Jump to content

More space news!


tkdguy

Recommended Posts

On 7/25/2020 at 11:40 AM, DShomshak said:

Last week I saw Comet NEOWISE on a fortunately clear night. Has anyone else?

 

Dean Shomshak


Managed to see it on the one night we weren’t socked in. It wasn’t terribly impressive due to the light pollution and scattered clouds, but my kid was fascinated by it so that was cool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tkdguy said:

Sure they do, but I often see them first on YouTube, since I've been visiting it a lot lately.

 

 

I figured that was the case. One of the things I enjoy about this thread is seeing all the new things without having to necessarily having to personally scour the internet to find it.

 

Unfortunately, I get migraines so easily that I almost never have my computer sound on. And I'm not particularly fond of getting my news through video (which is excruciatingly slow compared to reading text). So I don't often watch videos. 

 

I was making the mistake of trying to watch a political convention tonight so I'm in a particularly grumbly mood. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

The technical paper in Nature Astronomy is here.  I managed to get to it this morning without a subscription, so I don't think it's behind a paywall, but YMMV.

 

This is based on spectroscopic observations of an absorption line at about 1 millimeter wavelength.  The first observation was done with the James Clerke Maxwell Telescope in 2017, and I would call that spectrum suggestive but not compelling that an absorption line was actually present.  The 2019 ALMA spectrum is better but I would still hesitate to make a claim based on that.  The two data sets jointly make something worth putting into the literature.  Even so, it fairly cries out for confirming evidence, which probably will have to come from an atmospheric probe: I don't think it'll be possible to do better with Earthbased data for quite some time.

 

The best takeaway from this is the whole of their main-text final paragraph ("PH3" here means PH[sub]3[/sub]: the chemical formula for phosphine. )

Quote

Even if confirmed, we emphasize that the detection of PH3 is not robust evidence for life, only for anomalous and unexplained chemistry. There are substantial conceptual problems for the idea of life in Venus’s clouds—the environment is extremely dehydrating as well as hyperacidic. However, we have ruled out many chemical routes to PH3, with the most likely ones falling short by four to eight orders of magnitude (Extended Data Fig. 10). To further discriminate between unknown photochemical and/or geological processes as the source of Venusian PH3, or to determine whether there is life in the clouds of Venus, substantial modelling and experimentation will be important. Ultimately, a solution could come from revisiting Venus for in situ measurements or aerosol return.

 

Terrestrial biology does produce phosphine at a rate adequate to make the feature seen in the millimeter spectra.  Other known photochemical and geochemical processes don't.  That's as strong a statement in favor of life as can be made from these data, IMO.  OTOH, I am not convinced that the identification of this single spectral line as being due to phosphine is bulletproof; and even if it is, while a particularly implausible assumption about a biosphere producing PH3 can produce the observed feature, that's a really bad reason to think of this as evidence for life there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much appreciated, Cancer. The article tkdguy linked to wouldn't load in a timely manner (goddam dial-up), and the interview on All Things Considered was necessarily weak on technical details. Though it did include that one of the few people to smell phosphine and live described the stench as "the rancid diaper of the spawn of Satan," which is a pretty good bit of wordsmithing.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...