[X] My Assistant

[Guest_paulanderson_*]

I thought the analysis results, as they come in, deserved their own thread. I'm interested in how these findings relate to the "weird crystals" found and reported on in the previous Nature article.

A couple more updates, from Space.com and MSNBC:

Stardust Mission Yields Ancient Comet Dust
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/060220_s...ust_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."

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

paulanderson, since I no longer post at the Space.com discussion boards, I'm glad that you can relay some of the references that I post here (e.g., Mars methane). And you even preserve my anonymity

[Guest_paulanderson_*]

paulanderson, since I no longer post at the Space.com discussion boards, I'm glad that you can relay some of the references that I post here (e.g., Mars methane). And you even preserve my anonymity

Do you mean the recent clathrate abstract? I couldn't recall where I had first seen the link posted before (sorry), but I found that I still had the link bookmarked (I actually do normally post a mention if a link, etc. is referenced from a particular person). I remembered it when I saw the other photolysis abstract that I posted.

Why did you stop posting there, if I may ask? I still do, but not as much as I used to, partly just time-wise. In terms of Mars coverage in particular, I do prefer this forum; more up-to-date with less "intense" debates (in a negative way); the people here take their Mars studies seriously and it shows. Silylene is posting here more also now I see, good!

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Why did you stop posting [at Space.com], if I may ask?

Despite a few good posters over there (e.g., JonClarke, silylene, borman, CalliArcale, Yevaud, shuttle_guy, etc.), the place was getting a little too kooky for me. And moreover, Space.com seems more concerned with keeping posters, no matter how stupid/loony/crazy they appear to be, than anything else. Doubtless this is for commercial reasons (i.e., for the sake of keeping eyeballs on their website), which I understand, but it's a little too freewheeling for me. Also, the Great Big Crash, which destroyed a large chunk of history, didn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Hey, if I want kookiness, I can always go back to USENET. At least there I don't have to wade through an ad-laden website. And I can use newsreader filters to screen out the loons

That said, I do surf in to Space.com's groups from time to time to read some of the posts; however, I don't feel any great urge to jump in.

P.S. The post above can apply equally to other discussion groups. For example, I could just as easily substitute The Habitablezone for Space.com