| Missing Water
|
A+ |
Thornhill: An abundance of water on or
below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption
of the dirty snowball hypothesis) is unlikely. see
2005 July 03
|
The explosion removed many thousands of
tons of material. But prior to impact, the calculated
water output was 550 pounds per second; and not long
after the impact, the calculated output was, once again, 550
pounds per second (See picture above regarding the return to
previous level). So despite the impressive explosion, the
envisioned sub-surface water refused to reveal itself. By
NASA's own calculations, therefore, Deep Impact has only
made matters worse for standard theory see
2005 July 16
|
| Comet breakup
|
C+ |
Thornhill: So there is some small chance
that astronomers will be surprised to see the comet split
apart, if the projectile reaches the surface of the comet
and results in an intense arc. see
2001 Oct 18
|
Thornhill: These predictions remain but the
intensity of the electrical effects depend upon the degree
to which the comet is charged with respect to the solar
plasma at the impact point. So it is disappointing that NASA
chose a short period comet that only ranges between the
orbits of Jupiter and Mars. Long period comets spend more
time traveling slowly in the lower voltage regions of the
outer solar system. So when they rush toward the Sun their
electrical display is more energetic than the short period
comets. Also, the same electrical circuit that drives the
Sun energizes comets. The Sun's activity is near minimum, so
we may expect reduced cometary activity. Of course, none of
these electrical considerations figured in NASA's thinking.
see
2005 July 03
|
| Advance Flash
|
A+ |
Thornhill: Electrical interactions with
Deep Impact may be slight, but they should be measurable if
NASA will look for them. They would likely be similar to
those of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 prior to striking Jupiter's
atmosphere: The most obvious would be a flash
(lightning-like discharge) shortly before impact. see
2005 July 03
|
What you see is something really
surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a
delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks
loose see
2005 July 07
|
| Energy release
|
A+ |
Thornhill:The electrical energy will be
released before impact. see
2005 July 03
|
See previous observation.
|
| sheath around impactor
|
B+ |
Thornhill: The impactor may form a sheath
around it as it enters the coma, becoming a "comet within a
comet". The plasma sheath could interfere with
communications in the same way as experienced by the Space
Shuttle during reentry. see
2005 July 03
|
Finally, why were there no images returned
from the impactor seconds before impact? The lower right
image is the last from the impactor camera. Thornhill
predicted an electrical flash before impact. Yesterday's
TPOD reported the surprise expressed by NASA's expert on
high-velocity impacts, Peter Schultz, when two flashes were
seen. The lack of images in the last few seconds would be
explained simply if the impactor was hit by a "cometary
lightning bolt" seconds before contact. The whiteout
seen in the lower right quadrant indicates significant
electrical discharging near the impact point. Data from the
communications team and the flyby spacecraft cameras should
decide the issue. see
2005 July 08
|
| System Failure
|
B+ |
Thornhill: Internal electrical stress may
short out the electronics on board the impactor before
impact. That could compromise the guidance system and the
success of the mission. see
2005 July 03
|
See previous observation. see
2005 July 08
|
| High-Energy Explosion
|
A+ |
Thornhill: the energetic effects of the
encounter should exceed that of a simple physical impact, in
the same way that was seen with comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 at
Jupiter. see
2001 Oct 18
|
It is now well documented that every
scientist associated with the project was stunned by the
energetic outburst. see
2005 July 07
|
| multiple craters
|
A+ |
Thornhill: If the energy is distributed
over several flashes, more than one crater on the comet
nucleus could result - in addition to any impact crater see
2005 July 03
|
By tracing rays back to their source we
noted the appearance of two ejecta centers immediately after
the impact. see
2005 July 19
|
| Water in Coma
|
A+
|
Thornhill: It is advisable that
investigators look at water abundances both close to the
nucleus and in the far coma to see to what extent water is
being formed away from the nucleus by the combination of
negative oxygen ions with protons from the solar wind. The
logical concern here is that these reactions will, by
improper reasoning, give inflated values for the water ice
abundance in the comet nucleus. see
2005 July 03
|
readings of the relative abundance of OH
should drop in the immediate wake of impact, while in the
days after the impact abundances of OH should rise. Though
this is inconceivable under the standard model, preliminary
data released does suggest this pattern. see
2005 July 19
|
| fine dust
|
A+ |
Thornhill: The primary distinction between
a comet and an asteroid is that, due to its elliptical
orbit, electrical arcing and "electrostatic cleaning" will
clean the nucleus' surface, leaving little or no dust or
debris on it. see
2005 July 03
|
Both the volume of dust and its
extraordinarily fine texture have created mysteries for
cometologists. The ejected dust appears to be as fine as
talcum powder. In no sense was this expected. But it is
characteristic of cathode sputtering, a process
used industrially to create super-fine deposits or coatings
from cathode materials. see
2006 Febrary 17
|
| surface geology
|
A+ |
Thornhill: The model predicts a sculpted
surface, distinguished by sharply defined craters, valleys,
mesas, and ridges - the opposite of the softened relief
expected of a sublimating dirty snowball. (A chunk
of ice melting in the Sun loses its sharp relief, just like
a scoop of melting ice cream.) see
2005 July 03
|
…makes an observation in a NASA release on
Deep Impact all the more noteworthy: "The image [of the
nucleus] reveals topographic features, including ridges,
scalloped edges and possibly impact craters formed long
ago". see
2005 July 08
|
| |
A+ |
Thornhill: The discharge and/or impact may
initiate a new jet on the nucleus (which will be collimated
- filamentary - not sprayed out) and could even abruptly
change the positions and intensities of other jets due to
the sudden change in charge distribution of the comet
nucleus. see
2005 July 03
|
An El Roque de los Muchachos observatory
(La Palma, Spain) report states, "New jets appeared after
the impact, the two jets observed in the previous night are
still active. Also the curved expanding impact dust shell is
visible at ~18 arcsec (corresponding to about 12,000km) from
the comet nucleus". see
2006 March 03
|
| surface arcing
|
A+ |
Thornhill: A mechanical impact will not
produce the temperatures of an electric arc, which can be
tens of thousands of degrees over a very small area. The
problem will be whether temperature readings will have the
resolution to be able to distinguish a very high temperature
over a tiny area or merely an average over a large impact
area. Anomalous high temperature readings could precede
physical impact, accompany impact, and follow impact. An
indicator of arcing would be the presence of atoms ionised
to a higher degree than can be explained by the energy of
the impact. see
2005 July 03
|
We had seen very small white spots on
photographs of comet Wild 2, and interpreted them as
electrical arcs in the form of coronal discharges. The
highest resolution photographs of Tempel 1, taken by the
impactor, show numerous featureless patches of white-out,
most located where the electrical hypothesis would put them
- on the rims of craters and on the wall of cliffs rising
above flat valley floors. This single feature, we believe,
provides the smoking guns we have waited for. Since
their initial suggestion that the patches could be highly
reflective spots on the surface, we've heard no further
comment on the subject. The signature of electric arcing
should be clearly evident in the full stream of data now
being analyzed. see
2005 July 19
|
| Subsurface Composition
|
A+ |
Thornhill: The impact/electrical discharge
will not reveal primordial dirty ice, but the same
composition as the surface. see
2005 July 03
|
In fact there was no change in measured
water after the impact. Another observation from the Odin
telescope in Sweden found that the total amount of water
appeared to decrease after the impact, probably because of
the injection of quantities of dry dust. see
2005 July 15
|
| Crater Size
|
?+ |
Thornhill: The impact/electrical discharge
will be into rock, not loosely consolidated ice and dust.
The impact crater will be smaller than expected. see
2005 July 03
|
The occlusion of the impact site by the
unexpected dust cloud leaves this question of crater size
unanswered. (Some NASA investigators have suggested that the
impact did not reach a deep level, but so far the
pronouncements on the subject are quite contradictory
because they're trying to explain things they did not
expect). see
2005 July 19
|
| changes to jets
|
?+ |
Thornhill: Changes to the appearance of the
jets may be seen before impact. see
2001 Oct 18
|
Failed electronics prevented any details
from being seen before impact. See previous observation. see
2005 July 08
|
| Arcs will be hotter than expected
|
?+ |
Thornhill: Any arcs generated will be
hotter than can be explained by mechanical impact. If
temperature measurements are made with sufficient
resolution, they will be much higher than expected from
impact heating. see
2005 July 03
|
Though we've found nothing from NASA
relating to the temperatures of the explosion, we said that
the discharge would be "hotter than can be explained by
mechanical impact. If temperature measurements are made with
sufficient resolution, they will be much higher than
expected from impact heating". On this one we are confident
as ever. see
2005 July 08
|
| High-energy electrical noise
|
?+ |
Thornhill: The signature of an electrical
discharge would be a high-energy burst of electrical noise
across a wide spectrum, a "flash" from infra-red to
ultraviolet and the enhanced emission of x-rays from the
vicinity of the projectile. The energy of a mechanical
impact is not sufficient to generate x-rays. see
2001 Oct 18
|
So far there has been no indication that
any instrument based near or on Earth had the temporal or
spatial resolution to decide this issue see
2005 July 19
|
| copious x-rays
|
?+ |
Thornhill: X-rays will accompany discharges
to the projectile, which will not match X-ray production
through the mechanics of impact. The intensity curve will be
that of a lightning bolt (sudden onset, exponential decline)
and may well include more than one peak. see
2005 July 03
|
So far there has been no indication that
any instrument based near or on Earth had the temporal or
spatial resolution to decide this issue see
2005 July 19
|
| Speed of Transport.
|
?+ |
Electrical theorists suggest that NASA
carefully review the rate at which ejecta filled the coma.
Could kinetic effects (the effects of physical impact alone)
have generated such speeds? Acceleration of negatively
charged material is a predictable effect of electric
discharge. see
2005 July 04
|
See previous observation.
|
| ionized copper
|
?+ |
Thornhill: Copper atoms ionized to a
surprisingly high degree should be detectable from
Earth-based telescopes. see
2001 Oct 18
|
See previous observation.
|
| heavy elements
|
?+ |
Thornhill: If an arc is struck between the
comet nucleus and the projectile, we may expect to see
metals such as Li, Na, K, Ca, Mg and Fe in a flash spectrum
before impact. They will have been removed from the rocky
comet in the cathode arc. see
2005 July 03
|
See previous observation.
|
| negative ions
|
?+ |
Thornhill: NASA investigators should look
for an abundance of negative ions in the impact ejecta. This
would be an obvious signature of a negatively charged comet.
Forbidden spectral lines from negative oxygen ions have been
detected spectroscopically in comet comas in the past. They
indicate the presence there of a strong electric field. see
2005 July 03
|
See previous observation.
|