Elizabeth, You express yourself much better than I do but, I still don't get your reasoning. It seems you are very quick to accept that what you *see* is dusty snow and CO2 jets spewing out H2O snow and you may be right. So, wouldn't catching actual manganese silicate material spewed out of a Comet tell you at least as much about the make up of a comet as what the *visual only* of the H2O tells you ? I mean if these jets are spewing out H2O from these jets and that leads you to conclude that this comet is made up of H2O then if you know for a fact they also spew Manganese / silicate. Doesn't that offer even greater evidence than a mere *observation* of H2O does? We *captured* Brownleeite (manganese silicate) and we *observed* H2O!! Which scenario holds more weight for proof ? I would thing the verifiable physical evidence would be much more telling about what these comets are made up of And yet no mention of a comet found on earth may have a primary make up of manganese by anything I have read so far? Additionally, To me this suggests that the Manganese being much stronger than H2O might be all that would survive of a comet meteorite. Maybe this tells us we should be looking for manganese meteorites to be tested to see if they are cometary in origin? I mean testing the isotopes in these manganese meteorites may just surprise some of us? But , again. Only NASA Scientists can do this testing. If I were to find a manganese meteorite do you think anyone would help me get it tested? Because from a pure Scientific point of view keeping your mind open to this possibility only makes Scientific sense. IMHO. And I can't wait to hear more about your eventual tests on Hartley 2 pics and studies.. Best Regards. Carl Carl or Debbie Esparza Meteoritemax
---- Elizabeth Warner <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, you ended up asking several questions... > > >> Is their anything to be learned by these pictures of Hartley 2 that > we did not already know or not? > > Ahh, I think I'm starting to see where some of the confusion lies. You > are operating under the assumption that everything we know about comets > we know as an absolute fact... Well, for the most part yes, Yes, comets > are essentially dirty snowballs. Dusty snowballs might be better. Some > are dustier, some are snowier. But there are a lot of details that are > getting glossed over in that summary that the public doesn't care about. > > And while we knew from various studies that comets are dusty snowballs, > most of those observations were indirect or derived results. With > Hartley 2, we *see* the CO2 jets spewing out H20 "snow"... we finally > *see* the "snow"! It's not just spectroscopic distribution maps, > spectra, etc. We can trace the jets we see in the coma down to features > on the nucleus. We *see* what is going on rather than just inferring. > > So, yes, we learned new stuff! > > These are scientists. They are looking for information. We have gotten > tons of data, but it is going to take more than just 2 weeks to properly > process/analyze/understand it all. Theories will get revised/updated > accordingly. We've posted what we can. The details will get written up > in the journals and properly peer-reviewed and published. And then > you'll have plenty to read. Have you bothered to read any of the papers > published about Tempel 1 after Deep Impact? So the information is out > there, you just haven't read it. Likewise, the info about Hartley 2 will > eventually get published, but will you actually read it? > > > As for your second question > >> I mean can anyone relate this to what to look for in a cometary meteorite > >> find or fall back here on Earth? > > I don't think that any scientist expects to find cometary meteorites > because based on what we currently know about comets, they are simply to > fragile and volatile to survive the atmosphere. Maybe when Rosetta > reaches comet C-G and lands on it, we'll know more. > > Clear Skies! > Elizabeth > > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > Elizabeth, Bob, Chris,All, > > This has been a very helpful and educational thread for me and I'm sure a > > few others.Unfortunatl, > > It seems that everybody is using old scientific information to explain all > > of this. > > So, let me ask one more question; > > Is their anything to be learned by these pictures of Hartley 2 that we did > > not already know or not? > > I mean can anyone relate this to what to look for in a cometary meteorite > > find or fall back here on Earth? > > As you all well know . I fully admit that I know nothing about space. My > > only interest in space is how it relates to meteorite material and hunting. > > This because I will never go to space but, I may find an important Cometary > > meteorite so, I would like to know what to look for. > > It seems that even though a new mineral was found in comet dust called > > brownleeite. This being a manganese silicate. You would expect this would > > have opened up the Science of space . But as far as I can tell it has not. > > I mean what was the significance of this fact and the close-ups of Hartley > > 2 if we don't establish and then publicize new information? > > Even The Carancas Fall and Crater began to re-write some of the books about > > impacts until it was decided that that was just an exception. Exception it > > may be it still caused a huge crater and remember we are talking about a > > meteorite so delicate that it is easily crushed between two fingers. And > > still it created a huge crater. > > Maybe I ask too much of the space scientists but, we do spend a great deal > > of tax payer dollars on NASA so we might be entitled to at least some good > > use of our gathered science from these extremely expensive missions. > > Many scientists have told me that they will not do isotopic study except > > when ordered by other NASA associated scientists. > > So, in other words. Only NASA people can order NASA tests paid for by the > > public? I for one would not mind paying for this added service. Perhaps a > > new discovery is out their waiting to be classified? > > I am a long way fro tipperary here but my point is that we hunters are > > starved for new and updated information. So it becomes a bit frustrating > > when we get very little info from NASA news conferences. Again. What's new? > > They are still muddy snowballs???? > > Thanks. Carl > > -- > > Carl or Debbie Esparza > > Meteoritemax > > > > > > ---- Elizabeth Warner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "Vapor is the evaporation of boiling liquid water." > >> > >> And that is the only possible source of water vapor?? So, have you ever > >> been in a cloud? fog?? What was boiling to make those then?? > >> > >> Again, your limited experience with how materials behave on Earth in > >> atmosphere, under pressure and with gravitational forces is blinding you > >> to the fact that materials can and do behave differently in space. > >> > >> Water might boil at 100 C at sea level, but in space it "boils" away at > >> very low temperatures. > >> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem07/chem07192.htm > >> > >> Vapor in the context given by the EPOXI scientists refers to H2O (and > >> other materials) in a gaseous form. Ice would refer to that material > >> being in a solid form. That solid form does not necessarily mean it is a > >> block of ice like an icecube. > >> > >> And I'm sure you've heard the riddle of what weighs more: a pound of > >> feathers or a pound of lead? > >> > >> They "weigh" the same, but you are going to need a whole heck of alot of > >> feathers to get a pound! > >> > >> Clear Skies! > >> Elizabeth > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> [email protected] wrote: > >>> Hi Bob. > >>> Perhaps you did not read the NASA link I provided in my previous post. > >>> Here it is in case you missed it; > >>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/19/spacecraft-flies-past-snowstorm-comet/ > >>> > >>> Again, all do respect here. > >>> > >>> To be clear my questions here relate to gaining the knowledge of what > >>> rocks to look for that might be of a cometary origin. Not to knock others > >>> opinions. I just want logical answers. > >>> The link does say they think it is "water ice" as opposed to other > >>> substances. > >>> They go on to say that "jets of carbon dioxide *appear to be* fueled by > >>> water vapor. Vapor is the evaporation of boiling liquid water. But later > >>> say there are also large hailstone chunks to boot. > >>> I think it looks like hot dust (smoke) . > >>> > >>> They say some of the hailstorm of "Fluffy Ice" that hit the spacecraft > >>> may have been between the size of a golf ball and a basketball. This > >>> with NO damage to the spacecraft? > >>> Dr. A. Hearn also points out "how different Comets are from one another". > >>> Aw Ha moment here? They are different! > >>> > >>> You ask. How could they stay hot? > >>> That is the big question. > >>> I suppose it depends upon what they are made of. Iron might stay hot > >>> longer than mica for example. > >>> And or, Perhaps they contain some source of renewable energy source > >>> within them? . A source that is yet known to us? > >>> How do we know whether they are cooling or not? > >>> That coupled with the fact that all things take time. > >>> Look no farther than the published cooling rates of iron meteorites. > >>> The Tucson iron meteorite is said to not display the widmanstten pattern > >>> on an etched surface primarily because in spite of the fact that it > >>> contains plenty of nickel, it cooled too fast. > >>> This cooling rate has been calculated for the Tucson Iron ring meteorite > >>> to be in the order of 1 degree C per one thousand years. This again is > >>> considered a rapid cooling rate. > >>> No, nothing makes much sense if you believe what they say that hailstones > >>> the size of golf balls to basketballs hit this craft. It had to of been > >>> smoke from the intense heat of this comet to have not damaged the craft. > >>> ice and even melted ice in the form of water at 27K miles per hour would > >>> have damaged the craft. > >>> Incidentally , I took a piece of coal in the dark and illuminated it. > >>> Sorry, but it looks nothing like the close-up pics of Hartley 2 and that > >>> is the comet we are talking about here. No antique distant pics from the > >>> past can compare with these new pics. We are in a new age of discovery > >>> and should give up these old and possibly obsolete photos and theories > >>> of the past. > >>> One more thing. > >>> If these so called "infrared spectrometers" tell us what this Comet is > >>> made of then I would love to hear it? Please spare me the Fluffy ice > >>> though. What other minerals are abundant on comet hartley 2? Thanks. > >>> > >>> Again. > >>> IMHO. > >>> Carl > >>> -- > >>> Carl or Debbie Esparza > >>> Meteoritemax > >>> > >>> > >>> ---- Bob King <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Hi Carl and all, > >>>> I thought it was clear that the fluffy snow chunks were water ice. > >>>> They can determine composition of materials on and around the comet > >>>> with the infrared spectrometer aboard the probe. Water was discovered > >>>> a while back by ground-based telescopes in quite a number of comets. > >>>> Also, while some of the stuff spewing out is a few inches across, > >>>> there's probably a lot more that's tinier - everything from smoke-like > >>>> dust particles to tiny bits of snow. Perhaps something on this smaller > >>>> end of the scale struck the craft during its flyby. > >>>> A demonstration I use for my class is to take a piece of black coal, > >>>> turn off the lights and light it only by the beam from a small lamp to > >>>> simulate how a comet appears in space. You'd be surprised by how > >>>> brightly coal "shines" again the unlit background. > >>>> Comets were long ago found to not be hot. How could something the > >>>> interior of something that small (approx 1 mile long) on an orbit that > >>>> takes it beyond Jupiter remain warm for very long? Only the outer > >>>> surface is warmed by sunlight. > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Bob > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Ron Baalke <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Nov. 15, 2010 > >>>>> > >>>>> Dwayne Brown > >>>>> Headquarters, Washington > >>>>> 202-358-1726 > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> > >>>>> Jia-Rui Cook > >>>>> Jet Propulsion Laboratory > >>>>> 818-354-0850 > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> > >>>>> Lee Tune > >>>>> University of Maryland, College Park > >>>>> 301-405-4679 > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> MEDIA ADVISORY: M10-161 > >>>>> > >>>>> NASA ANNOUNCES COMET ENCOUNTER NEWS CONFERENCE > >>>>> > >>>>> WASHINGTON -- NASA will hold a news conference at 1 p.m. EST on > >>>>> Thursday, Nov. 18, to discuss new scientific findings from the recent > >>>>> EPOXI mission spacecraft encounter with comet Hartley 2. > >>>>> > >>>>> The news conference will originate from the NASA Headquarters > >>>>> auditorium at 300 E St. SW in Washington. It will be carried live on > >>>>> NASA Television. > >>>>> > >>>>> Media representatives may attend the conference, ask questions by > >>>>> phone or from participating NASA locations. To RSVP or obtain dial-in > >>>>> information, journalists must send their name, affiliation and > >>>>> telephone number to Steve Cole at [email protected] or call > >>>>> 202-358-0918 by 11 a.m. EST on Nov. 18. > >>>>> > >>>>> The news conference participants are: > >>>>> -- Michael A'Hearn, EPOXI principal investigator, University of > >>>>> Maryland > >>>>> -- Jessica Sunshine, EPOXI deputy principal investigator, University > >>>>> of Maryland > >>>>> -- Tim Larson, EPOXI project manager, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, > >>>>> Pasadena, Calif. > >>>>> -- Pete Schultz, EPOXI scientist, Brown University > >>>>> > >>>>> NASA's EPOXI spacecraft successfully flew past comet Hartley 2 on Nov. > >>>>> 4, providing scientists the most extensive observations of a comet in > >>>>> history. > >>>>> > >>>>> For NASA TV streaming video and downlink information, visit: > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.nasa.gov/ntv > >>>>> > >>>>> For more information about NASA's EPOXI mission visit: > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.nasa.gov/epoxi > >>>>> > >>>>> -end- > >>>>> > >>>>> ______________________________________________ > >>>>> Visit the Archives at > >>>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > >>>>> Meteorite-list mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > >>>>> > >>>> ______________________________________________ > >>>> Visit the Archives at > >>>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > >>>> Meteorite-list mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > >>> ______________________________________________ > >>> Visit the Archives at > >>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > >>> Meteorite-list mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > >>> > >> ______________________________________________ > >> Visit the Archives at > >> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > >> Meteorite-list mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > > ______________________________________________ > Visit the Archives at > http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html > Meteorite-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ______________________________________________ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
