I'm guessing they saw more water plumes like the one Hubble saw in Dec 2012.
Quote from: notsorandom on 09/20/2016 09:16 pmI'm guessing they saw more water plumes like the one Hubble saw in Dec 2012.I hope so, that would be really big.
Does Clipper already have proposed instruments suitable to examine any plumes if this is what this announcement is about?
Quote from: Star One on 09/20/2016 09:48 pmDoes Clipper already have proposed instruments suitable to examine any plumes if this is what this announcement is about?MASPEX would probably work.
Maybe everybody should count to ten first.Remember all the hyperventilating before the MAVEN press conference last year? Anybody? Anybody?
Quote from: Blackstar on 09/21/2016 02:31 amMaybe everybody should count to ten first.Remember all the hyperventilating before the MAVEN press conference last year? Anybody? Anybody?Given the title of the press conference, it's unlikely that NASA will announce no evidence for plumes. However, it may again be on the edge of sensor detection like the original observation.
Have HST friends from STS-125 and they aren't spilling, but yeah, likely ice plumes.
NASA – Verified account @NASAMonday, we’ll announce new findings from Jupiter’s moon Europa. Spoiler alert: NOT aliens: http://go.nasa.gov/2djp4RG
Yeah, not seen anything with a date more advanced than 2014 so far.
They do sound very confident about the observations, but because they are scientists any small alternatives means they can't be certain.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/26/2016 06:35 pmThey do sound very confident about the observations, but because they are scientists any small alternatives means they can't be certain.They can be confident. But of course the way this works is that other people have to agree with their conclusions. So people will have to look at their data and their methodology. Even then, I think that this data is unlikely to be conclusive. What will be necessary is more observations by a different team, preferably using a different method and analysis. In other words, coming at the question from different angles and all of them reaching similar conclusions.If this was more conclusive, we'd be there already. The fact that this shows up in so few observations is puzzling, and lowers the confidence level a lot.
Quote from: Blackstar on 09/26/2016 07:02 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 09/26/2016 06:35 pmThey do sound very confident about the observations, but because they are scientists any small alternatives means they can't be certain.They can be confident. But of course the way this works is that other people have to agree with their conclusions. So people will have to look at their data and their methodology. Even then, I think that this data is unlikely to be conclusive. What will be necessary is more observations by a different team, preferably using a different method and analysis. In other words, coming at the question from different angles and all of them reaching similar conclusions.If this was more conclusive, we'd be there already. The fact that this shows up in so few observations is puzzling, and lowers the confidence level a lot.Yes but wasn't this done by two independent teams. As to using a different instrument, surely there is only one possible option at the moment and that's Hubble.
This matches what I expected except not from 2014 HST observations. Big push for Europa orbiter able to detect any plume launched organics that somehow survive in that environment. JWST should be an improvement. Forget its UV capabilities. Anyone?
Did they provide a detailed health report on Hubble? I didn't hear one, but I had to bow out for awhile. I'm curious as to how Hubble is doing and what is degrading on the telescope.
Although a few steps presumptuous mentioning this, I can't help wondering about the possibilities of a sample return in a similar fashion to Stardust...which a lot of the Saturn folk want to do at Enceladus. Naturally first further confirm the plumes, which I'm certain the Europa Clipper mission could do. But after the lander, a sample return (especially if the samples can be caught in orbit) seems a possible next step.
Can you do a sample return as a discovery mission?
Quote from: Blackstar on 09/26/2016 06:09 pmFor correctness, that art is actually Enceladus, not Europa.
The real important thing here is that the Mars has definitely ceased to be the single myopic target for search of life.
We should probably cancel Europa Clipper. It's not necessary.
Quote from: Blackstar on 09/27/2016 09:51 pmWe should probably cancel Europa Clipper. It's not necessary.Plus, next time you get the urge to complain how every thread around here ends up being about SpaceX, you can just remember this post of yours as a valuable contribution to that end.
Something of an over reaction to a lighthearted post.
Quote from: ugordan on 09/27/2016 09:58 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 09/27/2016 09:51 pmWe should probably cancel Europa Clipper. It's not necessary.Plus, next time you get the urge to complain how every thread around here ends up being about SpaceX, you can just remember this post of yours as a valuable contribution to that end.I was just beating them to the punch, baby!
Won't somebody think of the planetary protection.
As far as I've been able to estimate (frantic in-head estimation), Europa is about 3 x the diameter of Enceladus. Planetary scientists out there: Does this make it more or less likely in hindsight that the two bodies would have similar activity of this sort?
Culberson notes that the $21.5 B for NASA incl funding for Europa and hands out article to colleagues that he said was just published in "Nature Astronomy" saying Galileo flew thru a Europa plume.
NASA Hosts Live Discussion about Europa Findings, Potential for LifeNASA will host a Science Chat at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, May 14, to discuss the latest analysis of Jupiter’s moon Europa and its status as one of the most promising places in the solar system to search for life. The event will air live on NASA Television, Facebook Live, Twitch TV, Ustream, YouTube, Twitter/Periscope and the agency's website.Europa has long been a high priority for exploration because beneath its icy crust lies a salty, liquid water ocean. NASA’s Europa Clipper, targeted to launch in 2022, will be equipped with the instruments necessary to determine whether Europa possesses the ingredients necessary to support life as we know it.Lori Glaze, acting director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division (PSD), and JoAnna Wendel, PSD communications lead, will host the chat. Guests include: Xianzhe Jia, associate professor in the Department of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann ArborElizabeth Turtle, research scientist at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, MarylandMargaret Kivelson, professor emerita of Space Physics in the Department of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles Media who would like to ask questions during the event must email their name, media affiliation and phone number to Felicia Chou at [email protected] by 12:30 p.m. Monday, May 14. The public can send questions on social media by using #askNASA at any time during the event.
To their delight, the scientists found such a signal on December 16, 1997, during the spacecraft's E12 orbit. This was also Galileo's closest approach to Europa, when it came to within 206km and flew near the Pwyll Crater region. During this pass, the spacecraft's magnetometer measured significant changes, as did Galileo's plasma wave spectrometer. They believed these fluctuations might be due to perturbations from a water plume in the plasma surrounding the moon."The sudden, short-duration jump in the frequency of intense emissions can be interpreted as consistent with a highly localized source of plasma, thereby supporting the hypothesis that the magnetic perturbations arise from passage through a localized plume," write the authors of a new paper describing the findings in Nature Astronomy.After finding these changes, the authors sought to model the magnetic and hydrodynamic effects the spacecraft observed. One version of the model included plumes on the surface of Europa, whereas another did not. The model simulations that included plumes from Europa closely matched the Galileo data, but the model without them did not. This led the scientists to conclude that Hubble had indeed seen plumes on Europa, and Galileo must have flown near or through one.
I'm a big Europa fan and all, but I would say that, so far, all of the evidence for plumes on Europa has been hopeful, rather than truly convincing. I'd love there to be plumes, but I think we should all retain a healthier skepticism here.
"Yes, Europa really is sending plumes of water into space""Spacecraft May Have Flown Right Through a Plume of Water on Jupiter's Moon Europa"So... YES ABSOLUTELY! vs. "may have"
I would not say that this "confirms" anything. It is "consistent with" other evidence. But a single observation, or a single scientific paper, rarely "confirms" a scientific discovery to the satisfaction of the entire scientific community.
Quote from: Blackstar on 05/15/2018 03:31 pmI would not say that this "confirms" anything. It is "consistent with" other evidence. But a single observation, or a single scientific paper, rarely "confirms" a scientific discovery to the satisfaction of the entire scientific community.There's your difference between science and the media. The former generally understands the limitations of any given study, the latter generally does not.
It annoys me that such criticism is aimed at 'journals'. Name and shame specific places, please - it's not all of us!
Quote from: Welsh Dragon on 05/15/2018 04:26 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 05/15/2018 03:31 pmI would not say that this "confirms" anything. It is "consistent with" other evidence. But a single observation, or a single scientific paper, rarely "confirms" a scientific discovery to the satisfaction of the entire scientific community.There's your difference between science and the media. The former generally understands the limitations of any given study, the latter generally does not.And you don’t think that making sweeping generalisations isn’t just as bad as the problem you seem to think exists. This recent tweet seems equally applicable to your comment.
Quote from: Star One on 05/15/2018 08:36 pmQuote from: Welsh Dragon on 05/15/2018 04:26 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 05/15/2018 03:31 pmI would not say that this "confirms" anything. It is "consistent with" other evidence. But a single observation, or a single scientific paper, rarely "confirms" a scientific discovery to the satisfaction of the entire scientific community.There's your difference between science and the media. The former generally understands the limitations of any given study, the latter generally does not.And you don’t think that making sweeping generalisations isn’t just as bad as the problem you seem to think exists. This recent tweet seems equally applicable to your comment.1) I did not make sweeping generalisations, I clearly added qualifiers. My statement was correct. 2) If you don't think this is a problems you've either never looked at popular coverage of science or done any science yourself (or indeed both).
Another article from one of the guys working in several future missions.https://theconversation.com/signs-of-water-plumes-boost-chances-of-finding-life-on-jupiters-moon-europa-96507It is a good article, a recapitulation of events and how to frame the research within the search of life in the solar system. Also I really like how he grouped together four bodies (Mars, Enceladus, Europa and Titan) as candidates of past, present and future life outside Earth. It's a good way to put the research into context and map future developments in the area.He couldn't avoid to mention 'funding' at the end. Mars data is coming in a good pace and I hope it will be cheaper to gather data in the future. The other three bodies though...
Quote from: jarnu on 05/18/2018 08:42 amAnother article from one of the guys working in several future missions.https://theconversation.com/signs-of-water-plumes-boost-chances-of-finding-life-on-jupiters-moon-europa-96507It is a good article, a recapitulation of events and how to frame the research within the search of life in the solar system. Also I really like how he grouped together four bodies (Mars, Enceladus, Europa and Titan) as candidates of past, present and future life outside Earth. It's a good way to put the research into context and map future developments in the area.He couldn't avoid to mention 'funding' at the end. Mars data is coming in a good pace and I hope it will be cheaper to gather data in the future. The other three bodies though...Shouldn’t Pluto also be considered as a possible venue for life?
...in contrast to some other moons with subsurface oceans – including Ganymede and Callisto – where the ocean floor is ice.