APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

Kodos & Kang Craters

by neufer » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:22 pm

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=1056 wrote:

<<This high-incidence angle image highlights a pair of newly named craters, Kobro and Komeda. Both craters exhibit prominent central peaks, and are located near Mercury's South Pole. Kobro crater, named for the Polish sculptor Katarzyna Kobro (1898-1951) is located near the center of the image, while Komeda, named for the Polish composer and musician Krysztof Komeda (1931-1969) is located just to the southeast. The craters are of approximately the same size, and appear to share a rim.

This image was acquired as part of MDIS's high-incidence-angle base map. The high-incidence-angle base map is a major mapping activity in MESSENGER's extended mission and complements the surface morphology base map of MESSENGER's primary mission that was acquired under generally more moderate incidence angles. High incidence angles, achieved when the Sun is near the horizon, result in long shadows that accentuate the small-scale topography of geologic features. The high-incidence-angle base map is being acquired with an average resolution of 200 meters/pixel.>>

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by Anthony Barreiro » Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:06 pm

neufer wrote:
geckzilla wrote:
Art, despite all of your posting, I still have no idea who you are!
I'm a retired NOAA physicist & MIT grad with 4 grandchildren (2 nearby), 3 children (2 nearby) & a wife (1 nearby) .

I have a home in Maryland but mostly reside at my 95 year old mother's house in Alexandria,Va. (about three blocks from where I grew up and walked to elementary school).

I have 8,500 posts at the Starship Asterisk*
but 27,000 posts at humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
(so I gotta bita catchin' up to do).
You are a true Renaissance man! :ssmile:

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by Chris Peterson » Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:12 am

neufer wrote:Arecibo's big aperture was important for its signal to noise not for its resolving power.
For imaging radars, resolution is determined significantly by the S/N.
Radar resolution comes totally from a combination of temporal & frequency resolution of the returning radar pulse.
The precision of each being determined by S/N.
With enough power and observation time a 10 meter radar dish could have done the same.
Only in theory. In practice, radar imaging of other planets at high resolution is only possible with very large aperture radio telescopes.

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by neufer » Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:51 am

geckzilla wrote:
So Arthur Neuendorffer is your real name?
A.C.Ne. : that's me.

My dad (Joseph Alfred Neuendorffer) once went to court to get his name legally changed.

He didn't like the name "Joe" since it was too common.

(The judge rejected his petition.)

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by geckzilla » Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:11 am

neufer wrote:
geckzilla wrote:
Art, despite all of your posting, I still have no idea who you are!
I'm a retired NOAA physicist & MIT grad with 4 grandchildren (2 nearby), 3 children (2 nearby) & a wife (1 nearby) .

I have a home in Maryland but mostly reside at my 95 year old mother's house in Alexandria,Va. (about three blocks from where I grew up and walked to elementary school).

I have 8,500 posts at the Starship Asterisk*
but 27,000 posts at humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
(so I gotta bita catchin' up to do).
So Arthur Neuendorffer is your real name?

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by neufer » Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:23 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
flash wrote:
The resolution to be able to do this (and all the other things we do) is astounding... Where was the radar?
Arecibo. Big aperture, high resolution.
Arecibo's big aperture was important for its signal to noise not for its resolving power.

Radar resolution comes totally from a combination of temporal & frequency resolution of the returning radar pulse.

With enough power and observation time a 10 meter radar dish could have done the same.

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by owlice » Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:44 am

Ann wrote: Art, not to get you started, but I can't help wondering what you said about the Bard or the Earl in those 27,000 posts.

Ann
Ann, he provided a link; you could go read his posts there, you know.

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by Ann » Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:23 am

neufer wrote:
geckzilla wrote:
Art, despite all of your posting, I still have no idea who you are!
I'm a retired NOAA physicist & MIT grad with 4 grandchildren (2 nearby), 3 children (2 nearby) & a wife (1 nearby) .

I have a home in Maryland but mostly reside at my 95 year old mother's house in Alexandria,Va. (about three blocks from where I grew up and walked to elementary school).

I have 8,500 posts at the Starship Asterisk*
but 27,000 posts at humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
(so I gotta bita catchin' up to do).
Art, not to get you started, but I can't help wondering what you said about the Bard or the Earl in those 27,000 posts.

Okay, forget I brought it up!

Ann

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by neufer » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:22 pm

geckzilla wrote:
Art, despite all of your posting, I still have no idea who you are!
I'm a retired NOAA physicist & MIT grad with 4 grandchildren (2 nearby), 3 children (2 nearby) & a wife (1 nearby) .

I have a home in Maryland but mostly reside at my 95 year old mother's house in Alexandria,Va. (about three blocks from where I grew up and walked to elementary school).

I have 8,500 posts at the Starship Asterisk*
but 27,000 posts at humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
(so I gotta bita catchin' up to do).

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by Chris Peterson » Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:00 pm

flash wrote:I wonder how an Earth-based radar could see into the craters on Mercury that the sun's rays cannot reach. Are the orbital planes of Earth and Mercury inclined to each other sufficiently that we can periodically look down onto the poles of Mercury?
Yes- the difference in inclination between Mercury's and Earth's orbital planes is about 7°.
The resolution to be able to do this (and all the other things we do) is astounding... Where was the radar?
Arecibo. Big aperture, high resolution.

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by flash » Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:13 pm

"The polar ice deposits imaged by Earth-based radar are in yellow."

When I first saw the image I had assumed that the radar that discovered the ice in craters at the north pole of Mercury was "Messenger-based", not "Earth-based". I wonder how an Earth-based radar could see into the craters on Mercury that the sun's rays cannot reach. Are the orbital planes of Earth and Mercury inclined to each other sufficiently that we can periodically look down onto the poles of Mercury? The resolution to be able to do this (and all the other things we do) is astounding.

Of course, even "Messenger-based" radar is in a sense "Earth-based" since that's where Messenger originated, but I think that's not how it was meant. Where was the radar?

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by geckzilla » Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:36 am

Art, despite all of your posting, I still have no idea who you are! And don't you dare give me some quote box containing information about that MAD magazine mascot.

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by owlice » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:48 am

She said "one of the few." Neufer, you are definitely one of them!

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by neufer » Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:40 am

geckzilla wrote:
Chris is one of the few qualified to answer astronomy questions with more than a link to a Wikipedia article.
You have cut me to the quick :!:

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by geckzilla » Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:34 pm

It's worth noting that the forum is composed of many people from different backgrounds and that almost none of us here are astronomers. Chris is one of the few qualified to answer astronomy questions with more than a link to a Wikipedia article.

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by 1yioi87 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:15 pm

I thought I responded to Chris but don't see it posted here. I wanted to thank him for being kind to an non astronomer and for taking the time to answer my questions. I appreciate his knowledge and his reply.

While I am at it a note of thanks for every one who took time to respond.

Thanks,
Cliff

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by 1yioi87 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:09 pm

Chris,

Thank you for your response. It was complete and did not talk down to a non astronomer. I appreciate your knowledge and time.

Merry Christmas

Cliff
cwb@satx.rr.com

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by neufer » Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:40 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
1yioi87 wrote:
Not being an Astronomer I find it hard to believe "that enough of those comets (or ice-rich asteroids) crashed onto the Earth, at just the right time,to deliver all the water we have today."
The idea that Earth's oceans came from comets is not highly regarded these days. That's largely because it appears that cometary ice has quite different isotope ratios than we find in water on the Earth. More popular now are models where much of the water was present from the formation of the Earth, with the possibility that more was delivered during early collisions with protoplanets. Nevertheless, the amount of water on Earth is quite small compared with the volume available in comets (especially much earlier in the evolution of the Solar System), so there's nothing inherently implausible about the theory on those grounds.
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=29083&p=179701#p179701 wrote:
Solar System Ice: Source of Earth’s Water
Carnegie Institution for Science | 2012 July 12
<<Scientists have long believed that comets and, or a type of very primitive meteorite called carbonaceous chondrites were the sources of early Earth's volatile elements—which include hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon—and possibly organic material, too. Understanding where these volatiles came from is crucial for determining the origins of both water and life on the planet. New research led by Carnegie's Conel Alexander focuses on frozen water that was distributed throughout much of the early Solar System, but probably not in the materials that aggregated to initially form Earth.

The evidence for this ice is now preserved in objects like comets and water-bearing carbonaceous chondrites. The team’s findings contradict prevailing theories about the relationship between these two types of bodies and suggest that meteorites, and their parent asteroids, are the most-likely sources of the Earth's water. Their work is published July 12 by Science Express.

Looking at the ratio of hydrogen to its heavy isotope deuterium in frozen water, scientists can get an idea of the relative distance from the Sun at which objects containing the water were formed. Objects that formed farther out should generally have higher deuterium content in their ice than objects that formed closer to the Sun, and objects that formed in the same regions should have similar hydrogen isotopic compositions. Therefore, by comparing the deuterium content of water in carbonaceous chondrites to the deuterium content of comets, it is possible to tell if they formed in similar reaches of the Solar System.

It has been suggested that both comets and carbonaceous chondrites formed beyond the orbit of Jupiter, perhaps even at the edges of our Solar System, and then moved inward, eventually bringing their bounty of volatiles and organic material to Earth. If this were true, then the ice found in comets and the remnants of ice preserved in carbonaceous chondrites in the form of hydrated silicates, such as clays, would have similar isotopic compositions.

[Alexander’s team] analyzed samples from 85 carbonaceous chondrites, and were able to show that carbonaceous chondrites likely did not form in the same regions of the Solar System as comets because they have much lower deuterium content. The team suggests that carbonaceous chondrites formed instead in the asteroid belt that exists between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. What's more, they propose that most of the volatile elements on Earth arrived from a variety of chondrites, not from comets.>>

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by Chris Peterson » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:43 pm

1yioi87 wrote:Not being an Astronomer I find it hard to believe "that enough of those comets (or ice-rich asteroids) crashed onto the Earth, at just the right time,to deliver all the water we have today."
The idea that Earth's oceans came from comets is not highly regarded these days. That's largely because it appears that cometary ice has quite different isotope ratios than we find in water on the Earth. More popular now are models where much of the water was present from the formation of the Earth, with the possibility that more was delivered during early collisions with protoplanets. Nevertheless, the amount of water on Earth is quite small compared with the volume available in comets (especially much earlier in the evolution of the Solar System), so there's nothing inherently implausible about the theory on those grounds.
What was the temp of Earth during this period of a "huge numbers" of comets, and what would you consider a HUGE NUMBER? Is it just a coincidence that the temp was right, and the number of comets was right, at the same time so that the water didn't all boil off, as it apparently has on Mercury and other planets.
The temperature on Earth was probably about 200°C, but that was below the boiling point of water given the dense CO2 atmosphere that was probably present.
Also the Astronomers believe that the comets also rained down on Mercury and just happen to hit in the right spot to make an ice skating rink in the polar region.
Not at all. The shadowed polar region is simply the only place where water can survive. With high temperatures and no atmosphere, water impacting anywhere else returns to space.
Why isn't there still an occasional comet full of water coming down on earth or the moon or Mercury?
There is. Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter less than 20 years ago. We see comets hit the Sun regularly. The likelihood of a comet impact depends in part on the size of the target, which is why it makes sense that we have recently observed them in the cases of Jupiter and the Sun. Other impacts might well go unobserved, being very transient phenomena. On Earth, it is widely speculated that the Tunguska event of 1908 was produced by a small comet or comet fragment. Of course, the density of comets in the inner system is orders of magnitude lower today than it was during the early periods of bombardments in the first few hundred million years of our Solar System.
"Comets, however, formed beyond the snowline, " How do comets form anyway and how long does it take? Do they just wander around out side the snowline like a big snowball rolling down hill and suck up all the H2O that is floating around out there somewhere?
The mechanism by which comets form is not well established. Stellar system formation models suggest that combinations of density and temperature gradients result in regions of the protostellar disc that are suitable for the condensation of icy bodies.
Then when they get big enough to make the trip worthwhile they swoop down on a piece of rock that is just the right temp and in just the right location and deposit their load of water. What are the odds of that.
The odds for any one comet are millions to one. But there are trillions of comets, and they had hundreds of millions of years. So actually delivering the small amount of surface water present on the Earth isn't a statistical reach at all.
What causes them to depart from the birthing place when they are full grown and proceed to a intercept with Earth? If the collisions were just random then there must have been 10 to the 10 numbers of comets that missed the Earth at the same time, where did all of them end up?
Comets are perturbed out of their orbits by interactions with other Solar System bodies, or even interactions with nearby stars. Some are ejected from the Solar System completely, but most end up in the Sun.
As I said I am not an astronomer I am just interested. Seems like when the astronomers can't figure out why things are the way they are they make what they consider to be a probable story and they all agree to it.
Actually, for much of this, the theories have been narrowed down to just one or two that most astronomers consider probable. It isn't the job of scientists to create stories that all can agree upon, but to create theories that can be tested. It is exactly that way of thinking that has led to the loss of popularity in recent years of the theory that comets delivered the oceans- because tests suggest otherwise.

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by neufer » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:12 pm

1yioi87 wrote:
Not being an Astronomer I find it hard to believe "that enough of those comets (or ice-rich asteroids) crashed onto the Earth, at just the right time,to deliver all the water we have today."
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120524.html

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by bystander » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:12 pm

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by geckzilla » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:10 pm

Cliff, astronomy is just like any other science. There's a lot of evidence backing up models and theories. The history of the Universe and the Earth itself is always being refined and there are some things we may never know but one thing that there is certainly no evidence for is a "greater force" as you chose to call it. You can discuss evidence here all you want but if you intend to bait the discussion into debating philosophy beyond evidence, this isn't the place for it.

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by 1yioi87 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:56 pm

Not being an Astronomer I find it hard to believe "that enough of those comets (or ice-rich asteroids) crashed onto the Earth, at just the right time,to deliver all the water we have today."

What was the temp of Earth during this period of a "huge numbers" of comets, and what would you consider a HUGE NUMBER? Is it just a coincidence that the temp was right, and the number of comets was right, at the same time so that the water didn't all boil off, as it apparently has on Mercury and other planets.

Also the Astronomers believe that the comets also rained down on Mercury and just happen to hit in the right spot to make an ice skating rink in the polar region. Are there HUGE NUMBERS of other places on Mercury that are identified as comet impact sites, enough so that if the temp was right, Mercury would have as much water as Earth has now. How many would that be.

Why isn't there still an occasional comet full of water coming down on earth or the moon or Mercury? When was the last one? Where is the "snowline" today?

"Comets, however, formed beyond the snowline, " How do comets form anyway and how long does it take? Do they just wander around out side the snowline like a big snowball rolling down hill and suck up all the H2O that is floating around out there somewhere? Then when they get big enough to make the trip worthwhile they swoop down on a piece of rock that is just the right temp and in just the right location and deposit their load of water. What are the odds of that. What causes them to depart from the birthing place when they are full grown and proceed to a intercept with Earth? If the collisions were just random then there must have been 10 to the 10 numbers of comets that missed the Earth at the same time, where did all of them end up?

As I said I am not an astronomer I am just interested. Seems like when the astronomers can't figure out why things are the way they are they make what they consider to be a probable story and they all agree to it. I don't know if or why Earth was created but there are some folks that believe in a greater force than that delivered by a comet impact. I am just saying --- it is hard for me to decide who is right. Am I wrong?

Thanks,
Cliff

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by Ann » Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:25 am

BDanielMayfield wrote:
1yioi87 wrote:When ever there is a discussion about the location of water, be that the earth, moon, or Mercury, it is usually said that the water came from comets. How did all that water come to be the main part of all the comets? Where was the water created in the first place?
The hydrogen in H2O was created when protons were formed in the big bang. The oxygen was formed in the cores of stars by the fusion of carbon and helium. After being blown into space in supernova explosions oxygen often combines with H2 (the most abundant gas in space) to form H2O. As this water cools it often freezes out on dust particles in space. These particles can coalesce into bodies that will become comets if they are ever heated by a star.

I hope that helped.

Bruce
Like Bruce said, the hydrogen in H2O was created in the Big Bang, and the oxygen was formed in the cores of (massive) stars, and the oxygen was blown into space in titanic supernova explosions. Hydrogen and oxygen then combined (and keeps combining) to form H2O.

An interesting question, however, is why astronomers keep talking about water being delivered to the Earth by comets. Why should we assume that comets were born with large supplies of water, while the Earth was born dry?

The answer to that is the so-called the "snowline" in the early solar system. Inside that snowline, water ice generally melted and sublimated into gas. Therefore, the only solid "raw material" available to for planet construction inside the snowline was rock, mixed with some iron and nickel. The water there was gaseous and was generally not incorporated into the bodies that formed there, such as the proto-Earth.

Comets, however, formed beyond the snowline, so that all the H2O out there was solid. Water ice was just another solid that went into the formation of comets. And since there was fairly abundant water in the primordial disk that gave rise to the solar system, there was plenty of ice to incorporate into all sorts of solid bodies outside the snowline. This, by the way, is the reason why there is so much water ice in so many of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. And "ice giants" Uranus and Neptune, as you can hear from their description "ice giants", hold enormous quantities of "inner ice".

But the Earth was born dry, because no ice was available as "building material". Yes, but after a while the inner solar system was bombarded by huge numbers of water ice-rich comets. Astronomers believe that enough of those comets (or ice-rich asteroids) crashed onto the Earth to deliver the water we have today.

And of course, most of the water ice that was delivered to the Earth was turned into that rare and fantastic commodity, liquid surface water.

Ann

Re: APOD: Northern Mercury (2012 Dec 01)

by BDanielMayfield » Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:14 am

1yioi87 wrote:When ever there is a discussion about the location of water, be that the earth, moon, or Mercury, it is usually said that the water came from comets. How did all that water come to be the main part of all the comets? Where was the water created in the first place?
The hydrogen in H2O was created when protons were formed in the big bang. The oxygen was formed in the cores of stars by the fusion of carbon and helium. After being blown into space in supernova explosions oxygen often combines with H2 (the most abundant gas in space) to form H2O. As this water cools it often freezes out on dust particles in space. These particles can coalesce into bodies that will become comets if they are ever heated by a star.

I hope that helped.

Bruce

Top