Quote:
Originally Posted by VanderL
[snip]
I'll just try to address the question on how the Rosetta mission can give us answers:
1. The spacecraft will orbit the comet nucleus and be able to produce close-up images of the comet's surface. This will show us the surface characteristics and pinpoint the origins of the jets. This will either be small holes venting, or bright arcs (both point sources and interconnected "curtains" similar to Io's volcanoes) hovering close to the surface, preferentially on the highest elevations.
|
What is the basis for the assertion that these two are the only things possible, in terms of what the close-up images will show us?
Quote:
|
2. The lander will provide even better detail, but chances are the environment will prove too electrically active.
|
What, quantitatively, are those chances? 50:50? 1:99? something else?
What does "
too electrically active" mean?
Quote:
If the lander survives it can show the surface composition, either subsurface ices, or minerals as deep as it can get (30 cm).
3. The plasma instruments will show either will show that nothing much is happening, neutral material that is only ionised by solar UV, away from the surface, or a very active plasma environment, getting stronger towards perihelion.
|
What is the basis for the assertion that these two are the only things possible, in terms of what the plasma instruments will show?
Quote:
|
Ionic species will either have higher concentrations away from the surface, or close to the jet source/surface (ionisation first, recobination to neautrals later).
|
Please clarify.
Specifically, please elaborate what "
ionic species", "
higher concentrations", and "
away from"/"
close to" mean, by providing some quantitative ranges (for example).
Quote:
|
4. The surface will either be changing because of the jets, or stay relatively intact (assuming subsurface chamber of ices volatiles are not disintegrating)
|
What is the basis for the assertion that these two are the only things possible, in terms of what the surface will be doing?
Quote:
I'll think of more details if you want, but I think you get the idea; qualitative descriptions of events that can discriminate between the two models.
Cheers.
|
Please state the source of the non-ECM model used in the above "
qualitative descriptions of events" and describe in more detail how those descriptions were derived from that non-ECM model. If these descriptions are given in a published paper, please give a reference.