3I/ATLAS

[dragoner]

That too many of us are too science illiterate to have any freakin' patience.

Sad part is that if it were "visitors" we're well into the Hainish cycle that conquering us to save us from ourselves would be the most ethical choice.

In The Dispossessed, the ecological disaster of Earth is described; it has become "a planet spoiled by the human species" through wars and runaway industrial development. Pollution has turned it into a desert and ruined the carrying capacity of the land. The population has fallen from nine billion to half a billion, who only survive by rationing, labor conscription, euthanasia, forced birth control, and the charity of the Hainish.

Ultimately a fantasy.

 

[Umbran]

Sad part is that if it were "visitors" we're well into the Hainish cycle that conquering us to save us from ourselves would be the most ethical choice.

S'okay. Those books wouldn't have been beamed out into space - "visitors" will not have read them.

 

[dragoner]

It is not the point, it doesn't matter anyways. I am sure this visitor will be an interesting TNO or other celestial object.

 

[briggart]

Hey. It isn't like they get to pick and choose. We don't get to plan this - the thing showed, up, and we have to use what hardware is available.



Yep. In most pictures we can take, from anywhere, the nucleus is less than one pixel.

That is exactly why we need to take as many pictures as possible, from as many vantage points as possible. When you don't have one really good picture, you squeeze what you can out of may crappy pictures.

There is still an opportunity cost: using a satellite for a science which is not optimized for, means you don't use it for the science it was actually optimized for, so the question is whether the chance at some crappy image is worth the certain loss of a bunch of good images.

Anyway, as @Hriston pointed out, ESA and the Mars Express team feel that this is a good use of the mission time, even though with some caveats attached, so I'm happy to let this rest.

 

[Hriston]

Of course not! Because (duh!) - not much light has been shed on it yet!

We use vague categories when we don't know much! The universe, and science, moves at its own pace, not yours.

Look, you objected to me saying images and data from Mars will reveal more about the "true nature" of 3I/ATLAS and responded by stating "It is a comet-like object" as if that settles all questions about the object's true nature, case closed. When I point out how vague and not very informative that is as a category, your response is "we don't know much"? Dude, that was my premise to begin with! There are unanswered questions regarding this anomalous object, and it'll be interesting to find out more as more information becomes available. You know, like, I'm genuinely curious? I mean, I'm comfortable with the existence of unknowns, but I'm also curious about this particular thing. This is the "Geek Talk" forum, so I figured this would be an okay place to nerd out about some astronomy. I don't know why that gets spun into insinuations of being too impatient or peddling wacky conspiracy theories, but it seems like I'm being told that curiousity about science is not okay and I should just shut up and mind my business.

 

[Umbran]

Look, you objected to me saying images and data from Mars will reveal more about the "true nature" of 3I/ATLAS and responded by stating "It is a comet-like object" as if that settles all questions about the object's true nature, case closed.

Yep.

I said why I objected to the "true nature" phrasing - its use in the common parlance has connotations that aren't appropriate - and I gave space to speak about detailed composition. You've given us no sign why this "true nature" language is appropriate or important in this context.

When I point out how vague and not very informative that is as a category, your response is "we don't know much"? Dude, that was my premise to begin with!

Have you been taught the scientific difference between "precision" and "accuracy"?

"Comet-like object" is accurate, and is, in fact, a frequently used term from actual astronomers. It is not precise. We will gain some precision over time, but not too much, because the thing isn't going to be around for too log, and we don't have the right hardware in the right places. "Comet-like object" will remain accurate, and may be as good a general statement of its general nature as you're ever going to get.

 

[Umbran]

There is still an opportunity cost: using a satellite for a science which is not optimized for, means you don't use it for the science it was actually optimized for, so the question is whether the chance at some crappy image is worth the certain loss of a bunch of good images.

There's lots to learn on Mars, but also, it isn't going anywhere. Meanwhile, this thing is going by, and ain't coming back.

 

[Ryujin]

Yep.

I said why I objected to the "true nature" phrasing - its use in the common parlance has connotations that aren't appropriate - and I gave space to speak about detailed composition. You've given us no sign why this "true nature" language is appropriate or important in this context.



Have you been taught the scientific difference between "precision" and "accuracy"?

"Comet-like object" is accurate, and is, in fact, a frequently used term from actual astronomers. It is not precise. We will gain some precision over time, but not too much, because the thing isn't going to be around for too log, and we don't have the right hardware in the right places. "Comet-like object" will remain accurate, and may be as good a general statement of its general nature as you're ever going to get.

Hell. We could literally have a million probes orbiting along the ecliptic, along Jupiter's orbit, and still potentially not have anything in an appropriate location to capture significant data on a trans solar object.