Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Fri, July 24, 2009 - 8:37 PMIt looks bruised! -
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Sat, July 25, 2009 - 1:35 PMThat mark in the clouds looks to be almost the size of the earth.
Nice to have Jupiter to suck up most of what is floating around.
That means I am glad that it did not impact here.
-
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Sun, July 26, 2009 - 12:59 PMYup, that's pretty big and it has the classic double wing shape of a low angle impact (from the direction, the impactor was traveling from north to south)... cool. -
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Sun, July 26, 2009 - 4:24 PMIt's good to see you posting again Troy! (at least from my perspective)
-
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Sun, July 26, 2009 - 5:31 PMI'm alive and well. Just haven't seen anything I wanted to post about in a while. -
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Sun, July 26, 2009 - 5:45 PM<<at least from my perspective>>
this reads a little bit odd to me so to clarify
my perspective = not seeing you here in a while!
Yeah I haven't had much to say either - just lurking/reading/learning
I'm guessing that the Quantum Physics Tribe at least should pick-up after the LHC becomes operational.
....soooo many questions......soooo many questions......sigh
-
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Sun, July 26, 2009 - 9:03 PMJupiter doing its job drawing potential impacters from Earth (hopefully?)… -
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Sun, July 26, 2009 - 10:16 PMHubble's WFC3 seems so far so good.
Looks like that nail-biting EVA has paid-off (for the WFC3 at least)
I hope the new gyros and Cosmic Origins Spectrograph are nominal too.
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Mon, July 27, 2009 - 9:25 AM"Jupiter doing its job drawing potential impacters from Earth (hopefully?)… "
Jupiter is just (well, almost) as likely to draw them away rom Earth as send them our way. Grim, I know. -
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Wed, July 29, 2009 - 8:46 PM>>>Jupiter is just (well, almost) as likely to draw them away rom Earth as send them our way. Grim, I know.<<<
That is a distinct possibility, but, most models I've seen suggest the protective aspects of Jupiter’s presence in our Solar System.
That of course does not mean that a dire effect cannot, has not, or will not happen because of Jupiter... -
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Thu, July 30, 2009 - 9:31 AMAt this point in our history, Jupiter has already done its job of clearing "stray" objects out of the solar system. So, we don't have as much to worry about as the Earth did a billion years ago thanks to Jupiter.... but there are still "strays" out there. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Thu, July 30, 2009 - 10:40 AMI concur, there is still much to be wary of out there...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Thu, July 30, 2009 - 11:08 AMI just received a subscription email from JPL about this.
Here it is:
____________________________________________
DC Agle 818-393-9011
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
agle@jpl.nasa.gov
INTERNET ADVISORY: 2009-115, July 29, 2009
NASA to Provide Web Updates on Objects Approaching Earth
PASADENA, Calif. -- NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is introducing a new Web site that will provide a centralized resource for information on near-Earth objects – those asteroids and comets that can approach Earth. The "Asteroid Watch" site also contains links for the interested public to sign up for NASA's new asteroid widget and Twitter account.
"Most people have a fascination with near-Earth objects," said Don Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near-Earth Object Program Office at JPL. "And I have to agree with them. I have studied them for over three decades and I find them to be scientifically fascinating, and a few are potentially hazardous to Earth. The goal of our Web site is to provide the public with the most up-to-date and accurate information on these intriguing objects."
The new Asteroid Watch site is online at www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroidwatch .
It provides information on NASA's missions to study comets, asteroids and near-Earth objects, and also provides the basic facts and the very latest in science and research on these objects. News about near-Earth object discoveries and Earth flybys will be available and made accessible on the site via a downloadable widget and RSS feed. And for those who want to learn about their space rocks on the go, a Twitter feed is offered. "Asteroid Watch" also contains a link to JPL's more technical Near-Earth Objects Web site, where many scientists and researchers studying near-Earth objects go for information.
"This innovative new Web application gives the public an unprecedented look at what's going on in near-Earth space," said Lindley Johnson, program executive for the Near-Earth Objects Observation program at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
NASA supports surveys that detect and track asteroids and comets passing close to Earth. The Near-Earth Object Observation Program, commonly called "Spaceguard," also plots the orbits of these objects to determine if any could be potentially hazardous to our planet.
JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
-end-
____________________________________________
From: subscription email
-
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Fri, July 31, 2009 - 12:00 AMThanks for the info Serge. -
-
-
Re: to Eric
Fri, July 31, 2009 - 12:48 PMIt is a damn shame we had nothing like Galileo orbiting Jupiter at the time of this event... -
-
Re: Jupiter Orbiting Probe
Fri, July 31, 2009 - 1:08 PMYou know, Frozenstars, this is e-x-a-c-t-l-y what I had said when I heard about it for the first time. :)
-
-
Re: Jupiter Orbiting Probe
Fri, July 31, 2009 - 1:16 PMThat would be a good argument to have something in orbit around Jupiter to detect Near Jupiter Objects and track them for observation. -
-
Re: Jupiter Orbiting Probe
Fri, July 31, 2009 - 1:40 PMYeah, we could detect way more of them from way out there.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Thu, July 30, 2009 - 11:16 AMSince it's a gas giant, how exactly does an "impact" work? -
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Thu, July 30, 2009 - 11:27 AMIt should really be called a high atmospheric airburst as opposed to an "impact"
IMO.
-
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Thu, July 30, 2009 - 1:57 PMAlthough James is right so are the people who choose to use "impact." Impacts leave scars, even if they fade away. The recent event on Jupiter did leave a scar.
The other thing about the gas giants that is important to remember is that their atmospheres are much denser than our own; dense enough, in fact, to be more like our oceans or glacial ice packs then our air (of course one has travel miles into it before it gets that dense). -
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Fri, July 31, 2009 - 8:55 AMYep. An airbust is just a particular type of impact.
-
-
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Thu, July 30, 2009 - 11:41 AMGas giant does not necessarily mean it consists entirely of gas.
It is believed that it has a massive, giant, core like any other planet, (unless some new probe went and checked and found out the opposite by now). It's just that it is so massive that it is capable of attracting that amount of gasses that get around its zone of gravity. So, as an object approaches/hits the planet, it first has to go through its giant gaseous atmosphere, where it creates those immence holes the size of a small planet, and such.
Think of a plain flying into a cloud - exactly the same thing, only on a larger scale and "insaner" speeds.
...
So, as the object approaches the central core of, say, Jupiter, it gets torn by ever stronger gravitational forces and eventually, whatever is left, burns in the atmosphere, I would assume.
...
Personally, I don't think anything ever reaches the surface because after having been torn into ever smaller pieces, the object never has time to get all the way down - it just burns out on its way through; just like we see it here on Earth.
There is a way to calculate how large, (and dense), should be an object to be able to get through, all the way to the surface of a gas giant. Those of you, Titans of Thought, who will get bored and out of it will decide to actually calculate it, I would say, (off the top of my head), this would probably depend on - density/composition of the object, density of the atmosphere, speed of the object, (not that much) the angle of approach, thikness of the atmosphere.
If I were to speculate, I would say that in order to actually "survive" long enough to reach the surface of a planet like, say, our Jupiter, the object should be around the size of our Moon, at least.
However, I may be wrong. I don't have all the data on Jupiter.
... -
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Thu, July 30, 2009 - 2:03 PM"There is a way to calculate how large, (and dense), should be an object to be able to get through, all the way to the surface of a gas giant. Those of you, Titans of Thought, who will get bored and out of it will decide to actually calculate it, I would say, (off the top of my head), this would probably depend on - density/composition of the object, density of the atmosphere, speed of the object, (not that much) the angle of approach, thikness of the atmosphere.
If I were to speculate, I would say that in order to actually "survive" long enough to reach the surface of a planet like, say, our Jupiter, the object should be around the size of our Moon, at least.
However, I may be wrong. I don't have all the data on Jupiter."
Serge,
You are right there are ways to calculate how deep an object can go, but it is very complex. Speed is a huge factor, the slower the object the deep it can go... I think you got all the right factors except for missing the mass of the planet. -
-
Re: Hubble Image of Jupiter Impact Site
Fri, July 31, 2009 - 10:00 AMThanks, Troy.
Well, I "indirectly" implied the importance of mass. Since I'd mentioned that the/an object gets torn apart ever more and more as it gets closer to the planet, I assumed that it would be understood that an enormous gravitational pull would imply the appropriate amount of mass.
...
I guess I should have been a little more elaborate. I was in a public library and I had to go, so I did a shorty.
...
Oh, well...
:)
-
-
-