If gas and dust get blown away, what's to say that rocky planets weren't originally gas giants?
That would be the Nebular Hypothesis model of solar system formation. It's more the case that the gas giants were originally rocky/icy planets. A planet has to grow out of rock/metal/ice to about 10-20 Earth masses before it can even hold on to appreciable amounts of gas. Temperatures in the inner solar system are too high for ice to condense, so there's less material available to build planets, and the inner planets can't get that big.
The "Hot Jupiters" (which would be a good name for a rock band) probably formed further out and migrated inward in a swath of destruction that ejected any inner planets from the system. The question is why didn't our own Jupiter Classic(TM) do this to us?
I tend to make up false answers to these questions so that if for example somebody does know my mother's actual maiden name, that won't get them in. It means I have to remember the "correct" answer in addition to the true one, but that hasn't been a problem so far.
Such an impact may not necessarily have been pole-on. Mars need not have been in its current orientation when the dichotomy formed (whether or not it was the result of a giant impact). In terms of rotational stability, a big gaping hole is most stable at the pole (and a mass excess is most stable on the equator). Regardless of where the lowlands formed initially, Mars may have undergone true polar wander, resulting in its present orientation. The formation of the Tharsis province may have caused further reorientation.
Precisely. This giant impact idea has been around for more than 20 years (Wilhelms, D. E. and Squyres, S. W., 1984, Nature 309, p. 138-140). But they hadn't actually done the calculations, and many (myself included) assumed that any sufficiently large impact would have at least melted enough of the planet to erase any trace of the impact. These new studies show that such an impact model could in fact be responsible for the hemispheric dichotomy. Of course, while they show that it's possible, that doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened.
I'm pretty sure Danish Blue is a cheese. Perhaps they confused the Dead Parrot Sketch and the Cheese Shop Sketch. Both feature Palin as an inept shopkeeper and Cleese as a disgruntled customer.
Should we also have made an exception for Ceres for historical reasons? It was thought to be a planet for some 50 years after its discovery until whole bunches of asteroids were discovered.
While I share your views on the war(s), I don't think it's fair to say that NASA is being robbed to pay for it. Most of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs (SS, Medicare), and interest on the debt; this spending is mandatory. Defense gets about half the discretionary spending. NASA gets a whopping 0.6% of the federal budget. All of NASA's funding is a drop in the bucket compared to the war, which is funded principally on deficit spending.
In fact, NASA is the one of the few non-defense, discretionary programs to actually get an increase, and I believe the only such program to keep pace with inflation. Griffin gave a speech to the LPSC a few weeks ago, in which this was discussed. You can read the transcript of it here.
Griffin also stressed that Mars cannot continue to get peak funding indefinitely. If it does, nobody else gets a Flagship mission. According to the NRC report card, NASA got an 'A' for Mars, but a 'D' for Outer Planets, so it makes sense to redirect the available funds to concentrate on our weakness. A Flagship to Europa, Titan, or Jupiter system will be selected later this year. The Mars program is NOT being cut to zero. It's being returned to its historical average.
While the rovers are truly awesome, they're on sol 1500 of a 90 sol mission. This is the super-extended mission. There are three spacecraft in orbit around Mars (Odyssey, Mars Express, MRO), a lander on the way (Phoenix), and another rover (MSL) in production. I think Mars is well covered.
As I understand it the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is going to have a Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), so there won't be any solar panels to get dusty. It will need the extra power to move around as the bloody thing is the size of a mini-cooper, and could RUN OVER the MERs. It also has a high-powered laser to vaporize bits rock in order to do spectroscopy on it. Sounds scary to me; I'm glad I'm not a native Martian.
I would think the chances of inner rocky planets are low. It's not simply a matter of moving everything inwards as the size of the star decreases. There has to be enough material in the inner region to form planets out of. Resonances with the gas giant may have ejected much of the material out of this feeding zone, disrupting planet formation in the same way that Jupiter may have prevented planet formation in what is now the Asteroid Belt. There may be a similar asteroid belt in this new system.
It's possible there could be a planet interior to that. Actually if the inner giant orbits at half Jupiter's distance, then the 4:1 resonance (inner edge of our Asteroid Belt) is at about 1 AU. So you might be able to fit a couple planets in there. However, any planet in the habitable zone of this star would be so close that it would probably get locked into synchronous rotation, causing additional problems.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the only person qualfied to be Colbert's VP is his debate partner from "Formidable Opponent".
Don't forget about Governor Jesse Ventura! Actually, maybe you should forget about him.
No, that would be Mimas.
If gas and dust get blown away, what's to say that rocky planets weren't originally gas giants?
That would be the Nebular Hypothesis model of solar system formation. It's more the case that the gas giants were originally rocky/icy planets. A planet has to grow out of rock/metal/ice to about 10-20 Earth masses before it can even hold on to appreciable amounts of gas. Temperatures in the inner solar system are too high for ice to condense, so there's less material available to build planets, and the inner planets can't get that big.
The "Hot Jupiters" (which would be a good name for a rock band) probably formed further out and migrated inward in a swath of destruction that ejected any inner planets from the system. The question is why didn't our own Jupiter Classic(TM) do this to us?
Wow, simply to plan on living in a hundred years is a fairly ambitious goal.
Actually the diaper "pail" systems available these days do a fantastic job of sealing the odor away.
Nicely done.
It's an Irish-based airline. You gonna drive to Ireland?
Or throw something even bigger at it. Like say, the entire Earth. That thing's huge. That would definitely knock the asteroid off course.
I tend to make up false answers to these questions so that if for example somebody does know my mother's actual maiden name, that won't get them in. It means I have to remember the "correct" answer in addition to the true one, but that hasn't been a problem so far.
"Tony Danza's Nefarious Botnet" would be a good name for a rock band. But it's probably copyrighted.
Such an impact may not necessarily have been pole-on. Mars need not have been in its current orientation when the dichotomy formed (whether or not it was the result of a giant impact). In terms of rotational stability, a big gaping hole is most stable at the pole (and a mass excess is most stable on the equator). Regardless of where the lowlands formed initially, Mars may have undergone true polar wander, resulting in its present orientation. The formation of the Tharsis province may have caused further reorientation.
Precisely. This giant impact idea has been around for more than 20 years (Wilhelms, D. E. and Squyres, S. W., 1984, Nature 309, p. 138-140). But they hadn't actually done the calculations, and many (myself included) assumed that any sufficiently large impact would have at least melted enough of the planet to erase any trace of the impact. These new studies show that such an impact model could in fact be responsible for the hemispheric dichotomy. Of course, while they show that it's possible, that doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened.
I'm pretty sure Danish Blue is a cheese. Perhaps they confused the Dead Parrot Sketch and the Cheese Shop Sketch. Both feature Palin as an inept shopkeeper and Cleese as a disgruntled customer.
No Child Left Behind = Every Child Held Back
I wouldn't be so sure. Bender's a nonvoting felon, after all.
But does every emergency room in the southern U.S. now have Guiness on tap?
Should we also have made an exception for Ceres for historical reasons? It was thought to be a planet for some 50 years after its discovery until whole bunches of asteroids were discovered.
The Prius is made by Toyota.
But also more flammable.
"Cosmic Jewish Zombie" would be a good name for a rock band.
While I share your views on the war(s), I don't think it's fair to say that NASA is being robbed to pay for it. Most of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs (SS, Medicare), and interest on the debt; this spending is mandatory. Defense gets about half the discretionary spending. NASA gets a whopping 0.6% of the federal budget. All of NASA's funding is a drop in the bucket compared to the war, which is funded principally on deficit spending.
In fact, NASA is the one of the few non-defense, discretionary programs to actually get an increase, and I believe the only such program to keep pace with inflation. Griffin gave a speech to the LPSC a few weeks ago, in which this was discussed. You can read the transcript of it here.
Griffin also stressed that Mars cannot continue to get peak funding indefinitely. If it does, nobody else gets a Flagship mission. According to the NRC report card, NASA got an 'A' for Mars, but a 'D' for Outer Planets, so it makes sense to redirect the available funds to concentrate on our weakness. A Flagship to Europa, Titan, or Jupiter system will be selected later this year. The Mars program is NOT being cut to zero. It's being returned to its historical average.
While the rovers are truly awesome, they're on sol 1500 of a 90 sol mission. This is the super-extended mission. There are three spacecraft in orbit around Mars (Odyssey, Mars Express, MRO), a lander on the way (Phoenix), and another rover (MSL) in production. I think Mars is well covered.
Of course, the answer is correct only if he asked for the integral of three X squared dX. As stated, the problem is ill-posed.
As I understand it the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is going to have a Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), so there won't be any solar panels to get dusty. It will need the extra power to move around as the bloody thing is the size of a mini-cooper, and could RUN OVER the MERs. It also has a high-powered laser to vaporize bits rock in order to do spectroscopy on it. Sounds scary to me; I'm glad I'm not a native Martian.
I would think the chances of inner rocky planets are low. It's not simply a matter of moving everything inwards as the size of the star decreases. There has to be enough material in the inner region to form planets out of. Resonances with the gas giant may have ejected much of the material out of this feeding zone, disrupting planet formation in the same way that Jupiter may have prevented planet formation in what is now the Asteroid Belt. There may be a similar asteroid belt in this new system. It's possible there could be a planet interior to that. Actually if the inner giant orbits at half Jupiter's distance, then the 4:1 resonance (inner edge of our Asteroid Belt) is at about 1 AU. So you might be able to fit a couple planets in there. However, any planet in the habitable zone of this star would be so close that it would probably get locked into synchronous rotation, causing additional problems.