuterium fusion. Too bad they didn't have a space program capable of deflecting asteroids.

      As for comet 103P/Hartley 2, that was probably used as a refueling stop by extraterrestrials.

    9. Re: Actually... by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      So what they're saying is that WHOOSH.

      No argument here.

      There. FTFY. Not sure if you were being obtuse in attempt to be amusing or if you're just dumb as a box of rocks. Either way, have a wonderful day!

      FTFY

      I see. so you subscribe to my second theory about GP. Gotcha.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    10. Re:Actually... by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      In the same matter I wish cosmology would create less theories based on on a single observation as one observation can neither prove or disprove theories.

      Cosmology didn't claim that this observation proved anything, nor did it spark any new theories. OP made an unsupportable claim in the title. Which is complete hyperbole and not even close to what the researchers reported. Which is why I posted what you replied to.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    11. Re:Actually... by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Well, clearly, if the comet has a higher D/H ratio, and Earth's water came from comets, then much of our deuterium has gone somewhere. Thus proving that the dinosaurs had an advanced technological civilization based on deuterium fusion. Too bad they didn't have a space program capable of deflecting asteroids.

      As for comet 103P/Hartley 2, that was probably used as a refueling stop by extraterrestrials.

      Finally! Someone with some common sense! Good show, old chap!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    12. Re:Actually... by Drethon · · Score: 1

      True, when I say cosmology I'm probably thinking more the loud individuals you hear every time a new observation comes out.

    13. Re:Actually... by butalearner · · Score: 1

      Thus proving that the dinosaurs had an advanced technological civilization based on deuterium fusion.

      Historical documents show that tyrannosaurs used their relatively small arms to operate the controls of fighter jets, so it stands to reason that dinosaurs figured out economical fusion power. I wouldn't be surprised if all the fossils we've found are just the dinosaur lawyers and telephone sanitizers.

  5. Why does the isotope ratio of one comet matter? by idji · · Score: 3, Interesting

    surely the Earth has hit by so many objects with varying D/H that the D/H of each object is not important to tell us the source of water, but rather tells us of the formation environment of the object itself. I don't see how anyone could claim that such D/H comets could not seed earth. i just see a larger D/H range of the seeders.

    1. Re:Why does the isotope ratio of one comet matter? by stiggle · · Score: 1

      Also the life on earth has been processing the water for a few million years - splitting the water to be make sugars and splitting sugars to make carbon dioxide and water. The ratio in water we have now is due to the water from life (I'm avoiding the Dune reference with Water of Life :-) ) which is based on the availably hydrogen in the environment which is attached to hydrocarbons and other molecules as well as water. I think they physicists need to talk to a biologist about the facts of life :-)

      What we do know is that the Kupier Belt bodies (which is the source of this comet and others with the same ratio) absorb a lot of neutrons to make the deuterium found in them.

    2. Re:Why does the isotope ratio of one comet matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they physicists need to talk to a biologist about the facts of life :-)

      If the biologists could point to a chemical process which changes H to D, I think the physicists would definitely talk to them, but they can't, so your point is just an irrelevant misunderstanding of physics. It doesn't matter what biology does to transform chemicals, it won't change the ratio of H to D in the Earth's crust, and since almost all of that is in the seas, it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference. I think the biologists need to talk to the physicists about immutable laws which don't change just because life exists.

    3. Re:Why does the isotope ratio of one comet matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      surely the Earth has hit by so many objects with varying D/H that the D/H of each object is not important to tell us the source of water, but rather tells us of the formation environment of the object itself.
      I don't see how anyone could claim that such D/H comets could not seed earth. i just see a larger D/H range of the seeders.

      Another reason why we need more interdisciplinary scientists. Specialists can apparently miss the nose on their own face if they specialize in hands..

    4. Re:Why does the isotope ratio of one comet matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinetic isotope fractionation is common enough in biologic processes. The Calvin cycle is pretty important, as the obvious example, and has a discrimination against 13C of of ~20 per mil.

      If you have a biological process that converted water into other molecules that had a discrimination with respect to H, and those molecules were then not converted back to water you could slowly change the H to D ratio of water. I'm not saying such a thing exists, I've never heard of a claim for one. However, I can't see why it would be impossible.

      Now if your measuring the H to D ratio of "the earth" as opposed to "water" that changes everything of course.

  6. Sounds unlikely to me by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Water is pretty heavy. The collision would certainly have vapourised all water on the surface and underneath and even converted a lot of it to H2 + O2 , but the rest would simply have hung around in orbit as ice and rained back down eventually.

    1. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by delt0r · · Score: 3, Informative

      You know we have thought of that. If you run the numbers, the atmosphere stays hot enough for long enough that much if not all escapes into space. The impact created the moon, it was really really hot for a while.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    2. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      Using that logic there would have been no water to start with since the earth was "really really hot for a while" when it formed you dimwit.

    3. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by tonique · · Score: 2

      Re "heaviness of water": Water molecule (molecular mass 18) is lighter than eg. oxygen gas (molecular mass 32) or nitrogen gas (molecular mass 28). The reason water stays liquid is that it forms hydrogen bonds with the neighbouring water molecules, thus raising the boiling point.

    4. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by delt0r · · Score: 0

      Run the numbers. Oh you just make stuff up? Well perhaps you should publish your enlightened treatment of planet formation.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    5. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      The key word in the theory is "reseeded" - note the "re". Earth formed, lost any water it might have acquired in the formation of the moon, then got it back from comets and asteroids.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    6. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      How can they know for certain the moon came from an earth impact vs just a passing proto-planet without a well defined orbit that got caught in our gravity?

      There is so much about the universe that is not understood at these timespans, I have a hard time believing that anything can be known for certain at this point in science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

    7. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just point us to the numbers that are agreed upon by all planetary scientists? Clearly you're an expert on this.

    8. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Except theres no reason for it to have lost much at all during the moons formation. Most of the water would have remained in orbit as ice or locked up in orbiting solidified rock.

    9. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by delt0r · · Score: 1

      It is true that its not conclusive, but there is evidence that it happened or probably happened. If it did happen however then other things are also probably happened.

      And by probably i mean at the level of confidence of any AGW prediction model. ie a bit. Yet every man and his dog knows that scientist having everything correct with AGW and your a coal/oil denier shill if you disagree. Yet every armchair scientist that hasn't even bothered to read the wiki about $TOPIC know why everyone working in the field is so clearly wrong.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    10. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Whats wrong, you can't even work the internet? Most of this research is not behind a pay wall. If you wanted to read it or know about it, you would. But you don't. Just another person who is willfully ignorant on the internet.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    11. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by Drethon · · Score: 2

      So you prefer to use baseless arguments rather than point to references? In fact I can find a paper that suggests we may not have lost a significant amount of water during the impact forming the moon:

      "Genda and Abe (2003, 2005) showed that Earth is unlikely to lose much of its water as a result of the Moon-forming impact, although loss of a significant amount of atmosphere is possible. " http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

    12. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by delt0r · · Score: 1

      I am well aware of the literature. You probably should read his other post in this exchange.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    13. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      You made the assertion pal - you back it up. But then given you're the moron who thinks hawking is only kept on because of his disability I think its safe for say your so full of it its coming out both ends.

    14. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      And by probably i mean at the level of confidence of any AGW prediction model. ie a bit. Yet every man and his dog knows that scientist having everything correct with AGW and your a coal/oil denier shill if you disagree. Yet every armchair scientist that hasn't even bothered to read the wiki about $TOPIC know why everyone working in the field is so clearly wrong.

      That's why the agw fanatics generate negative opinions about science. It's apparent to everyone but them that they have gone over the edge.

    15. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you're wrong about the impact that created the moon then. Even if the numbers seem to play nicely along that theory.

    16. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      How can they know for certain the moon came from an earth impact vs just a passing proto-planet without a well defined orbit that got caught in our gravity?

      Well, the wiki really explains it better than I could. I'm not an expert, I just know it's the currently favored theory, IE it's the best match for observations, not that it's a perfect match.

      It's also possible that at least 'some' water remained after the impact, and the return of 'enough' water was via various methods.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    17. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      The whole reason I linked the wiki is because of the "Difficulties" section.

      IE, despite what this Slashdot article implies, this is not really fully accepted theory yet. There are a large number of holes in the theory that the moon came from the earth that have yet to be reconciled.

    18. Re:Sounds unlikely to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just a passing proto-planet without a well defined orbit that got caught in our gravity?

      You can't just capture a moon using the planet's gravity alone, as you need some way to lose momentum. For a moon small compared to the planet's atmosphere (e.g. just about any moon compared to a gas giant), you can have a close encounter than involves a lot of aerobraking. Otherwise, you would have to slingshot around an already existing moon of comparable momentum to exchange momentum with it.

    19. Re: Sounds unlikely to me by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Escape into space is one thing, but also far enough outside of Earth's orbital position that its gravity wouldn't keep the water in an intercept orbit for eventual return? I'm not able to find anything with my naive google searches.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    20. Re: Sounds unlikely to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water and other volatiles that will spread out into a thin gas high above the atmosphere will be removed by the solar wind. Not to mention the help from things like the average thermal velocity above the thermosphere being on the order of km/s for oxygen and 4 km/s for hydrogen, so fraction of gas in the tail of the thermal distribution will already be close to escape velocity. Things like dust and small rocks on the other hand tend to have decaying orbits due to photon pressure and drag, and no assistance from a thermal distribution.

  7. The comet is dry as bone by gaijin_ · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The press release should have said: The comet is dry as bone, Earth water must have come from somewhere else.

    So far no water ice has been found and the pictures shows a completely dry hard rock. That they keep calling it an "Ice mountain" is just crazy. There is no proof that there is ice on a comet. Only that there is hydroxyl in the coma. Saying "We know of no other way for there to be hydroxyl in the coma without there being ice in the comet" is just bad science. Especially when there have been lab experiments showing how hydroxyl can be created from silica rock hit by protons (solar wind)

    1. Re:The comet is dry as bone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The press release should have said: The comet is dry as bone, Earth water must have come from somewhere else.

      There is no reason the press release should state something completely wrong just to prescribe to your fantasies.

  8. I don't see the problem by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Deuterium/Hydrogen (D/H) isotope ratio is significantly higher (more than three times, in fact) than that of water found on Earth.

    Q: How do you separate heavy water from light water?
    A: Distillation. Light water boils off / evaporates more easily, because the molecules are lighter, and leaves the heavier water behind.

    Why shouldn't this be true of vacuum sublimation as well?

    Leave a chunk of dirty ice orbiting the sun in a hard vaccuum for a few million years, with the water quietly sublimating away. Seems to me the result would be that last remaining chunk of dirty ice would have a substantially larger fraction of heavy water molecules than the water on the planet where the deep gravity well hangs on to the lighter molecules.

    Is it enough to explain a 3:1 enrichment? No clue. But I'd like to see that the analysis was done and what the scientists' estimates were.

    (Not to say they ignored it. The last time I raised a similar question about a scientific paper reported here it turned out that the scientists HAD examined the issue.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:I don't see the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Distillation only works with liquids. Comet ice is not a liquid. Even if light water [on the surface] evaporates more quickly, since there is no process to replenish the light water on the surface, all you're going to end up with is a tiny crust of heavy water (a few molecules thick) and then the rest of the ice is going to be the original mixture.

    2. Re:I don't see the problem by Endlisnis · · Score: 2

      Distillation only works with liquids. Comet ice is not a liquid. Even if light water [on the surface] evaporates more quickly, since there is no process to replenish the light water on the surface, all you're going to end up with is a tiny crust of heavy water (a few molecules thick) and then the rest of the ice is going to be the original mixture.

    3. Re:I don't see the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The current view is that comets live most of their lives very far from the Sun. The ones that are nearby are there because their orbit changed recently.

  9. Water is Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait...water on comets is "different" than water on earth? Water is H2O....so how is it "different"?

    1. Re:Water is Water by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      it tastes funny.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re: Water is Water by BVis · · Score: 1

      You're not wrong about water being H2O, the difference is in the H part. Hydrogen is one proton orbited by one electron (an oversimplification, but work with me here). An isotope of hydrogen called "deuterium" also has a neutron in its nucleus. So, both deuterium and protium (the "normal" isotope of hydrogen, without the extra neutron) are hydrogen, but deuterium has more mass due to the neutron. Water can be formed with either isotope; water formed from deuterium and oxygen is sometimes called "heavy water".

      Now what they're looking at here is the ratio of ordinary water to heavy water naturally occurring in a given environment. Here, they've determined that the ratio on the comet is not the same as what's commonly found on Earth. They've therefore put forward the hypothesis that the current thinking about the origin of water on this planet may be wrong, because this particular comet's ratio is different, and the assumption is that most comets are composed of similar material.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  10. *sigh* by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Previous measurements of the deuterium/hydrogen (D/H) ratio in other comets have shown a wide range of values. Of the 11 comets for which measurements have been made, it is only the Jupiter-family Comet 103P/Hartley 2 that was found to match the composition of Earth’s water, in observations made by ESA’s Herschel mission in 2011.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  11. If you read the article in Science by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you'll see they have pretty solid evidence that this particular type of comet (Jupiter family) had a deuterium/hydrogen ratio in water that is very different from earth, whereas many asteroids (chondrites) have about the same D/H ratio. All they were saying was that this type of comet was not responsible for delivering most of earth's water, which seems reasonable based on their evidence (see figure 3 from the article).

    --
    A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
  12. Clarification by jfisherwa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There seems to be a lot of confusion and conjecture in the comments about the grandiosity of the claim. This does not necessarily rule out all comets. Maybe an attempt at a better summary of the article would be helpful:

    Background:

    - Not all water is the same. Some water is heavier due to a presence of a certain amount of deuterium.

    The general consensus is:

    - When the solar system formed, the components for water were created.
    - These components eventually formed with the early Earth and a water cycle was created.
    - Yes, the early Earth was hot, but heat and elements were plentiful and Earth managed to hold onto some of these elements and would have had water evaporating and raining back down again.
    - The planet Theia *collided* into the Earth. A certain amount of the debris coalesced into the moon. Imagine Pluto smashing into your house.
    - The heat from the collision would have evaporated/released all elements lighter than X, which includes water. (ed: perhaps water on the moon is more closely related to early earth water coalesced and re-condensed?)
    - Sometime later, the Earth received much more water than would have been sustained from such an impact.
    - The weight (deuterium ppm) of this "new" water is different (much lighter) than the weight of "old" water, and generally any other water in the solar system.

    So where did this "new" water come from?

    This article suggests:

    "We have light water in some comets and very heavy water in other comets. We have to assume the mixture of all these comets is something that is heavier than what we have on Earth, so this probably rules out Kuiper Belt comets as the source of terrestrial water."

    And I believe this means:

    It would have taken many of these Kuiper Belt comets to contribute a great deal of water to the Earth. If we use probe measurements to confirm other measurements and calculate the *average* weight of water on a number of Kuiper Belt comets (along the order of magnitude necessary be a main source of "new" water for the Earth), then we see that the amount of deuterium in Earth's water would have been much greater -- i.e. the water would contain an average weight of all impacts needed to saturate.

    Thus this rules out Kuiper Belt comets being the main source of "new" water for Earth. Their water in general is simply too heavy on average. As soon as enough Kuiper Belt comets impact the Earth to come close to the amount of water needed, the calculations show that the level of deuterium would be much, much higher than what we see.

    And the article itself turns to conjecture with:

    So where do we look for lighter water? Maybe asteroids?

    1. Re:Clarification by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Perhaps it came from a mineral called ringwoodite which is an ocean of water locked up deep in the earth. During period of vulcanism, the mineral outgases water to the surface.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Clarification by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to say "this comet's water suggests (sample size =1) that cometary water isn't the water on earth". That says NOTHING about where the water actually came from, only where it didn't.

      It's a pretty clear that "welp, we didn't find it here" *doesn't* therefore mean "it must be there" unless there are a total of two possible alternatives.

      I haven't bothered to read the OP determine if the leap of logic is the OP's or the summarizer's.

      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:Clarification by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      - The planet Theia *collided* into the Earth. A certain amount of the debris coalesced into the moon.

      Is it know for sure that the collision would have completely liquefied the planet? It makes some logical sense that the impact hitting on one side of the planet would have produced or left a bulge on the other side. This could be where Pangaea came from then. Obviously if the entire planet became liquefied then there would be no bulge. But if a portion of it was left as a crust it could be an explanation for how the continents started out as one super continent so long ago.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    4. Re:Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article mentions a larger sample size than 1, with measurements from other sources. It then mentions a specific asteroid that they believe does have this "lighter" water. I believe Rosetta provides a confirmation that allows us to be more confident in those other techniques to take us beyond a sample size of one.

    5. Re:Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if a portion of it was left as a crust it could be an explanation for how the continents started out as one super continent so long ago.

      But there is no known indication that the continents did start out as a single super continent. Before Pangaea there were separate continents, with another super-continent, Pannotia, preceding that, and evidence of two to five or more super-continents before even that. Super-continents are a natural result of continents moving around and occasionally piling up in a way that results in a 300-500 million year cycle. By the time you get to about 3 billion years ago though, evidence of land mass that long ago is pretty limited because the rocks have been broken up into small sections that have separated and mixed around a whole lot. That record doesn't even go back to the estimated time of the Moon's formation estimated to be some 50% older than that by radioisotope methods. Incidentally, the radioisotope dating for when the moon solidified is a couple hundred million years before the oldest solidification date found for rocks on Earth.

    6. Re:Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At 1000 K (about the temperature of the upper atmosphere), the average speed of oxygen would be about the escape velocity at the current moon distance. Hydrogen would have four times the average velocity, which gives it escape velocity at a distance 16 times closer. Even without the average speed being fast enough, a large portion of the tail could cause enough problems, plus help from the solar wind.

  13. Not Possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything is possible. Even time travel into the past (with certain limitations).

    No, Time travel to the past isn't possible at all. That would be acting like there is a physical place called the past to travel to which is physically separate from all the moving mass in the universe that we call the Present. That would require constant instantaneous non-big-bang creation of all the mass in the universe over and over again at a Planck-time like interval.. Care to show evidence for that actually happening?

    It doesn't matter how some scientists choose to interpret certain equations, they are clearly misinterpreting how they actually relate to reality.

    1. Re:Not Possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would require constant instantaneous non-big-bang creation of all the mass in the universe over and over again at a Planck-time like interval..

      Care to show evidence for this being a necessary condition for time travel?

      It doesn't matter how some scientists choose to interpret certain equations, they are clearly misinterpreting how they actually relate to reality.

      It doesn't matter how some internet poster re-interprets pop-sci BS and word salad when they are clearly misinterpreting anything connected to reality.

    2. Re:Not Possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop thinking three dimensionally, that's so 19th Century. Spacetime is (at least) four dimensional. Going backwards in time no more requires creation of all mass than going forwards in time (which we all do, some of us a different rates than others (eg, those aboard ISS)) requires either creation or destruction of mass.

    3. Re:Not Possible by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Anything is possible. Even time travel into the past (with certain limitations).

      No, Time travel to the past isn't possible at all. That would be acting like there is a physical place called the past to travel to which is physically separate from all the moving mass in the universe that we call the Present. That would require constant instantaneous non-big-bang creation of all the mass in the universe over and over again at a Planck-time like interval.. Care to show evidence for that actually happening?

      It doesn't matter how some scientists choose to interpret certain equations, they are clearly misinterpreting how they actually relate to reality.

      Actually, people a lot smarter than you have posited that it is, in fact, possible. It's quite unlikely, and completely beyond our abilities, but not impossible. Note that I said "possible" not feasible.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  14. comet water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet someone will market a "Comet water" for $2 a bottle - and people will snap it up, yep, it will be made in San Bernardino Valley
    behind some guy backyard.

    wait...thats what this nestle pure life water comes from :)

  15. ad infinitum by dingleberrie · · Score: 2

    ... and... where did the asteroid get the water? Smaller asteroids?
    Without doing any research on the topic, yet smug in my own opinion (hello slashdot family!) I don't know why we'd ascribe a smaller rock-like mass as responsible for delivering simple molecules to a bigger rock-like mass.

  16. Silly Buggers by blang · · Score: 1

    Everybody knows water comes from rain.

    But seriously, there is a giant body close to earth, that is chock full of hydrogen, and if you burn off that hydrogen by oxidation you get water.
    If we also can get carbon into play, we have most of the ingredient in the cycle f life

    --
    -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
  17. Different water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder it's not anything like on earth!

    We've done a pretty good job at mixing various chemicals to our water!

  18. Water is Water and no water is still no water by gaijin_ · · Score: 1

    My point was that there has never been any proper proof of there being either water or heavy hater on comets only hydroxyl (OH) in the coma. There are several ways the hydroxyl could have gotten there, so you cant say there has to be water in the comet core for there to be hydroxyl in the coma.

    1. Re:Water is Water and no water is still no water by BVis · · Score: 1

      I think you may have replied to the wrong comment.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    2. Re:Water is Water and no water is still no water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point was that there has never been any proper proof of there being either water or heavy hater on comets only hydroxyl (OH) in the coma.

      Starting over 30 years ago there was direct observation of water vibration and bending modes, including ones that are quite distinct from just a single OH bond (i.e. a diatomic structure has only one mode, while a three atom one can have three different modes). Mass spectrometers on probes have also directly observed water and heavy water, which is quite clear from just an OH group, and are at levels way above the amount that could be generated by an OH group picking up hydrogen from the solar wind (passing comets produce an excess of hydrogen from water breaking up, not a deficit from water forming).

  19. To be more specific: by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    To be more specific, they speculate the water on Earth did not come from Comet 67P. Instrumentation showed evidence that Comet 67P is not on Earth and has never been on Earth.

    A independent panel of scientists is reviewing the data.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  20. Why does the water have to come from space? by Biosci777 · · Score: 2
    In the linked BBC article, I did not see any indication that these researchers took other recent findings into account, such as the discovery of water in ringwoodite, trapped in a diamond that came from the earth's mantle. Those who studied it concluded that there is "an ocean's worth of water" in the mantle. http://www.livescience.com/440...

    I find it much more plausible that our oceans were derived from internal water than that asteroids deposited it. I mean, really, how much water could your average meteor deposit? Looking at the amount of water on our planet's surface, we would have to assume a long, horrendous bombardment. Asteroid material would then account for a large percentage of the earth's crust, and I don't hear anyone suggesting that.

    And don't get me started on that whole "Theia" hypothesis. The only evidence for a planetary impact is the fact that we have a moon, and it's larger than one would expect. Very weak argument.

    1. Re:Why does the water have to come from space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, the Theia hypothesis has some striking arguments, most notably the age of rocks on earth and the age of the rocks on the moon. The moon is made out of rock that formed earlier than the rock found on earth, but still after the time earth was formed. The only way this could have happened is if a massive collision occured that kicked up earth rock into orbit which coalesced as the moon. Also, the impact would have to be significant enough to re-liquify all the rocks, thereby resetting their age.

      Second, the earth's crust is full of metals from asteroids. All the gold on earth came from asteroids, or as the theory goes. Because gold is heavier than the crust, it sank into the mantle. The mantle has enough gold to cover the whole surface of the earth in something like 9 feed of liquid gold. But that gold is trapped inside the mantle. The gold we get today fell down from asteroids, and the gold liquified on impact along with the resulting rocks, and melted down into the crust. This is why you find veins of gold in mountains.

  21. Let's get more samples by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    A sample of one is not enough to say one way or the other ont his matter.

  22. I find this ridiculous by slashmydots · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else think it's complete nonsense that a rock the size of a small mountain would fill up the oceans, which are the volume of probably about a billion small mountains? I don't think a billion ice balls hit Earth.

    1. Re:I find this ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire planet is made up of "small mountains." Why discount this hypothesis based on your ideas alone?

    2. Re:I find this ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. At one ice ball every four years, we'd be done a half-billion years ago.

      In fact, there's some evidence (from satellites) that Earth is still frequently (several times a year) hit by less-than-mountain size, but still big, ice balls. They tend to disintegrate/blow-up much higher in the atmosphere than rocks like the one that hit Chelyabinsk, hence they're not generally noticed from the ground, but their water still ends up here.

    3. Re:I find this ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think a billion ice balls hit Earth.

      Maybe because you are over estimating the amount of water on Earth or the size of these things, as it is closer to a million smaller comet or comet-sized asteroids, even considering they are 100% water.

  23. Not Possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Impossible is nothing.

  24. I find this ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed. Clearly Cthulu brought it with him from Waterion.

  25. Take that, SimEarth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I probably need to put some text in the comment body for the system to let me post it.

  26. Re: Sorry for the inconvenience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going on a killing spree anytime soon, Perfect Gentleman?

  27. Half Baked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All those theories are half baked.

    How did Comets or Asteroids get water? So why couldn't earth get water the same way?

  28. Re: Sorry for the inconvenience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, did you find my pointing out scientific facts we both agree with somehow offensive? But no, I neither would nor need to have any personal involvement in that outcome.

  29. Asteroid vs Comet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up until now I didn't realize there was a difference between the two. I still don't know what the difference is. Guess I'll have to google it, unless someone cares to explain.

  30. Not exactly... by mycroft16 · · Score: 1

    They only thing they can say is that the water didn't come from Comet 67/P. They look at the ratio of Hydrogen to Deuterium in the water on the comet and compare that ratio to what we find on Earth. The problem is, we find comets with similar ratios, and comets with nothing like it. It seems we still have a long way to go in understanding how comets formed and what that says about where/when they formed. Comets may still have delivered the water to Earth, but none of them may exist any more to study. Rosetta didn't really answer a question here, it just gave us yet another hint that comets are not all created equally and we have a lot more studying of them to do.

  31. AGAIN?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again in the middle of reading an article I get redirected to malware site.

    Slashdot has fallen to the bottom of the barrel lately. One would think a tech site could keep out the malware :/

  32. One single sample? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    So, we have one comet as sample.
    That comet is aons old.

    At some point in time "young" comets where supposed to seed the earth with water.

    How can that single "old" comet prove that "young" comets did not do that?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  33. Soo, since one comet doesn't match our water. by azav · · Score: 1

    This automagically means that all comets are out of the picture?

    This seems very short sighted.

    We need a sample of comets in the vicinity that likely existed in the time of our Earth's formation.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  34. Moded up but flat out wrong, decades out of date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From another comment further below:

    My point was that there has never been any proper proof of there being either water or heavy hater on comets only hydroxyl (OH) in the coma.

    Starting over 30 years ago there was direct observation of water vibration and bending modes, including ones that are quite distinct from just a single OH bond (i.e. a diatomic structure has only one mode, while a three atom one can have three different modes). Mass spectrometers on probes have also directly observed water and heavy water, which is quite clear from just an OH group, and are at levels way above the amount that could be generated by an OH group picking up hydrogen from the solar wind (passing comets produce an excess of hydrogen from water breaking up, not a deficit from water forming).

  35. Thunderbolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thunderbolts project are way ahead of these stooges. I have utmost respect for ESA flight dynamics, engineers etc. - the real Scientists.
    But the theorists - bah..
    The Electric Comet

  36. Clarification by Fr33z0r · · Score: 1

    - The heat from the collision would have evaporated/released all elements lighter than X, which includes water. (ed: perhaps water on the moon is more closely related to early earth water coalesced and re-condensed?)

    In this scenario, wouldn't much of the released elements have returned thanks to gravity?

    Also if we're bringing Theia into it, maybe Theia is the source of the water?

  37. Sample size? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    A sample size of one, seems a bit short of that needed to generalize to all other comets... 8-P