"Weird Crystals" Found in Comet Wild 2 Sample

paulanderson · Feb 17, 2006

A Comet's Tale http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060213/full/060213-2.html "After fiddling around to improve the picture slightly, Kearsley starts a more intensive scan of the grain that will reveal its chemical make-up. As the analysis comes through, there are cries of surprise. "Whatever it is, it's weird," says Bland. By the time the e-mail is finally sent, the day is almost done. Bland will travel to Liverpool University, UK, the following week to use another type of electron microscope that should reveal more about the structure of crystals in the samples, helping to pin down exactly what they are made of, and what conditions they formed in. "But the first day was as exciting as I'd anticipated," says Bland. "And to actually find something wacky straight off was way more than I expected." Exactly what Bland found, however, isn't yet public information. NASA is keen for all the results, from the many teams around the world, to be gathered together before they are announced. "If it comes out in dribs and drabs it'll be total chaos," explains Zolensky. He and his team will put together all the results, which they expect to present at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, Texas, in March."

voyagerwsh · Feb 18, 2006

It's interesting whatever the crystal is made of. Presumely, we should not be surprised by different chemical compound since this is a piece of extrateresstrial material. I would not be surprised if the crytals made of organic compounds with different C-O-H bound.

paulanderson · Feb 19, 2006

I would expect then that other teams will probably make similar findings, as well as other ones. There is a lesson here again also, that we should never presume beforehand that we always know what will be found from these kinds of missions; this is the excitement of making new discoveries and being willing to learn in the process. Anybody else have ideas as to what the "weird and wacky" crystals may be? Or are they even crystals in the usual sense? We've been waiting for the first initial analysis results and now we are starting to get hints. Much more will be told next month I'm sure when the combined teams' results are first publicly presented.

paulanderson · Feb 21, 2006

A couple more analysis updates, from Space.com and MSNBC: Stardust Mission Yields Ancient Comet Dust http://space.com/scienceastronomy/060220_stardust_update.html Comet Dust Sparks Scientific Intrigue http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11460590 "The early results reveal that the 4.5 billion-year-old comet contains iron, sulfides, glassy materials, olivine, and what the scientists termed potentially interesting isotopic traces. They believe that these materials were also available during the formation of other objects in our solar system. What's even more amazing is how well the first round of analysis is matching expectations. Brownlee and other Stardust scientists are holding back their first formal reports for a scientific meeting in Texas next month — but during Monday's news conference, Brownlee said the samples studied so far contain iron sulfides and glassy material such as crystalline silicates. Those ingredients are found in meteorites as well. Later, Brownlee told MSNBC.com that there were preliminary indications of organic compounds, based on telltale infrared readings. He cautioned that the initial indications were tentative and could still be traced to contaminants. In the weeks and months ahead, Sandford and his team will be analyzing the types of carbon found in the samples — not only to trace the organics, but also to determine whether such compounds predated the formation of the solar system."

centsworth_II · Feb 21, 2006

"They are typical of meteoritic materials and little more.' You should take more care to not confuse meteors and comets. Or do you belong to the asteroids = comets crowd? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

telfrow · Feb 21, 2006

Gem of a Comet Particle This image shows a comet particle collected by the Stardust spacecraft. The particle is made up of the silicate mineral forsterite, also known as peridot in its gem form. It is surrounded by a thin rim of melted aerogel, the substance used to collect the comet dust samples. The particle is about 2 micrometers across. 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>

chew_on_this · Feb 21, 2006

Do you have something to add to the discussion or are you just a troll? Seems like everytime an exciting news story is posted you come along and jump all over it with the media hype cra_ola b.s. Or is it because organic compounds were detected and your trying to discredit it? Given your long and sordid history of mis-information you're the last person to bash any news source.

paulanderson · Feb 21, 2006

The crystals (?) were described as "weird" and "wacky" by the scientists themselves who were interviewed in the first Nature article, if you read it again. How do you know they are typical? Why not wait for the full results to be released next month? You keep proclaiming the merits of testable, hands-on scientific analysis, well this is what they are doing. And yes, they have found organic compounds (see other links, not just MSNBC). But, there's no pleasing some people I guess, oh well.

centsworth_II · Feb 21, 2006

Re: "Gem of a Comet Particle" Weird!<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Feb 21, 2006

just the standard cautionary note: organic compounds mean carbon chain molecules, and are not indicative of life, in general anyways. Specific organic compounds may indicate life, but most do not. For instance, there are gas nebulae out there with large amounts of formeldahyde (an organic compound) ethanol, and many other common compounds. One interesting thing about this, is whlie comets may not have carried life, they may have helped deposit more complicated carbon molecules onto the planet after it cooled (as during the entire "i'm a hot ball of molten rock" phase tends to destroy organic compounds), thus providing or increasing the amount of material to use. Then again....it's hard to see how it could survive being deposited (wafting in from space individually is one thing...but streaking in comet-back is another). Well, that's my 2 cents on the one aspect people are sure to think of (even if it wasn't the intention of the thread). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

chew_on_this · Feb 21, 2006

People can judge for themselves what is credible and what isn't. They don't need your kooky take on it, fellah.

zenonmars · Feb 21, 2006

"Exactly what Bland found, however, isn't yet public information. NASA is keen for all the results, from the many teams around the world, to be gathered together before they are announced. "If it comes out in dribs and drabs it'll be total chaos," explains Zolensky. He and his team will put together all the results, which they expect to present at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, Texas, in March." <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Lolol............yeah, right!!!!! The whole outhouse would cave in!!!!! Dribs and drabs? My goodness, there would be rioting in the streets!!! Lol...the stock market would collapse!!! God forbid someone should SPECULATE about our origins, or the origins of our solar system's "dirty snowballs"!!!!! Lolol......imagine what our President or Senate would do if, say, the CIA got some hot terrorist intell, and then said 'We are gonna sit on this info for a month or two, until we can pow-wow with other intell agencies. If it comes out in dribs and drabs it'll be total chaos" Think President Bush or the US Senate would sit still for this? Yet from NASA, nobody sees this behavior as wierd. Not a word of dissatisfaction with this odd hoarding of data. Not from the press, not from the citizens who paid for the mission, and not from our government officials. Hmmmm. And you wonder why folks spin conspiracy theories around NASA? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Feb 21, 2006

Well, is hustling through the analysis somehow better? If the point was a thorough analysis of what was captured by Stardust, then some quality time should be spent. Or would you prefer them to have to redact statements later on, because they didn't have a thorough understanding of what they found? So in short, the problem isn't the quality or quantity of data or the analysis, it's merely that it isn't being performed to your time expectations. Well, that's fair. You have that right. Though I'd wonder that the lack of outcry is that most people aren't in such a darned hurry, and would prefer that NASA get it right the first time. And no, I generally don't wonder about how some people spin yarns about Conspiracy Theories. The world is full of Paranoid people... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Saiph · Feb 21, 2006

well...lets see, US gov. sitting on terrorist information...First, I bet they take time and check up on the info. Then they act. If they don't lives are at stake. Okay, Nasa with data...no lives at stake, so no rush. Can't get it wrong. horrible for your scientific credibility...so they analyze the data. When they're done, they release it. All they want to do is release it as a coherent, finished product, instead of pieces that may need to be reworked based on later findings. Frankly, I don't think they should have announced any results to the public until they're ready to publish. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

yevaud · Feb 21, 2006

Damn straight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

zenonmars · Feb 21, 2006

Yevaud, buddy <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> "Or would you prefer them to have to redact statements later on, because they didn't have a thorough understanding of what they found?" Oh, yes, by all means. I am not sure I even need them to immediately commit to opinions yet. But, here is what I find wierd: "If it comes out in dribs and drabs it'll be total chaos," explains Zolensky." Lolol......"dribs and drabs"? "Total chaos?" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Steve Squyres isn't afraid of dribs and drabs. He is aware of who he is really working for: you and I. http://space.com/missionlaunches/06...home_plate.html "As for helping pin down what the rover is seeing at Home Plate, there are a bunch of possibilities, Squyres said: Impact deposits, volcanic deposits, maybe wind- or water-lain sediments...... "But that’s purely conjecture at this point … a working hypothesis," Squyres said. "Everything is on the table until we’ve gotten more data down." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Feb 21, 2006

This is all supposed to be the analysis of material captured from a pristine cometary body, potentially with particles that might be good physical evidence of the primordial solar system. You think releasing the information in spurts would be useful, rather than understand what we're dealing with, all in context? Come on, you've always appeared to be fairly reasonable. Give them some time, instead of tapping your foot and looking at your watch... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Feb 21, 2006

an issue with "dribs and drabs" and "total choas" is that most, if not all, reports that trickle out of the media about anything "fast breaking" nearly always contains flawed information or entirely incorrect information. we hang the moon on "dribs and drabs" of news, as this is what nearly the entire broadcast news industry depends on to sell advertising time. the sound byte world is based upon trickling information, even if it is completely false. so you can look at it like "well, we're going to wait until we have a clear picture of the data" and this results in a wait possibly forever as the data will be interpreted according to the means by which it was analyzed, and such means of analysis may change from year to year, yielding "new" findings in the same dataset. old data can, for example, be re-examined with new tools, and an entirely different conclusion can be drawn. this is currently vogue and in use in forensic sciences today. there are all kinds of new techniques to assess data in that field, often leading to entire court cases being thrown out or overturned in light of new findings based on old data. witholding data, then, as it 'fast breaks,' seems dubious. as if they are editing it's contents for wide-release --for scientific accuracy? sure. for covering up potentially controversial material? sure. they publish online the raw MER data for all to see, so why not the comet data? (at least they publish the raw data that they want you to see) if nasa is a government agency, allegedly, america should be able to have access to the raw science data as it streams online, like how you can watch C-Span and witness real-time congressional proceedings, as this is our government at work by the people. so which is it with the science data? coverup or just "good science?" (take into account that NASA, regardless of it's outer space guise, is essentially a military entity, so one can run with that ball) you d

Saiph · Feb 22, 2006

". as if they are editing it's contents for wide-release --for scientific accuracy?" Yep, except it isn't editing, it's analyzing. They've got a bunch of puzzle pieces. Now they've got to stick them together, even generalize/approximate some to be simpler, so even if they don't have the whole answer, they have part of one. "for covering up potentially controversial material?" Not it. Plenty of scientists put out controversial material all the time, most, however, isn't headline grabbing material (heck, most of the papers I've worked on, disprove the generally accepted ideas). But they're also going to make sure that if it is controversial/contradictory, they've got it right. "they publish online the raw MER data for all to see, so why not the comet data? (at least they publish the raw data that they want you to see) " They did that for rapid distribution of more data than the actual research team could handle. They also did it because of the very high public interest. Normally the data gathered by NASA is garaunteed confidential for ~1 year, so that the researchers who designed the project/data run, and monitored it have a chance to analyze the data. If they didn't have 1 year to work with, they could be scooped by other individuals. Basically: They reward people who come up with and execute projects by giving them first crack at the data. After 1 year the data becomes public. You just have to know where to look and how to ask (and I'm pretty sure you can request it as a private citizen). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Feb 22, 2006

as for nasa being a military entity: please, support that statement. From what I know of how it's organized, it isn't anything of the sort. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

jatslo · Feb 22, 2006

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 20,500,000 for NASA Military. (0.14 seconds) News results for NASA Military - View today's top stories NASA To Push Human Spaceflight - Slashdot - Feb 17, 2006 DoD, Army, Navy, Air Force, military, space, and NASA Fact Sheets ...Air Force Fact Sheets; Military Space/Missiles; NASA Fact Sheets. See also:; Dod & Service Almanacs · Multi-Media Resources · History Resources ... www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-fact.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages SPACE.com -- NASA-US Military Explore Joint TechnologiesThe prowess of US space technology is to be increased through a partnership struck up between NASA, the US Strategic Command, the National Reconnaissance ... www.space.com/news/wsc_military_021018.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages SPACE.com -- Military Uses NASA Images in CombatThe Navy has been using NASA satellite data to help guide ships and planes in the war in Afghanistan, marking the first time the military has employed the ... www.space.com/news/navy_nasa_020412.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages NASA SimLabs - Library - XV-15 Tiltrotor 20th AnniversaryIntroduction to NASA SimLabs Vertical Motion Simulator. ... The military V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, on which this study was based, is the result of more than 30 ... www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/ library_docs/tiltrotor/ctr20th.html - 25k - Cached - Similar pages XV-15 Tiltrotor Research Aircraft, 20th AnniversaryThe XV-15 NASA/Army Tiltrotor Research Aircraft represents a unique technology for ... The military V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, on which this study was based, ... http:</safety_wrapper

bonzelite · Feb 22, 2006

as for nasa being a military entity: please, support that statement. From what I know of how it's organized, it isn't anything of the sort. LOL!!!

bonzelite · Feb 22, 2006

despite the expected calm and cooly level-headed truth to some of this, this is largely a blackOps PR campaign answer --or at the very least can be read to reflect that. read it again from that perspective and the patronizing is transparent : ". as if they are editing it's contents for wide-release --for scientific accuracy?" Yep, except it isn't editing, it's analyzing. They've got a bunch of puzzle pieces. Now they've got to stick them together, even generalize/approximate some to be simpler, so even if they don't have the whole answer, they have part of one. "for covering up potentially controversial material?" Not it. Plenty of scientists put out controversial material all the time, most, however, isn't headline grabbing material (heck, most of the papers I've worked on, disprove the generally accepted ideas). But they're also going to make sure that if it is controversial/contradictory, they've got it right. "they publish online the raw MER data for all to see, so why not the comet data? (at least they publish the raw data that they want you to see) " They did that for rapid distribution of more data than the actual research team could handle. They also did it because of the very high public interest. Normally the data gathered by NASA is garaunteed confidential for ~1 year, so that the researchers who designed the project/data run, and monitored it have a chance to analyze the data. If they didn't have 1 year to work with, they could be scooped by other individuals. Basically: They reward people who come up with and execute projects by giving them first crack at the data. After 1 year the data becomes public. You just have to know where to look and how to ask (and I'm pretty sure you can request it as a private citizen)." the post is full of double-talk, particularly about the MER data. to t

Saiph · Feb 22, 2006

wow, you could be more specific. Lets see here: first one's out, it's a collection of fact sheets. second: The military and nasa partnered to research tech relevant to both groups...which indicates that they have different goals and purposes. Why not get together with one of the only other US groups that specializes in aeronautics? Doesn't make it military. simlab links: Okay...so the military used a simulation tool developed by NASA...how's that make nasa military? It just makes them a technology warehouse (want a flight sim? we've got flight sims!). middleast link: is a propaganda piece, and mainly focuses on security measures taken by nasa (also highly exagerated) to ensure the safety of a high profile astronaut from a region torn by terrorism. Not military. military using nasa maps: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Some in Congress have expressed concerns that NASA risks overstepping its 44-year-old civilian charter, though military planners say the images they have been using are unclassified. That information is available to ``anyone and everyone,'' including a host of federal agencies and foreign governments, said NASA spokesman David Steitz. He said NASA has no qualms about the military's use of the images, which was first reported this week in Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine<hr /></blockquote> how's that make nasa military? The military is using publicly available data, that happens to be put out by nasa. That's like saying CNN is a foreign intellegence agency if Iraq uses it's broadcasts in developing strategy (which they did, and is a seperate issue about media's role in modern warfare). spacereview link: even begins with a statement that confirms that the US military put's it's own stuff into space (i.e. their own military space program). It also discusses the purposeful seperation of the two agencies by congress. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

mikeemmert · Feb 22, 2006

(Har, har), jatlso got you pretty good! Really, the NASA/military connection is well known. The space shuttles were originally mostly military weapons for launching keyhole satellites. The Air Force had the most say on the design of the space shuttles. Although the two agencies have become more separate, there is still a strong bond between them, and there always will be. So, here's a trivia question: how many Uniformed services of the United States are there? Name them.

"Weird Crystals" Found in Comet Wild 2 Sample

paulanderson

Guest

voyagerwsh

Guest

paulanderson

Guest

paulanderson

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

telfrow

Guest

chew_on_this

Guest

paulanderson

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

Saiph

Guest

chew_on_this

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

yevaud

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page