The Milky Way as You’ve Never Seen It Before – AMNH SciCafe

  

Category:  Health, Science & Technology

Via:  dave-2693993  •  3 years ago  •  92 comments

The Milky Way as You’ve Never Seen It Before – AMNH SciCafe
It's like turning over in bed and somebody is there. It's like, when did you get there? Like, how did that happen?

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



So, there I was looking for the next in a series of lectures concerning the geology of our Pacific North West and something caught my eye.

Turns out a new satellite was recently launched which provided a download of data last April which has shaken the foundations of astrophysics. Seems we have been playing with tinker toys all these years.

Just two days ago (October 3, 2018) a presentation was given presenting an introduction of the discoveries to the public for the first time.

Fascinating.

P.S. For the graphics aficionados, comprehensive graphics SW downloads are made available to those who are interested.

P.P.S. Buzz, the title of this discussion is the title of the video presentation and here is the youtube url if it may be of any help. Just remove the space after HTTPS://

https:// youtu.be/LOJ1XmbSKhM


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
1  seeder  dave-2693993    3 years ago

We have just opened a new door to a better view of the Universe around us.

What are your thoughts?

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
1.1    replied to  dave-2693993 @1    3 years ago
We have just opened a new door to a better view of the Universe around us. What are your thoughts?

E.A  with Your permission I need to ask, what is the accuracy of Spectro analysis, and what does that have to do with astronomy?

Then again with your consent we can talk in more realistic terms of " new discoveries "

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
1.1.1  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @1.1    3 years ago

In this context I would I would have to defer to the admission of the astrophysicist Jackie Faherty when she mentioned something to the effect that degree of accuracy is still yet to be determined. I have to assume that statement also, applies to the spectro analysis.

As to how it would fit in with astronomy in this instance, my personal take is it applies to the subset of astrophysics, in that Jackie Faherty was able, in one example, to relate the different wavelengths emitted (colors observed) to ages of the stars.

I am neither an astrophysicist or academic astronomer, but sometimes I might sleep at a Holiday Inn Express.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
1.1.2    replied to  dave-2693993 @1.1.1    3 years ago
I might sleep at a Holiday Inn Express.

E.A  Thank YOU, we are here to learn from one another with due patience and diligence?:

I believe that a NASA study set it " at Best 5% Accuracy " And yes it is used to try to state the age and material make up of all we see in space ( The Spectra lines indication the Elemental make up ), did you happen to see the Video I posted on PJ Seed about the New Mars Insights and what they are hopping to get that they could not, so far?

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
1.1.3  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @1.1.2    3 years ago

You are welcome.

I did not see that vid. I will have to go back and take a look.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
1.1.4  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @1.1.2    3 years ago
I believe that a NASA study set it " at Best 5% Accuracy "

Now that they can begin gathering empirical data over time, they can begin fine tuning their algorithms.

We all have to start somewhere.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
1.1.5    replied to  dave-2693993 @1.1.4    3 years ago
Now that they can begin gathering empirical data over time, they can begin fine tuning their algorithms. We all have to start somewhere.

E.A Yes No Doubt, and what held back the " Fine Tunning " was the erroneous Belief  ( Religion ) that " Speed of light is a constant " even tho " Gravity Lensing " and many other data proved it time and time again that it was false, see PHOTONICS now and how much it is changing science, once that  " Creed " was pushed aside

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  @1.1.5    3 years ago
... the erroneous Belief  ( Religion ) that " Speed of light is a constant "

Who claimed that?   The speed of light (c) is simply the maximum speed of a mass-less particle in a vacuum.   Photons cannot exceed 'c' but light does slow down based on interference.

No particle can move from source to target at a speed exceeding the speed of light.  

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
1.1.7    replied to  dave-2693993 @1.1.3    3 years ago
I did not see that vid. I will have to go back and take a look.

E.A Ok it be interesting to hear your thoughts on it.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
1.1.8    replied to  dave-2693993 @1.1.3    3 years ago
I did not see that vid. I will have to go back and take a look.

E.A::

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz4f7zlGETI

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
1.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.6    3 years ago
No particle can move from source to target at a speed exceeding the speed of light. 

Very true. But, how does radiation escape a black hole? We know it does because we can see it. 

The answer? I sent that very question to Stephen Hawking ~15 years ago and I was shocked to actually get a reply, but not an answer. The email contained 2 words.

"Good Question". 

Damnit.. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
1.1.10  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.9    3 years ago

I think since then, the thought is this happens at the event horizon. This seems to be pretty well accepted when listening to them.

How? Don't know if they have any better answer yet.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
1.1.11    replied to  dave-2693993 @1.1.10    3 years ago

deleted

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
1.1.12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @1.1.11    3 years ago
I Could respond with Science Facts and a Pulse, But I am sure it get deleted as " NO Value "

On the contrary.  I'm sure it would be greeted with delight.  I, for one, heartily encourage you to give us the benefit of your knowledge. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
1.1.13  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @1.1.5    3 years ago
Speed of light is a constant " even tho " Gravity Lensing " and many other data proved it time and time again that it was false,

This is why I encourage you to always give us the benefit of your scientific wisdom, EA:

Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed.   General Relativity   (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant.

 
 
 
Dig
Masters Guide
1.1.14  Dig  replied to  @1.1.2    3 years ago
I believe that a NASA study set it " at Best 5% Accuracy " And yes it is used to try to state the age and material make up of all we see in space ( The Spectra lines indication the Elemental make up )

Are you talking about optical spectrometry, the spectral analysis of light from stars to determine their metallicity and thus what generation they are?

Whatever study you read probably said it was accurate to within 5%, and is likely better in many cases.

Do you have a link?

 
 
 
Dig
Masters Guide
1.1.15  Dig  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.13    3 years ago

He's confusing the constant of c with the observation that photons can be slowed as they pass through transparent or semi-transparent matter (like water) because they are being absorbed and re-emitted by atoms over and over again on their way through.

 
 
 
Dig
Masters Guide
1.1.16  Dig  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.9    3 years ago
But, how does radiation escape a black hole? We know it does because we can see it. 

The light we see around black holes was never inside the event horizon. It is emitted from excited atoms in the high energy environment just outside of it. The gravitational energy near a black hole can heat the hell out of nearby gas, causing it to emit high energy photons, but we never actually see the black hole itself.

I sent that very question to Stephen Hawking ~15 years ago and I was shocked to actually get a reply, but not an answer. The email contained 2 words. "Good Question". 

That's pretty cool, but odd.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
1.1.17  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dig @1.1.15    3 years ago
He's confusing the constant of c with the observation that photons can be slowed as they pass through transparent or semi-transparent matter

Actually, he specified "gravitational lensing" as being able to slow light down. 

 
 
 
Dig
Masters Guide
1.1.18  Dig  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.17    3 years ago

I know. That's what I mean. He's confused.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
1.1.19    replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1.1.17    3 years ago
"gravitational lensing" as being able to slow light down. 

E.A  Just a little teaser::

What is the Difference between " Speed " and Velocity "

And for those more " intoit " Bose-Einstein Condensate, does what and why?

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
1.1.20    replied to  Dig @1.1.14    3 years ago
accurate to within 5%

E.A  Aha  you got me!!

 So Zero To Five, and you data shows?

 
 
 
Dig
Masters Guide
1.1.21  Dig  replied to  @1.1.20    3 years ago
So Zero To Five

No. Getting to within 5% means better than 95% accuracy.

and you data shows?

What data? I asked you for a link.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
1.1.22    replied to  Dig @1.1.21    3 years ago
What data?

E.A You mean You failed to read  7 Eagle Averro 

Get back to me, when you read the Huygens Titan Methane Saga! as Posted by yours truly!

 
 
 
Dig
Masters Guide
1.1.24  Dig  replied to  @1.1.22    3 years ago

Why can't you ever answer anything simply and directly? All I'm asking for is a link to the NASA study you cited. If you don't have it, then just say so.

Also, if what you posted @7 is supposed to show that spectroscopy is junk science, then I'm not seeing it.

Spectroscopy (at a basic level, anyway) is simple enough to be demonstrated in high school classrooms. It works. It's real. If you think it isn't, then write a paper showing why and submit it for peer review. You'll be famous if you can show that the entire world is wrong about it.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
1.1.25    replied to  Dig @1.1.24    3 years ago
Also, if what you posted @7 is supposed to show that spectroscopy is junk science, then I'm not seeing it.

E.A  Ok so you are not seeing ::

7  Eagle Averro 

7.1  Eagle Averro 

Nor the  KISS questions, in that case how can we chat  right, By the way what do you know about the " Missing Lunar Soil Isotope " and why was that a problem?

 No need to answer since we are not " seeing " 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
1.1.26  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dig @1.1.18    3 years ago

Right!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
1.1.27  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @1.1.19    3 years ago

OK we're now into that phase where EA starts slapping up a lot of random words or concepts he's seen or run across somewhere in an effort to divert attention away from the colossally false thing he's  posted earlier. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
1.1.28  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  @1.1.22    3 years ago
Get back to me, when you read the Huygens Titan Methane Saga!

The absurdity and hilarity never ceases.  [Deleted]

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
2  seeder  dave-2693993    3 years ago

The vid is now rendering.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    3 years ago

In a famous philosophical treatise titled Appearance And Reality, Bertrand Russell spoke of the difficulties associated with perspective. 

It is evident from what we have found, that there is no colour which pre-eminently appears to be the colour of the table, or even of any one particular part of the table—it appears to be of different colours from different points of view, and there is no reason for regarding some of these as more really its colour than others. And we know that even from a given point of view the colour will seem different by artificial light, or to a colour-blind man, or to a man wearing blue spectacles, while in the dark there will be no colour at all, though to touch and hearing the table will be unchanged. This colour is not something which is inherent in the table, but something depending upon the table and the spectator and the way the light falls on the table. When, in ordinary life, we speak of the colour of the table, we only mean the sort of colour which it will seem to have to a normal spec- tator from an ordinary point of view under usual conditions of light. But the other colours which appear under other conditions have just as good a right to be considered real; and therefore, to avoid favouritism, we are compelled to deny that, in itself, the table has any one particular colour. 
===========================================================================
 The same thing applies to the texture. With the naked eye one can see the grain, but otherwise the table looks smooth and even. If we looked at it through a microscope, we should see roughnesses and hills and valleys, and all sorts of differences that are imperceptible to the naked eye. Which of these is the 'real' table? We are naturally tempted to say that what we see through the microscope is more real, but that in turn would be changed by a still more powerful microscope. If, then, we cannot trust what we see with the naked eye, why should we trust what we see through a microscope? Thus, again, the confidence in our senses with which we began deserts us. 
============================================================================
 The shape of the table is no better. We are all in the habit of judging as to the 'real' shapes of things, and we do this so unreflectingly that we come to think we actually see the real shapes. But, in fact, as we all have to learn if we try to draw, a given thing looks different in shape from every different point of view. If our table is 'really' rectangular, it will look, from almost all points of view, as if it had two acute angles and two obtuse angles. If opposite sides are parallel, they will look as if they converged to a point away from the spectator; if they are of equal length, they will look as if the nearer side were longer.
=============================================================================
All these things are not commonly noticed in looking at a table, be- cause experience has taught us to construct the 'real' shape from the appar- ent shape, and the 'real' shape is what interests us as practical men. But the 'real' shape is not what we see; it is something inferred from what we see. And what we see is constantly changing in shape as we move about the room; so that here again the senses seem not to give us the truth about the table itself, but only about the appearance of the table. 
==========================================================================
 Similar difficulties arise when we consider the sense of touch. It is true that the table always gives us a sensation of hardness, and we feel that it re- sists pressure. But the sensation we obtain depends upon how hard we press the table and also upon what part of the body we press with; thus the various sensations due to various pressures or various parts of the body cannot be supposed to reveal directly any definite property of the table, but at most to be signs of some property which perhaps causes all the sensations, but is not actually apparent in any of them. And the same applies still more obviously to the sounds which can be elicited by rapping the table.  Thus it becomes evident that the real table, if there is one, is not the same as what we immediately experience by sight or touch or hearing. The real table, if there is one, is not immediately known to us at all, but must be an inference from what is immediately known. Hence, two very difficult questions at once arise; namely,
(1) Is there a real table at all? (2) If so, what sort of object can it be? 
===================================================================
pg. 9
Project Gutenberg's The Problems of Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org 
 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
3.1  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 years ago

Good post.

Thank you.

Now we can begin exploring the universe beyond the earth with more senses that what we had just 6 months ago.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  dave-2693993 @3.1    3 years ago
Now we can begin exploring the universe beyond the earth with more senses that what we had just 6 months ago.

More senses mean more perspectives. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
3.1.2  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    3 years ago

This is something I intend to follow.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    3 years ago

I'm not sure that new perspectives are better, in the end they are just perspectives. They are not reality. 

It is interesting to discuss the possibilities though. 

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
4.1    replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 years ago
I'm not sure that new perspectives are better, in the end they are just perspectives. They are not reality.  It is interesting to discuss the possibilities though. 

E.A                                                    BINGO!!

 AT best it is what WAS Millions of Years ago, At Medium at best gueestimation at 5%, is err we  hope we are right but at that percentile, doubtful, see what they got  about EARTH from a Rocket Heading to MARS, when they  Spectra Analysed the EARTH  to calibrate the equipment, and at that measly distance, almost nothing was right, not to mention EROS " Potato Asteroid " and the  prelanding  data and post!

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
4.1.1  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @4.1    3 years ago
At Medium at best gueestimation at 5%, is err we  hope we are right but at that percentile,

As mentioned earlier, now they can begin gathering data to fine tune the algorithms.

Like my first engine algorithms. Version 0.01 hmmmm? needed more dyno and track testing. Add more empirical over years and many on going tests and accuracy gets better.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
4.1.2    replied to  @4.1    3 years ago
AT best it is what WAS Millions of Years ago

E.A If I can add to that ::

 We have NEVER seen what we are Seeing NOW!

And that is because WE have never been HERE before!

So Like the Drake Equation one can not make a Function with a SINGLE entry!

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
4.1.3  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @4.1.2    3 years ago

That is true EA.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
4.1.4    replied to  dave-2693993 @4.1.1    3 years ago
on going tests and accuracy gets better

E.A  Spot ON::

  Tests on REAL thigs, Not on Theoretical.

 Here is an Example that I am sure you will appreciate better then Most::

Modeling and testing with Fractional Size models:

 It is a Very VERY Rough gage, but far far from reality, because we might " Model " the Car/Boat/Airplane, we can not " Scale to Size " the Air Molecules, the water Droplets the Water Tension, see what I mean?

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
4.1.5    replied to  dave-2693993 @4.1.3    3 years ago
That is true EA.

E.A Thank You I try My Best but " Truth is a Hard Master " :-)

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
4.1.6  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @4.1.4    3 years ago
It is a Very VERY Rough gage, but far far from reality, because we might " Model " the Car/Boat/Airplane, we can not " Scale to Size " the Air Molecules, the water Droplets the Water Tension, see what I mean?

Yes I do and forces as well.

Without super computing power we can come up with rules of thumb and then extrapolate based on shape, size, materials and proportion, but that is about it. In these cases, we can not fully predict the distortions present 100% in components that may be of different sizes and proportions when operating at different rpm for reciprocating engines with valve trains.

At least I do not have that kind of computing power or the research resources to do so. However, I do have enough empirical data to develop constants for different situations that when plugged into appropriate situation result in predictable outcomes. That is about the best I can do.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
4.1.7    replied to  dave-2693993 @4.1.6    3 years ago
result in predictable outcomes. That is about the best I can do.

E.A Yes  A few years back I had a discussion about "  Reinforcing existing Structures at the Point of Failure " but what was neglected was the  old adage " Never put new wine in old cusks " or " never place a new Patch on old Clothes " and that wisdpm of that is that the " New has more power then the Old " so it will Burst of Reap.

 SO when that was placed on an " Advanced Computer Model " it showed the old " Pyramid Structure " and that is " Three Points of Failure " what was needed was NOT reinforcement, but a Weakening to allow for " Flexing " and the problems disappeared, you in the Motor industry might have knowledge of that in the Riveting Vs Welding The Reverting allows Flexing, the welding Cracks! simple KISS, when it is Known :-)

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
4.1.8  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @4.1.7    3 years ago
SO when that was placed on an " Advanced Computer Model " it showed the old " Pyramid Structure " and that is " Three Points of Failure "

So then, with regards to fine tuning the algorithms used as the engine behind this computer model is an iterative process of

  • Change "thing(s)" to be measured
  • Test
    • Measure
    • Compare
  • Change the algorithm
  • Repeat

Over time and with repeatable diligence in execution, the algorithms become more accurate.

Then with regard to the algorithms behind the data visualization model power put together by Jackie Faherty, the same fine tuning can happen by gathering the same celestial data periodically then running it through her data model.

  • Celestial body movement over time provides the change to the thing(s) to be measured
  • Test
    • Measure the differences in positions of the celestial objects
    • Compare the predicted positions of Version 0.01 of the model as generated by the algorithms vs the actual observed positions
  • Change the algorithms appropriately (also an iterative develop and dev test effort), check into CM, move to Vault for release to test, perform required integration and regression testing, deploy to live
  • Repeat

Over time the expectation is for more accurate predictions of celestial objects paths and velocities.

At least that is how it works in my little world.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
4.1.9    replied to  dave-2693993 @4.1.8    3 years ago
Over time the expectation is for more accurate predictions of celestial objects paths and velocities. At least that is how it works in my little world.

E.A Yes, so right, have you done the little task of " Looking back at the Science seeing what work, what did not " and what would you recommend as " refinements " 7  Eagle Averro 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
4.2  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 years ago
It is interesting to discuss the possibilities though.

Yes, it is all theory of possibilities can lead to advances in the future.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5  TᵢG    3 years ago

What is so cool about the time in which we live is our ability to gather data that seems well beyond our reach and then enhance the data with interpolation and sophisticated dynamic visualization.

It is not being there but it is like being there.

Great seed!   Thanks Dave.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
5.1  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  TᵢG @5    3 years ago

Thank you  TiG and you are right.

We are at an age where work done over generations of time id coming to fruition in untold numbers of areas.

We think it is a golden age of progress and learning now, yet, if we are able to avoid cataclysm, what we are doing now will seem like childs play.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5    3 years ago
It is not being there but it is like being there.

and then what?  and I'm not being facetious.  You are there, in the middle of the Milky Way galaxy, with a perspective we have never before achieved. That and $2 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts. 

I do admire scientific achievement, but science is not a be all end all for human beings, particularly when you are talking about tens of thousands of light years. 

The scientist in the video is very excited,  as she talks about the fact that now we can visualize through software how stars "pair off". That's nice. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    3 years ago
and then what?

Some people cannot appreciate art either John.    Some marvel at the imagination and skill of the artists while others see different colors placed on various spots of a canvas.

The purpose of science is to learn about our reality.   What we learn cannot always be applied for immediate benefit.   But just because we do not yet know the value of scientific findings is no reason to dismiss them as pointless.

Do you find all of scientific research (prior to application) a waste of time or just astrophysics?

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
5.2.2  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    3 years ago

Following TiGs thoughts, we can consider 2,600 years a fella (Pythagoras) put a stick in the ground and took some measurements of the shadow it cast at different times and determined the earth was round and just about predicted the correct diameter.

Back then, what did that mean to anybody? Certainly wouldn't get you an amphora of olive oil or wine. These days, it is important to know and understand.

Mind you I am not necessarily certain that Pythagoras was for certainty the first to make this determination. There was more to global civilization than the Mediterranean region. Not to mention the known destruction of the Mayan library and the Library of Alexandria. What ancient documents were kept in those facilities?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6  Ender    3 years ago

Really interesting vid.

There is so much out there.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
6.1  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  Ender @6    3 years ago

Yes Ender, there is.

It seems there is always another threshold to pass through.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
7      3 years ago

For those interested in REAL Science Vs Hypotheticals::

1. Titan and what was Hypothesized Prior to 1980, what Lander was designed based on those Hypothesis.

2.Phoenix Lander what was theorized and what was the reality see Photo Album with DATA from " Weather Reports " Nothing like what was thought before the event ( http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/Eagle_Averro/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxMTU5NjE1NA==/?ref= )

3.Eros and Other " Landed " Asteroids, what was thought and what the Spectra Analysis " predicted " and what was the  End result outcome

 Have FUN with Science!

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
7.1    replied to  @7    3 years ago
1. Titan and what was Hypothesized Prior to 1980, what Lander was designed based on those Hypothesis.

E.A  ::  Huygens was designed to land on a Methane Ocean and was so equipped ::

Nature of the Surface
The surface of Titan was hidden from view of the cameras aboard the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft by the layers of small haze particles suspended in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, intriguing suggestions regarding the nature of the surface have been made, including the possibility that the surface consists of a global ocean of liquid methane ethane. Radar observations and direct observations at longer wavelengths strongly hint that the surface is not a global ocean. The range of fascinating surfaces observed by the Voyager mission on satellites of the outer solar system showed a surprising range of phenomena including craters, glacial flows, frost and ice coverings, and active geysers and volcanoes. These preliminary explorations of the small bodies of the outer solar system suggest that the surface of Titan also may well contain new surprises. 

E.A Bold and Blue added 

Equipped with::


DISR Instrument Overview

  • CCD detector fed by:
    • three imagers
    • upward and downward-looking spectrometers
    • solar aureole camera (2 colours, 2 polarisation states)
  • Two linear IR detector arrays
    • upward and downward-looking infrared spectrometers
    • upward and downward-looking violet photometers
  • Surface Science Lamp
  • Sun Sensor
  • Inflight Calibration System
  • Hardware and software data compression systems
  • Flexible data collection software
  • Three frame imagers:
    • Passband from 660 to 1000 nm at 0.06°, 0.12o and 0.20° per pixel
    • Complete coverage in azimuth from 6° to 96° nadir angle in 36-exposure sets
  • Upward and downward-looking IR spectrometer
    • 132 spectral pixels from 850 to 1700 nm
    • Diffuser looking up, image spot at 20° nadir angle looking down
  • Upward and downward-looking visible spectrometer:
    • 200 spectral pixels 480 to 960 nm; diffuser with shadow bar looking up
    • 10 40 × 40 resolution elements from 10° to 50° nadir looking down
  • Upward and downward-looking violet photometer:
    • Diffusers looking up (with shadow bar) and down; 350 to 480 nm passband
  • 4-channel solar aureole camera:
    • 6° wide strip from 25° to 75° zenith angle centred 60° and 180° from azimuth of Sun
    • Passbands at 500 and 935 nm, each in vertical and horizontal linear polarization
  • Lamp for measurement of reflection spectrum of surface below 100 m altitude
  • Sun sensor to measure solar azimuth and zenith angles and brightness at 939 nm.

The Reality tho was?

And that Mishypothetized event meant what as to the Data sent back?


Surprises Continue Two Years After Probe's Landing On Saturn's Moon Titan

Date:
January 17, 2007
Source:
European Space Agency

"At the landing site we also saw rounded ice pebbles," says Jonathan Lunine, University of Arizona. The Surface Science Package (SSP) provided the final piece in this particular puzzle. The impact it detected when Huygens touched down indicated that the spacecraft had come to rest in compacted gravel. "Put it all together and it is clear that Huygens landed in an outflow wash," says Lunine.

The Gas Chromatograph and Mass Spectrometer (GCMS) instrument confirmed the nature of the liquid that shapes the surface of Titan. It detected methane evaporating from the Huygens landing site. "Methane on Titan plays the role that water plays on Earth," concludes Lunine. But there are still mysteries. It is not yet clear whether the methane falls mostly as a steady drizzle or as an occasional deluge.

The GCMS also detected two isotopes of argon. Both have important stories to tell. The Ar40 indicates that the interior of Titan is still active. This is unusual in a moon and indicates that perhaps an insulating layer of water ice and methane is buried in the moon itself, close to the surface, trapping the heat inside it. Occasionally, this heat causes the so-called cryo-volcanoes to erupt. Icy 'lava' flows from these cryo-volcanoes have been seen from the orbiting Cassini spacecraft. Because Ar40 is so heavy, it is mostly concentrated towards the base of the atmosphere, so having Huygens on the surface was essential for its detection.

Daniel Gautier, Observatoire de Paris, France, thinks that the other isotope, Ar36, is telling scientists that Titan formed after Saturn, at a time when the primeval gas cloud that became the Solar System had cooled to about 40 ºK (-233 ºC).

The atmosphere of Titan held surprises too. "Huygens made a fantastic and unexpected discovery about the wind," says Gautier. At an altitude of around 60 kilometres, the wind speed dropped, essentially to zero. Explaining this behaviour presents a challenge for theoreticians who are developing computer models of the moon’s atmospheric circulation.

The Huygens Atmosphere Structure Instrument (HASI) provided the temperature of the atmosphere from 1600 kilometres altitude down to the surface. "This has helped put all the other data into context," says Coustenis. Huygens measured the composition profile of the atmosphere to be a mixture of nitrogen, methane and ethane. The methane and ethane provide humidity, as water does in Earth’s atmosphere. At the surface of Titan, Huygens measured the temperature to be 94 ºK (-179 ºC) with a humidity of 45 percent.

Even though the Huygens data set is now two years old, the discoveries have not yet stopped. "There are lots of surprises still to come from this data," says Francesca Ferri, Università degli Studi di Padova. In addition, Huygens gives planetary scientists a wealth of 'ground-truth' to complement and help interpret the observations still coming from Cassini. At the beginning of 2007, Cassini showed that liquid methane is present on Titan in lakes. "


E.A So Spectra Analysis did what?






 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
7.1.1    replied to  @7.1    3 years ago
Huygens was designed to land on a Methane Ocean and was so equipped

E.A ::

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
7.1.2    replied to  @7.1.1    3 years ago

E.A: Notice what 1 is " Global ?  Ocean "

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
7.1.3    replied to  @7.1.2    3 years ago
" Global ?  Ocean "

E.A East Adiri Archipelago. TITAN

Fitting Name but  guess what?

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
7.1.4    replied to  @7.1    3 years ago
E.A So Spectra Analysis did what?

E.A   Well that speaks Loud and Clear, none seem to comprehend basic science, but so many are willing to rave about " what is not known " as if it is Fact!

 
 
 
Dig
Masters Guide
7.1.5  Dig  replied to  @7.1.2    3 years ago
Notice what 1 is " Global ?  Ocean "

What I noticed is that you ignored the word 'subsurface' for some reason. Why is that? So you could pretend that someone made a huge mistake because Huygens didn't splash down in liquid?

Here's something else you seem to have ignored, in what you posted before that:

The surface of Titan was hidden from view of the cameras aboard the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft by the layers of small haze particles suspended in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, intriguing suggestions regarding the nature of the surface have been made, including the possibility that the surface consists of a global ocean of liquid methane ethane. Radar observations and direct observations at longer wavelengths strongly hint that the surface is not a global ocean.

You boldfaced the part about a global surface ocean of methane and ethane, but you conveniently skipped the word 'possibility' immediately preceding it, as well as the clarification following it that observational data suggested the surface was NOT a global ocean.

So Spectra Analysis did what?

Apparently, from the very ESA article snippet you posted, their GCMS instrument provided information about the molecular makeup of the surface of Titan, which is exactly what it was supposed to do.

none seem to comprehend basic science

Someone does seem to have a comprehension problem here. Can you figure out who it is?

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
7.2    replied to  @7    3 years ago
Science Vs Hypotheticals::

E.A  At Daves request Via::"  If you could do this; please draw conclusions to your posts in and under #7 so folks can have a direct understanding of your interpretation of the outcomes of the information presented in those posts."  10.1.2  seeder  dave-2693993 

 As an Example:: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19810064429

Science for many  many decades thought that  N-15/N-14 was non existent on the Moon, because of Long held " Science expectation " so soil testing that did not take that into consideration therefore were at best " False ", Pleaser read the Titan Huygens METHANE in its completion to better understand how a " Single UNKNOWN Isotope ( Impurity ) Can throw the whole Spectra analysis a " Curved Ball "

All Questions will be " Fielded " !!

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
8      3 years ago

If this may be allowed, a little about the Huge dangers of Hydrazine Rocket Fuel & Nitrogen Tetroxide Oxidizer, and My Amazement that it is still allowed to  be used, for more about alternatives see My Album about Electro magnetic Linear accelerators for Space ASSIST launches (Maglev)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDRKeM9kKxs

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
9      3 years ago

Am I going too Far/Fast?

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
9.1  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @9    3 years ago

EA, I haven't had a chance to review these posts in detail to determine a relationship to Jackie Faherty presentation.

Please hold up until I get a chance later tonight.

Thank you.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
9.1.1    replied to  dave-2693993 @9.1    3 years ago
Please hold up until I get a chance later tonight. Thank you.

E.A Will do, and Thank YOU:

 Key Points is Spectra Analysis

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
9.1.2  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @9.1.1    3 years ago

Bear with me EA

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
9.2  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @9    3 years ago

Apologies for the delay EA.

The part about the chemical propellants, though very interesting, really doesn't play into Jackie Fahertys presentation. I don't want it deleted, but let's not add to that conversation.

The remainder, concerning the Spectra analysis has a tie in, however, the questions posed and examples given, probably won't help the average reader make the correlation to what Jackie Faherty is showing to the open public for the first time.

If you don't mind me giving you a suggestion, I would say the average reader will lose interest at the question without you drawing explicit conclusions and then explaining how those conclusion pertain to the presentation and how at some point result in modifications to the algorithms currently in use.

Does that make sense?

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
9.2.1    replied to  dave-2693993 @9.2    3 years ago
however, the questions posed and examples given, probably won't help the average reader make

E.A I knew there would be  pressure to not have a Science chat, that is obvious with the over Two Dozen " Blocks " to it, but ::

"   1.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  dave-2693993 E.A  with Your permission I need to ask "

The only time a topic is worthy of discussion is what the  " Average Reader " comprehends it? do please tell how they get to that Level, with no discussion on what they do not yet know?

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
9.2.2    replied to  dave-2693993 @9.2    3 years ago
you a suggestion, I would say the average reader will lose interest at the question without you drawing explicit conclusions and then explaining how those conclusion pertain to the presentation

E.A Dave is that not what a " Discussion " is supposed to be?

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
9.2.3  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @9.2.1    3 years ago
E.A I knew there would be  pressure to not have a Science chat, that is obvious with the over Two Dozen " Blocks " to it, but ::

What two dozen blocks?

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
9.2.4  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @9.2.1    3 years ago
The only time a topic is worthy of discussion is what the  " Average Reader " comprehends it? do please tell how they get to that Level, with no discussion on what they do not yet know?

By doing exactly what I stated here from my post last night:

I would say the average reader will lose interest at the question without you drawing explicit conclusions and then explaining how those conclusion pertain to the presentation

Otherwise you are talking to people with no point of reference. They do not know what to think, without any reference and soon, they won't care what to think.

Feel free to create your own discussion and handle it as you please.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
9.2.5  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @9.2.2    3 years ago
E.A Dave is that not what a " Discussion " is supposed to be?

This is also, addressed in 9.2.3.

Once people have a point(s) of reference, then their mind is engaged and are now ready to question or contribute.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  dave-2693993 @9.2.4    3 years ago
They do not know what to think, without any reference and soon, they won't care what to think.

For emphasis.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
9.2.7    replied to  dave-2693993 @9.2.3    3 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
9.2.8    replied to  dave-2693993 @9.2.4    3 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
9.2.9    replied to  dave-2693993 @9.2.5    3 years ago
This is also, addressed in 9.2.3. Once people have a point(s) of reference, then their mind is engaged and are now ready to question or contribute.

E.A then Please  Make any comments on what I posted about the Hudgens Missions, and let Begin

 You Seed Your Home I will Follow, Many Thanks

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
9.2.10    replied to  dave-2693993 @9.2.3    3 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
10      3 years ago

     9.2  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  Eagle Averro @9    Does that make sense?

E.A How can it?

 If " Citizen X " does  not know it cannot be discussed, how does Citizen X get to know what is not discussed?

                                              

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
10.1  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @10    3 years ago
 If " Citizen X " does  not know it cannot be discussed, how does Citizen X get to know what is not discussed?

The only area I mentioned no further posts on was the post about propellants. That post does not relate to Jackie Fahertys' presentation. The reason I posted this article was to discuss the topic of her presentation.

The other posts need conclusions so folks can see the connection to the presentation.

You have some interesting things to discuss. Create a discussion for General Science Discussions.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
10.1.1    replied to  dave-2693993 @10.1    3 years ago
You have some interesting things to discuss. Create a discussion for General Science Discussions.

E.A I wish to have a Congenial Discussion on Your seed on Your Terms, please continue!

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
10.1.2  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @10.1.1    3 years ago

Good enough then.

If you could do this; please draw conclusions to your posts in and under #7 so folks can have a direct understanding of your interpretation of the outcomes of the information presented in those posts.

Then there will be no ambiguity regarding your perspective. This may seem redundant to you, but it won't be for others.

Eg. I have a year and a half long conversation going on with a very intelligent, highly educated person in Western Australia (WA). This fellas academic credentials blow mine out of the water. By a lot. In the broad spectrum the academic comparison isn't close. He has multiple advanced degrees in Mechanical Engineering, Chemistry and Physics.

There is a topic of engine design that is really at cult status. Up front it seems like an easy topic, but for many, it is a struggle, for many who are adamant in supporting the wrong understanding and implications.

This fella from WA is one.

Connecting rod length vs crankshaft stroke ratio (Rod/stroke ration) is a sorely beaten dead horse.

To complicate matters, he also has the idea the wrong understanding of differing rod/stroke ratios in combination with leaner than ordinary air/fuel (stoichiometric) ratios results in better engine performance.

When put to the test in real world dyno testing and race track competition, those approaches always come in second place.

Do you see, how when one is left to their own interpretations that it is possible to have as mach as a 180* difference in estimated projected outcomes?

Then once they see and understand your conclusions from  the information presented, then they have points of reference regarding their interpretation vs theirs.

At that point the doors to discussions open up.

At least, that is how it works for me.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
10.1.3    replied to  dave-2693993 @10.1.2    3 years ago

E.A Will do as an Addition to #7

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
10.1.4    replied to  dave-2693993 @10.1.2    3 years ago
Do you see, how when one is left to their own interpretations that it is possible to have as mach as a 180* difference in estimated projected outcomes?

E.A Yes Indeed Hence why I have the Photobucket and use it as a "blackboard " for Chats  because  some times a " picture says a thousand words "

Just to show that I understand and fully appreciate:

 Water ( Atomized ) injection to Combustion chamber Vs Contaminated Fuel with water.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
13      3 years ago

11 went " missing " same as Bigbang Vs Creation, wonder how that Miracle occurs!!!!

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Participates
13.1  seeder  dave-2693993  replied to  @13    3 years ago

Happens all the time.

I don't have an answer.

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
13.1.1    replied to  dave-2693993 @13.1    3 years ago

deleted

Meta [comments (comments about the site] or [its members) are always off-topic.]

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
13.1.2    replied to  @13.1.1    3 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
14      3 years ago

It that with your Requirements Dave?

 7.2  Eagle Averro  replied to  Eagle Averro @7 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online





28 visitors