Ice on Comet Tempel 1

siriusmre · Feb 14, 2006

Well, on 2 Feb 2006 the Deep Impact Team finally released some information about all the water that they found on Comet Tempel 1 after the July 4 impact. It turns out that there is actually a quantity of ice on the surface of the comet. Yeah, there's water ice there, but unfortunately (for the standard comet theorists) only very, very tiny amounts. According to the story on the University of Maryland (which led the Deep Impact Team) Website: "'These results show that there is ice on the surface, but not very much and definitely not enough to account for the water we see in the out-gassed material that is in the coma [the cloud of gas and dust that surrounds the comet],' said lead author Jessica Sunshine of Science Applications International Corporation. [Emphasis added]" From a different and excellent article: "New Scientist reports '…the water ice is present in surprisingly small amounts, covering less than 1% of Comet Tempel 1’s surface. The finding suggests the comet’s surrounding cloud of gas and dust may largely be fed by underlying ices, rather than by gas streaming off its surface.' The technical report in the journal Science is more specific: 'A surface area of 1.3 km2 of 100% water ice is therefore required to account for the ambient outgassing of water… The observed 0.5 km2 of 6% water ice, ~0.03 km2 of pure water ice, is significantly less than this. Thus, while they may be associated with natural outbursts, the water ice deposits detected on the surface of Tempel 1 reported here are not the dominant sources of outgassing. Therefore, assuming that the distribution of ice on the unobserved parts of the nucleus are broadly similar to those observed, the ambient outgassing observed for Tempel 1 likely has significant sub-surface sources.' "The assumption that most <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Feb 14, 2006

So they found evidence that Comet Tempel 1's ice is deep. Isn't that consistent with mainstream models, which suggest that comets are ice covered in organic chemicals? If mainstream ideas are right, then comets shouldn't have much water ice on the surface. It should all be deeper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

mlorrey · Feb 14, 2006

Tempel is a very old comet. It stands to reason that the more times a comet passes by the sun, more of its volatiles are evaporated and outgassed, while its heavier/denser dusts and rocks are retained, which results in a growing thick crust of dust and rock that lays over everything. I'm actually surprised to see surface water ice, it is a sign of recent outgassing precipitating (like a snowmaking gun) back onto the surface. Also keep in mind that the amount of ice is only relatively small: they estimate it is several meters thick and covers over 100,000 square feet. This is certainly enough water ice to refuel an entire Jupiter mission.

bonzelite · Feb 14, 2006

they're grasping at "thin ice," so to speak. they are so crestfallen and embarrassed over their wrong assumptions about dirty snowballs that they cop the desperate tone of "golly gosh darnint that ice has just got to be there deeper in the comet. right? say it's true." can you say "denial?" let's say it together, people: "DEE - NIE - AHHLL" there is more evidence for bigfoot than there is for deep water ice. Therefore, assuming that the distribution of ice on the unobserved parts of the nucleus are broadly similar to those observed, the ambient outgassing observed for Tempel 1 likely has significant sub-surface sources.' ^^^that is typical of "cannot let go" syndrome. they cannot deal with the real possibility as well that deeper ice is not there. they outright refuse to accept that the option for no ice can be at all true. and they furthermore cannot deal with the actuality that many if not most assumpitons about reality are nearly entirely incorrect, or at best, highly flawed. oh the horrors!

centsworth_II · Feb 14, 2006

For all the claims that Deep Impact has 'revealed the interior' of Tempel 1, it really only scratched the surface. The only evidence we have to indicate what the deep interior could be made of is the density -- which indicates light fluff (like snow)-- and of course the vast plumes of water released on each approach to the sun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

siriusmre · Feb 14, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />So they found evidence that Comet Tempel 1's ice is deep. Isn't that consistent with mainstream models, which suggest that comets are ice covered in organic chemicals?<hr /></blockquote> Short answer: No. Tempel 1's ice MIGHT be deep. This is yet another example of stating as fact that which has yet to be proven. And I thought that the "mainstream model" suggested that comets were a conglomeration of ice and dirt, not "ice covered in organic chemicals." Terms like "dirty iceball" and "icy dirtball" do not suggest a stratified structure such as you describe. I think that the common conception is that a comet's composition is all mixed up. No? I don't think that most people think of comets as balls of ice that have some dirt (and stuff) packed around them. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If mainstream ideas are right, then comets shouldn't have much water ice on the surface. It should all be deeper.<hr /></blockquote> That's one mighty big "If." And...I'm pretty sure that most folks EXPECTED to find ice on the surface. How else does a comet get its coma? *Sniff-sniff* I smell an ad hoc explanation. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Tempel is a very old comet. It stands to reason that the more times a comet passes by the sun, more of its volatiles are evaporated and outgassed, while its heavier/denser dusts and rocks are retained, which results in a growing thick crust of dust and rock that lays over everything. I'm actually surprised to see surface water ice, it is a sign of recent outgassing precipitating (like a snowmaking gun) back onto the surface.<hr /></blockquote> Hm. Speaking of aromatic ad hoc... And how do we KNOW how old Tempel 1 is? So, I guess the conjecture that comets' sublimating ices are internal means that the problem of why so many comet surfaces look so cr <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

telfrow · Feb 14, 2006

So this must mean that you are still sticking with the notion that the comet's jets are caused by natural "nozzles" in the surfaces of the comets, right? Comet Halley - Mission Giotto <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

bonzelite · Feb 14, 2006

they don't know what a comet is. that is the only fact about comets so far. there are no jets of water coming out of comets like seen on Enceladus.

siriusmre · Feb 14, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You are simply mistaken. The standard model of comets is NOT in trouble. It's simply being refined. The volumes of water seen in comets plus the density of comets, suggests the dirty snowball model is still a good one.<hr /></blockquote> Steve, did you even READ the second article that I linked? If you did read it, it appears that none of it has impressed itself upon the convolutions of your cerebrum. This is what happens when a mind is closed and thinks that it knows all that there is to know. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />One always gets these unsubstantiated claims based upon misinterps of the data. Just because the ice is NOT on the surface, is surely not contradicting the known water seen in thecoma, which comes from, Gasp!, Below the Surface.<hr /></blockquote> Again, did you even read the second article? I would suggest that it is the "mainstream model" that is full "unsubstantiated claims." Especially where Deep Impact is concerned. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The extent of bad reasoning, fact avoidance and other such, esp, the FACTS showing that the density of Comet Tempel is less than that of water, indicates real problems with those who have axes to grind against the sciences. It'd be one thing if real, clear solid data were given showing there's problems with the models. But very little is. Just sweeping claims of 'trouble' due to a lack of knowledge, bad thinking and related problems.<hr /></blockquote> Yet again, did you even read the second article? Further, I have no "axe to grind against the sciences." In fact, I love science. That's why I'm here challenging you. This is science. I've posted this before, but for you guys to suggset that the EU paradigm is not based on science is not only knee-jerk and small-minded, but it is also just plain wrong. EU tenets are based on the science of <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

siriusmre · Feb 14, 2006

"A charged comet nucleus moving through the solar plasma will form a number of plasma sheaths or double layers, where the comet's electric field is concentrated. The Giotto mission to comets Halley and Grigg-Skjellerup were surprised by their sharp plasma boundaries and one "mystery" boundary. There should be no mystery when they are considered as electrical plasma sheaths and not simply mechanical "bow shocks." The so-called "near nucleus ion pile-up" is simply a manifestation of a cometary plasma sheath, or double layer. It is a region with a strong electric field and consequently capable of generating strong x-rays. The cometary x-rays were found coming from a region that didn't conform to simple hydrodynamic collision calculations. It was remarked that it was like finding the shockwave from a supersonic aircraft several kilometres to one side of the aircraft. A plasma sheath is controlled by electromagnetic forces and is not expected to conform to bow-shock physics."/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Feb 14, 2006

another thing to note, as well, is that H20 plumes at Enceladus were ascertained to be as such with absolute certainy very quickly. whereas conversely, we've been studying comets with probes for much longer and have yet to ascertain jack sh%$%$t about them. so much data is there to describe things that are not "supposed to be true." so instead of admitting to a wrong and carrying on to find the truth, the cosmological community must protect all of their lame theories at all costs, else they admit they are not the elite keepers of knowledge that they claim to be. in this vein, our sciences have as much to do with the ego, maybe moreso, than they have to do with seeking the truth. the pop-sci theory of the dirty snowball is quickly melting away like the wicked witch with water poured over her, and she's shrinking day by day. the theory is bogus and needs to be thrown out. any average ape can make this discernment.

siriusmre · Feb 14, 2006

they're grasping at "thin ice," so to speak. they are so crestfallen and embarrassed over their wrong assumptions about dirty snowballs that they cop the desperate tone of "golly gosh darnint that ice has just got to be there deeper in the comet. right? say it's true." Exactly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

telfrow · Feb 14, 2006

Thanks for answering in your own words. Why not post another link to the site? Giotto indicated that Comet Halley is one of the darkest objects in the solar system (less than 4% reflectivity, or "less than black velvet.). Link Giotto found that 80% of the material contained in the coma was water vapor. Link Giotto showed that the rate of outgassing of dust and water vapor was several tons per second. (Various sources.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

telfrow · Feb 14, 2006

the pop-sci theory of the dirty snowball is quickly melting away like the wicked witch with water poured over her, and she's shrinking day by day. the theory is bogus and needs to be thrown out. any average ape can make this discernment. That was unnecessary and uncalled for, bonz. As was bypassing the obscenity filter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

jatslo · Feb 14, 2006

That is hilarious ... "lmao!", courtesy of Maxtheknife. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ... "we'll just change the existing models, rather than consider yours" ...

siriusmre · Feb 14, 2006

Well, you do not seem to be debating the points that I did make--in my own words!--either. Do the linked articles make you uneasy, T? Y'know, it's funny, when I make assertions here that clash with the "Pet Theory" I get a ration of crap for not including back-up information. When I do supply some supporting info for the points that I make, I get yet another ration for doing it. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> "Giotto indicated that Comet Halley is one of the darkest objects in the solar system" And why do you suppose that is, Mr. T? Does the "mainstream model" have any kind of mechanism that would account for the burned apperance of this comet? Or is the suggestion that the dark color is simply intrinsic? EU says that the comet nucleus is expected to be of a dark color, because of being charred by the electrical discharges causing the coma. What's the "standard" explanation? Got a link? Which brings me to this: "Giotto found that 80% of the material contained in the coma was water vapor." Gee, the link you provided does not make clear whether they are talking about true H2O vapor, or if they mean OH radicals, which are assumed to be formed by H2O molecules broken down by solar UV radiation. This, in contrast to the article that I linked, which does, in fact, describe exactly what is meant by "water vapor" in a comet's coma. Got any clarification on that? Got a link? "Giotto showed that the rate of outgassing of dust and water vapor was several tons per second. (Various sources.)" I DO NOT DOUBT THE OBSERVATIONS! I doubt their interpretations. What kind of mechanism does the "mainstream model" provide for sustaining such "outgassing?" Oh, right! That "sensible" notion of reservoirs just beneath the surface that have--by chance, obviously--"nozzles" that are so precicely formed that they <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

telfrow · Feb 14, 2006

I debate in my own words more often than you do, my friend. I'm afraid you're going to have to find someone with an intelligence level higher than that of an "average ape" to carry on the conversation. I don't remember calling anyone a name, or taking a contentious tone with you in my posts - other than a jibe at your love of posting links to you-know-where. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

jatslo · Feb 14, 2006

I'm impressed with your post; keep going please ... I saw that article some time ago, and I am surprised you all waited so long to bring up the issues. There is a heck of a lot going on than meets the eye, and that's a no brainier ... I don't understand why people hold onto science fiction so religiously, as opposed to sorting out the facts in logical order. I realize that speculation opens doorways, but that's all it is, it's just speculated predictions based on circumstantial evidence.

siriusmre · Feb 14, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I debate in my own words more often than you do, my friend.<hr /></blockquote> That pic of the comet was a brilliant argument, btw. No, you don't take a contentious tone, just a derisive one. As for "links to you-know-where," as has been made abundantly clear by many here, EU science is currently on the fringe. Of course, that is not meant to be an indictment of its scientific importance, but it does mean that there is not a huge number of people doing the science and reporting it on the Web. Certainly not as many as are rewarded with funding for persuing only "safe," "standard" lines of research. Web pages that espouse the fiction that makes up much of "mainstream models" are a dime a dozen. There are very few that are reporting serious news from the EU side, though. Why do you take issue with the sources of my citations, and not with the substance of what they say? Classic diversion, that's why. Attack the messenger and do not deal with the message. Yes, do bow out of this conversation, because it is too low-brow for you. That's right. You're far too intelligent for this. Thanks for contributing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Feb 14, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />That pic of the comet was a brilliant argument, btw. <hr /></blockquote> Yes, it was. It shows outgassing pretty obviously, which you apparently contend does not occur. You also contend that nobody thought comet surfaces were covered in organic chemicals, but it's plain as day in that Giotto pic. As I said before, Deep Impact's results are consistent with what was previously understood about comets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Feb 14, 2006

there is no conclusive data on water vapor. it is begging for revision and to be reconsidered, particularly with the updated data from deep impact. they don't know what a comet is. that is the only fact. they keep wishing for the dirty snowball, but that is waning and slipping through their theoretical fingers like the ephemeral sands of their mortal lives. they cannot win. they do not have the knowledge.

CalliArcale · Feb 14, 2006

Given the large volumes of water vapor that have been observed in the comas of comets, how do you come to this conclusion? It seems to me that the ones being selective in their data are the EU crowd. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Feb 14, 2006

i'm not a shill for the EU crowd. i'm the standard theory is b.s. crowd. and there is no conclusive proof that the luminous tails of comets are a lush swath of a water vapor trail. where is the story showing proof of that? there is 100% proof of large volume water plumes at Enceladus. where is the same story for the comets? where is the gushing water vapor cascades of the tails? show me the money. where is it?

telfrow · Feb 14, 2006

Measurements of the Halley H2O 1.38 micron band on March 9, 1986, demonstrate that water vapor is ejected in a cone of (40 + or - 10) deg in the sunward direction with a total production rate of (8 + or - 2) times 10 to the 29th power/sec. Water vapor jets are seen up to 1000 to 2000 km. Link <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

telfrow · Feb 14, 2006

The preliminary measurement of the H216O/H218O ratio in comet Ikeya-Zhang is in agreement with that measured in terrestrial oceans (500), and confirms measurements done in comet Halley. Link <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

Ice on Comet Tempel 1

siriusmre

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

telfrow

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

jatslo

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

telfrow

Guest

jatslo

Guest

siriusmre

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page