October 2009 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

50 years of space exploration
by Ann House 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

Neat graphic: http://www.stevey.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/50-years-exploration-huge.… -A

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] LCROSS Science result deferred
by Gary Vardon 11 Oct '09

11 Oct '09

Proposing alternate solutions is good science. Good thinking. Sincerely, Gary Vardon The book DO It Right will help you understand vital ideas leading to your geater success. GO to PublishAmerica. -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Sumner Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 12:00 PM To: utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] LCROSS Science result deferred I have another speculative theory: the frozen mud theory. Maybe there is so much water there that the impact was just a big splat in a frozen mud bog??? ;-) Wayne A. Sumner Math/Physics/Astronomy/Engineering Boy's Tennis Coach Northridge High School Davis School District (801) 402-8610 >>> Canopus56 <canopus56(a)yahoo.com> 10/10/09 7:39 PM >>> Some more notes on the mystery of the plumeless crater Over the next month, the LCROSS team will reconstruct the event in more detail. The plume failure will turn out to be more of a p.r. problem than a loss of science information problem. (The p.r. problem is that the general public was expecting a plume and they are stakeholders as the financiers of this and future NASA missions.) Part of the LCROSS team event science reconstruction probably will address the lack of observable plume. So, how do you dig a 1 meter deep by 20 meter diameter crater (about the size of a house foundation), excavate between 200 and 350 metric tons of dirt and not have a plume? What we do know is that the impact crater appears to be right-predicted size but no plume was observed. A top 10 list of possible causes for a "good" crater but no plume are: 1) The plume was there at expected density and was just to faint, because: a) The sunlight-topography model was wrong and the curtain never reached the sunlight. b) The impacter hit a slope and the ejecta angle sprayed most of the mass on the back of M1. c) The impacter hit a boulder in a boulder field and broke up just before hitting the surface. d) The topography model was wrong and the plume was blocked from Earth view. e) The unknown site specific surface material was compressed rock, not regolith (the rock ledge theory). g) (My speculative contribution) They hit a thinly buried ice shelf and most of the ejecta was in the form of gas (the ice ledge theory). 2) The plume was not there or was only a faint, less-dense-than predicted curtain, because: a) The plume model was wrong - the plume was much less dense than modeled. Basic physics principles for optics controlled the plume's visiblity. If it was less bright than the "black" shadow region, even Palomar's 200 inch cannot take an image of the plume that is fainter than the shadowed portion of the crater against which was the background. b) The plume model was right but the surface materials were not what was anticipated. Same as 1(b)(c) and (d). The science review with the additional LRO imagery probably will address and answer these questions. Clear skies - Kurt P.S. - Hubble had a negative spectral detection but are reviewing their results. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/26/full "Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) and Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) were pointed just off the southern limb of the moon to look for a cloud of vaporized material blasted into space by the successive impacts of the rocket booster and spacecraft. The WFC3 images do not show any evidence for a temporary exosphere resulting from the impacts. . . . A preliminary analysis of the STIS spectra do not show any clear evidence for hydroxyl, but further analysis is needed," said Hubble co-investigator Alex Storrs. The Hubble team plans on further analysis of their data." Keck gathered data but is analyzing results. http://keckobservatory.org/index.php/news/a_new_view_of_the_moon _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah's view of LCROSS
by Canopus56 11 Oct '09

11 Oct '09

Patrick wrote: > But on a serious note, I'd like to thank everyone who supported this > morning's event and a very special thanks to Kurt Fisher for all of > the work he put into the project. Thanks for your kind words, Patrick. It is some source of personal embrassment that I rallied the club on this and it flopped. But this kind of minor amateur stuff aside, hopefully the LCROSS team will be able to pull a useable science result out of what imaging that they did get. I hope that those who did show up had a good time. - Kurt

2 2

Re: [Utah-astronomy] LCROSS Science result deferred
by Wayne Sumner 11 Oct '09

11 Oct '09

I have another speculative theory: the frozen mud theory. Maybe there is so much water there that the impact was just a big splat in a frozen mud bog??? ;-) Wayne A. Sumner Math/Physics/Astronomy/Engineering Boy's Tennis Coach Northridge High School Davis School District (801) 402-8610 >>> Canopus56 <canopus56(a)yahoo.com> 10/10/09 7:39 PM >>> Some more notes on the mystery of the plumeless crater Over the next month, the LCROSS team will reconstruct the event in more detail. The plume failure will turn out to be more of a p.r. problem than a loss of science information problem. (The p.r. problem is that the general public was expecting a plume and they are stakeholders as the financiers of this and future NASA missions.) Part of the LCROSS team event science reconstruction probably will address the lack of observable plume. So, how do you dig a 1 meter deep by 20 meter diameter crater (about the size of a house foundation), excavate between 200 and 350 metric tons of dirt and not have a plume? What we do know is that the impact crater appears to be right-predicted size but no plume was observed. A top 10 list of possible causes for a "good" crater but no plume are: 1) The plume was there at expected density and was just to faint, because: a) The sunlight-topography model was wrong and the curtain never reached the sunlight. b) The impacter hit a slope and the ejecta angle sprayed most of the mass on the back of M1. c) The impacter hit a boulder in a boulder field and broke up just before hitting the surface. d) The topography model was wrong and the plume was blocked from Earth view. e) The unknown site specific surface material was compressed rock, not regolith (the rock ledge theory). g) (My speculative contribution) They hit a thinly buried ice shelf and most of the ejecta was in the form of gas (the ice ledge theory). 2) The plume was not there or was only a faint, less-dense-than predicted curtain, because: a) The plume model was wrong - the plume was much less dense than modeled. Basic physics principles for optics controlled the plume's visiblity. If it was less bright than the "black" shadow region, even Palomar's 200 inch cannot take an image of the plume that is fainter than the shadowed portion of the crater against which was the background. b) The plume model was right but the surface materials were not what was anticipated. Same as 1(b)(c) and (d). The science review with the additional LRO imagery probably will address and answer these questions. Clear skies - Kurt P.S. - Hubble had a negative spectral detection but are reviewing their results. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/26/full "Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) and Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) were pointed just off the southern limb of the moon to look for a cloud of vaporized material blasted into space by the successive impacts of the rocket booster and spacecraft. The WFC3 images do not show any evidence for a temporary exosphere resulting from the impacts. . . . A preliminary analysis of the STIS spectra do not show any clear evidence for hydroxyl, but further analysis is needed," said Hubble co-investigator Alex Storrs. The Hubble team plans on further analysis of their data." Keck gathered data but is analyzing results. http://keckobservatory.org/index.php/news/a_new_view_of_the_moon _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] animation
by Jay Eads 11 Oct '09

11 Oct '09

Curse, bog, it's beginning to sound like Halloween around here. On 2009-10-11 23:09, Joe Bauman wrote: > Hi Patrick, I don't think it was very big, but I did it another way: I created two new albums and uploaded the individual photos to them. Then you can do a slide show command, and speed it up, to see the views animated. (In my last note I accidentally said to put your "curse" on something -- I meant "curser." Thanks, Joe > > --- On Sun, 10/11/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@???> wrote: > > From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@???> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] animation > To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@???> > Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 5:06 PM > > On 11 Oct 2009, at 14:28, Joe Bauman wrote: > > > Hi all, I wanted to post a movie to my gallery -- a closeup of the Centaur impact site at the time of the impact -- but every time I put it in, it won't play. Can anyone tell me how to do it? I've made a .wav file. Thanks, Joe > > Is the file very bog? I seem to remember that the list will not accept images over a certain size. > > patrick > > > > >

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] LCROSS Science result deferred
by Canopus56 11 Oct '09

11 Oct '09

Some more notes on the mystery of the plumeless crater Over the next month, the LCROSS team will reconstruct the event in more detail. The plume failure will turn out to be more of a p.r. problem than a loss of science information problem. (The p.r. problem is that the general public was expecting a plume and they are stakeholders as the financiers of this and future NASA missions.) Part of the LCROSS team event science reconstruction probably will address the lack of observable plume. So, how do you dig a 1 meter deep by 20 meter diameter crater (about the size of a house foundation), excavate between 200 and 350 metric tons of dirt and not have a plume? What we do know is that the impact crater appears to be right-predicted size but no plume was observed. A top 10 list of possible causes for a "good" crater but no plume are: 1) The plume was there at expected density and was just to faint, because: a) The sunlight-topography model was wrong and the curtain never reached the sunlight. b) The impacter hit a slope and the ejecta angle sprayed most of the mass on the back of M1. c) The impacter hit a boulder in a boulder field and broke up just before hitting the surface. d) The topography model was wrong and the plume was blocked from Earth view. e) The unknown site specific surface material was compressed rock, not regolith (the rock ledge theory). g) (My speculative contribution) They hit a thinly buried ice shelf and most of the ejecta was in the form of gas (the ice ledge theory). 2) The plume was not there or was only a faint, less-dense-than predicted curtain, because: a) The plume model was wrong - the plume was much less dense than modeled. Basic physics principles for optics controlled the plume's visiblity. If it was less bright than the "black" shadow region, even Palomar's 200 inch cannot take an image of the plume that is fainter than the shadowed portion of the crater against which was the background. b) The plume model was right but the surface materials were not what was anticipated. Same as 1(b)(c) and (d). The science review with the additional LRO imagery probably will address and answer these questions. Clear skies - Kurt P.S. - Hubble had a negative spectral detection but are reviewing their results. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/26/full "Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) and Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) were pointed just off the southern limb of the moon to look for a cloud of vaporized material blasted into space by the successive impacts of the rocket booster and spacecraft. The WFC3 images do not show any evidence for a temporary exosphere resulting from the impacts. . . . A preliminary analysis of the STIS spectra do not show any clear evidence for hydroxyl, but further analysis is needed," said Hubble co-investigator Alex Storrs. The Hubble team plans on further analysis of their data." Keck gathered data but is analyzing results. http://keckobservatory.org/index.php/news/a_new_view_of_the_moon

3 4

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Some New Shots
by Jay Eads 11 Oct '09

11 Oct '09

David, Very nicely done! On 2009-10-11 18:48, David Rankin wrote: > Joe, > > Actually, I hook the camera to the mount using the same dovetail I use > for my scope...losmandy style dovetail. I take the tripod head off of my > regular camera tripod and hook it to the dovetail then attach that to > the mount. There was no scope or guiding involved. Just did a polar > alignment and ran at 1.75x sidereal. The alas is pretty good for this > sort of thing as long as your at low magnification. The subs I used were > between 2 and 2 1/2 minutes. (Fast little lens) > > Cheers > > David > > Joe Bauman wrote: > > That's very interesting, David. I assume your camera was piggyback on a telescope that was tracking. What was the telescope, and how long was the exposure? Thanks, Joe > > > > --- On Sun, 10/11/09, David Rankin <David@???> wrote: > > > > From: David Rankin <David@???> > > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Some New Shots > > To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@???> > > Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 11:11 AM > > > > Yes, fall break has arrived. I am back home in Southern UT and finally got some new shots. > > > > http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2442

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Sky This Week
by Jay Eads 11 Oct '09

11 Oct '09

Sorry Joe, the current one hadn't shown up this week. If you have a YouTube Account you can sign up and get the update each week or check the site or search in YouTube for Amateur Astronomy Sky this Week 2009-10-10. I'm sure by the middle of the day it will be up. Here's a few more that I have found interesting: A program in South America bringing Astronomy and Science to schools there for an intense 3 month period: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iaxUBCiQzY&feature=sub Tonight's Sky for October: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd5fbZmikTw I really loved the baseball analogy they make here, as I have never heard of that. On 2009-10-11 18:54, Joe Bauman wrote: > Exceptionally well-made, but I wish it had been updated as this is a new week. -- Joe > > --- On Sun, 10/11/09, Jay Eads <jayleads@???> wrote: > > From: Jay Eads <jayleads@???> > Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Sky This Week > To: utah-astronomy@??? > Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 9:49 AM > > Just wondering if anyone else subscribes to SkyThisWeek on YouTube found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD85iXPmE3E

1 0

Sky This Week
by Jay Eads 11 Oct '09

11 Oct '09

Just wondering if anyone else subscribes to SkyThisWeek on YouTube found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD85iXPmE3E&feature=sub ? Nothing is really new, and nothing you can't find out for yourself but I like that the planetary information is located in one area and that he shares some comet information as well. DSO's I usually take care of but I thought overall this is a very nice and well put together program. Thoughts? Clear Skies, Jay

2 1

Pit n Pole Friday the 16th and Saturday the 17th
by Jay Eads 11 Oct '09

11 Oct '09

I know weather forecasts can change but according to the TWC http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/84096?from=36hr_topnav_undeclared next Friday and Saturday look clear. As it is the new moon I'm going to head out to Pit n Pole and just wondering if anyone wants to join me. It will be cold but should be good. Jay

1 0