The underlying data here comes from the Ptolemy instrument, a gas chromatograph mass-spectrometer (ion trap, in this case) which can measure ratios of molecules in a range of 14 to 140 Da. (It might also be able to identify somewhat larger species by inducing fragmentation and measuring the resulting pattern of smaller molecules within the effective mass range, but I haven't found if this capability was included).
Personally I think the idea that life/prebiotic soup came to earth on a comet is suspect, for the reasons explained in these blog posts and the links therein:
Two problems with the 'organic asteroid' theory are the 'racemization problem' (how to explain why life only uses L isomers rather than both the L and D isomers present in meteorites), and the fact that the amount of organic matter in meteors is tiny. Compare that to the opportunities for life to arise on earth in its diverse chemical environments.
See the calculations by Jeffrey Bada discussed in the second link.
It's possible that there's no reason life chose L or D isomers, but choosing one and sticking to it was advantageous (I use the word "choose" loosely here).
I confess ignorance about this theory, but I see it a lot and I don't understand. It just seems bizarre to think that life began on a comet. Sure, we want to know the origin of life. What does pushing it off the Earth solve? I guess my question is, What are the positive reasons for thinking life arrived from a comet? I can't think of any. As a layman, the theory is so strange I'm not even sure why it needs to be refuted. Can someone explain why this idea is popular?
> Once the rechargeable secondary battery has been warmed by sunlight again, Philae will restart and the DLR LCC team will take their places at the control consoles again.
This is the first I've heard that Philae can wake back up. I was under the impression that it had no solar capabilities whatsoever, and that the battery was the only power it had available.
Yeah the probe is covered in panels. The main issue is that it did not land where they intended and it is mostly in shadow. I am not a rocket scientist but... it looks like it will be getting closer to the sun as time goes on here so maybe the light it can get later will be more intense and enough to power it?
I've understood it has solar panels. But what would be the reason they didn't put a nuclear battery on board? That would work for years.
If the direct output power of the nuclear battery was too low, it could still be used to charge the rechargeable battery until it can make the lander do work again for a few hours/days.
"Scientists are analyzing the data to see whether the organic compounds detected by Philae are simple ones—such as methane and methanol—or a more complex species such as amino acids"
I feel like there is a big difference between finding methane and finding amino acids on the comet. Surely, finding methane isn't all that interesting.
It would have interesting implications if it was produced by microorganisms. I don't know enough to comment further, but I'm guessing that's what the article was suggesting.
Yeah, my first reaction was the same, mentioning them in the top of article while mentioning all other contributors as a note in last paragraph felt like wanting to take all credit.
But then I saw it was published on a ".de" website. You can expect it's targeted at a german audience, who naturally feels interested in knowing which part their country played into this (mentioning others just after wouldn't have hurt, though).
Thanks. Just a note to others, if you have already opened the link 'with' the paywall, even this might not work. Just open this link in another browser.
The fact that exciting scientific discoveries like this are being presented on WSJ behind a paywall is absurd. Science on the internet is going to be dramatically different in 10 years than it is right now...
It's inconvenient for us, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "absurd." The Wall Street Journal is not a 501(c). It's either this, or a flurry of intrusive ads. (Or a subscription upsell, but I digress). Different publications pick their poison differently. But someone's gotta pay for something.
Besides, paywalls aren't hard to circumvent. Someone usually posts a redirect within minutes of these articles' being linked here.
You think the people at the WSJ should work for free? I think that's absurd.
Have you never attempted to read original scientific papers? Most are hidden behind paywalls. Search for yourself - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gquery/
One suspects that there are plenty of more primary sources for this matter. (Also the WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece, and bypassing its paywall is a mitzvah.)
[+] [-] ihnorton|11 years ago|reply
Some more info here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/1937.pdf
and: http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/31445-instruments/?fbodylongid=89...
The instrument has its own Twitter feed, of course: https://twitter.com/philae_ptolemy
[+] [-] happyscrappy|11 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/erichand/status/534413817040867328
Edit: Changed Rosetta to COSAC.
[+] [-] ealloc|11 years ago|reply
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2011/11/nasa-confusion-about-ori...
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/04/can-watery-asteroids-ex...
Two problems with the 'organic asteroid' theory are the 'racemization problem' (how to explain why life only uses L isomers rather than both the L and D isomers present in meteorites), and the fact that the amount of organic matter in meteors is tiny. Compare that to the opportunities for life to arise on earth in its diverse chemical environments.
See the calculations by Jeffrey Bada discussed in the second link.
[+] [-] nitrogen|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjungwir|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madaxe_again|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] christiangenco|11 years ago|reply
> Once the rechargeable secondary battery has been warmed by sunlight again, Philae will restart and the DLR LCC team will take their places at the control consoles again.
This is the first I've heard that Philae can wake back up. I was under the impression that it had no solar capabilities whatsoever, and that the battery was the only power it had available.
[+] [-] trose|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yason|11 years ago|reply
If the direct output power of the nuclear battery was too low, it could still be used to charge the rechargeable battery until it can make the lander do work again for a few hours/days.
[+] [-] dekhn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seccess|11 years ago|reply
I feel like there is a big difference between finding methane and finding amino acids on the comet. Surely, finding methane isn't all that interesting.
[+] [-] gus_massa|11 years ago|reply
For example, you can read:
In dirty ice like comets: http://www.astrochem.org/sci/Amino_Acids.php
In interestelar clouds: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/aug/11/amino-a...
[+] [-] fsiefken|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kileywm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codeulike|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkriss|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grecy|11 years ago|reply
Do they have an estimate of when it will be destroyed because it's too close to the sun?
[+] [-] jnevill|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codeulike|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ludoo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oelmekki|11 years ago|reply
But then I saw it was published on a ".de" website. You can expect it's targeted at a german audience, who naturally feels interested in knowing which part their country played into this (mentioning others just after wouldn't have hurt, though).
[+] [-] lispm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tormeh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nkuttler|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gtirloni|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] piyush_soni|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aftabh|11 years ago|reply
Edit: I opened the article in private mode in both Google Chrome and Firefox browsers so it cannot be related to browser's cache.
Tried other news articles from WSJ website, got the same result i.e. they worked with Google Chrome but not with Firefox browser.
[+] [-] coldcode|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ElHacker|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dz0ny|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trose|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irollboozers|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonnathanson|11 years ago|reply
Besides, paywalls aren't hard to circumvent. Someone usually posts a redirect within minutes of these articles' being linked here.
[+] [-] jp555|11 years ago|reply
Have you never attempted to read original scientific papers? Most are hidden behind paywalls. Search for yourself - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gquery/
[+] [-] GFK_of_xmaspast|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|11 years ago|reply