Dec 14 2006, 07:00 PM
The December 15, 2006, issue of Science
is a special issue on Stardust.
Recall that the first set of peer-reviewed results from Stardust were published in the June 18, 2004, issue of Science
EDIT: See also the related Space.com story
2nd EDIT: See the following EurekAlert releases (1
Dec 14 2006, 08:23 PM
See the Stardust page
at nasa.gov for more links on today's release.
Dec 14 2006, 09:31 PM
The papers are now downloadable from the Science website.
Dec 14 2006, 10:19 PM
I was very excited when I heard this, I thought it came from Stardust@home, but still this is exciting news! (But not quite as much as it could have been, because I've worked with Stardust@home)
Dec 14 2006, 11:13 PM
Dec 14 2006, 11:36 PM
QUOTE (Oren Iishi @ Dec 14 2006, 01:13 PM)
Thanks, Oren. In fact, we discussed the Discovery 2006 initial selections in another thread, starting with this post
Dec 15 2006, 01:38 AM
AP story keeping an ear to the ground of the AGU meeting:
<<SAN FRANCISCO - Detailed observations from the first comet samples returned to Earth are debunking some of science's long-held beliefs on how the icy, celestial bodies form. Scientists expected the minute grains retrieved from a comet Wild 2 to be made up mostly of interstellar dust tiny particles that flow through the solar system thought to be from ancient stars that exploded and died. Instead, they found an unusual mix of primordial material as if the solar system had turned itself inside out. Hot particles from the inner solar system migrated out to the cold, outer fringes beyond Pluto where they intermingled and congealed to form a comet. [...] Brownlee estimated that up to 10 percent of materials in comets may come from the inner solar system.>>
For a second, this story gave me visions of a future announcement that 10% of the materials in the solar wind may come from Utah.
This result is all about the early formation of the solar system and should go along with "longitudinal studies" we can do by watching other nascent systems.
Dec 21 2006, 10:34 PM
Hey folks, any questions (or comments) regarding the results? -> http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/for...opic.php?t=1568
Internet is so great, isn'it!
Dec 23 2006, 12:14 AM
Jan 26 2008, 11:20 PM
Stardust "not what we expected"
"research that appears in the Jan. 25 edition of the journal, Science. As a whole, the samples look more asteroidal than cometary.https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_re...R-08-01-05.html
Very curious..... Wild2 not what expected. http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13...teroidlike.htmlhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...5/BAGCUL5HS.DTL
Jan 27 2008, 08:33 AM
Spectroscopy shows variations in the volatile content of comet comas and tails. Some of it is due to outgassing rates and distance from the sun (and some is because some observations are much better than others), but some of it is due to comet-to-comet composition variations. I've never seen a clear discussion of the info we get from that variation and what they think it means -- either years ago or recently -- don't know if one's out there.
The reflected and thermal emission spectra from comet dust are far less informative than the gas spectra. There's some infrared silicate and other features that we can see with recent IR capabilities, but visible/near IR data's pretty uninformative, other than some physical properties and temperature info.
Color and albedo data on Centaurs and KB objects show a wide color and albedo distribution with some distinct populations and a fair number of 'none of the above' objects. Some of that is surface history... things that have weak atmospheres and surface ice deposits, or surface organics from now evaporated methane and whatever... who knows! But some of that is intrinsic differences between objects of different origins.
Comet Wild may have originated much closer to the sun than other comets, or at a different time in the evolution of the solar nebula, before it was kicked into the cold and the dark for 4+ billion years.
Ultimately, we're going to have to do sample return, preferably cryogenic, plus different surface geologic units (as on Temple 2) from many comets before much of this sorts out.. not soon, and not cheap!
Jan 27 2008, 04:04 PM
Agree that sample return from a variety of small bodies is going to be necessary.
What is so intereseting is that since we have been able to get closer looks and more sphisticated data, the incredible diversity of these little bodies is humbling.
From recent studies of accretion disks it now appears that gas giants have to form very quickly (because the gassy componant diappears in less than 10 million years - I think some Spitzer data are showing gas depletion in just 3 million years), and the assemblage of planetesimals is in a rich disk of interacting forces.
What we are seeing in the little worldet population of Sol seems to confirm that. Sol's accretion disk was anything but a gentle linear temperature distribution of materials ...simple models do not apply.....
What a fascinating time we live in....................
Sep 18 2008, 06:35 PM