From Science@ NASA
NASA has just issued a travel advisory for spacecraft: Watch out for Comet Hartley 2, it is experiencing a significant winter snowstorm.
Deep Impact photographed the unexpected tempest when it flew past the comet’s nucleus on Nov. 4th at a distance of only 700 km (435 miles). At first, researchers only noticed the comet’s hyperactive jets. The icy nucleus is studded with them, flamboyantly spewing carbon dioxide from dozens of sites. A closer look revealed an even greater marvel, however. The space around the comet’s core is glistening with chunks of ice and snow, some of them possibly as large as a basketball.
“We’ve never seen anything like this before,” says University of Maryland professor Mike A’Hearn, principal investigator of Deep Impact’s EPOXI mission. “It really took us by surprise.”
Before the flyby of Hartley 2, international spacecraft visited four other comet cores—Halley, Borrelly, Wild 2, and Tempel 1. None was surrounded by “comet snow.” Tempel 1 is particularly telling because Deep Impact itself performed the flyby. The very same high resolution, high dynamic range cameras that recorded snow-chunks swirling around Hartley 2 did not detect anything similar around Tempel 1.
“This is a genuinely new phenomenon,” says science team member Jessica Sunshine of the University of Maryland. “Comet Hartley 2 is not like the other comets we’ve visited.”
The ‘snowstorm’ occupies a roughly-spherical volume centered on Hartley 2’s spinning nucleus. The dumbbell-shaped nucleus, measuring only 2 km from end to end, is tiny compared to the surrounding swarm. “The ice cloud is a few tens of kilometers wide–and possibly much larger than that,” says A’Hearn. “We still don’t know for sure how big it is.”
Data collected by Deep Impact’s onboard infrared spectrometer show without a doubt that the particles are made of frozen H2O, i.e., ice. Chunks consist of micron-sized ice grains loosely stuck together in clumps a few centimeters to a few tens of centimeters wide.
“If you held one in your hand you could easily crush it,” says Sunshine. “These comet snowballs are very fragile, similar in density and fluffiness to high-mountain snow on Earth.”
Even a fluffy snowball can cause problems, however, if it hits you at 12 km/s (27,000 mph). That’s how fast the Deep Impact probe was screaming past the comet’s nucleus. An impact with one of Hartley 2’s icy chunks could have damaged the spacecraft and sent it tumbling, unable to point antennas toward Earth to transmit data or ask for help. Mission controllers might never have known what went wrong.
“Fortunately, we were out of harm’s way,” notes A’Hearn. “The snow cloud does not appear to extend out to our encounter distance of 700 km. Sunlight sublimates the icy chunks before they can get that far away from the nucleus.”
The source of the comet-snow may be the very same garish jets that first caught everyone’s eye.
The process begins with dry ice in the comet’s crust. Dry ice is solid CO2, one of Hartley 2’s more abundant substances. When heat from the sun reaches a pocket of dry ice—poof!—it instantly transforms from solid to vapor, forming a jet wherever local topography happens to collimate the outrushing gas. Apparently, these CO2 jets are carrying chunks of snowy water ice along for the ride.
Because the snow is driven by jets, “it’s snowing up, not down,” notes science team member Peter Schultz of Brown University.
Ironically, flying by Hartley 2 might be more dangerous than actually landing on it. The icy chunks are moving away from the comet’s surface at only a few m/s (5 to 10 mph). A probe that matched velocity with the comet’s nucleus in preparation for landing wouldn’t find the drifting snowballs very dangerous at all–but a high-speed flyby is another matter. This is something planners of future missions to active comets like Hartley 2 will surely take into account.
Comet snowstorms could be just the first of many discoveries to come. A’Hearn and Sunshine say the research team is only beginning to analyze gigabytes of data beamed back from the encounter, and new results could be only weeks or months away.
Stay tuned for updates from Comet Hartley 2.
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA
Pamela Gray says:
November 19, 2010 at 6:57 am
Let me get MY ducks in a row. We are constantly searching for water and carbon in our universe. So here we have a comet filled with the stuff. So where did the water and carbon based lifeforms that resulted in an abundance of CO2 in this comet come from? Is it debris from our own planet collisions ejected out to an orbit? Or is it debris from another planet? If it’s from another planet is it one of ours from our Solar system, or one of “theirs”?
———————
Not sure your ducks are looking that healthy either…
Why do you need life forms to have made the CO2 in this comet? Venus’ atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t made by any life forms. The same is true of Mars. Volcanoes spew out about 300 million tons of CO2 a year (about a hundred times less than humans emit though) and none of that is from life forms.
2km from end to end and how long would it take to evaporate giving off basketball sized chunks?
quite unlike the phenomenon of snow, isnt it?
SteveE says:
November 19, 2010 at 6:08 am
It sounds like your ducks are in the same shape as the Monty Python Parrot on that one I’m afraid!
Precisely my point… I don’t think many people do have their ducks in a row… but the plasma guys seem to be getting their cathode jets in a row.
Pamela Gray says:
November 19, 2010 at 6:57 am
We are constantly searching for water and carbon in our universe.
They didn’t bat an eyelid on that one… so best not to play poker with them… or is it just a case of Light On – Nobody Home… my guess is that they are just trying to bluff it out knowing full well that they hold a busted flush.
Is that cool or what? At least some departments at NASA are still in the game.
The electromagnetic analysis & interpretation of comets is more persuasive than the so-called “dirty snowball” analysis & interpretation, in my opinion.
The Electric Comet
http://thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
Malaga View says:
November 19, 2010 at 8:23 am
Guess those ducks are PINK DUCKS and very sophisticated. 🙂
I have a stupid question. If so many comets are releasing CO2, and those comets continue to fly in our general direction,….
Would our gravity attract those CO2 molecules and increase our CO2 PPM density?
I want to ski the comet.
captainfish says:
November 19, 2010 at 12:03 pm
That question will be gladly answered by Al “Baby”
Last week I went to a lecture by the PI for the Magnetometer on the Cassini-Huygens probe. Fascinating views of Enceladus, which has ice particle geysers at its south pole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus_%28moon%29
tallbloke says:
November 19, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Interesting its “Tidal heating” (gravity turned back to IR radiation). But that’s contrary to the view of airtight compartments between different forms of energy(wrongly called “mass”) held by post normal science, where only LWR from the Sun warms up planets…
That would enrage some known friars of the “holy astrophysical inquisition”. 🙂
….perhaps they will explain it by their current model, which by “reductio ab absurdum”, use imaginary numbers, obtained by reducing the two fundamental forces to just one vector: sq.root of -1.
Though, in the Enceladus case, it could be also caused by anathematized electricity.
Could “snowstorm on a comet” be another phrase like “tempest in a teapot”?
An analogy for something interesting, but of not much consequence, perhaps.
Not unlike Cancun.
In a world full of scientific chicanery, are we absolutely sure that’s an image of Hartley 2? It looks more like my dog’s tongue after slurping dropped hamburger off the patio!
Quoting jack:
November 18, 2010 at 9:27 pm
OK. So far it seems everything takes “scientists” by surprise…What a bunch of crap! …There is more to it than a dirty snowball.
Commenting:
Speaking as a Scientist, “Lighten up, fly-boy!” D0 pilots have all the answers on incomplete data? Scientists observe and try to explain what they see. The better they see, the better they explain. Sometimes they don’t get it right and that makes hot dog pilots laugh. Most times they get it right and you airheads ignore it!
Breckite says:
November 19, 2010 at 12:10 pm
> I want to ski the comet.
Prepare to be rather disappointed. You’ll want to ski at a speed less than escape velocity. The orbital velocity for an object as dense as Earth is about 90 minutes, size cancels out in the math. Comets are much less dense, and the post’s “The icy chunks are moving away from the comet’s surface at only a few m/s (5 to 10 mph)” must be well above escape velocity.
Even a “real” moon like Deimos has challenges to turn it into an exciting sporting event. I made a stab at writing an April Fool’s Day story about it, but I couldn’t find Deimos’ density and used Earth’s. Even with that I figured I’d leave the time aspect out of my description. Turned out pretty well, though. See http://wermenh.com/deimos.html . I updated the photo of Deimos a few years ago.
Now, a jet pack and a mesh bag, and a goal of collecting the biggest volume of snowballs without them breaking up and pieces drifting through the mesh, that might be a bit of fun.
From Science@ur momisugly NASA article:
“Data collected by Deep Impact’s onboard infrared spectrometer show without a doubt that the particles are made of frozen H2O, i.e., ice. Chunks consist of micron-sized ice grains loosely stuck together in clumps a few centimeters to a few tens of centimeters wide.”
Regarding the “frozen H2O”, for anyone that may not have read it the link posted by Malaga View it says:
“Most of the volatiles detected in cometary coma are formed not by solar heating but by electrical ‘cathode sputtering’ of the high-temperature minerals on the comet surface. The evidence for this comes from the ‘puzzling’ abundance (densities at least 100 times greater than expected) of negative ions near the nucleus. The negative ions combine with the positive hydrogen ions from the solar wind to give, amongst other things, the OH radical, which is then misinterpreted as signaling the presence of water ice on the comet. That is why all other means of detecting significant water ice on comets have generally failed.”
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm
There is also this link on Hartley 2
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/101105hartley.htm
Someone want to explain the difference between confirmation bias and what we have here?? I don’t see ice and snow. Why do they???
One question.
Isn’t this comet too far from the sun, according to their models of comet behavior, to have this type of jet action????
A skeptic is someone who requires strong proof before they will accept strong claims. Judging by some of the comments in this thread there are a lot of non-skeptics here who apparently believe the most bizarre rubbish on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
Electric universe cultists. Please go away. Your theory is a bunch of incoherent drivel. What – you think a website full of diehard skeptics is going to give your pseudoscientific claptrap an uncritical reception? Go found your own website and leave us alone or we will mock you mercilessly at every opportunity.
>Electric universe cultists. Please go away.
Your knee jerk reaction sounds like some of the more extreme AGW people who refuse to consider another point of view.
“Comets also have ‘magnetospheres.’ The cometosheat consists of decelerated plasma. Confirmation that pinched Birkeland currents also occur in cometary magnetospheres was obtained by the detection of X rays from Comet Hyakutake in 1996.” http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesI.pdf
Gavin says:
November 20, 2010 at 3:08 am
Electric universe cultists. Please go away.
That´s chemically pure fanaticism. It´s over buddy!. As the great George Carlin said:
Pack you sh**s folks, WE are leaving”!!
@Enneagram
I think you’re pointing your finger at the wrong person. I was quoting Ian H’s comment at 11:58pm.
I am open to the idea of an electric universe because the guys who research it can explain a lot of stuff that mainstream science can’t.