Waspie_Dwarf Posted January 22, 2015 #1 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Gullies on Vesta Suggest Past Water-Mobilized Flows Protoplanet Vesta, visited by NASA's Dawn spacecraft from 2011 to 2013, was once thought to be completely dry, incapable of retaining water because of the low temperatures and pressures at its surface. However, a new study shows evidence that Vesta may have had short-lived flows of water-mobilized material on its surface, based on data from Dawn. "Nobody expected to find evidence of water on Vesta. The surface is very cold and there is no atmosphere, so any water on the surface evaporates," said Jennifer Scully, postgraduate researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. "However, Vesta is proving to be a very interesting and complex planetary body." The study has broad implications for planetary science. Read more... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted January 22, 2015 #2 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Seems unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted January 22, 2015 Author #3 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Seems unlikely. NASA are basing their conclusions on data and images obtained by the Dawn spacecraft. They are analysed by some of the best geologists and planetary scientists on the planet and their findings are peer reviewed. What are you basing your conclusion on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruel_Cahal Posted January 26, 2015 #4 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I'm not impressed if water "once existed" on a celestial body. I want to hear about actual water being found; like massive oceans and raging rivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperdyer Posted January 26, 2015 #5 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Maybe Vesta wasn't always an asteroid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twin Posted January 26, 2015 #6 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I guess I'm confused. So, now asteroids are dirty snowballs and comets are rocky bodies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolarPlexus Posted January 27, 2015 #7 Share Posted January 27, 2015 ******* awesome.. water everywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 27, 2015 #8 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Maybe the landslide happened almost immediately after the crater was created? An ice pocket with a small entrance we can't see, melted and flowed down the side and caused the landslide. There is gravity there so the water still would have flowed downhill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted January 27, 2015 #9 Share Posted January 27, 2015 if there was water flowing there, it would have to have been enough to flow before it evaporated. kind a like the problem they had at disneyland. the first time they released 100,000 gallions of water to make the river. they made a small mistake and none of the water reached the end of the river. that mistake was they had not put any soil in the river bed, it was all sand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highdesert50 Posted January 27, 2015 #10 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Interesting that there are rather large stores of water being identified. If one considers water as a byproduct of star formation, it would seem that water must have been in sufficient abundance to have such a significant effect in the formation of a planet size objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted January 27, 2015 #11 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Interesting that there are rather large stores of water being identified. If one considers water as a byproduct of star formation, it would seem that water must have been in sufficient abundance to have such a significant effect in the formation of a planet size objects. according to my info. a star needs a certain amount of water to form. too little and it gets to hot. too much and it doesn't get hot enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted January 27, 2015 #12 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Maybe Vesta wasn't always an asteroid. that's what I was thinking - maybe it is a chunk of a planet - a planet that broke up or got smashed up..? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 27, 2015 #13 Share Posted January 27, 2015 according to my info. a star needs a certain amount of water to form. too little and it gets to hot. too much and it doesn't get hot enough. Ummmm.... I don't think so. A star is mainly hydrogen to start with. It is mainly the size and age of a star that determines how hot it is. At least as far as I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted January 28, 2015 #14 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Ummmm.... I don't think so. A star is mainly hydrogen to start with. It is mainly the size and age of a star that determines how hot it is. At least as far as I know. http://wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/water-enables-star-formation#.VMgukWjF9Co To resolve this paradox, scientists have postulated the existence of a water-based "cooling system" that regulates the temperature of interstellar clouds, enabling the contraction to continue. Now a Weizmann Institute study reported in Physical Review Letters provides experimental evidence that the billions of stars that populate our firmament indeed had a watery birth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 28, 2015 #15 Share Posted January 28, 2015 http://wis-wander.we...on#.VMgukWjF9Co To resolve this paradox, scientists have postulated the existence of a water-based "cooling system" that regulates the temperature of interstellar clouds, enabling the contraction to continue. Now a Weizmann Institute study reported in Physical Review Letters provides experimental evidence that the billions of stars that populate our firmament indeed had a watery birth. That is pretty interesting. I wonder if in the last 20 years with better space based telescopes if their hypothesis has been confirmed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now