![Geek :geek:](./images/smilies/icon_e_geek.gif)
Cheers Rossim
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
This occurred in 2005! They've been sitting on this for nine years!A spacecraft exploring the Saturn system was zapped by static electricity sent out by one of the ringed wonder's many moons in 2005, a new study suggests. In fact, scientists have found that the Cassini spacecraft was "briefly bathed in a beam of electrons" coming from the moon Hyperion's surface, NASA officials said.
...
"It was rather like Cassini receiving a 200-volt electric shock from Hyperion, even though they were over 2,000 kilometers [1,200 miles] apart at the time," Tom Nordheim, a doctoral candidate at Mullard Space Science Laboratory (MSSL), University College London, said of the new finding in a statement.
That's quite remarkable.Rossim wrote:http://sci.esa.int/cassini-huygens/5477 ... tron-beam/
"CASSINI CAUGHT IN HYPERION'S ELECTRON BEAM"
Some highlights:
The new analysis of the data shows that Cassini was magnetically connected to the surface of Hyperion for a brief period, which enabled it to be bathed in a beam of electrons coming from the moon's surface.The Cassini data show that a similar process can take place on Hyperion. Due to its interaction with solar UV light and charged particles from Saturn's magnetosphere, the moon's surface may acquire a net electric charge. This is precisely what was found by Cassini's instruments.Analysis of the CAPS-ELS data indicates that it remotely detected a strongly negative surface potential (-200 volts) on Hyperion, consistent with the predicted electrostatic charge in regions near the moon's terminator – the day-night boundary.And the beginning of that connect-the-dots moment:"The large difference in potential between the surface and the spacecraft resulted in a flow of electrons being accelerated from Hyperion toward Cassini," said Tom Nordheim. "It was rather like Cassini receiving a 200 volt electric shock from Hyperion, even though they were over 2000 km apart at the time."
"Our observations show that this is also an important effect at outer planet moons and that we need to take this into account when studying how these moons interact with their environment."
But it seems to me that they do...:viscount aero wrote:That they concede to Hyperion being negatively charged alludes to comets even if they probably don't connect those dots yet. I can't wait until they attempt to land on 67P.
http://sci.esa.int/cassini-huygens/5477 ... tron-beam/The first confirmed detection of surface charging on an object in the outer Solar System has wide-ranging implications. This fundamental process is predicted to occur on many different bodies, including asteroids, moons and the surface of comets.
Scientists have previously suggested that surface features observed on the asteroid Eros and several Saturnian moons are due to the motion of charged dust across their surfaces. On small objects with low gravity, dust grains might even be able to overcome the force of gravity and escape into space.
In terms of human exploration of planetary objects without atmospheres, such as the Moon, strong electric charging effects may also prove to be a hazard to astronauts, who might be subjected to strong electrostatic discharges.
Yes. I should have clarified a bit more. They haven't connected the dots with comets insofar as how they probably work. They've already admitted to the Moon's water ice having probably been created by the solar wind, going even as far to explain the process of the creation of hydroxyls (OH-)--exactly as explained in the Thunderbolts documentary about the electric comet. And even with the news about Hyperion (which is actually 7 year-old data) they fail to make the leap to comets. But perhaps in time they will. I think when they try to land the probe onto comet 67P something is going to flip them outStefanR wrote:But it seems to me that they do...:viscount aero wrote:That they concede to Hyperion being negatively charged alludes to comets even if they probably don't connect those dots yet. I can't wait until they attempt to land on 67P.The first confirmed detection of surface charging on an object in the outer Solar System has wide-ranging implications. This fundamental process is predicted to occur on many different bodies, including asteroids, moons and the surface of comets.
I agreeStefanR wrote:
The sad thing is that charged dust being influenced by electric and magnetic fields, is more generaly or perhaps properly called dusty plasma.
And how all of a sudden this is of danger for astronauts is a mystery to me, as with the Apollo missions it seems they were entirely save the dust didn't even had the tendensy to cling to the landers or the astronauts suits, and they were happy enough to go in and out of the landers without endangering the electrical equipment inside. Right?
In that sense, I agree, and as can be seen in the Mercury-thread, with the latest posts by Frantic and Seasmith, it seems that even with water there, they are still stuck on some sort of seeding of water way way into the past. They even make allusions to subsurface ices for old deposits and late impact depositions to try to explain the seemingly recent depositions.viscount aero wrote: Yes. I should have clarified a bit more. They haven't connected the dots with comets insofar as how they probably work. They've already admitted to the Moon's water ice having probably been created by the solar wind, going even as far to explain the process of the creation of hydroxyls (OH-)--exactly as explained in the Thunderbolts documentary about the electric comet. And even with the news about Hyperion (which is actually 7 year-old data) they fail to make the leap to comets. But perhaps in time they will. I think when they try to land the probe onto comet 67P something is going to flip them outSomething is going to happen that will "baffle" them.
LINKIn the lower-latitude craters, the fact that the low-reflectance deposits
display sharp boundaries that extend to the edges of the shadowed and
radar-bright regions (Fig. 4) contrasts with the 3 km offset of such boundaries
observed in Prokofiev and indicates that lateral mixing has not moved
the boundary of low-reflectance material inward. This observation implies
that the low-reflectance deposits formed geologically recently or as part
of an ongoing process. However, if impact gardening of a low-reflectance
deposit tens of centimeters thick exposed or thermally disturbed underlying
water ice, any water ice exposed at the surface would quickly sublimate
(1 m in 106 yr at 130 K; 1 m in 103 yr at 150 K; Vasavada et al.,
1999; Paige et al., 2013). A stable configuration would rapidly be restored,
perhaps resulting in the formation of new lag deposits of low-reflectance
material. Thus, by continually disturbing and reforming the edges of the
low-reflectance deposits, the impact gardening process potentially could
keep the boundaries sharp and well matched to those of the radar-bright
and permanently shadowed regions.
The total amount of ice at Mercury’s poles is substantial, with estimates
of ~1016–1018 g (Moses et al., 1999; Lawrence et al., 2013). The
upper estimate is comparable to the water volume of Lake Ontario (North
America; ~1.64 × 1018 g) and consistent with delivery by external sources
to Mercury and subsequent thermal stability over billions of years (Moses
et al., 1999; Paige et al., 2013). However, in addition to lateral mixing,
other processes have been suggested that would disrupt exposed volatile
deposits on Mercury within geologically short time scales. Models of
vertical mixing by impact gardening (Crider and Killen, 2005) indicate
that ice would be buried at a rate of 4 × 10–9 m/yr; destruction by Lyman
alpha photodissociation may limit the lifetime of exposed ice (Morgan and
Shemansky, 1991); and organic synthesis within ice bombarded by galactic
cosmic rays, such as in Prokofiev, may darken the ice on time scales of tens
of millions of years (Crites et al., 2013). Moreover, although laser reflectance
measurements at 1064 nm have yielded higher reflectance values
for permanently shadowed regions at the lunar poles, indicative of modest
amounts of water frost or a reduction in the effectiveness of space weathering
(Lucey et al., 2014), visible-wavelength imaging of permanently shadowed
craters on the Moon (Haruyama et al., 2008; Speyerer and Robinson,
2013) has not revealed surfaces with anomalously high or low reflectance
similar to those seen in WAC broadband images of Mercury. One explanation
for differences between the Moon and Mercury could be that the
volatile polar deposits on Mercury were recently emplaced. If Mercury’s
currently substantial polar volatile inventory is the product of the most
recent portion of a longer process, then a considerable mass of volatiles
may have been delivered to the inner Solar System throughout its history.
Typical of press releases are the obtuse but nonsensical language used to mask the lack of actual knowledge of what phenomena is occurring. They use the terms "impact gardening" and "space weathering" very vaguely and non-explanatory. That they are hung up on the meme of: "...a considerable mass of volatiles may have been delivered to the inner Solar System throughout its history" is very telling in that they cannot get past thinking that the water, any and all water, had to be "carried to the planets" from somewhere. Why must all of the water be somewhere else--far off in a fantasy land like the Oort Cloud--when it is in giant abundance on several celestial bodies?StefanR wrote:In that sense, I agree, and as can be seen in the Mercury-thread, with the latest posts by Frantic and Seasmith, it seems that even with water there, they are still stuck on some sort of seeding of water way way into the past. They even make allusions to subsurface ices for old deposits and late impact depositions to try to explain the seemingly recent depositions.viscount aero wrote: Yes. I should have clarified a bit more. They haven't connected the dots with comets insofar as how they probably work. They've already admitted to the Moon's water ice having probably been created by the solar wind, going even as far to explain the process of the creation of hydroxyls (OH-)--exactly as explained in the Thunderbolts documentary about the electric comet. And even with the news about Hyperion (which is actually 7 year-old data) they fail to make the leap to comets. But perhaps in time they will. I think when they try to land the probe onto comet 67P something is going to flip them outSomething is going to happen that will "baffle" them.
Let alone the ubiquitous impact gardening.
But actually that whole article is all over the place. Typical.![]()
LINKIn the lower-latitude craters, the fact that the low-reflectance deposits
display sharp boundaries that extend to the edges of the shadowed and
radar-bright regions (Fig. 4) contrasts with the 3 km offset of such boundaries
observed in Prokofiev and indicates that lateral mixing has not moved
the boundary of low-reflectance material inward. This observation implies
that the low-reflectance deposits formed geologically recently or as part
of an ongoing process. However, if impact gardening of a low-reflectance
deposit tens of centimeters thick exposed or thermally disturbed underlying
water ice, any water ice exposed at the surface would quickly sublimate
(1 m in 106 yr at 130 K; 1 m in 103 yr at 150 K; Vasavada et al.,
1999; Paige et al., 2013). A stable configuration would rapidly be restored,
perhaps resulting in the formation of new lag deposits of low-reflectance
material. Thus, by continually disturbing and reforming the edges of the
low-reflectance deposits, the impact gardening process potentially could
keep the boundaries sharp and well matched to those of the radar-bright
and permanently shadowed regions.
One explanation
for differences between the Moon and Mercury could be that the
volatile polar deposits on Mercury were recently emplaced. If Mercury’s
currently substantial polar volatile inventory is the product of the most
recent portion of a longer process, then a considerable mass of volatiles
may have been delivered to the inner Solar System throughout its history.
Now what could that ongoing process actually be...?![]()
As for comet 67P, I'm still waiting to see those vents where that water is spouting from....
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests