Rosetta The Comet Chaser - Page 5 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Rosetta The Comet Chaser


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Looks like they might have found out where the ice is hiding.

"The probe then started to hammer itself into the subsurface, but was unable to make more than a few millimetres of progress even at the highest power level of the hammer motor.

“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS.

Looking at the results of the thermal mapper and the probe together, the team have made the preliminary assessment that the upper layers of the comet’s surface consist of dust of 10–20 cm thickness, overlaying mechanically strong ice or ice and dust mixtures.

At greater depths, the ice likely becomes more porous, as the overall low density of the nucleus – determined by instruments on the Rosetta orbiter – suggests"

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/18/philae-settles-in-dust-covered-ice/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like they might have found out where the ice is hiding.

"The probe then started to hammer itself into the subsurface, but was unable to make more than a few millimetres of progress even at the highest power level of the hammer motor.

“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS.

Looking at the results of the thermal mapper and the probe together, the team have made the preliminary assessment that the upper layers of the comet’s surface consist of dust of 10–20 cm thickness, overlaying mechanically strong ice or ice and dust mixtures.

At greater depths, the ice likely becomes more porous, as the overall low density of the nucleus – determined by instruments on the Rosetta orbiter – suggests"

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/18/philae-settles-in-dust-covered-ice/

Have they?

ESA Unintentionally Reminds Us Why We Need
More Skepticism in Science Reporting
....

Yet, when the Philae attempted to hammer the surface with an instrument originally designed with ice in mind, the instrument was unable to make more than a few millimeters of progress at the hammer motor's highest power level. The response? Well, it depends upon what source you are reading. If you are reading the ESA's official press release, the answer is definitively "mechanically strong ice."

(that comes from http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/18/philae-settles-in-dust-covered-ice/)

But, if you are reading the BBC report referenced above, also from today (11/18/2014), we are warned that "You can't rule out rock."

Um, okay.

https://plus.google.com/%2BChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourseIsBroken/posts/c747sJcjre8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I said "Looks like they might have" :wink2:

They are still analysing the data and trying to interpret it. I suppose they might be wanting to keep giving us snippets of things that they might have discovered, to try to keep our interest, after initial media flurry over the probe landing. It could be months before they fully analyse the data. Even then it will just be a partial picture. To me, that's one of the best things about this science stuff. The theories continue to evolve as we gather more information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I said "Looks like they might have" :wink2:

They are still analysing the data and trying to interpret it. I suppose they might be wanting to keep giving us snippets of things that they might have discovered, to try to keep our interest, after initial media flurry over the probe landing. It could be months before they fully analyse the data. Even then it will just be a partial picture. To me, that's one of the best things about this science stuff. The theories continue to evolve as we gather more information.

Surely there is only one truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely there is only one truth?

That depends on your definition of "truth". "Truth" isn't a word you hear scientists use very much.

Scientists develop a theory based on the evidence available to them. They then devise experiments to make measurements. If they analyse the data and this backs up their theory then that theory becomes more robust and accepted my more people. If the data doesn't back up the theory then the theory can be adapted or binned altogether and they devise a new theory. These theories are constantly evolving based on the new evidence which becomes available.

We already have loads of information about comets based on earlier measurements and observations. This Rosetta mission gets us closer to a comet than we have ever been before. Scientists are hoping that this mission will give them loads and loads of more data about this particular comet. That information will either back up current theories or lead to new ones. It will probably be a mixture of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mystery of the 'spooky' pattern in the universe: Scientists find that supermassive black holes are ALIGNED

Eerie observations were made by the Very Large Telescope in Chile

It found alignment between huge interstellar objects called quasars

Quasars are galaxies with supermassive black holes at their centres

Scientists looked at rotation of the central supermassive black holes

They were parallel to one other over distances of billions of light-years

Probability alignments are down to chance is less than one per cent

'This may be a hint that there is a missing ingredient in our current models of the cosmos,' researcher Dominique Sluse said








Electric Universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

I've seen suggestions on other websites that it might be crystal formations from meteor hits; high albedo & reflecting sunlight. There's some other time-lapse photos that seem to show similar features at a higher (lower??) latitude that to my untrained eye look like a reflection (brightening then dimming). The photos are primarily for orbit alignment at this stage so it will be interesting to find out what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ice with a really powerful torch?

Is there Ice that emits light? Or are you meaning some ice reflecting the sun?

Reflected light.

I was just trying to summarise the article for those who couldn't be bothered reading it. They start off by trying to shock us into thinking that it might be light produced by aliens but by the end of the article (for those of us who read it to the end) we find out what the scientists think. So, far all they can say is that it is reflecting at least 40% of the available light. They wont know any better until they get a closer look at it. If that figure goes up to almost 100% it will suggest that it is ice.

If it goes over 100%? who knows? Might be time to get the nukes ready. :yikes3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

jeezo no one interested in this? Look how amazing that is...

I think it must be a vast 'furry' layer of crystals because it does not seem to lose brightness at all / much / enough as the angle gets more obtuse. Thinking a crystalline 'fractal like' surface will reflects a huge amount of light per square metre.

Or it's aliens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...