"Weird Crystals" Found in Comet Wild 2 Sample

[voyagerwsh]

<i>Results from the first studies of cometary samples returned to Earth by NASA’s Stardust spacecraft is the subject of a news conference at 3 p.m. EST, Monday, March 13, from NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston.</i><br /><br /> Link<br /><br />Pristine organic compounds may take more interests for the investigators to discuss in the press conferenece, I presume.<br />

 

[colesakick]

I bet they report unexpected "surprises" that only intense heating can explain. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[voyagerwsh]

Beside the probable inorganic Mg minerals, such as olivine, as found in other meteorites, pristine carbonaceous chondrites, amino acids might have been contained in this sample as well. <br /><br />This, if any, extremly cold preserved pristine organic compounds may have kept their structures in tact since the creation of solar nebular.

 

[yevaud]

<i>I bet they report unexpected "surprises" that only intense heating can explain. </i><br /><br />Perhaps, and perhaps not. It's far too early to tell. As well, it's not a requirement for the presence of these materials. We would all appreciate it if you don't try to sneak in an EPH or EU argument this way, if that's what you're implying.<br /><br />Thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[cosmictalk]

Waiting patiently for March 13....and their findings!<br /><br />Its always worth mentioning a finding that is out of the ordinary based on WERE it was found. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />CosmicTalk

 

[CalliArcale]

At least it's not long to wait. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> And if you are feeling antsy, you can sate yourself with MRO news for a couple of days. <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><br /><br />There is so much yet to be discovered about the early solar system, and about how celestial bodies such as comets, asteroids, and even major planets form. I am hopeful their results shed some light on that, although it's probably far too early to expect that much work to have been done already.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

metallic hydrogen crystals?

 

[jatslo]

...and pressure

 

[cosmictalk]

Hopefully Astrobiology does not get cut back by 50% and puts a crutch into things.<br /><br />Especially with this new equipment we have going out to the red planet.

 

[bonzelite]

don't worry, they're in all likelihood lying. not only is the budget not cut, it is increased and they're conducting astrobiology and have been for decades in compartmentalized projects funded by a black budget. <br /><br />the headline is a decoy to avert the eye from the shell game. welcome to the machine.

 

[JonClarke]

"don't worry, they're in all likelihood lying."<br /><br /><b>Evidence</b>?<br /><br />"not only is the budget not cut, it is increased"<br /><br /><b>Evidence</b>?<br /><br />"they're conducting astrobiology and have been for decades in compartmentalized projects funded by a black budget. "<br /><br /><br /><b>Evidence</b>? Not to forget that astrobiology has been openly funded for decades, despite ups and downs, in many countries and many institutions.<br /><br /> "the headline is a decoy to avert the eye from the shell game. welcome to the machine."<br /><br />What does this mean?<br /><br />This is a science board, you are required to both make sense and supply evidence for your assertions, especially when asked.<br /><br />Lastly, this has nothing to do with Wild 2, the prupose of this thread. If you want to discuss the funding cuts, start your own thread. If you want to specifically discuss unlikely interpretations of funding cuts in astrobiology, you will find a home in Extra_Sense's thread here<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /><i>additional content added</i><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[maxtheknife]

Plenty of evidence has been given in many other threads.... It is not Bonzelite's responsibility to pay attention for you, et al, and regergitate information already given.<br /><br />Let him wonder, Bonz... let him wonder... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

excerpt:<br />space.com story link<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Almost no gravity<br /><br /><br />Scientists don't know exactly what comets are made of. But they're thought to represent the composition of the outer solar system in its primordial state. They're loaded with frozen water and other ices, plus organic materials and silicates, or rock. Many theorists believe comets delivered the water and other pre-biotic ingredients that led to life on Earth.<br /><br />Stardust flew to within 147 miles (237 kilometers) of Wild 2 on Jan. 2. The observations -- and dust samples that will be returned to Earth in 2006 for lab study -- should improve understanding of the solar system's formation.<br /><br />Craters on Wild 2, presumably caused by run-ins with smaller objects, are strangely free of the powder, rocks and other debris commonly seen in impact craters on other bodies. Brownlee thinks this is because the comet is a bit like hard, frozen dirt that takes a hit but is brittle, so material flies out.<br /><br />And because the comet is so small, the material does not fall back.<br /><br />"There's almost no gravity at the surface," Brownlee said. "If you were standing on [the surface], you could jump into orbit."<br /><br />Yet Wild 2 is not a fractured pile of rubble that would all fly apart when hit, as some astronomers expected. Brownlee: "We're sure this is a rigid material because it can support cliffs and spires."<br /><br />Spires shooting up from inside craters "looks like Monument Valley in Arizona," Brownlee said at a press conference today. They likely formed as material around them eroded, indicated that the comet has lost about 328 feet (100 meters) of its surface since birth.<br /><br />What sort of material can crumble under impact, leave sheer walls and allow its parent body to remain intact?<br /><br />Previous research in Europe may provide the answer. Scientists made artifici</font>

 

[JonClarke]

Max:<br /><br />These are discussion boards. When people make statments without obvious basis it is legitimate to question them.<br /><br />Not answering them it is being evasive, and not consistent with open discussion. It can also considered be rather rude.<br /><br />Telling other people to be evasive is encouraging poor behaviour. Is that what you want to be known for Max? Subverting honest and helpful discussion and by telling people to be evasive and rude?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

It is because they are such peculiar bodies that they are such interesting objects for study.<br /><br />However it is not true to say that "they don't know what comets are". We know a great deal about comets already. As it said in the article you quoted "Scientists don't know <b>exactly</b> what comets are made of" (my emphasis. But as it goes on to say: <br /><br />"They're loaded with frozen water and other ices, plus organic materials and silicates, or rock.".<br /><br />It is the detailed compositions and relationships of these features, especially on a cmet by comet basis, that we are finding out now.<br /><br />I see you have not answered any of my previous questions about your off topic assertions. Why? They are off topic so perhaps you should just send a PM. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[maxtheknife]

Pot... kettle... black....

 

[yevaud]

True. To assume that Comets have one and only one composition is somewhat "tunnel visioned." However, that being said...<br /><br />Space is vast, even within the precincts of the Solar System. Collisions are rare. This is a very good reason why it is reasonable to believe that most of the impact craters observed peppering the surfaces of Comets are quite old, originating at a time when there was much more material available to impact said Cometary body. In short, early on in the Solar System's history. Later, there is much less material available with which to do so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

I see a very real contradiction here, and I for one would like to hear an explanation. This is to say, you seem to imply that current Astronomy really knows nothing as to the composition and origins of Comets - but yet you seem to; you've virtually said as much. Would you please explain this? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

Yevaud, there is little to explain. what contradiction are you seeing? <br /><br />comets are unknown as to their origin and structure and behavior. what else would you like me to explain further? science doesn't really know what they are. the myriad papers and press releases indicate this fact. <br /><br />by the way, i'm not in combat attack mode. i'm blase' yawning mode. give me a stiff cup of black coffee before i yawn again. <br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

Well, yeah, I would.<br /><br />See, you state that what the experts in this field state must be wrong. That directly implies you know what Cometary bodies are, where these experts do not. All of which makes me wonder how a layman thinking about it all might know compared to people who have direct access to the combined billions of dollars (or Pounds, Marks, Yen, or what have you) of sophisticated observational devices, computing power, advanced degrees, and so on.<br /><br />What I meant. Sorry if I was obscure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

and, they're off ----it's bonzelite and Yevaud down the backstretch --- and now they've entered the sweeper....<br /><br /><font color="yellow">See, you state that what the experts in this field state must be wrong. That directly implies you know what Cometary bodies are, where these experts do not.</font><br /><br />what in frokcing bejeezus is that? this directly implies that <b>I personally know what cometary bodies are</b>. yeah, dude! <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />i have a degree in "i don't know." <b><i>as do they.</i></b> <br /><br />i take my coffee black. you? you like donuts? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

Well, if you believe the "experts" don't know what Comets are, are comprised of, or their origin's are - but state some certainties of (and you previously have), it pre-suppose's that you believe you have a better concept than they do.<br /><br />Which is why I asked you what I did. If you believe they're wrong, what do you think? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

I suppose the simplest way to state it is, if you believe that they're incorrect, you must have some idea <i>why</i> they're wrong. Which implies some belief as to what you think is the <i>right</i> concept. What is that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

some basic assumptions of comets and what i think:<br /><br />-dirty snowballs. what i think: no. <br />-snowy dirtballs. what i thnk: maybe. <br />-primoridal objects. what i think: sure, but with conditions:<br /><br />primordial. what is that? the earth is primordial. assumption is comets may be "pristine" bodies from the earliest days of the solar system's development. <br /><br />what i think to that: unknown. assumption of pristine primordial state of comets entirely assumed. <br /><br />-comets littered with impact craters. what i think: no. <br /><br />craters may be areas of past outjetting or outgassing. craters are large. impactors that large would pound the nucleus to pure disembodied dust. impactors that large would not be attracted to highly delicate, porous, nearly zero-gravitationally attracting, cometary nuclei. <br /><br />-early bombardment phase of solar system. what i think: sure. but on cometary nulcei? NO. why? comets are too porous and delicate of structures, origin of comets is unknown. see above. they may not be as old as assumed. or, they are very ancient indeed, and they are surfaced by some other means. <br /><br />we're going out to eat now. saturday night. back tomorrow. sleep well everyone.

 

[jatslo]

Telling people to ignore individuals is evasive SDC fact, so what else is new. I suspect that the crystals are, in fact, composed of hydrogen, as in metallic hydrogen; when will the results be released for study?