> Elizabeth, > I will bow to your authority on dog poop but, I was just asking about the > degree of certainty NASA had about the water ice, CO2 and H2O. . > I had no idea you would stoop to throwing the work done by the Johnson Space > center under the bus. This work lead to the discovery of a new mineral. In > hand. Not just remote sensors and pictures from over 400 kilometers away. > Until Sterling's very explanatory response. . I had no idea how good and > apparently accurate this spectrometry was. We can measure ice particles one > micron in size at 400 kilometers? "Holy super vision Batman"! > Also, I thought they were pretty sure about what they found when they > discovered Brownleeite. . And the way I read it , they didn't just happen to > do this. This was what they planned on doing and their mission was > accomplished. Brownleeite was born. > And by the way. Even with this release. NASA uses verbiage like *appear to > be* fueled by water vapor. Seems they are always cautious about their claims. > I also no longer fear getting hit by fluffy ice at 27,000 miles per hour. > Even basketball size. > Thanks though. > All in fun. > Carl > -- > Carl or Debbie Esparza > Meteoritemax > > > ---- Elizabeth Warner <warne...@astro.umd.edu> wrote: > > Carl, > > > > Not only do we have all of the spectroscopic evidence, we now also have > > the "visual" evidence that ties it all together for this comet. Yes, we > > know it is CO2 jets because we have the spectra that shows the CO2. We > > know where the gaseous H2O is located because of the spectral maps. We > > know where the dust is because of the spectral maps.... > > http://epoxi.umd.edu/3gallery/20101118_Sunshine3.shtml > > > > That was the point of the press conference -- that we have multiple > > lines of evidence! > > > > I don't know what you are talking about when you mention > > "Brownleeite"... I looked it up... > > > > Talk about indirect evidence... The particles of Brownleeite supposedly > > come from comet 26P/Grigg-Skjellerup only because they happened to have > > been collected during the Pi Puppid shower that is associated with that > > comet. But there is no other connection. Is there any spectroscopic > > evidence of that mineral in the comet? How can you confirm that that > > dust came from the comet and wasn't just cosmic dust from the asteroids > > colliding out there? Even in the press release they say "likely" and > > not definitively, so yes, I'm going to take my spectroscopic and visual > > observations of the comet over material collected indirectly and only > > "likely" associated with a comet. > > > > To try to answer some of your questions: > > > > > So, wouldn't catching actual manganese silicate material spewed out > > of a Comet tell you at least as much about the make up of a comet as > > what the *visual only* of the H2O tells you ? > > > > Yes, if you actually caught material coming directly out of the comet. > > This brownleeite might or might not be from a comet so there's nothing > > conclusive there! > > > > > We *captured* Brownleeite (manganese silicate) and we *observed* > > H2O!! Which scenario holds more weight for proof ? > > > > Yes, brownleeite was captured, but you don't know from where! We > > observed both visually and spectroscopically the H2O and are able to tie > > those observations directly to a comet. This brownleeite hasn't been > > observed spectroscopically and simply cannot be directly tied to a comet. > > > > Comets are not going to be large hunks of minerals. They are large > > aggregates of volatiles and dust. That dust maybe interesting > > mineralogically, but it is dust that is out in space that happened to > > get collected together with the snowball comets as they were forming. > > That dust could be almost anything, but it does not mean that finding > > pure hunks of whatever means that it is a piece of a comet. > > > > Even if they eventually tie that brownleeite dust back to the comet with > > spectroscopic and other evidence, does not mean that meteorites > > containing manganese came from comets, it's far more likely that they > > still came from asteroids. > > > > > > > > If you scoop up a bunch of snow and accidentally scoop up some dogpoop > > as well and mix it all together with some other dirt, does that mean > > that every pile of dogpoop is a remnant of a snowball? > > > > > > Carl, please spend some time reading the literature and learning about > > comets rather than just speculating throwing whatifs out there. > > > > Clear Skies! > > Elizabeth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: > > > Elizabeth, > > > You express yourself much better than I do but, I still don't get your > > > reasoning. > > > It seems you are very quick to accept that what you *see* is dusty snow > > > and CO2 jets spewing out H2O snow and you may be right. > > > So, wouldn't catching actual manganese silicate material spewed out of a > > > Comet tell you at least as much about the make up of a comet as what the > > > *visual only* of the H2O tells you ? > > > I mean if these jets are spewing out H2O from these jets and that leads > > > you to conclude that this comet is made up of H2O then if you know for a > > > fact they also spew Manganese / silicate. Doesn't that offer even greater > > > evidence than a mere *observation* of H2O does? > > > We *captured* Brownleeite (manganese silicate) and we *observed* H2O!! > > > Which scenario holds more weight for proof ? > > > I would thing the verifiable physical evidence would be much more telling > > > about what these comets are made up of And yet no mention of a comet > > > found on earth may have a primary make up of manganese by anything I have > > > read so far? Additionally, To me this suggests that the Manganese being > > > much stronger than H2O might be all that would survive of a comet > > > meteorite. > > > Maybe this tells us we should be looking for manganese meteorites to be > > > tested to see if they are cometary in origin? > > > I mean testing the isotopes in these manganese meteorites may just > > > surprise some of us? But , again. Only NASA Scientists can do this > > > testing. > > > If I were to find a manganese meteorite do you think anyone would help me > > > get it tested? > > > Because from a pure Scientific point of view keeping your mind open to > > > this possibility only makes Scientific sense. IMHO. And I can't wait to > > > hear more about your eventual tests on Hartley 2 pics and studies.. > > > Best Regards. > > > Carl > > > Carl or Debbie Esparza > > > Meteoritemax > > > > > > > > > ---- Elizabeth Warner <warne...@astro.umd.edu> wrote: > > >> Well, you ended up asking several questions... > > >> > > >> >> Is their anything to be learned by these pictures of Hartley 2 that > > >> we did not already know or not? > > >> > > >> Ahh, I think I'm starting to see where some of the confusion lies. You > > >> are operating under the assumption that everything we know about comets > > >> we know as an absolute fact... Well, for the most part yes, Yes, comets > > >> are essentially dirty snowballs. Dusty snowballs might be better. Some > > >> are dustier, some are snowier. But there are a lot of details that are > > >> getting glossed over in that summary that the public doesn't care about. > > >> > > >> And while we knew from various studies that comets are dusty snowballs, > > >> most of those observations were indirect or derived results. With > > >> Hartley 2, we *see* the CO2 jets spewing out H20 "snow"... we finally > > >> *see* the "snow"! It's not just spectroscopic distribution maps, > > >> spectra, etc. We can trace the jets we see in the coma down to features > > >> on the nucleus. We *see* what is going on rather than just inferring. > > >> > > >> So, yes, we learned new stuff! > > >> > > >> These are scientists. They are looking for information. We have gotten > > >> tons of data, but it is going to take more than just 2 weeks to properly > > >> process/analyze/understand it all. Theories will get revised/updated > > >> accordingly. We've posted what we can. The details will get written up > > >> in the journals and properly peer-reviewed and published. And then > > >> you'll have plenty to read. Have you bothered to read any of the papers > > >> published about Tempel 1 after Deep Impact? So the information is out > > >> there, you just haven't read it. Likewise, the info about Hartley 2 will > > >> eventually get published, but will you actually read it? > > >> > > >> > > >> As for your second question > > >>>> I mean can anyone relate this to what to look for in a cometary > > >>>> meteorite find or fall back here on Earth? > > >> I don't think that any scientist expects to find cometary meteorites > > >> because based on what we currently know about comets, they are simply to > > >> fragile and volatile to survive the atmosphere. Maybe when Rosetta > > >> reaches comet C-G and lands on it, we'll know more. > > >> > > >> Clear Skies! > > >> Elizabeth > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: > > >>> Elizabeth, Bob, Chris,All, > > >>> This has been a very helpful and educational thread for me and I'm sure > > >>> a few others.Unfortunatl, > > >>> It seems that everybody is using old scientific information to explain > > >>> all of this. > > >>> So, let me ask one more question; > > >>> Is their anything to be learned by these pictures of Hartley 2 that we > > >>> did not already know or not? > > >>> I mean can anyone relate this to what to look for in a cometary > > >>> meteorite find or fall back here on Earth? > > >>> As you all well know . I fully admit that I know nothing about space. > > >>> My only interest in space is how it relates to meteorite material and > > >>> hunting. > > >>> This because I will never go to space but, I may find an important > > >>> Cometary meteorite so, I would like to know what to look for. > > >>> It seems that even though a new mineral was found in comet dust called > > >>> brownleeite. This being a manganese silicate. You would expect this > > >>> would have opened up the Science of space . But as far as I can tell it > > >>> has not. I mean what was the significance of this fact and the > > >>> close-ups of Hartley 2 if we don't establish and then publicize new > > >>> information? > > >>> Even The Carancas Fall and Crater began to re-write some of the books > > >>> about impacts until it was decided that that was just an exception. > > >>> Exception it may be it still caused a huge crater and remember we are > > >>> talking about a meteorite so delicate that it is easily crushed > > >>> between two fingers. And still it created a huge crater. > > >>> Maybe I ask too much of the space scientists but, we do spend a great > > >>> deal of tax payer dollars on NASA so we might be entitled to at least > > >>> some good use of our gathered science from these extremely expensive > > >>> missions. > > >>> Many scientists have told me that they will not do isotopic study > > >>> except when ordered by other NASA associated scientists. > > >>> So, in other words. Only NASA people can order NASA tests paid for by > > >>> the public? I for one would not mind paying for this added service. > > >>> Perhaps a new discovery is out their waiting to be classified? > > >>> I am a long way fro tipperary here but my point is that we hunters are > > >>> starved for new and updated information. So it becomes a bit > > >>> frustrating when we get very little info from NASA news conferences. > > >>> Again. What's new? They are still muddy snowballs???? > > >>> Thanks. Carl > > >>> -- > > >>> Carl or Debbie Esparza > > >>> Meteoritemax > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ---- Elizabeth Warner <warne...@astro.umd.edu> wrote: > > >>>> "Vapor is the evaporation of boiling liquid water." > > >>>> > > >>>> And that is the only possible source of water vapor?? So, have you > > >>>> ever > > >>>> been in a cloud? fog?? What was boiling to make those then?? > > >>>> > > >>>> Again, your limited experience with how materials behave on Earth in > > >>>> atmosphere, under pressure and with gravitational forces is blinding > > >>>> you > > >>>> to the fact that materials can and do behave differently in space. > > >>>> > > >>>> Water might boil at 100 C at sea level, but in space it "boils" away > > >>>> at > > >>>> very low temperatures. > > >>>> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem07/chem07192.htm > > >>>> > > >>>> Vapor in the context given by the EPOXI scientists refers to H2O (and > > >>>> other materials) in a gaseous form. Ice would refer to that material > > >>>> being in a solid form. That solid form does not necessarily mean it is > > >>>> a > > >>>> block of ice like an icecube. > > >>>> > > >>>> And I'm sure you've heard the riddle of what weighs more: a pound of > > >>>> feathers or a pound of lead? > > >>>> > > >>>> They "weigh" the same, but you are going to need a whole heck of alot > > >>>> of > > >>>> feathers to get a pound! > > >>>> > > >>>> Clear Skies! > > >>>> Elizabeth > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> cdtuc...@cox.net wrote: > > >>>>> Hi Bob. > > >>>>> Perhaps you did not read the NASA link I provided in my previous post. > > >>>>> Here it is in case you missed it; > > >>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/19/spacecraft-flies-past-snowstorm-comet/ > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Again, all do respect here. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> To be clear my questions here relate to gaining the knowledge of what > > >>>>> rocks to look for that might be of a cometary origin. Not to knock > > >>>>> others opinions. I just want logical answers. > > >>>>> The link does say they think it is "water ice" as opposed to other > > >>>>> substances. > > >>>>> They go on to say that "jets of carbon dioxide *appear to be* fueled > > >>>>> by water vapor. Vapor is the evaporation of boiling liquid water. But > > >>>>> later say there are also large hailstone chunks to boot. > > >>>>> I think it looks like hot dust (smoke) . > > >>>>> > > >>>>> They say some of the hailstorm of "Fluffy Ice" that hit the > > >>>>> spacecraft may have been between the size of a golf ball and a > > >>>>> basketball. This with NO damage to the spacecraft? > > >>>>> Dr. A. Hearn also points out "how different Comets are from one > > >>>>> another". > > >>>>> Aw Ha moment here? They are different! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> You ask. How could they stay hot? > > >>>>> That is the big question. > > >>>>> I suppose it depends upon what they are made of. Iron might stay hot > > >>>>> longer than mica for example. > > >>>>> And or, Perhaps they contain some source of renewable energy source > > >>>>> within them? . A source that is yet known to us? > > >>>>> How do we know whether they are cooling or not? > > >>>>> That coupled with the fact that all things take time. > > >>>>> Look no farther than the published cooling rates of iron meteorites. > > >>>>> The Tucson iron meteorite is said to not display the widmanstten > > >>>>> pattern on an etched surface primarily because in spite of the fact > > >>>>> that it contains plenty of nickel, it cooled too fast. > > >>>>> This cooling rate has been calculated for the Tucson Iron ring > > >>>>> meteorite to be in the order of 1 degree C per one thousand years. > > >>>>> This again is considered a rapid cooling rate. > > >>>>> No, nothing makes much sense if you believe what they say that > > >>>>> hailstones the size of golf balls to basketballs hit this craft. It > > >>>>> had to of been smoke from the intense heat of this comet to have not > > >>>>> damaged the craft. ice and even melted ice in the form of water at > > >>>>> 27K miles per hour would have damaged the craft. > > >>>>> Incidentally , I took a piece of coal in the dark and illuminated it. > > >>>>> Sorry, but it looks nothing like the close-up pics of Hartley 2 and > > >>>>> that is the comet we are talking about here. No antique distant pics > > >>>>> from the past can compare with these new pics. We are in a new age of > > >>>>> discovery and should give up these old and possibly obsolete photos > > >>>>> and theories of the past. > > >>>>> One more thing. > > >>>>> If these so called "infrared spectrometers" tell us what this Comet > > >>>>> is made of then I would love to hear it? Please spare me the Fluffy > > >>>>> ice though. What other minerals are abundant on comet hartley 2? > > >>>>> Thanks. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Again. > > >>>>> IMHO. > > >>>>> Carl > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Carl or Debbie Esparza > > >>>>> Meteoritemax > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ---- Bob King <nightsk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> Hi Carl and all, > > >>>>>> I thought it was clear that the fluffy snow chunks were water ice. > > >>>>>> They can determine composition of materials on and around the comet > > >>>>>> with the infrared spectrometer aboard the probe. Water was discovered > > >>>>>> a while back by ground-based telescopes in quite a number of comets. > > >>>>>> Also, while some of the stuff spewing out is a few inches across, > > >>>>>> there's probably a lot more that's tinier - everything from > > >>>>>> smoke-like > > >>>>>> dust particles to tiny bits of snow. Perhaps something on this > > >>>>>> smaller > > >>>>>> end of the scale struck the craft during its flyby. > > >>>>>> A demonstration I use for my class is to take a piece of black coal, > > >>>>>> turn off the lights and light it only by the beam from a small lamp > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>> simulate how a comet appears in space. You'd be surprised by how > > >>>>>> brightly coal "shines" again the unlit background. > > >>>>>> Comets were long ago found to not be hot. How could something the > > >>>>>> interior of something that small (approx 1 mile long) on an orbit > > >>>>>> that > > >>>>>> takes it beyond Jupiter remain warm for very long? Only the outer > > >>>>>> surface is warmed by sunlight. > > >>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>> Bob > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Ron Baalke > > >>>>>> <baa...@zagami.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > > >>>>>>> Nov. 15, 2010 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Dwayne Brown > > >>>>>>> Headquarters, Washington > > >>>>>>> 202-358-1726 > > >>>>>>> dwayne.c.br...@nasa.gov > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Jia-Rui Cook > > >>>>>>> Jet Propulsion Laboratory > > >>>>>>> 818-354-0850 > > >>>>>>> jcc...@jpl.nasa.gov > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Lee Tune > > >>>>>>> University of Maryland, College Park > > >>>>>>> 301-405-4679 > > >>>>>>> lt...@umd.edu > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> MEDIA ADVISORY: M10-161 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> NASA ANNOUNCES COMET ENCOUNTER NEWS CONFERENCE > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> WASHINGTON -- NASA will hold a news conference at 1 p.m. EST on > > >>>>>>> Thursday, Nov. 18, to discuss new scientific findings from the > > >>>>>>> recent > > >>>>>>> EPOXI mission spacecraft encounter with comet Hartley 2. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The news conference will originate from the NASA Headquarters > > >>>>>>> auditorium at 300 E St. SW in Washington. It will be carried live on > > >>>>>>> NASA Television. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Media representatives may attend the conference, ask questions by > > >>>>>>> phone or from participating NASA locations. To RSVP or obtain > > >>>>>>> dial-in > > >>>>>>> information, journalists must send their name, affiliation and > > >>>>>>> telephone number to Steve Cole at stephen.e.c...@nasa.gov or call > > >>>>>>> 202-358-0918 by 11 a.m. EST on Nov. 18. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The news conference participants are: > > >>>>>>> -- Michael A'Hearn, EPOXI principal investigator, University of > > >>>>>>> Maryland > > >>>>>>> -- Jessica Sunshine, EPOXI deputy principal investigator, University > > >>>>>>> of Maryland > > >>>>>>> -- Tim Larson, EPOXI project manager, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, > > >>>>>>> Pasadena, Calif. > > >>>>>>> -- Pete Schultz, EPOXI scientist, Brown University > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> NASA's EPOXI spacecraft successfully flew past comet Hartley 2 on > > >>>>>>> Nov. > > >>>>>>> 4, providing scientists the most extensive observations of a comet > > >>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>> history. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> For NASA TV streaming video and downlink information, visit: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> http://www.nasa.gov/ntv > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> For more information about NASA's EPOXI mission visit: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> http://www.nasa.gov/epoxi > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -end- > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> ______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>> Visit the Archives at > > >>>>>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > > >>>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list > > >>>>>>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > >>>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> ______________________________________________ > > >>>>>> Visit the Archives at > > >>>>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > > >>>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list > > >>>>>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > >>>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > >>>>> ______________________________________________ > > >>>>> Visit the Archives at > > >>>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > > >>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list > > >>>>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > >>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > >>>>> > > >>>> ______________________________________________ > > >>>> Visit the Archives at > > >>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > > >>>> Meteorite-list mailing list > > >>>> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > >>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > >> ______________________________________________ > > >> Visit the Archives at > > >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > > >> Meteorite-list mailing list > > >> Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > > >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > >
______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
