Slashdot Mirror
Rosetta Spacecraft Catches Comet Eruption
An anonymous reader writes: On March 12, the Rosetta spacecraft was imaging Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from a distance of 75 kilometers (46 miles) and by pure chance it spotted an eruption of dusty material from the shaded nucleus. Long-duration spacecraft are essential if we are to fully understand the evolution of a comet as it gradually heats up during its approach to the sun. And it just so happens that Rosetta is always in orbit around 67P's nucleus, ready to spot any transient event that could erupt at any time on the surface
This latest event focuses on the comet's shaded underside. It is assumed that some sunlight slowly heated an outcrop, providing enough energy to sublimate subsurface ices, ejecting vapor and dust as a jet. The transient jet was imaged and measured by Rosetta's scientific imaging system OSIRIS. There is also the possibility that a wave of heating passed through the icy material, eventually producing a more explosive jet event.
This latest event focuses on the comet's shaded underside. It is assumed that some sunlight slowly heated an outcrop, providing enough energy to sublimate subsurface ices, ejecting vapor and dust as a jet. The transient jet was imaged and measured by Rosetta's scientific imaging system OSIRIS. There is also the possibility that a wave of heating passed through the icy material, eventually producing a more explosive jet event.
sir. it's america's roast beef!
transient jet. Also a possibility. Fuck.
the duck farts
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Headline for the ages
Table-ized A.I.
"By pure chance," you say? If the damn thing was designed to orbit and observe, how is it pure chance that at some point we saw something interesting?
maybe i spend too much time...well, you know....
I've been a member for a little over ten years but I haven't bothered to log in for about six months now. The articles bear little interest to me any more. The discussion is gone. The new layout sucks. Good job, dice, you killed what was once a decent site.
"And it just so happens", that is was designed to be in orbit around this comet. It wasn't just shot up at random, and "just happened" to fall into orbit around this comet.
Who writes this crap?
Does the sudden change in the mass from the melt in the comet and the effect of the jets change its velocity and trajectory?
It's amazing how advanced the "space exploration" fakery has become. So much better than the moon landing days of screwed up sets (multiple lighting sources and amateur shit like that).
If I spend 24x7 staring in your bathroom window you don't call it "pure chance" that I happened to see you taking a shower.
I agree with criticizing the ice claims. The ESA is trying way too hard when it comes to that, making me think something is wrong. But automatically accepting the electric universe explanation is premature. They need to publish quantitative predictions that fit the previous data and match later observed data. Even if it is only on the website.
I agree with criticizing the ice claims.
Except that is one of the more well confirmed aspects of comets. Several EU proponents keep proclaiming there is little to no water on comets, despite decades of observation showing exactly the opposite, and quite directly with space probes since the 80s. They use some excuses like the water is just oxygen combining with hydrogen from the solar wind, even though there is an order magnitude more of it than the hydrogen in the solar wind, or make claims about spectroscopy only being able to see OH bonds instead of water, except there are lines specific to water that were observed since the 70s. Most of the space probes had magnetometers, but no comment on the rather mild to completely lack of field seen near the comment.
Kind of funny (or sad) for such people to be asking how much longer will mainstream scientists continue to use broken models and recognize reality.
Here's hoping one of these jets doesn't hit Rosetta and send it spinning off into deep space like Buck Rogers.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Can we finally admit the Electric Universe guys are at least right about comets? This "jet" is coming from the dark side of the comet? Doesn't seem likely.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I've been following the press releases from the ESA on this. They are pushing the ice idea hard, way too hard. The flimsiest of evidence makes those ice and water terms appear. That is all I know.
I find it hard to understand why this kind of accounting is still considered science. The standard model of comets is so wildy wrong, it's absolutely laughable. Comets are electrical, as is the universe. The sooner we all get that, the sooner w don't have to listen to ludicrous "science" telling us that although it looks like a rock, that it's darker than carbon, lighter than sponge, and still has water under pressure causing jets from a nucleus that clearly sees little sunlight, and has a surface temperature so cold, you can't touch it. Yet somehow that translates to heat, expansion, and gas jets erupting out.
No, this sucker's electrical! We expected ice, and when we tried to anchor to it, the surface didn't give way - not quite spongy carbon then? (if you read about the calculated mass!) Seriously, these "scientists" need to get a life, bite the big one, and accept they've been wrong for so long it's laughable. Accept that the Electric universe is the only way forwards for now at least - and embrace it. Then we'll stop getting all these "surprises" and "freak events" and "luck", and start to see it for what it really is.
www.thunderbolts.info
You forgot the bit about the dish running away with the spoon.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
That is all I know.
That is all you think; sadly for you, you have no credibility, or evidence for your alternative (do you even posit one?) I find them persuasive, and you not at all. Water is the most common compound in the universe. It's painfully fucking obvious that comets are dirty snowballs. Only a ignorant crank or slashdot armchair blowhard would disagree without presenting something contradictory.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
"something contradictory."
Albedo too low, surface "hard as rock", density much lower than water ice.
Sure you can come up with post-hoc explanations, but were any of those qualities predicted a priori based on the water ice idea? No. That should lead us to question the validity of that idea.
Don't try to tell me they didn't expect ice at least very near the surface, then they wouldn't have designed philae with "ice clamps".
The majority of what is emitted from comets is still water, as now measured by multiple space probes, along with IR spectroscopy from Earth previously. Rosetta now also has also been detecting subsurface ice with its millimeter wave instrument too.
As I indicated, I do not know enough about this data. I only have basic scientific intuition to go on regarding this. I note that you only mention multiple sources for a single line of evidence. This is good that now we can consider that evidence to be reliable, but unless it converges with other lines of evidence (which seems to specifically not be the case here) we should be more skeptical of the icy comet idea; even if it is the best one we have. If the PR wing of the agency responsible for the project does not seem to be acting in accord with what I consider to be basic scientific principles, I will think something is up.
If every measurement of bulk composition of comets continues to show large amounts of water, and there are now measurements of internal composition showing water below the freezing point (i.e. ice), that would seem to be convergence. Questions about whether the density is more like solid ice versus snow doesn't change that.
Either you're not very bright in terms of "basic scientific intuition" or you're being disingenuous and playing dumb badly to push an agenda... what good is it to discuss convergence of evidence when you don't know about the vast majority of observations and data?
Obviously my point is that some assumption may be off regarding the spectroscopy. That is what I mean by one line of evidence.
That is what I mean by one line of evidence.
It involves IR spectroscopy (of several different vibrational states of water), MM wave spectroscopy, and mass spectroscopy, the last of which is rather fundamentally different than the others.
I would be concerned that 1) Water is somehow being formed in situ 2) Other substances can result in similar signals 3) There is some assumption hidden in a pre-processing step that artefactualy generates the water signal.
I assume that these concerns have been considered and dismissed, but not necessarily correctly so. Number 2, at least, seems on the face of it to be addressed by the mass spec. Perhaps I do not give astronomers enough credit, but I have been made highly skeptical of all scientific claims by the sloppy methodology being presented as science elsewhere.
To decide for myself I would need to find the data in the rawest form possible and repeat the analysis. Is this data available somewhere yet? Honestly I hope to find out I am wrong to be skeptical in this case, since I have been considering a switch of fields and would like to choose one where I can interact with people who ensure things are done right before making claims.
There is nothing stopping a Google search and checking several astronomy data set repositories online, as the field tends to have a lot of open papers and datasets. The first result when I Google for examples has a complete list of spectral peaks which is more than enough to do a full calibration yourself. There are probably plenty of examples of rawer data around for other examples, and it just takes time to track it down, although the fastest method I've found is to just email paper authors and ask for a copy.