IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Rev 61 Enceladus (March 12 2008)
jasedm
post Mar 26 2008, 09:24 PM
Post #91


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 655
Joined: 22-January 06
Member No.: 655



I'm ashamed in the presence of you chemists.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Juramike
post Mar 26 2008, 09:28 PM
Post #92


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2785
Joined: 10-November 06
From: Pasadena, CA
Member No.: 1345



space.com article on Enceladus is out: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0803...yby-update.html

-Mike


--------------------
Some higher resolution images available at my photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31678681@N07/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
volcanopele
post Mar 26 2008, 10:59 PM
Post #93


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 3233
Joined: 11-February 04
From: Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 23



For those who missed the press briefing:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/cassini20080326.cfm


--------------------
&@^^!% Jim! I'm a geologist, not a physicist!
The Gish Bar Times - A Blog all about Jupiter's Moon Io
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Juramike
post Mar 26 2008, 11:55 PM
Post #94


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2785
Joined: 10-November 06
From: Pasadena, CA
Member No.: 1345



Emily's article regarding today's briefing on Enceladus: http://planetary.org/news/2008/0326_Cassin...tes_Like_a.html

Nicely written, Emily!

-Mike


--------------------
Some higher resolution images available at my photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31678681@N07/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Mar 27 2008, 01:14 AM
Post #95


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



You got that right, Mike. Superb work, Emily, written in such a way that even a humble artificial intelligence such as myself can understand it all! smile.gif

The cometary compositional similarity is interesting. Almost begs the question of whether something unexpected (heating) happened to them rather then something funny about Enceladus. I can't see any possibility of Enceladus being a captured body.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Holder of the Tw...
post Mar 27 2008, 04:08 AM
Post #96


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 540
Joined: 17-November 05
From: Oklahoma
Member No.: 557



I would dearly love to see some 10m resolution (or better!) NAC photos of the hottest areas of those tiger stripes, along with the WAC context shots. I know they plan some high resolution views in the next flyby, but I haven't yet read just how high the resolution will be. Hope their plans for the next flyby work. The 15 year night cometh soon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CosmicRocker
post Mar 27 2008, 07:05 AM
Post #97


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2228
Joined: 1-December 04
From: Marble Falls, Texas, USA
Member No.: 116



Can one of you astrobiololgy or icy body chemical types comment? I read the headlines noting the discovery of "complex organics," but the published spectrograph displays the heaviest broad peak centering around 40 Daltons. I wouldn't normally describe molecules of this weight range as "complex."

Are molecules heavier than the C2/CN/CO range typically considered complex by space scientists?

I noted that Emily's blog entry stated that "At higher masses, not shown on the graph above, "we saw more complex compounds, like propyne, propane, maybe even acetonitrile, and then we saw things even more complex. But they were so weak in signal that we didn't venture an identification." Propane and propyne should have appeared on that graph, since its X-axis goes up to 50 Daltons. Was that data simply erased from the publically released spectrograph?


--------------------
...Tom

I'm not a Space Fan, I'm a Space Exploration Enthusiast.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Mar 27 2008, 07:24 AM
Post #98


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



QUOTE (nprev @ Mar 26 2008, 05:14 PM) *
The cometary compositional similarity is interesting. Almost begs the question of whether something unexpected (heating) happened to them rather then something funny about Enceladus. I can't see any possibility of Enceladus being a captured body.


Yeah, is what we're seeing between comets and Enceladus anything but ices + one-time heating to drive a little chemistry? It doesn't look to me any more remarkable than the fact that SiO2 exists in the rocks of Earth, Moon, and Mars or that N2 exists in the atmospheres of Venus, Earth, and Mars. You put the same elements together, and you usually get the same compounds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DFortes
post Mar 27 2008, 12:04 PM
Post #99


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 11-April 07
From: London, U.K.
Member No.: 1957



QUOTE (JRehling @ Mar 27 2008, 07:24 AM) *
Yeah, is what we're seeing between comets and Enceladus anything but ices + one-time heating to drive a little chemistry? It doesn't look to me any more remarkable than the fact that SiO2 exists in the rocks of Earth, Moon, and Mars or that N2 exists in the atmospheres of Venus, Earth, and Mars. You put the same elements together, and you usually get the same compounds.



Exactly - thankyou.

My view is that the 'comet' label - whether it was meant to or not - connotes some suggestion that the organics are primordial. However, the heat flux and plume activity strongly suggest active chemical synthesis (a la Matson), which (to my feeble mind) is more astrobiologically interesting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Mar 27 2008, 01:04 PM
Post #100


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



QUOTE (Holder of the Two Leashes @ Mar 26 2008, 08:08 PM) *
I would dearly love to see some 10m resolution (or better!) NAC photos of the hottest areas of those tiger stripes...


My thoughts exactly. I strongly suspect that the emission areas are very localized, extremely narrow, and MUCH warmer than their immediate surroundings, which are presumably experiencing secondary heating... the actual vents have temps certainly exceeding 273 deg K. wink.gif


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Mar 27 2008, 01:23 PM
Post #101


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (nprev @ Mar 27 2008, 02:04 PM) *
... the actual vents have temps certainly exceeding 273 deg K. wink.gif

Ummm... I'm sorry, I don't understand that. How much is that in Fahrenheits? That's obviously the only allowed scale, given yesterday's news conference... rolleyes.gif

On a more serious note, a question for John Spencer: Is the new highest temperature the average over the sensor footprint, or was it extrapolated to the actual width of the tiger stripes (so the average temperature is actually lower than stated in the press release)?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ElkGroveDan
post Mar 27 2008, 02:50 PM
Post #102


Senior Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4763
Joined: 15-March 05
From: Glendale, AZ
Member No.: 197



QUOTE (ugordan @ Mar 27 2008, 05:23 AM) *
How much is that in Fahrenheits?


One of the fun things about Google is that you can convert anything to anything else. Type in 273K in F. and it will come back 31.7. If you are using the Google browser tool bar you don't even have to hit enter. The drop-down suggestion will give you the answer without leaving the page you are on.

Its amazing how many odd units they take into account. Try 40 furlongs in nautical miles. 10 Hands in decimeters. 50,000 milliseconds in fortnights. Warning: you could waste a lot of time on this.


--------------------
If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Juramike
post Mar 27 2008, 03:00 PM
Post #103


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2785
Joined: 10-November 06
From: Pasadena, CA
Member No.: 1345



QUOTE (ElkGroveDan @ Mar 27 2008, 10:50 AM) *
One of the fun things about Google is that you can convert anything to anything else. Type in 273K in F. and it will come back 31.7. If you are using the Google browser tool bar you don't even have to hit enter. The drop-down suggestion will give you the answer without leaving the page you are on.

Its amazing how many odd units they take into account. Try 40 furlongs in nautical miles. 10 Hands in decimeters. 50,000 milliseconds in fortnights. Warning: you could waste a lot of time on this.


My favorite is that Google Earth can measure distances in Smoots.

The irony that Oliver Smoot was head of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the president of of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is beautiful.


[/off-topic witicism]




--------------------
Some higher resolution images available at my photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31678681@N07/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Mar 27 2008, 03:02 PM
Post #104


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



I was being sarcastic up there, but I'm glad - this Google tip is awesome! That's much faster than googling for "fahrenheit to celsius converter" or such.
Thanks, EGD!


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Mar 27 2008, 03:16 PM
Post #105


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14432
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (ElkGroveDan @ Mar 27 2008, 02:50 PM) *
tWarning: you could waste a lot of time on this.



100 (meters per hour) = 515 090.655 smoots per year

55 mph = 242 hands per second

(500 million miles) per (6 months) = 167 316.677 feet per second

240 000 (square feet) = 7 698.81934 sq smoots

This is important stuff!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th April 2024 - 06:09 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.