SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the water+solar+electrolysis=rocket-fuel-and-oxidizer dept.
The OSIRIS-REx spacecraft, which "arrived" at the asteroid Bennu on December 3 but has been slowly approaching it for weeks, has found evidence of Bennu's interaction with liquid water in the past:
In a conference today, scientists announced that OSIRIS-REx has found evidence of hydrated minerals on the surface of Bennu using its on-board spectrometers - tools used to determine the exact chemical composition of a specific spot.
That means "evidence of liquid water" in Bennu's past, according to Amy Simon, the scientist overseeing OSIRIS-REx's spectral analysis.
"To get hydrated minerals in the first place, to get clays, you have to have water interacting with regular minerals," says Simon. "This is a great surprise."
And they're abundant, too. There's "strong convincing, evidence that the surface is dominated by these hydrated minerals," according to Dante Lauretta, leader of OSIRIS-REx's sample return mission, leading the team to believe Bennu is "water rich".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @05:57PM (25 children)
They said comets would be dirty snowballs, but they're hard, desiccated rock.
They said asteroids would be hard, desiccated rock, but they've got water.
Oh, and by the way, the Universe is 96% dark energy matter liquid that is non-falsifiable and must be there, because, you know, that's the only way the equations will fit the observations.
Nothing says "predictive power" like "This is a great surprise"!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @06:05PM (1 child)
I just found evidence of salt in your comment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @06:08PM
Alas, in our present culture, blandness is apparently the height of sophistication.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @06:30PM (4 children)
Water is the third most common molecule in the universe; it's shouldn't be surprising to anyone that we're finding it basically everywhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @06:40PM (3 children)
The expert said "This is a great surprise". What don't you get about that?
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:26PM (2 children)
"This is a great surprise" was in reference to LIQUID water. Yes, there's plenty of water in space. There's plenty of ice everywhere, cause oxygen and hydrogen are among the most abundant elements in the universe. But you can't make a CLAY out of ice. That is actually a rather slow process and one that isn't expected on little teeny balls of junk clumped together in the far reaches of the solar system.
But yeah, you just go on running your mouth, shaking your ignorance stick and generally polluting the comments.
*sips coffee*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @09:48PM (1 child)
Your parent is explaining exactly that point to his parent comment.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Tuesday December 11 2018, @10:10PM
And that's why most mornings.... I don't post before I've had a coffee and taken a moment to compose myself for the day. I need to keep doing that I think.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 11 2018, @06:31PM (16 children)
Nothing says "science illiterate" like claiming that scientists speak in absolutes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @06:42PM (15 children)
At what point do you admit that you've given up empirical evidence in favor of theory?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @06:43PM
So, you're in favor of empire?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday December 11 2018, @06:53PM (6 children)
Theory is _never_ accepted until it's survived falsification _repeatedly_.
That's why theoreticians don't get Nobel prizes until their predictions are confirmed
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:19PM (3 children)
The Epicycles of Mars an a powerfully predictive tool; they work. Yet, they're wrong.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday December 11 2018, @11:52PM (2 children)
Why do you say "They are wrong."? They are correct. They're just quite difficult to compute with, so nobody uses them anymore. But Newtonian physics, which is wrong in exactly the same way (to a smaller degree), is used all the time.
Most people don't bother to remember that the heliocentric model is wrong. Even the galaxy center isn't fixed in position. But for most calculations, most of the time, it's "good enough". Expecting "absolute truth" is expecting something that the universe is very chintzy about providing.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:48AM (1 child)
Newtonian physics is used because it is simple to compute. Epicycles are not used because they are annoying to compute. They are used/unused for exactly opposite reasons. Just like people use MOND which is simple algebra instead of lambda-CDM whenever it matters.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday December 12 2018, @11:55AM
For centuries, the epicycles were just as accurate as any other functional decomposition to within the errors of naked-eye measurement with the clocks of the day - often the observer's own pulse - and a hand-made transit.
While Copernicus proposed that the orbits were all circular around the sun, he wasn't actually correct and he had little or no observational evidence.
Copernicus hired Kepler because he had uncommon sharp eyesight as well as the patience to measure transits for decades. It was only Kepler that was able to determine the orbits were actually elliptical.
And while I haven't actually tried it, Kepler's measurements could likely have been predicted by an extensive enough epicyclic functional decomposition.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @01:35AM (1 child)
Looks like the opposite of a Nobel Peace Prizes:
Politician: I'm going to pull out of Iraq!
Nobel: Awesome stuff man! Here's a Peace prize! With a capital 'P'!
Politician: Thank you. I'm so glad this went to someone so deserving as myself.
Nobel: You're welcome!
Politician: Changed my mind, Iraq is a cash cow for the military industrial complex, and they recommend we stay in.
Nobel: Maybe you should consider giving back the prize?
Politician: No.
Nobel: Ok, as you were. Sorry to bother you.
Nobel Prize for Physics:
Physicist:
Nobel: Interesting...
Other physicists: We've confirmed the results of the physics theory with numerous experiments and studies.
Nobel: Hmmm...
More physicists: Really, this shit is earth shatteringly awesome, it's changed the way we approach physical modelling.
Nobel: Hmmm...
More physicists: Physicist is old and will probably die soon.
Nobel: Oh shit... Let's get on this.
Physicist: Really, my discovery is nothing much, just something I thought up standing on the shoulder of giants far greater than I.
Nobel: That put's a tear in our eyes. Have this Nobel Prize for Physics! With a capital 'P'!
Physicist: I'm humbled really, but so many others deserve this prize.
Nobel:
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday December 12 2018, @11:49AM
Somewhere I read that the peace is not awarded for what one has actually done, but what one has the potential to do in the future.
Yes that sounds like bullshit to me to, but that's what someone in the know actually said.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 11 2018, @06:53PM (3 children)
How about you provide some empirical evidence of a scientist ever saying an asteroid could never have any water on it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:21PM (2 children)
Anyway, read about the "standard" theory of star-system formation, particular the theory of the solar system's formation.
The evidence keeps proving it wrong.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:00AM (1 child)
The last I heard there were three or four major theories in contention for how solar systems came into being. There wasn't one "standard model". Even if there had been, the replacement of one model with another isn't anything to be upset about. The verifiable predictions of the old model keep working under the new one. And as for the ones that weren't verifiable, that's why you shouldn't trust unverifiable predictions.
FWIW, one of the big problems with humanity is the demand for belief in things that there isn't sufficient evidence for. It's one thing to use theories as useful tools. That's reasonable, necessary, etc. Belief is something else, that should usually be avoided. Estimates of probability, that's valuable, even if often wrong, but don't go around believing in things even after you test them repeatedly. The sun will probably rise tomorrow sometime within the next 24 hours, but I don't need to believe it. I get just as much, or more, utility out of considering it a useful prediction about the future.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:31PM
The government forces people to fund scientists with competing ideas.
After 100s of billions of dollars, it would be unconscionable to have to admit that the universe is not, in fact, filled with dark matter liquid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:09PM (2 children)
You present it as some kind of dichotomy. How can you have science without both?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @07:24PM (1 child)
There's no way to interpret the AC's remarks as presenting a dichotomy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:05AM
Wow, dude. Loosen up. You live in a world of total absolutes.
You should try some of that legal weed if it's available where you're at. You could benefit.
I also recommend a spirit journey. I didn't really understand who or what I was, other than book knowledge, until I went on one.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:57PM
> the Universe is 96% dark energy matter liquid that is non-falsifiable and must be there, because, you know, that's the only way the equations will fit the observations.
I will pay for the SwedishAir tickets when you tell us your "better model".