IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
"lookback"
MiniTES
post Jul 21 2005, 01:01 AM
Post #1


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 25-February 05
From: New Jersey
Member No.: 177



So, now that the shouting and the explosions are over, let's look back and examine:
What exactly have we learned about comets or cometary interiors that we did not know before Deep Impact, other than at least one of them is mantled in thick dust?

And just why did Deep Impact have its event on July 4? It sounds to me like something that Dan the man Goldin would have directed the mission to be built around, just for better PR.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lyford
post Jul 21 2005, 01:46 AM
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1281
Joined: 18-December 04
From: San Diego, CA
Member No.: 124



Points for style? unsure.gif
If that was the only reason then I would agree with you, but if it didn't affect the science and the orbital trajectories work out fine, then why not?
(I have no idea if it did or not... anybody else?)


--------------------
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!" Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike
post Jul 21 2005, 03:32 AM
Post #3


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 350
Joined: 20-June 04
From: Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
Member No.: 86



The July 4th date does seem a bit PR-y, but regardless nobody had ever slammed something into a comet before Deep Impact. Maybe the comet's debris cloud will yet reveal something or other.. and even if it doesn't I'm sure we learned something or other.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Jul 21 2005, 04:42 AM
Post #4





Guests






Let's not get too cocky in our criticism -- this mission was very far from being a dead loss scientifically. We may yet have ended up getting some good spectral data on the composition both of the comet's natural coma and of the internal ices vaporized by the impact, as well as flash spectra of the dust's elemental composition. And we definitely got unprecedentedly high-resolution photos of a comet's surface -- which would hve been useful in any case to compare to Borrelly and Wild 2.

But this is separate from the question of whether there were better alternate Discovery missions to fly. (By the way, A'Hearn has yet to respond to my questions about this mission -- but then, he has other things to do right now, and probably for quite some time.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Comga
post Jul 21 2005, 04:47 AM
Post #5


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 19-June 05
Member No.: 415



QUOTE (MiniTES @ Jul 20 2005, 07:01 PM)
So, now that the shouting and the explosions are over, let's look back and examine:
What exactly have we learned about comets or cometary interiors that we did not know before Deep Impact, other than at least one of them is mantled in thick dust?

And just why did Deep Impact have its event on July 4? It sounds to me like something that Dan the man Goldin would have directed the mission to be built around, just for better PR.
*


A great deal has been learned about the structure and strength of the nucleus, including that it is bound by gravity, not mechancial strength, and that the dust is as fine as talcum, not granular like sand. The temperature map will show the thermal inertia of the outer layer and indicate the porosity and density of the dust. There are gigabytes of spectral data with information on chemistry. There are structures on the surface, including that large featureless band, that will indicate much about how comets evolve and are modifed. These things were pretty much unknown before Deep Impact.

July 4 is close to, if not at, the date when the comet crossed the ecliptic. Missions out of the ecliptic take much more rocket power, or conversely, carry less mass for a given rocket. The science requirements were specifically written so that the actual impact date was not constrained to July 4. The exact instant of impact was adjusted to coordiate observations by ground and space based telescopes including Hubble. It was a little puzzling, though, why it was not three or six hours earlier when it would have been higher in the sky for the giant telescopes in South America. There must have been a reason.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edstrick
post Jul 21 2005, 07:26 AM
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Joined: 20-February 05
Member No.: 174



The hour of day of the encounter was timed for optimum visibility from two deep space network stations, to prevent non-zero probability simultaneous loss of a DSN station and loss of the flyby spacecraft due to a dust clump impact from causing loss-of-mission.

Regarding why July 4, it's primarily because of the requirement that the intercept be essentially in the ecliptic. I have *NEVER* seen a statement in the general PR and briefing materials of the exact range of arrival date/times that was in fact available to the mission once they had a nominal launch. It may have been July 3 to July 5 but not much more, and maybe only part of those days, especially Jul 3.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Jul 21 2005, 09:31 AM
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



For myself, I'd welcome a US decision to stage space science spectaculars *every* 4th of July. And on Washington's Birthday, Labor Day, Star Wars Day...

...it'd be tough, I know, but I'd *try* to cope!


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 04:36 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.