« dnia: Grudzień 09, 2017, 22:46 »
Gravity Assist Podcast, Mercury with Faith Vilas (1)
Nov. 22, 2017
This colorful view of Mercury was produced by using images from the color base map imaging campaign during MESSENGER's primary mission. These colors are not what Mercury would look like to the human eye, but rather the colors enhance the chemical, mineralogical, and physical differences between the rocks that make up Mercury's surface.
Credits: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of WashingtonOur virtual tour of the solar system continues with Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun. Since it’s tough to observe Mercury except at dawn or twilight, most of what we know about Mercury is from NASA’s Mariner 10 and MESSENGER missions.
NASA’s Jim Green is joined by Faith Vilas of the National Science Foundation to discuss Mercury and, more broadly, how planetary science helps us understand exoplanets—planets around other stars. Key questions include: Did Mercury form elsewhere in the solar system? Could Mercury be the core of a larger planet? And just what are “Vulcans?” (Hint: it’s not related to Star Trek.)
Transcript:
Jim Green: Our solar system is a wondrous place with a single star, our Sun, and everything that orbits around it -- planets, moons, asteroids and comets. What do we know about this beautiful solar system we call home? It's part of an even larger cosmos with billions of other solar systems.
Hi, I'm Jim Green, Director of Planetary Science at NASA, and this is Gravity Assist.
I'm with Dr. Faith Vilas of the National Science Foundation, and we're here to talk about everything Mercury. Faith has been one of the original Mercury researchers, well before the famous Messenger Mission. So, Faith, how did that happen? How did you get involved in Mercury research?
Faith Vilas: Well, I was an undergraduate, and I was working with a professor over at MIT, and I wanted to do some independent study as an undergraduate student. And he suggested I take a look at Mercury. And Mercury is not an easy object to observe from the Earth, either from the surface or even from something like the Hubble (Space Telescope) because it only goes, at most, 28 degrees away from the Sun. So, it's sort of one of those projects that you take on, and you're gonna do it, and you're standing on a ladder, and you're tilting your telescope over near the horizon, and you can barely see it, and, you know, you can pick it up, and you can follow it a little ways or follow it up or follow it down, but it's always near the Sun. So, you always have to watch out for the Sun. And so, it becomes a tricky problem to observe.
Jim Green: Yeah, some of that original research on Mercury, you weren't alone. There were others that got excited about that planet. And as our closest planet to the Sun, as a terrestrial body, it's important for us to study it. It, you know, it tells us clues about planet formation.
So, you made a number of predictions. The scientific community did before we actually were able to get a mission together like MESSENGER to go to Mercury. What were some of those things that proved to be correct?
Faith Vilas: The prediction that I made that proved to be correct, which I'm grateful for, was that there was no iron oxides. There's no oxidized iron in the surface material of Mercury.
We have a very characteristic spectrum that we can see across our visible spectral range, visible and near infrared, and we were not seeing that. And I said, I don't see this, it's just not there in enough quantity to say that we have something on the surface of Mercury.
This flies in the face of the fact that Mercury--we do know that Mercury is very heavy, has a very large core. It's likely an iron and nickel metal core. And every prediction is that it was going to have, you know, plenty of oxidized iron in the surface material, every prediction was that.
And I said, no, I don't see it. And we get there with MESSENGER, and sure enough, it's not there.
And the reason people said, well, you may be wrong is, again, because Mercury is so close to the Sun, and it's so hard to observe. If we're looking at it, again, from the Earth, we have to look through a really thick atmosphere down near the horizon. It varies very quickly. It could affect your spectra if you're not being very careful about your observations.
And because it is so close to the Sun, we can't take something like the Hubble Space Telescope and turn it toward Mercury. It's too close to the Sun. If Hubble looked at the Sun and it got fried, that would be the end of not only Mercury's research, probably my career.
Jim Green: Yeah, and all of astronomy. I mean--.
Faith Vilas: --Yeah, no kidding--.
Jim Green: --Hubble's been so successful.
Faith Vilas: It's been hugely successful. But, it can't observe something that close to the Sun.
So, it required--it needed MESSENGER to be able to solve that. But, that was certainly my prediction -- the atmosphere we were pretty sure--once we started to discover the atmospheres, we were pretty sure of its content.
Jim Green: Well, was there any indication that there could have been ice on Mercury from ground-based telescopes?
Faith Vilas: Yes, there were, of course.
Jim Green: Hmm.
Faith Vilas: And that came from ground-based observations with the radar at Arecibo in Puerto Rico. And the observations were made, of course, near the poles of Mercury. And the first indication was this looks kind of like it's very different. Maybe it's a signature that we would expect to see maybe from water or water ice, and why would this be there. And then they continued the observations. They were able to--with improvements in the radar, they were able to narrow them down to specific areas on the poles, the north pole and the south pole.
With the images we got from Mariner 10, they were able to correlate, you know, show that some of these signals matched where the craters were. And so, we were thinking, okay, what's going on here is that we have craters in the poles that are in the shadows because of the poles, the craters themselves are in the poles, near the poles and shadow because Mercury doesn't tilt very much on its access. It's pretty much upright. So, the Sun never reaches them.
And since the Sun never reaches those locations, they can keep water and ice there as long as they want to keep water and ice there.
Jim Green: Forever.
Faith Vilas: And so, the question became where did it come from? And it largely looked like it came from sources outside of Mercury like--because Mercury's so close to the Sun, everything's gonna be focused into crashing into it, and comets, water ice comets came in and--.
Jim Green: --Yeah, impacted--.
Faith Vilas: --Impacted it--.
Jim Green: --Yeah, uh-huh--.
Faith Vilas: --And trapped a whole bunch of the water ice at the poles.
Jim Green: Yeah. As we've learned from MESSENGER data, they did an outstanding job looking at the southern hemisphere--.
Faith Vilas: --Yes--.
Jim Green: --And mapping the craters into the permanently-shadowed regions and matching some of their other observations, which also indicated water. But, they weren't able to really see the northern hemisphere.
Faith Vilas: Right.
Jim Green: But, with the radar, we did.
Faith Vilas: Uh-huh.
Jim Green: And so, then that means, of course, by analogy, that the same thing--.
Faith Vilas: --Same thing was going on in both sides.
Jim Green: Same thing's going on in both poles -- really exciting.
Faith Vilas: And with some very I think creative ways of observing the southern hemisphere, we were able to look at the structure inside the craters that are not lit. From other things that have come out of them, we could see and delineate the structure from the Mariner 10 observations. It was truly a good piece of work.
Jim Green: Did we have some predictions that MESSENGER showed didn't pan out?
Faith Vilas: Did we have some predictions? Well, of course, things that were predicted, of course, included the iron on the surface that we did not see. Things that were not predicted were a lot of the other materials that we did see, both through the ground-based observations and--but mostly through experiments we had on board MESSENGER that could look at the elemental compositions, not so much the spectral compositions because spectral were pretty bland, just as I predicted many years before, for the surface material except in a couple places where we had some really unusual features and bright features, features with sulfur, that we assume were sulfur, features that we have not yet fully explained.
But, one of the things that was in question--I don't know that it was not predicted, but it was in question when we went to Mercury, was the question of whether there was volcanism, did we have volcano activity type of thing on Mercury, and we sure did. The whole thing has got flowing volcanoes at different times.
Jim Green: Huge basins, like large basins--.
Faith Vilas: Huge basins, huge basins, yeah--.
Jim Green: The material has filled in into the craters.
Faith Vilas: Yeah, we didn't have the really super high volcanic, you know, mountains like we get on Mars and we have on the Earth, but there's obviously a lot of volcanic activity on Mercury. This--Mercury was not a dead, cold planet. Mercury was a very active planet at some point.
Jim Green: Well, this of course led everyone to think that least some of the iron oxide would be coming up--.
Faith Vilas: Sure--.
Jim Green: From below.
Faith Vilas: From below. And for whatever reason, we have not yet seen that. You know, we do not see that. And, you know, we don't see any flows of--or major activity on Mercury at this point, but it certainly didn't occur in the past, or if it has occurred, it's been stripped away somehow or another in Mercury's past.
Mariner 10 had shown that it (Mercury) had a magnetic field and that it had magnetosphere as a result, of course, too, and it's close to the Sun. But, it did have a magnetic field, and it looked as if, for all that Mariner 10 could tell, the magnetic field did change a little bit.
From MESSENGER, we learned that not only does it change, but it's offset. It's not centered. The magnetic field that we have on the Earth is centered around our equator, sort of. And it's not absolute, but it's kind of centered at the equator.
Jim Green: Tilted a little bit but through the center--.
Faith Vilas: --Tilted a little bit but through the center.
Jim Green: Uh-huh, right.
Faith Vilas: Not on Mercury. Mercury's magnetic field is centered in the northern hemisphere. And that means that various levels of the surface of Mercury probably have some different levels of protection from the magnetic field. We have--we are all protected on the Earth because of the magnetic field at some level.
And Mercury has this varying magnetic field that's offset form the center and is obviously there, but it's not clear what, why--or why it's even located in that particular location.
Jim Green: Yeah.
Faith Vilas: You know, what I'd say about Mercury is that everybody thought this was gonna be a bland and boring little planet that didn't have anything much going on, and instead, as some of us predicted, myself included, every solar system object is different from everyone else, everything else. It's not the same.
I mean, Mercury has always drawn--always gonna look like the Moon. No, it's actually significantly different than the Moon, and they aren't absolutely the same, and we--one of the things that I have been fortunate in my life to have experienced is the first really, really good look at almost every planet in our solar system--I guess every planet now.
Jim Green: Yeah.
Faith Vilas: Every planet. And every planet--the comets, a lot of the asteroids, they're all vastly different, they're all much more energetic and have much more of an interest in history than we ever imagined. And so, to predict that something is gonna be, oh, it's gonna be this way because it looks like of this way. Well, what we already know about it is wrong because it's always different. It's always, always different, and it's always new, and it's--I've been fortunate to live through seeing the first really good look at these planets, and I predict that there's so much more we can still learn from them.
Jim Green: You know, this is the field of comparative planetology.
Faith Vilas: Right.
Jim Green: And we are always comfortable about making predictions that can be seen from one body and extrapolating it to another--.
Faith Vilas: --Uh-huh, to another.
Jim Green: And when we find that that's not true, that uncovers the new physics.
Faith Vilas: That should give us a reason to have to go to these objects, because we're learning new things, and that expands compared to planetology to what's different, what is the same and what affected what planet in what location in its solar system, you know, or its system.
That is also extended to exoplanets now, too.
Jim Green: You know, one of the things--and you bring it up here with exoplanets--Mercury is that small body, that small terrestrial body. It's smaller than Mars--.
Faith Vilas: --Uh-huh--.
« Ostatnia zmiana: Kwiecień 02, 2023, 10:05 wysłana przez Orionid »

Zapisane