Shane88
Actually Nostradamus
Incredible to see crystal clear video of another planet.
Amazing!
Incredible to see crystal clear video of another planet.
Mindblowing. How did it not degrade into minuscule particles over such a stupendous amount of time?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Won't have been on Earth for long enough. In space, things are very far apart.Mindblowing. How did it not degrade into minuscule particles over such a stupendous amount of time?
Sorry if the question is very silly. As you may infer, I barely managed to pass my chemistry class in high school.
Luck. Most material like this did get destroyed or incorporated into larger bodies over time. This one managed to survive long enough to fall through our atmosphere at some point in the last few years.Mindblowing. How did it not degrade into minuscule particles over such a stupendous amount of time?
Sorry if the question is very silly. As you may infer, I barely managed to pass my chemistry class in high school.
Andesite is a very strong intermediate volcanic rock that doesn't easily erode. Also, it may be 4.565 billion years old but that doesn't mean it has been on Earth for that amount of time; in fact it probably landed here relatively recently.Mindblowing. How did it not degrade into minuscule particles over such a stupendous amount of time?
Sorry if the question is very silly. As you may infer, I barely managed to pass my chemistry class in high school.
Conventional astrochemical wisdom would dictate that it hasn't actually been on Earth for a significant amount of time, hence the relative lack of erosion — maybe it is cosmic debris that originated in another star system and was whimsically floating around in space before succumbing to the Earth's gravitational field, maybe it is a relic of our Sun's primordial accretion disc that landed on Earth in the recent past, or some other predictive theory.Mindblowing. How did it not degrade into minuscule particles over such a stupendous amount of time?
Sorry if the question is very silly. As you may infer, I barely managed to pass my chemistry class in high school.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Not many of these things survive in space either, especially in a relatively stable corner of the universe like ours. They've either been ground up in star or planet formation or swept up by bigger objects rather like this one has been by earth. For it to also then fall onto earth intact is exceptionally rare.Conventional astrochemical wisdom would dictate that it hasn't actually been on Earth for a significant amount of time, hence the relative lack of erosion — maybe it is cosmic debris that originated in another star system and was whimsically floating around in space before succumbing to the Earth's gravitational field, maybe it is a relic of our Sun's primordial accretion disc that landed on Earth in the recent past, or some other predictive theory.
There are much older meteorites on Earth as well, like fragments of the one that fell in Murchison, Australia — which are estimated * to be older than the Solar System itself!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
* The estimates can vary a bit — from a minimum of ~4 billion years to a maximum of ~7 billion years.
I find it unlikely it came from another star system, given the distances involved. It's much more likely that it is a remnant of the protoplanetary disc, it could even be ejecta from an early protoplanet in the same orbit plane as Earth; particularly considering it has already been subjected to differentiation. I would probably say that's most likely to be the case.Conventional astrochemical wisdom would dictate that it hasn't actually been on Earth for a significant amount of time, hence the relative lack of erosion — maybe it is cosmic debris that originated in another star system and was whimsically floating around in space before succumbing to the Earth's gravitational field, maybe it is a relic of our Sun's primordial accretion disc that landed on Earth in the recent past, or some other predictive theory.
There are much older meteorites on Earth as well, like fragments of the one that fell in Murchison, Australia — which are estimated * to be older than the Solar System itself!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
* The estimates can vary a bit — from a minimum of ~4 billion years to a maximum of ~7 billion years.
They're called dust devil's and one case of a rover that couldn't move because of dust on its solar panels, was helped by a dust devil. It blew over the rover and cleaned the dust off the panel so it could move again.I am eager to find out . I read it has these dust tornadoes, but probably the rover is trained to GTF-O in case it spots one.
Yeah this rover doesn't need solar panels.They're called dust devil's and one case of a rover that couldn't move because of dust on its solar panels, was helped by a dust devil. It blew over the rover and cleaned the dust off the panel so it could move again.
How is that possible, no solar panels?Yeah this rover doesn't need solar panels.
It uses a nuclear battery based on plutonium.How is that possible, no solar panels?
Of course it does. Very groovy. What’s the anticipated lifespan of the battery? Years?It uses a nuclear battery based on plutonium.
I guess it depends on how much plutonium they used, I don't really know exactly beyond the basics, but yeah we're talking decades. The rover will probably be switched off or become inoperable before the battery depletes.Of course it does. Very groovy. What’s the anticipated lifespan of the battery? Years?
Of course it does. Very groovy. What’s the anticipated lifespan of the battery? Years?
I guess it depends on how much plutonium they used, I don't really know exactly beyond the basics, but yeah we're talking decades. The rover will probably be switched off or become inoperable before the battery depletes.
Crazy. So cool.The prime mission is for a minimum of 2 years but the battery should be good for at least 14 years.
Not so cool if you get a catastrophic launch failure with such payload. Apart from that, very convenient.Crazy. So cool.
This thought has crossed my mind a few times, to be honest.Not so cool if you get a catastrophic launch failure with such payload. Apart from that, very convenient.
There's not enough fuel present to cause a major problem, about 5kg in total. They calculated the maximum exposure from the worst accident would be little over 6 months worth of background radiation.Not so cool if you get a catastrophic launch failure with such payload. Apart from that, very convenient.
Well sometimes shit really happens.There's not enough fuel present to cause a major problem, about 5kg in total. They calculated the maximum exposure from the worst accident would be little over 6 months worth of background radiation.
The rocket fuel caused it. There's a big difference between radioactive contamination and chemical contamination.Well sometimes shit really happens.
Think this one caused nuclear / chemical contamination too.
No shit. The point was there was environmental pollution. This case can happen, and if it is nuclear of course it would be much worse.The rocket fuel caused it. There's a big difference between radioactive contamination and chemical contamination.
That was an old Proton rocket carrying 3 satellites, no nuclear fuel involved.Well sometimes shit really happens.
Think this one caused nuclear / chemical contamination too.
The models they use account for atmospheric detonation and then you can indeed regard it as increased bg radiation. My point was that sometimes land crashes due to happen (or straight up T=0 explosions) and then what you get is a plutonium dirty bomb - one of the most unpleasant elements in vaporized form. Not only you will be making this launchpad unusable for a while, but it will harm the immediate response to the emergency in that area.That was an old Proton rocket carrying 3 satellites, no nuclear fuel involved.
It's decades since any nuclear fuel was shed in a space related accident and even then it had minimal impact. I'm not saying it couldn't happen again but the containment systems are far better now, and any effect would be reasonably small. Perseverance has 4.8kg of nuclear fuel onboard. The 3 reactors at Fukushima had 300 tons.
That's why these launchpads are miles from anywhere. If there was to be a launch explosion a dirty bomb wouldn't do much beyond the immediate area; it's far different than a fission bomb.The models they use account for atmospheric detonation and then you can indeed regard it as increased bg radiation. My point was that sometimes land crashes due to happen (or straight up T=0 explosions) and then what you get is a plutonium dirty bomb - one of the most unpleasant elements in vaporized form. Not only you will be making this launchpad unusable for a while, but it will harm the immediate response to the emergency in that area.
39B is 3 miles to Kennedy Space center. And 8 miles to an air force station which I think was their main concern if something happened during the first minute.That's why these launchpads are miles from anywhere. If there was to be a launch explosion a dirty bomb wouldn't do much beyond the immediate area; it's far different than a fission bomb.
There's gonna be Mars crocodiles, isn't there?https://www.universetoday.com/15069...hhsKJWbSQybFOUCD3g5EaPRWJOGEpZmR_-NCNmg5sGotc
Maybe Mars Didn’t Lose its Water After All. It’s Still Trapped on the Planet
On the first listen, I found this all too complex.
To be fair, it's not conclusive either way on that Martian meteorite. I get the wider point though.Just to play Devil's advocate. Getting to 5 sigma is seen as a breakthrough, statistically.
The LHC reported a "diphoton anomaly" with a sigma of around 4 sigma six years ago which turned out to be noise.
The Brookhaven data from 2001 had a sigma of 3.7.
The new Fermilab data by itself is 3.3 sigma.
You only get to 4.2 sigma by combining both the Brookhaven and new Fermilab data.
Can you combine old data with new like that? Surely if there's a flaw in the former, it's still present in the latter?
The video says the estimation of chance for 4.2 sigma is 1/100,000, but the press release claims 1/40,000. Which is it?
Why not get to 5 Sigma (1 in 3.5 million), then announce?
I don't like early announcements. Perhaps because I remember this.
Hugely impressive achievement. And all pre programmed before it left Earth.Bloody impressive!
Nasa successfully flies small helicopter on Mars
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56799755