Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Problem With Comet Hartley 2 Images

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5

    Problem With Comet Hartley 2 Images

    I have a problem with the images returned by the EPOXI mission fly-by of Hartley 2.

    In the images, it appears to me that the so-called "dust jets" emanating from comet Hartley 2 are luminous.

    As the comet rotates, the jets exhibit clear luminosity in the dark side of the comet. They are far far too bright to be simple dust jets.



    Does anyone else find the apparent luminosity of the jets in the dark side of the comet odd?

    There are several pictures where the jet is clearly in the shadows yet it glows like a plasma discharge.

    In the close ups you can see fine collimated jets emanating from bright point sources in the dark side of the comet.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mnemeth View Post
    In the images, it appears to me that the so-called "dust jets" emanating from comet Hartley 2 are luminous.

    As the comet rotates, the jets exhibit clear luminosity in the dark side of the comet. They are far far too bright to be simple dust jets.
    Hi mnemeth, welcome to BAUT.

    I suspect that the material of the jets is much better at scattering light from the sun than body of the comet itself. Part of that may be the particle size, part of that may be the composition - they may not be simple dust, but may be ice or contain ice crystals.

    It is a little hard for me to get the perspective, but I suspect the jets become illuminated once they leave the shadow of the comet.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5
    Yeah, you'd think that should be the case.

    However, I can see the clear edge of rock cutting off the discharge jet.

    So it has to be that the discharge is behind the rock that's jutting out.

    Which would have to mean the jet itself is luminous.




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,058
    Quote Originally Posted by mnemeth View Post
    I have a problem with the images returned by the EPOXI mission fly-by of Hartley 2.

    In the images, it appears to me that the so-called "dust jets" emanating from comet Hartley 2 are luminous.

    As the comet rotates, the jets exhibit clear luminosity in the dark side of the comet. They are far far too bright to be simple dust jets.



    Does anyone else find the apparent luminosity of the jets in the dark side of the comet odd?

    There are several pictures where the jet is clearly in the shadows yet it glows like a plasma discharge.

    In the close ups you can see fine collimated jets emanating from bright point sources in the dark side of the comet.
    You can get that all off of a couple overexposed black and white images? Black and white images that are overexposed maybe to show something like jets?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,790
    Welcome to BAUT, mnemeth

    The jets are much much better at scattering sunlight than the surface of the comet itself.
    However, as we want to see details of the surface of the comet, that means that we have to overexpose the bright parts of the image, which would be the jets.
    No, the jets are not "self luminous," they are not "plasma discharges."


    Just a reminder to all, any discussion of an "electric comet" model is considered ATM.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    Swift has presented a good argument... That the image is over exposed to reveal detail of the comet...

    The brightness of the jets is because of the fine material and ices reflect light more effectively than the dark body comet...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    7,788
    Quote Originally Posted by mnemeth View Post
    Yeah, you'd think that should be the case.

    However, I can see the clear edge of rock cutting off the discharge jet.

    So it has to be that the discharge is behind the rock that's jutting out.

    Which would have to mean the jet itself is luminous.



    I think you are misjudging the orientation of the shadow. The appearance of the bright side of the nucleus tells me the shadow is extending to the left and away from us, not straight down. The jets on the lower left appear to be coming from hot spots just over the terminator, and they are sticking up into sunlight just as a high mountain just past the terminator on the Moon does. My educated guess is that those hot spots had been baking in full sunlight for several hours, and that the rotation of the comet had carried them just past the terminator just before the photo was taken.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,657
    Quote Originally Posted by mnemeth View Post
    Which would have to mean the jet itself is luminous.
    http://fascistsoup.com/wp-content/up.../hartley11.jpg
    Fascist Soup is kind of an odd website to be coming here from.
    Looking at other shots from the fly-by, where the sun angle is not from straight behind the space-craft, it appears to my unprofessional eye that there are jets invisible because of shadow, until they get some distance away from the nucleus of Hartley 2.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    Welcome to BAUT, mnemeth

    The jets are much much better at scattering sunlight than the surface of the comet itself.
    However, as we want to see details of the surface of the comet, that means that we have to overexpose the bright parts of the image, which would be the jets.
    No, the jets are not "self luminous," they are not "plasma discharges."
    I understand the exposure times involved, but I also understand that jets in deep space must have a light source to be visible.

    We can see the main discharge area lit up like a Christmas tree - it's blazing white. If that is all from sun light, I don't understand why the rest of the comet surface is not similarly "over-exposed." There should be little difference between the source points and the rest of the surface in terms of brightness.

    But it's the bottom of the comet where, to me, I clearly see the jets as being lit up but in the shadow of the comet.

    No scattering could generate that kind of apparent brightness without also lighting up the bottom of the comet.

    The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that the jets themselves are luminous.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    963
    Don't forget we see something similar to this on Enceladus's plumes.
    e.g. here http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0911...assini_big.png
    Orientation of the parent body's shadow is more than enough to explain what we see in both cases.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Hungry4info View Post
    Don't forget we see something similar to this on Enceladus's plumes.
    e.g. here http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0911...assini_big.png
    Orientation of the parent body's shadow is more than enough to explain what we see in both cases.
    That picture of Enceladus looks very much like an aurora discharge on earth.

    I don't see why they couldn't be the exact same effect.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,039
    Quote Originally Posted by mnemeth View Post
    That picture of Enceladus looks very much like an aurora discharge on earth.

    I don't see why they couldn't be the exact same effect.
    Well, I guess appearnces can be deceiving. Analysis of the plumes shows them to be salt water rich in carbonates and other orgnaic compounds.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,659
    Quote Originally Posted by mnemeth View Post
    We can see the main discharge area lit up like a Christmas tree - it's blazing white. If that is all from sun light, I don't understand why the rest of the comet surface is not similarly "over-exposed." There should be little difference between the source points and the rest of the surface in terms of brightness.
    No, you would expect that the sources of the jets would be much brighter than the rest of the comet.

    The best understanding of a comet is that it is basically a very dirty snowball, an inhomogenous mixture of ice, gas, organics, and minerals. This mixture would generally have a dark color. For example, the organic components would turn dark over time from UV exposure and other types of weathering.

    I suspect the sources of the jets are spots that for whatever reason, expel more volatile materials (water and gas). They may have higher concentrations of gas or water, or they may have absorbed more energy because of their darkness or the local topography. But once they start venting, the venting will expose fresh material, which will have a much lighter color.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Well, I guess appearnces can be deceiving. Analysis of the plumes shows them to be salt water rich in carbonates and other orgnaic compounds.
    From what I understand, analysis shows ions of water, which doesn't really demonstrate anything contrary to what one would expect from the spectra of an aurora.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,659
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post

    Just a reminder to all, any discussion of an "electric comet" model is considered ATM.
    Now, I'm going to put my moderator hat on...

    mnemeth, you are getting very close to advocating a non-mainstream opinion. Q&A is for asking questions and receiving mainstream answers to them. You can ask follow-up questions, but you can not challenge the mainstream answer in Q&A. If you wish to advocate a non-mainstream interpretation of these pictures (or any other topic) you must do it in the Against The Mainstream (ATM) section of this forum.

    And if you are going to advocate an "Electric Universe" idea, I warn you that we have been there far too many times and you will be aggressively challenged on those ideas.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,593
    mnemeth banned as a sock puppet of a previously banned user. Since the OP "question" has been adequately answered, this thread is closed.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Nov-04, 03:30 PM
  2. Want to find Comet Hartley 2 ?
    By Galactic2000 in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Oct-19, 01:13 PM
  3. Comet Hartley - Oct 17
    By ngc3314 in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Oct-18, 06:29 PM
  4. Comet Hartley-2
    By Wolfhound32 in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Oct-01, 04:48 AM
  5. Comet 103P Hartley
    By Centaur in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2010-Sep-16, 01:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •