Images of the the samples returned to earth from the asteroid Ryugu(hayabusa2.jaxa.jp)
hayabusa2.jaxa.jp
Images of the the samples returned to earth from the asteroid Ryugu
http://www.hayabusa2.jaxa.jp/en/topics/20201225_samples/
139 comments
Pretty cool! Why is it showing data that's 4 days old?
Maybe it's not actually automated? Or maybe during the holiday here they're not pointing the antennas at the spacecraft, especially as it's after the mission has finished?
Worth mentioning here that its mission has been extended to 2031 to include rendezvous with two other asteroids.
Forgive my ignorance, but how were the samples sent back to earth if the satellite is still in space? Did it rendevous with a ship or another satellite?
The sample container separates from the spacecraft during the Earth encounter. The spacecraft performs a manoeuvre to return to an escape trajectory while the container falls to Earth. There's a graphic showing the re-entry procedure at http://www.hayabusa2.jaxa.jp - the 'TCM' points are where adjustments are made to trajectory, the final one sending the spacecraft back into space.
Wow, like a [semi] automated mining drone in space..
This is where SCVs started.
This is where SCVs started.
I can already tell that those aluminum pieces are going to jumpstart their own conspiracies
I think that was the aim, given how it was outlined and question marked in the last image without any grounded commentary. Drama = Views
They said in the last image description that it was likely from the spacecraft itself though. Saying “it’s under investigation “ just means they wanted to get the images out ASAP before they had the team investigate the origin.
The last image clearly states: "The origin is under investigation, but a probable source is aluminium scraped off the spacecraft sampler horn as the projectile was fired to stir up material during touchdown."
I was thinking the same thing "probably scraped it off of itself" xD
Mostly, because this is 2020, and finding any indication of extraterrestrial life is out of the question in this burning trash-heap of a year :)
Mostly, because this is 2020, and finding any indication of extraterrestrial life is out of the question in this burning trash-heap of a year :)
You (and seemingly everyone else compiling news-from-2020 lists) forget about the discovery of signs of life in the atmosphere of Venus. Not to be grandiose, but, if true, in 500 years this will likely be the only thing generally remembered about 2020.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02785-5
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02785-5
Is there any update to this?
"Potential signs of life on Venus are fading fast
...But those results have since come under scrutiny, including from the original discovery team, which, citing a calibration error in one telescope it used, has downgraded the strength of its claim. Although the proponents remain confident of a phosphine detection, other astronomers have suggested that sulfur dioxide, which makes up most clouds on Venus, could have caused a similar absorption, among other critiques. ..."
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6520/1021
...But those results have since come under scrutiny, including from the original discovery team, which, citing a calibration error in one telescope it used, has downgraded the strength of its claim. Although the proponents remain confident of a phosphine detection, other astronomers have suggested that sulfur dioxide, which makes up most clouds on Venus, could have caused a similar absorption, among other critiques. ..."
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6520/1021
[deleted]
>> signs of life in the atmosphere of Venus.
Haha! What's more likely, that a compound is produced in a way we dont understand or that some new life form exists in a way we don't understand?
If there were ever a time to apply occams razor that's it.
Haha! What's more likely, that a compound is produced in a way we dont understand or that some new life form exists in a way we don't understand?
If there were ever a time to apply occams razor that's it.
Forget I said this. Clearly it’s impossible and the cranks at mit and nature should not have announced their findings.
Seems unlikely at this point. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Venus):
"By late October 2020, the review of data processing of the data collected by both ALMA used in original publication of September 2020, and later JCMT data, has revealed background interpolation errors resulting in multiple spurious lines, including the spectral feature of phosphine. Re-analysis of data with a proper subtraction of background either does not result in the detection of the phosphine or detects it with concentration of 1ppb, 20 times below original estimate."
"By late October 2020, the review of data processing of the data collected by both ALMA used in original publication of September 2020, and later JCMT data, has revealed background interpolation errors resulting in multiple spurious lines, including the spectral feature of phosphine. Re-analysis of data with a proper subtraction of background either does not result in the detection of the phosphine or detects it with concentration of 1ppb, 20 times below original estimate."
It’s most likely from the probe itself. Some part that got smooshed in the extraction process.
Looks like a glob of solder to me.
In case you missed it - the Coldworm species launched their own probe and it crashed on the surface back in April. This is clearly debris from that crash, so no conspiracy here.
Having said that, I do think those guys on Europa are really getting their sh*t together these days. If it wasn't for a spurious emission from some random Starlink earthsat, they probably would have made it.
..well that and their silly 137-base maths,
..well that and their silly 137-base maths,
We need to get the VXers on this ASAP.
>> ..well that and their silly 137-base maths,
Easy for you to diss another species when you have conveniently 10-fingered prehensile limb appendages.
Easy for you to diss another species when you have conveniently 10-fingered prehensile limb appendages.
Let me guess - you're a Coldy, right?
Yes it is easier for us, but some of the stuff you do is insane despite your 'disadvantages' IMHO.
Who thought it was a good idea to have a character set that changes every orbit?
Yes it is nice to know when a document was created, but "Hey, we could use a timestamp" really should have entered the neuromesh at some point.
Seems like it would have been possible to use an unusual alloy for any pieces of the craft likely to be mixed in with the samples - some strange alloy variation, or an unusual degree of radiation - just to 'tag' the materials and prevent this kind of mixup from happening.
Better stock up on your tinfoil, peeps.
Coke can,,,
Pardon my ignorance, but as I was typing a message in a chat group linking to this page and briefly mentioning why these rocks are special, I realized that we already have a ton of asteroid material on earth. I get that the outer layers will have burned in the atmosphere, but inside is still intact. Is this useful because we suspect the surface contains different materials? Or the crushing of it on impact? Or is there something else that makes this different from digging up one that came to us rather than us going to them?
IIRC a key thing that makes it special is that it's the first time an asteroid has ever been mined
I'm sure the poster appreciates the achievement but the question remains whether these samples tell us something more than samples collected on earth.
Hayabusa 1 overcame massive hurdles and then sacrificed itself to deliver it's sample 10 years ago. It was very small - less than one gram - but first.
Still nice to see such a big sample mass increase as well as managing to get it without harming the main probe, which can continue to do more science. :)
Still nice to see such a big sample mass increase as well as managing to get it without harming the main probe, which can continue to do more science. :)
Most of the advantage is in tech demonstration [1].
Scientifically, retrieved samples are pristine and more massive, for a single body, than terrestrial samples. Retrieval also enables sampling non-NEOs.
That said, I think your intuition is correct. The scientific value of these missions pales next to their technological value.
[1] https://spacenews.com/op-ed-10-reasons-why-an-asteroid-redir...
Scientifically, retrieved samples are pristine and more massive, for a single body, than terrestrial samples. Retrieval also enables sampling non-NEOs.
That said, I think your intuition is correct. The scientific value of these missions pales next to their technological value.
[1] https://spacenews.com/op-ed-10-reasons-why-an-asteroid-redir...
> Scientifically, retrieved samples are pristine and more massive, for a single body, than terrestrial samples.
They also provide ground truth data. We know that the imaged samples 100% came from an asteroid, and a particular asteroid, whose characteristics we know from observation and other measurements. That's in contrast to terrestrial samples, for which we have to make educated guesses as to the properties of the bodies they came from. The former will be useful to cross-check and callibrate the latter.
They also provide ground truth data. We know that the imaged samples 100% came from an asteroid, and a particular asteroid, whose characteristics we know from observation and other measurements. That's in contrast to terrestrial samples, for which we have to make educated guesses as to the properties of the bodies they came from. The former will be useful to cross-check and callibrate the latter.
I believe there is also a good way to prove that some models work as we expect.
I mean, we have now hard evidence that an given asteroid has properties X, Y, Z - and we have mathematical (or ML) models that infer such properties from indirect measures.
At least, we have evidence to validate that models or spot errors on them with ground truth.
I mean, we have now hard evidence that an given asteroid has properties X, Y, Z - and we have mathematical (or ML) models that infer such properties from indirect measures.
At least, we have evidence to validate that models or spot errors on them with ground truth.
I would prefer the description "tech development" to "tech demonstration". I never do any non-trivial tech project without learning some lessons about how I would do it differently next time. So we go out and see what's on a particular asteroid, but we also see things about the task. The next time, we try a modified approach and go see what's on a different asteroid. We build out our knowledge of what resources are already out there, and where, while building out our knowledge of how to get out there, do things, and get back.
And when you get both A and B, the relative value of A vs B may be as claimed, but what really matters in the cost/benefit analysis is the value of A+B.
And even the value of the science is an interesting question, because science that finds what we "already know" has some value, but not much, but science that finds what we never expected changes history. And in our estimates of scientific value, we never expect to find what we never expected.
And when you get both A and B, the relative value of A vs B may be as claimed, but what really matters in the cost/benefit analysis is the value of A+B.
And even the value of the science is an interesting question, because science that finds what we "already know" has some value, but not much, but science that finds what we never expected changes history. And in our estimates of scientific value, we never expect to find what we never expected.
Asteroids on earth have been changed by the environment on earth. Part of it during entry, part of it during impact, part just lying there for long times.
The Ryugu sample provides an opportunity to check our understanding of the changes that happened to asteroids on earth.
The Ryugu sample provides an opportunity to check our understanding of the changes that happened to asteroids on earth.
Meteorite samples are far from perfect surrogates for asteroids, though. They experience extreme pressures and lose a great deal of their bulk when falling through Earth’s atmosphere. Once they land, they pick up contaminants from the terrestrial environment that are hard to distinguish from native substances. Pristine samples from an asteroid might not only answer questions about the origins of life’s chirality but also offer clues about how water ended up on Earth. One hypothesis suggests that asteroids, which contain some water, may have also seeded it onto our home planet during collisions (Science 2014, DOI: 10.1126/science.1261952). [0]
[0] https://cen.acs.org/physical-chemistry/astrochemistry/tale-2...
[0] https://cen.acs.org/physical-chemistry/astrochemistry/tale-2...
They shot a probe out into space, had it land on an asteroid, slam a slug into it to get below the surface, land on it again, and pick up rocks. In an era where the headliners are delivery and ride sharing apps, it's worth stepping back and considering this achievement for what it is.
Maybe the rocks themselves aren't special, but where they came from and how we got them is a massive achievement.
Maybe the rocks themselves aren't special, but where they came from and how we got them is a massive achievement.
poma88(7)
Don't organic molecules break down when getting cooked in the atmosphere? Perhaps they'll find some chemistry that doesn't normally survive the fall to Earth.
Contrary to random pieces falling onto earth they are from a specific astroid and not impacted by earth atmosphere (which burns those stones quite a bit)
Thus they potentially reveal more details and allow comparison with planets and other objects, which might help to identify the origin of the astroid and in turn be a piece in the big story how our solar system came together.
Thus they potentially reveal more details and allow comparison with planets and other objects, which might help to identify the origin of the astroid and in turn be a piece in the big story how our solar system came together.
To quote the Hayabusa2 team directly (http://www.hayabusa2.jaxa.jp/en/topics/20201204_ts3/) :
> You might therefore wonder if we should instead analyse meteorites. However, meteorites consist of the material that is left over after re-entry through the atmosphere and their structure, along with easily volatile substances, have been lost. They will also be contaminated with substances from the Earth. On the other hand, samples from the asteroids are brought back to Earth in the same condition as they were in space, with the “re-entry capsule” protecting the sample through the atmosphere and landing.
> You might therefore wonder if we should instead analyse meteorites. However, meteorites consist of the material that is left over after re-entry through the atmosphere and their structure, along with easily volatile substances, have been lost. They will also be contaminated with substances from the Earth. On the other hand, samples from the asteroids are brought back to Earth in the same condition as they were in space, with the “re-entry capsule” protecting the sample through the atmosphere and landing.
> I realized that we already have a ton of asteroid material on earth.
The quantity isn't as high as you might expect.
Most meteor flux is from cometary dust, not asteroids. The Geminids and Taurids are asteroid in origin but no meteorites have been traced to those showers.
Once the atmosphere and oceans take care of the majority, only about 10 meteorites of asteroid origin are recoverable each year.
The quantity isn't as high as you might expect.
Most meteor flux is from cometary dust, not asteroids. The Geminids and Taurids are asteroid in origin but no meteorites have been traced to those showers.
Once the atmosphere and oceans take care of the majority, only about 10 meteorites of asteroid origin are recoverable each year.
Things you find everywhere you look: scraps of aluminum foil. Styrofoam pellets. Dog hair.
Checkout this great photo of a small piece of plastic on the surface of Mars taken with the Curiosity rover: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/11or5h/the_thingplas...
Here's the official NASA source: https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/4806/small-debris-on-the-gro...
Incredible that humans have already started littering on Mars without even setting foot on the planet.
Here's the official NASA source: https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/4806/small-debris-on-the-gro...
Incredible that humans have already started littering on Mars without even setting foot on the planet.
It's all that missing matter.
I am going with a Space Man's discarded sandwich foil wrap ended up on asteroid and we captured a piece of it!
Does this mean Lobo is real?! Oooooh man
Does this mean Lobo is real?! Oooooh man
So wouldn't the obvious thing be that this asteroids composition would be almost identical to the earth's since, of course, our planet was formed by billions of these things crashing into it?
Now maybe that makes them incredibly valuable, and of course I am sure there must be some statistical distribution of asteroids with valuable minerals and those without hardly any, but I feel there is currently this idea that all asteroids are a hugely valuable to be mined no matter.
Is this true?
Now maybe that makes them incredibly valuable, and of course I am sure there must be some statistical distribution of asteroids with valuable minerals and those without hardly any, but I feel there is currently this idea that all asteroids are a hugely valuable to be mined no matter.
Is this true?
Well, just to address the value of asteroids question--the Earth itself has many incredibly valuable minerals and metals; however, most of that material is extremely far below the surface, rendering it virtually inaccessible. In contrast, this material is readily accessible on smaller asteroids. While I personally doubt that the cost of transporting the material anywhere near Earth will make asteroid mining worth it in comparison to better exploiting the material already on Earth, that's the basic logic here.
It will make sense to mine them for construction projects in space before dropping them to earth. But given the size and composition of some of these objects, mining asteroids could eventually answer a lot of resource scarcity.
Exactly, there are always comments about how it's not worth it right now, but that is now, who knows what the future will bring. We maybe be mining, refining, and doing all our manufacturing in space.
All our industrial waste could just be jettisoned into the endless vacuum of space and the earth might just be for residential and commercial use.
Maybe I'm being fanciful, naive, or just dreaming too much, but it's nice to imagine that kind of future where the earth is just a sanctuary to live and space is where the factories and the rubbish goes.
All our industrial waste could just be jettisoned into the endless vacuum of space and the earth might just be for residential and commercial use.
Maybe I'm being fanciful, naive, or just dreaming too much, but it's nice to imagine that kind of future where the earth is just a sanctuary to live and space is where the factories and the rubbish goes.
[deleted]
I’m always curious how heat dissipation is supposed to work in these space projects. The vacuum of space is a hell of a good insulator as far as I know, no?
You don't get heat conduction and convection in space, but thermal radiation works.
At the rate of about 100--350 W/m². More energy -> more radiators. At about 12 kg/m^2 launch budget * $10k/kg LEO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_thermal_control#Rad...
The ISS has 156 m² of radiators, compared with 3,246 m² of solar PV arrays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_thermal_control#Rad...
The ISS has 156 m² of radiators, compared with 3,246 m² of solar PV arrays.
>More energy -> more radiators.
Which you can make out of the asteroids you're mining for the cost of shipping up the production facilities. It's a bootstrap cost problem rather than a fundamental efficiencies problem.
>$10k/kg LEO.
$2.5k last I heard with the Falcon 9 and SpaceX is aiming to go much lower.
edit: And by much lower Musk means $10/kg to lunar orbit (that's dollars not thousands of dollars). Even if he's off by an order or two of magnitude it's still a lot cheaper.
Which you can make out of the asteroids you're mining for the cost of shipping up the production facilities. It's a bootstrap cost problem rather than a fundamental efficiencies problem.
>$10k/kg LEO.
$2.5k last I heard with the Falcon 9 and SpaceX is aiming to go much lower.
edit: And by much lower Musk means $10/kg to lunar orbit (that's dollars not thousands of dollars). Even if he's off by an order or two of magnitude it's still a lot cheaper.
Launch costs are falling, though (and despite being proved wrong several times by Musk) $10/kg Lunar sounds delusional. Consider that typical bulk freight costs on Earth are in the range of $0.40/tonne-day (180,000 DWT Capesize vessel at $48,000/day https://www.easyship.com/blog/bulk-shipping-for-delivery), or roughly $5/tonne for a 14 day transoceanic voyage (8,000 mi, 12,000 km, very roughly).
Only twice that to Lunar surface is ... dubious.
In situ construction is an option, and while asteroids can be metal-rich, useful in fabricating condenser and evaporator coils, they tend to be refrigerant poor. Substances which have properties of good refrigerants (boiling and volatility at low pressures and temperatures) are poorly retained by microgravity bodies in vacuum.
Only twice that to Lunar surface is ... dubious.
In situ construction is an option, and while asteroids can be metal-rich, useful in fabricating condenser and evaporator coils, they tend to be refrigerant poor. Substances which have properties of good refrigerants (boiling and volatility at low pressures and temperatures) are poorly retained by microgravity bodies in vacuum.
You dump heat into chunks of asteroid and throw them away, once you have disposable mass available dissipating heat is fairly simple.
I don't think anyone (credible) is claiming that all asteroids are valuable. There are however many asteroids that would be valuable (or so we suspect). When earth formed heavy stuff sunk to the bottom and light stone rose to the top, and as a consequence e.g. most metal is in Earth's core, out of reach. On some asteroids valuable material is much more plentiful than in the parts of earth we can reach
A heavy phase went to the Earth's core, but there's plenty of metal up here, and some metals (like, uranium) are strongly concentrated in the crust, because chemically they segregated into light silicate phases.
Probably, but since Earth was molten lava for a long time, all the heavy materials are at the center, while the surface we stumble around on is the lightest materials.
What little surface metal we have come from volcanoes and late era asteroids, as I understand it.
This is why a single metal asteroid could revolutionize Earth's economy, even though we have billions times more of the same material under our feet.
What little surface metal we have come from volcanoes and late era asteroids, as I understand it.
This is why a single metal asteroid could revolutionize Earth's economy, even though we have billions times more of the same material under our feet.
The Earth is highly differentiated. What's at the surface is not representative of its average composition, or of the average composition of the material it was formed from.
In particular, the Earth's surface is highly depleted in platinum group elements compared to carbonaceous chondrites. That's because those elements strongly segregated into the molten metal that flowed into the Earth's core when the planet was very hot. Ditto for gold. The Earth's surface is also depleted in tellurium; this is thought to be due to the volatility of TeH2. On the other hand, the earth's continental crust has three orders of magnitude higher concentration of uranium than the chondritic average; the Earth is likely the best place in the solar system to mine that element.
In particular, the Earth's surface is highly depleted in platinum group elements compared to carbonaceous chondrites. That's because those elements strongly segregated into the molten metal that flowed into the Earth's core when the planet was very hot. Ditto for gold. The Earth's surface is also depleted in tellurium; this is thought to be due to the volatility of TeH2. On the other hand, the earth's continental crust has three orders of magnitude higher concentration of uranium than the chondritic average; the Earth is likely the best place in the solar system to mine that element.
There is an interesting near-future thriller about mining Ryugu - “Delta-V” by Daniel Suarez, the same author of “Daemon”.
Can’t talk about moon rocks without thinking of this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_Moon_rock...
Sometime in the future, we will be mining millions of tons of these! Start of something beautiful.
Excuse my ignorance but a funny thought popped up in my head. If we start bringing material from asteroids the total mass of Earth will increase over time. How much material can we bring on Earth safely without affecting the Moon and our planet's course around the Sun?
I feel this question belongs to /r/theydidthemath/
I feel this question belongs to /r/theydidthemath/
[deleted]
Meteorites fall on Earth all the time so I wouldn't be worried about that. Also we've removed lots of mass from Earth with all the stuff we've put up in space.
The mass of the earth is irrelevant for its orbit around the sun, so there's no effect there. That's why comets, asteroids, motes of dust, and planet can all maintain orbits (see https://faculty.virginia.edu/skrutskie/ASTR1210/notes/orbeq...., for example).
It matters for the moon in theory, but not in practice. The moon needs to move at 1,001m/s to stay in orbit (formula: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+sqrt%28G+*%28mass+of+...). If we added the mass of the entire asteroid belt to the earth's mass... it would still be the same within a rounding error; the orbital velocity changes by a tiny amount (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+sqrt%28%28gravitation...).
It matters for the moon in theory, but not in practice. The moon needs to move at 1,001m/s to stay in orbit (formula: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+sqrt%28G+*%28mass+of+...). If we added the mass of the entire asteroid belt to the earth's mass... it would still be the same within a rounding error; the orbital velocity changes by a tiny amount (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+sqrt%28%28gravitation...).
For what it's worth, estimated combined mass of all currently cataloged asteroids in our system (currently just over 1 million) is less than our moon's.
Doubling mass of our moon wouldn't change the orbit: https://public.nrao.edu/ask/what-would-happen-to-the-orbit-o...
Edit: just found my notes. Awhile back I tried to reason out how fast we'd get in orbital trouble if we started ejecting all of our garbage into the sun, just an academic exercise. Rough estimate by an established astronomer [1] was that we're safe in the 0.95 AU - 1.69 AU range, so our orbit could vary from -7.25 mil km to +54.7 mil. km and we'd stay within the habitable zone. After that I plugged known values into an orbital simulator [2] and eyeballed how much mass loss that'd have to be and how long it would take.
[1] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/39-our-sol...
[2] http://orbitsimulator.com/gsim.html
Doubling mass of our moon wouldn't change the orbit: https://public.nrao.edu/ask/what-would-happen-to-the-orbit-o...
Edit: just found my notes. Awhile back I tried to reason out how fast we'd get in orbital trouble if we started ejecting all of our garbage into the sun, just an academic exercise. Rough estimate by an established astronomer [1] was that we're safe in the 0.95 AU - 1.69 AU range, so our orbit could vary from -7.25 mil km to +54.7 mil. km and we'd stay within the habitable zone. After that I plugged known values into an orbital simulator [2] and eyeballed how much mass loss that'd have to be and how long it would take.
5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 (kg) mass of the earth
597,360,000,000,000,000,000 (kg) we're in slight trouble at 0.0001 loss
50,000,000 (kg) per year normal loss to space
126,642,989,704 (kg) garbage landfilled per year
242,944,073,372 (kg) handled total per year
World est: 2,010,000,000,000 (kg) per year (300 mil years!)
[1] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/39-our-sol...
[2] http://orbitsimulator.com/gsim.html
One thing I'll be interested to see if there are any heavy elements in the samples.
Why? Because anything from the Uranium decay chain effectively dates the creation of those elements.
I belong to the school of thought that believes that spacefaring life is relatively rare. By "rare" I mean we may well be the only one within the Milky Way (within our light cone). There are lots of reasons for this but a lot of people have put a lot of thought into this but it's a whole separate topic.
Anyway, this then raises the issue of the Fermi Paradox. One angle might be the relative abundance of elements heavier than iron.
Elements up to iron are relatively common in the Universe because they're created by nuclear fusion. More specifically, nuclear fusion of elements up to iron produces energy.
Heavier elements are produced by supernovae or the merger of neutron stars and/or black holes (as we've detected by LIGO in recent years). It seems like a neutron star merger is almost required for the relative abundance of such elements we have on Earth. That might be one reason why spacefaring life is "rare".
I've seen some discussion of this for Earth-bound materials suggesting they were created 80-200 million years (IIRC) before the Earth was.
So I'm curious how old samples like these. Are they from the same event or do they have a different origin? Examining such samples from other parts of the Solar System may tell us about the relative likelihood of such events on cosmic timelines.
Why? Because anything from the Uranium decay chain effectively dates the creation of those elements.
I belong to the school of thought that believes that spacefaring life is relatively rare. By "rare" I mean we may well be the only one within the Milky Way (within our light cone). There are lots of reasons for this but a lot of people have put a lot of thought into this but it's a whole separate topic.
Anyway, this then raises the issue of the Fermi Paradox. One angle might be the relative abundance of elements heavier than iron.
Elements up to iron are relatively common in the Universe because they're created by nuclear fusion. More specifically, nuclear fusion of elements up to iron produces energy.
Heavier elements are produced by supernovae or the merger of neutron stars and/or black holes (as we've detected by LIGO in recent years). It seems like a neutron star merger is almost required for the relative abundance of such elements we have on Earth. That might be one reason why spacefaring life is "rare".
I've seen some discussion of this for Earth-bound materials suggesting they were created 80-200 million years (IIRC) before the Earth was.
So I'm curious how old samples like these. Are they from the same event or do they have a different origin? Examining such samples from other parts of the Solar System may tell us about the relative likelihood of such events on cosmic timelines.
I wonder, if something "large" (like a neutron star merger) happened "just" before earth was formed, where is that large object now? It doesn't seem to be in our immediate neighborhood.
> “I belong to the school of thought that believes that spacefaring life is relatively rare.”
I wonder why you believe that. From the next sentence it sounds like you consider humanity spacefaring life. We barelly poked our toes out from our planet. We have less than a hundred individuals who visited a different gravity well and they each only spent a relatively short amount of time there. The physical signatures of our “spacefaring-ness” is practicaly undetectable from interstellar distances. How do you know that there arent like tons of us out there?
I wonder why you believe that. From the next sentence it sounds like you consider humanity spacefaring life. We barelly poked our toes out from our planet. We have less than a hundred individuals who visited a different gravity well and they each only spent a relatively short amount of time there. The physical signatures of our “spacefaring-ness” is practicaly undetectable from interstellar distances. How do you know that there arent like tons of us out there?
This is the start of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining . In a surprise move Elon Musk will soon scrap his plans for Mars an become even richer by mining rare earth materials from asteroids ;-)
That will be more helpful
On a side note, what are the odds that there is a giant gold asteroid, floating around out there in the asteroid belt?
After all, a huge nickel asteroid slammed into what is now Canada, and left a huge nickel deposit there, just waiting to be mined out one day.
The same idea can be said for something like gold or platinum.
After all, a huge nickel asteroid slammed into what is now Canada, and left a huge nickel deposit there, just waiting to be mined out one day.
The same idea can be said for something like gold or platinum.
It looks way more than few milligrams.
Thanks for posting this - I had been under the impression the maximum load was expected to be less than a gram - some of the singular 'grains' in Chamber C look like I'd expect them to weigh more than gram individually.
Perhaps given they are the from a small gravitational mass, they are much less dense than we'd intuitively expect?
Perhaps given they are the from a small gravitational mass, they are much less dense than we'd intuitively expect?
Forgive my ignorance of what sensors are on that platform. Are they doing spectroscopy? Can they just subtract the aluminum signature out of the data if they have extra of the exact batch they used for comparison?
This is about samples returned to Earth, analysis is not constrained by instruments on a spacecraft
Oh this is the one that's returning samples to earth. Doy.
Thanks.
Thanks.
This is one of actually several ongoing sample return missions actually.
Unfortunately it showed signs of being the perfect substance to use for a galactic highway, perhaps having fallen off a transport of such material. #bring_a_towel
It's interesting how the curation of this material makes it worth $250M vs. any kind of rarity or value of the constituent compounds.
No, it isn't the "curation process". As always, the labor theory of value is complete bunk. The same process used to collect samples on Earth will not create the same value in the samples.
The value of the samples is the willingness of someone to pay for them. A particular group of scientists want to see what unexpected components and features are in the sample. Send the same sample to a group of vehicle engineers or surgeons or athletes and they won't be willing to pay that price.
The value of the samples is the willingness of someone to pay for them. A particular group of scientists want to see what unexpected components and features are in the sample. Send the same sample to a group of vehicle engineers or surgeons or athletes and they won't be willing to pay that price.
cu·ra·tion
/kyəˈrāSHən/
noun
the action or process of selecting, organizing, and looking after the items in a collection or exhibition.
I don't understand what you're getting at. The universe doesn't appear to assign any intrinsic value to anything, it is only there by virtue of someone that's willing to pay. So yes, the fact that someone found this collection of minerals from a specific source worth the price of collecting it is why we have these photos.
the action or process of selecting, organizing, and looking after the items in a collection or exhibition.
I don't understand what you're getting at. The universe doesn't appear to assign any intrinsic value to anything, it is only there by virtue of someone that's willing to pay. So yes, the fact that someone found this collection of minerals from a specific source worth the price of collecting it is why we have these photos.
> Send the same sample to a group of vehicle engineers or surgeons or athletes and they won't be willing to pay that price.
But this is true of everything. Value is decided by participants in the relevant market, not by some random people who aren't part of that market and who don't know what they're looking at. The market for gold values it at around $1900/ounce, but if you took an ounce of gold to some uncontacted indigenous tribe, you would not get market value for it.
But this is true of everything. Value is decided by participants in the relevant market, not by some random people who aren't part of that market and who don't know what they're looking at. The market for gold values it at around $1900/ounce, but if you took an ounce of gold to some uncontacted indigenous tribe, you would not get market value for it.
Yes, it is true of everything, and it debunks the labor theory of value.
Curation, being a labor process, does not add value to anything.
Curation, being a labor process, does not add value to anything.
There are plenty of reasons that the labor theory of value is wrong. The fact that different people value things differently isn't really one of them.
If curation did not add value, the market would not demand it, and soon enough the curators would realize their business is not profitable and stop doing it. Curation happening consistently and over a long period of time is a sign that it does add value.
Your reconstruction of intent from my words is putting you in a very different place from where I am.
Curation - I provided the definition above because you seem to be focused on the collection part of curation. There is more to it than that. You cannot 'curate' these samples on Earth because they don't exist on earth.
Value - I'm using this term in the sense of 'what would someone pay for these'? I'm using it much the same way that art is valued or classic cars are valued for auction, not the internal mysteries of motivation or the commoditized value of a good like cold rolled steel or corn. In this case, like art, the provenance, authenticity and care of the instance is generally considered essential and therefore why the 'curation' does actually have a meaningful role in the value (at least by virtue of not destroying it along the way).
Curation - I provided the definition above because you seem to be focused on the collection part of curation. There is more to it than that. You cannot 'curate' these samples on Earth because they don't exist on earth.
Value - I'm using this term in the sense of 'what would someone pay for these'? I'm using it much the same way that art is valued or classic cars are valued for auction, not the internal mysteries of motivation or the commoditized value of a good like cold rolled steel or corn. In this case, like art, the provenance, authenticity and care of the instance is generally considered essential and therefore why the 'curation' does actually have a meaningful role in the value (at least by virtue of not destroying it along the way).
>No, it isn't the "curation process". As always, the labor theory of value is complete bunk. The same process used to collect samples on Earth will not create the same value in the samples.
This has nothing to do with the labour theory of value (since asteroid material is very much a one-off item, and certainly not a reproducible commodity sold in a capitalist market), but even if it did, you're misunderstanding it. The theory does not state that any item with human labour taken to produce it gives it a price corresponding to that value. Instead, the theory states that this is the case if and only if the good is also a bearer of a use-value - i.e. it is of some use to the market.
This has nothing to do with the labour theory of value (since asteroid material is very much a one-off item, and certainly not a reproducible commodity sold in a capitalist market), but even if it did, you're misunderstanding it. The theory does not state that any item with human labour taken to produce it gives it a price corresponding to that value. Instead, the theory states that this is the case if and only if the good is also a bearer of a use-value - i.e. it is of some use to the market.
I wasn't familiar with the labor theory of value and tried to get up to speed briefly to understand the argument. Your distillation of it is waaay clearer than the rambling treatments I was finding. Thank you!
It's the information it contains about the composition of billions of tons of similar material that is still back there.
And then some of that price goes towards technology advancements for future missions.
And then some of that price goes towards technology advancements for future missions.
There are two "the"s in the HN title.
Nice catch!
As to why most readers didn't notice it (myself included):
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13946/why-doe...
As to why most readers didn't notice it (myself included):
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13946/why-doe...
These images are remarkably low resolution. Like someone used a handheld digital camera from 2002.
This is advanced web design by Japanese standards. Image magnification with CSS hover is mind blowing.
Best unboxing ever.
> Artificial material seems to be present in chamber C
What good is this if they’re guessing at it being a contaminant they introduced?
At least say it’s possible that it isn’t. Maybe it really had metal fragments on it.
What good is this if they’re guessing at it being a contaminant they introduced?
At least say it’s possible that it isn’t. Maybe it really had metal fragments on it.
Because it is most likely a piece of the spacecraft that got broken off during the collection attempt.
This is the rest of the paragraph:
> Artificial material seems to be present in chamber C. The origin is under investigation, but a probable source is aluminium scraped off the spacecraft sampler horn as the projectile was fired to stir up material during touchdown.
> Artificial material seems to be present in chamber C. The origin is under investigation, but a probable source is aluminium scraped off the spacecraft sampler horn as the projectile was fired to stir up material during touchdown.
What's in the samples? What kind of materials?
[deleted]
Why they call it astrobiology? Would be perhaps more correct "biochemistry".
[0] http://haya2now.jp/en.html