James Webb Telescope Captures Clearest View of Neptune's Rings In Decades (nasa.gov) 81
According to NASA, the James Webb Space Telescope has captured the clearest view of Neptune's rings in more than 30 years. From the report: Most striking in Webb's new image is the crisp view of the planet's rings -- some of which have not been detected since NASA's Voyager 2 became the first spacecraft to observe Neptune during its flyby in 1989. In addition to several bright, narrow rings, the Webb image clearly shows Neptune's fainter dust bands. "It has been three decades since we last saw these faint, dusty rings, and this is the first time we've seen them in the infrared," notes Heidi Hammel, a Neptune system expert and interdisciplinary scientist for Webb. Webb's extremely stable and precise image quality permits these very faint rings to be detected so close to Neptune.
Webb's Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) images objects in the near-infrared range from 0.6 to 5 microns, so Neptune does not appear blue to Webb. In fact, the methane gas so strongly absorbs red and infrared light that the planet is quite dark at these near-infrared wavelengths, except where high-altitude clouds are present. Such methane-ice clouds are prominent as bright streaks and spots, which reflect sunlight before it is absorbed by methane gas. Images from other observatories, including the Hubble Space Telescope and the W.M. Keck Observatory, have recorded these rapidly evolving cloud features over the years. More subtly, a thin line of brightness circling the planet's equator could be a visual signature of global atmospheric circulation that powers Neptune's winds and storms. The atmosphere descends and warms at the equator, and thus glows at infrared wavelengths more than the surrounding, cooler gases.
Neptune's 164-year orbit means its northern pole, at the top of this image, is just out of view for astronomers, but the Webb images hint at an intriguing brightness in that area. A previously-known vortex at the southern pole is evident in Webb's view, but for the first time Webb has revealed a continuous band of high-latitude clouds surrounding it. Webb also captured seven of Neptune's 14 known moons. Dominating this Webb portrait of Neptune is a very bright point of light sporting the signature diffraction spikes seen in many of Webb's images, but this is not a star. Rather, this is Neptune's large and unusual moon, Triton.
Webb's Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) images objects in the near-infrared range from 0.6 to 5 microns, so Neptune does not appear blue to Webb. In fact, the methane gas so strongly absorbs red and infrared light that the planet is quite dark at these near-infrared wavelengths, except where high-altitude clouds are present. Such methane-ice clouds are prominent as bright streaks and spots, which reflect sunlight before it is absorbed by methane gas. Images from other observatories, including the Hubble Space Telescope and the W.M. Keck Observatory, have recorded these rapidly evolving cloud features over the years. More subtly, a thin line of brightness circling the planet's equator could be a visual signature of global atmospheric circulation that powers Neptune's winds and storms. The atmosphere descends and warms at the equator, and thus glows at infrared wavelengths more than the surrounding, cooler gases.
Neptune's 164-year orbit means its northern pole, at the top of this image, is just out of view for astronomers, but the Webb images hint at an intriguing brightness in that area. A previously-known vortex at the southern pole is evident in Webb's view, but for the first time Webb has revealed a continuous band of high-latitude clouds surrounding it. Webb also captured seven of Neptune's 14 known moons. Dominating this Webb portrait of Neptune is a very bright point of light sporting the signature diffraction spikes seen in many of Webb's images, but this is not a star. Rather, this is Neptune's large and unusual moon, Triton.
Re:we need a real space station & moon base (Score:5, Informative)
As far as the rings of Neptune go, have they changed significantly in 30 years? Wasn't the last picture better ?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
NASA has never attempted to build a rotating wheel space station, for several reasons. First, such a station would be very difficult to construct, given the limited lifting capability available to the United States and other spacefaring nations. Assembling such a station and pressurizing it would present formidable obstacles, which, although not beyond NASA's technical capability, would be beyond available budgets. Second, NASA considers the present space station, the International Space Station (ISS), to b
Re: we need a real space station & moon base (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"NASA has never attempted to build a rotating wheel space station ..." - it's true, however there were attempts and there was a plan for a centrifugal accommodation module [wikipedia.org] on the ISS.
BTW the rotating wheel is not required to be build and pressurized, the general concept is to first launch 2 tethered modules (one side would be a dead weight from a spent booster stage), then keep expanding them till reaching a ring like structure. There is also an interesting idea to have an elevator like capsule on the ISS t
Re: we need a real space station & moon base (Score:2)
Rotating space stations need to have a quite large radius unless you love unintuitive jerks (esp. to your head) from coriolis forces.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be pretty cool to go to a "space Disney Land" that was really in space. It's just going to take a long time for that tech to become remotely affordable for anyone not making 500k a year.
In 200 years though, damn it would be cool to come back to visit such a place that should be viable by then.
Re: (Score:2)
it would be cool for sure. but after a short while spent on their website it looks a lot like bullshit to me. it's just talk. their compromise is that they will be basically chasing investors until 2025. by selling smoke, obviously.
well, at least they have been keeping their promise (of doing nothing) for a year now. gotta give them that! 4 to go ...
Re:we need a real space station & moon base (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the rings of Neptune go, have they changed significantly in 30 years? Wasn't the last picture better ?
Probably not. Remember, JWST captures infrared where Hubble and Voyager operate in visible light. Voyager has the most detailed pictures of Neptune because it got closer to Neptune than Hubble and JWST
Re: (Score:2)
Given how close Voyager got and consequently how good its photos were [nasa.gov] I do think the article should have addressed the benefits of the new JWST data. I'm sure there must be advantages but I'm curious what.
Re: (Score:2)
Pictures may lead to Boots (Score:2)
Pretty pictures is how we affordably understand what is happening and where
Even more importantly those pretty pictures, especially from the JWST, may lead to finding exoplanets with oxygen in the atmosphere and, while we lack the technology to get there for the foreseeable future, such pictures might lead to boots eventually going somewhere in the distant future a heck of a lot more interesting than a dead moon.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all doable, but how much are you willing to pay for it?
Re: (Score:3)
I think you underestimate the orders of magnitude difference in cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Boots in space means they get radiation from space. The space station would do nothing for getting information on the planets. And it wouldn't get us any information about the Earth that isn't gathered more economically via satellite.
The people in charge of the Webb telescope are scientists, not bureaucrats. Learn how NASA functions before spouting bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
to no avail. the utility of space stations as research hubs is hugely exaggerated, there are actually very little experiments that absolutely need to be done up there, none of them has brought any fundamental breakthrough ever and the main one is as obvious as depressing: how living in one such orbiting tin can affects the human body. but the popular folklore loves them. it's similar to the "colonizing mars" trope: nonsense, but it still stimulates people's imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
Take one percent from the military budget - that'll cover decades of NASA funding... plenty of boots then!
Re:we need a real space station & moon base (Score:5, Insightful)
Take one percent from the military budget - that'll cover decades of NASA funding... plenty of boots then!
Decades? Please feel free to elaborate, since my brain won't stop screaming "BULLSHIT!" at me.
Here, let me help. Estimates from FY2016:
"NASA estimates it would cost $450 billion to land the first humans on Mars by the late 2030s or early 2040s."
That's one trip, not "decades". With a handful of boots, not "plenty". And keeping with government budget tradition, $450 billion would balloon to $2 trillion a decade into that program, because that's just what you do when the taxpaying plebs are paying for it.
"Take one percent" from the Military budget that year? You got $6 billion, junior. Doesn't even cover the ice cream and Tang budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk will get there before the USA government I'm willing to bet. Or the Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA does more than just humans on Mars. That extra $6 billion would cover a lot of science - that's two new rovers of the Curiosity type all the way to Mars, for example, and is actual cost, not hand-waving. Even if you do focus on manned, $6 billion would cover an Artemis launch to the moon.
NASA's 2023 budget is ~ $25 billion, so while an extra 25% is not "decades" as GP wildly states, it is not just the Tang you dismiss it as being.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA does more than just humans on Mars. That extra $6 billion would cover a lot of science - that's two new rovers of the Curiosity type all the way to Mars, for example, and is actual cost, not hand-waving.
You speak confidently enough about actual cost that it sounds like they never exceed budget. Guess I'd like to see some proof of that over the last few missions. I mean, it is a Government agency. Hell, do they still have COVID billions laying around?
Even if you do focus on manned, $6 billion would cover an Artemis launch to the moon.
Great. For what reason again?
"With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon."
Incredible. That is literally the opening statement. And they will do it. Statement is crystal clear on that. Tends to overshado
Re: (Score:2)
Decades? Please feel free to elaborate, since my brain won't stop screaming "BULLSHIT!" at me.
OK... years... sue me! *rolls eyes*
Re: (Score:1)
a lot more than we need more pretty pictures. No more taxpayer paid remote control toys for rich boys please. We need boots in space, not more bureaucrats pretending to be scientists.just saying
So, after you and 100 million other taxpayers foot the bill for that $5 trillion dollar moon base...well I'll just stop right there. We the Plebs, can't afford it.
Hell, we can barely fathom how we ever afforded the Apollo missions which haven't been repeated in half a century. We're probably still paying for those in some way.
And who exactly are the bureaucrats pretending to be scientists directly involved with JWST? Who the hell gave them badge access?
Re: (Score:2)
I fully support the concept of redirecting wasteful funds in order to get our species off this dying rock. But I also have quite a few decades of experience living in reality. You know damn well any lunar base is only going to be justified under some kind of bullshit intergalactic threat from a nameless, faceless "enemy."
In other words, all the irresponsible rich people pointlessly warmongering for profit on Earth, would be the ones championing to expand that idiotic mentality for profit on other planets.
Apologies to Jack Handey (Score:1)
Neptune should be considered an enemy planet
Re: (Score:3)
How long do you think the Neptune pics took to get? I'd imagine they're also really useful for calibration and understanding of the telescope's capabilities.
If we found (non-communicating) alien life on a planet 50ly away, it'd be in the news for a couple of weeks then everything would be back to normal.
Re:Scope time: local planets pics or alien life ? (Score:5, Funny)
"If we found (non-communicating) alien life on a planet 50ly away, it'd be in the news for a couple of weeks then everything would be back to normal."
If the most beautiful person in the world of your preferred sex ( for the non-asexual among us ) came up to you in the street ( for the non-agoraphobic among us ) and gave you a kiss on the lips ( for the people with functioning lips among us ), you would be on a high for a couple of weeks then everything would be back to normal.
But it would still be nice if it happened.
Seriously, one would hope it would at least give a few religious nutters pause for thought.
And give Musk something else to aim for.
Re: (Score:1)
Show me on the doll where I touched you.
You wrote: "If we found (non-communicating) alien life on a planet 50ly away, it'd be in the news for a couple of weeks then everything would be back to normal."
I disagree and I gave an example of a group of people for whom everything would very much not be back to normal.
*eye roll*
Re: (Score:1)
You did no such thing. You slammed Christians out of the blue completely non sequitur on a science article.
Are you aware official Catholic word from the Vatican is they believe in alien life on other worlds? And have for years.
Put the doll down.
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, seriously ?!
You were triggered into your ranting by this statement ?! : "Seriously, one would hope it would at least give a few religious nutters pause for thought."
Engage your brain before typing.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't worry, I get it from the woke idiots and I get it from the right-wing idiots. Sometimes for one comment.
"Put yourself in their shoes - your entire life beliefs are based on lies, frightened cornered animals tend to lash out."
The hateful responses from the extremes merely confirms that both ends are very angry about being wrong.
Re:Scope time: local planets pics or alien life ? (Score:4, Funny)
It's ok to be hateful and non sequitur. Just own up to it and move on and stop virtue signaling for karma and you won't get called out for it again.
More like you are proving his point. He said "religious nutters". You immediately jumped to defending "Christians". That says more about you than him. If he complained about "criminally incompetent politicians" and you started defending yourself, that seems like a Freudian slip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Uh what? That makes no sense at all. What slip? Everything I said was true. Consistently throughout the years this site and leftists in general have always equated "religious nutter" = "Christian".
No one has ever attacked Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists or anyone else as "religious nutters".
Your statement is simply bizarre and wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh what? That makes no sense at all. What slip? Everything I said was true. Consistently throughout the years this site and leftists in general have always equated "religious nutter" = "Christian".
Your assumptions does not make for reality. 1) You are assuming he's leftist. 2) You are assuming he was talking about Christians when he said "religious nutter." He could have been talking about Islamic terrorists who bomb things. He could have been talking about celebrities like Tom Cruise who seem unhinged. There was no inkling that was what he was talking about. Again your assumptions says a lot about you more than him.
No one has ever attacked Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists or anyone else as "religious nutters".
Yes because 9/11 was done by Christians. . . . no that's not true. Because wacky Tom
Re: (Score:1)
Uh ok sure, are you new here? No. You are perfectly aware of the local lingo. Don't play dumb and pretend any of what was said could mean anything else.
I have no idea what you're going off about with Tom Cruise and South Park etc. Non sequitur.
And how could I have a persecution complex when I'm a life long atheist born into an atheist family?
Dude, you're just looking for a fight or something but went to the wrong arena.
Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh ok sure, are you new here? No. You are perfectly aware of the local lingo. Don't play dumb and pretend any of what was said could mean anything else.
Bahahhahahaha. "Everyone here only attacks Christians." Yes because Islamaphobes and anti-Semites have never posted on this forum. Ever. You must be new here.
I have no idea what you're going off about with Tom Cruise and South Park etc. Non sequitur.
You literally said: "No one has ever attacked Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists or anyone else as 'religious nutters'." When presented with very discrete examples of how that is not true, you are in denial.
And how could I have a persecution complex when I'm a life long atheist born into an atheist family?
Dude, you're just looking for a fight or something but went to the wrong arena.
Have a nice day.
Sure . . . I believe you. . . . Not. Again it says more about you that you are protesting so much.
Re: (Score:1)
Way to blatantly red herring and intentionally misinterpret my comments.
The context as you are aware was "Slashdot community".
Since you can't even pretend to stay on topic and want to straw man me, which is another low rhetorical tactic and not the basis of discussion, you can continue to wank in the basement by yourself.
If you actually want to discuss Slashdot' s long running anti-Christian bias and community behavior and attitudes and how not everyone who who is an atheist hates Christian's or calls them
Re: (Score:2)
Way to blatantly red herring and intentionally misinterpret my comments.
By factually pointing out that you're just wrong?
If you actually want to discuss Slashdot' s long running anti-Christian bias and community behavior and attitudes and how not everyone who who is an atheist hates Christian's or calls them "nutters", I'll be here but so far you haven't shown any inclination to have an actual discussion.
Bahahahha. You are the only one saying "nutters" == Christians. Just you. I assumed he was talking about groups that bomb buildings in the name of Islam. Or those people who base their life around the teachings of a dead sci-fi author. Pointing that out has triggered you apparently.
If you want to discuss society as a whole we can do that too but South Park, etc is unrelated to the context of this thread which was "Slashdot community".
Let us be clear here: You got triggered on one phrase and when presented examples how you are factually wrong you are desperately trying to disguise the fact that it appears to be
Re: (Score:1)
Let us be clear here: You're using straw man and as hominem and haven't actually said anything. I suppose you have expressed your opinion as fact, too, but that's also typical of Slashdot posters.
We've both been here a long time. We both know the lingo. We both know you're going to just keep straw manning and typing "lololol" a lot in place of actual debate points.
But that's cool, bro. You do you. It seems to make you happy to do whatever it is you think you're doing. The one thing you won't do is bai
Re: (Score:2)
Let us be clear here: You're using straw man and as hominem and haven't actually said anything. I suppose you have expressed your opinion as fact, too, but that's also typical of Slashdot posters.
It is very apparent by your many, many responses that you cannot let it go that someone called you out on your slip and your subsequent dishonesty about it. This is who you are.
But that's cool, bro. You do you. It seems to make you happy to do whatever it is you think you're doing. The one thing you won't do is bait me into your silly straw man world and force me to defend things I never said. Nor am I triggered by random anonymous clowns on zombied out old message boards doing the equivalent of "mean tweets". It is amusing to watch you try, though. Are you a Trump fan? You certainly 'debate' like him.
Ad hominem attacks instead of addressing your tirade? Again, this is who you are.
Re: (Score:1)
So you step in, ad hominem, then use more ad hominem to back your original ad hominem as proof of your points. The plural of ad hominem is not "evidence" or "facts".
Brilliant. Why are you still here if this is an old and dumb topic? Why can't you let it go? Hypocrite, much?
Your entire everything is based on mind reading and personal insult. I am patient. If you want to actually say something I will address it but ad hominem will only get you called out for it, as it has and will continue to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The record speaks for itself. You are mind reading, ad hominem-ing, red herring, and straw manning. You joined in to an old thread to do nothing but insult me, have made no points, provided no facts or evidence and now you stomp around like you won something. Just go AC next time. It's better for everyone that way. You can spew whatever and bail at anytime without loss of "public face" on a nearly dead message board of a few dozen users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree and I gave an example of a group of people for whom everything would very much not be back to normal.
*eye roll*
Through decades of scientific advances in carbon dating and archeology, an entire planet is still marching along in calendar sync to recognize what happened 2022 years ago; a virgin gave birth to a Son of God.
You really think some story about alien chatter from a group of non-believers is going to derail the world's largest belief system?
*eye roll*
Re: (Score:1)
"You really think some story about alien chatter from a group of non-believers is going to derail the world's largest belief system?"
No, because I clearly did not say it would do that.
FFS, READ and reply to what people ACTUALLY WROTE and not what that has warped into in your unstable mind.
This is what I wrote:
"Seriously, one would hope it would at least give a few religious nutters pause for thought."
*eye roll* ^ 10 ^ 100
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I wrote:
"Seriously, one would hope it would at least give a few religious nutters pause for thought."
Yeah. I DID read that. And you are the only one with hope here. Everyone else already knows the non-impact.
Hundreds if not thousands of years of unwavering belief tend to validate that. Pause for thought? This isn't even a speed bump on the intergalactic freeway of religion.
Re: (Score:1)
Show me in the doll where the Christian touched you.
The catholic priest?
Re: (Score:2)
If we found communicating alien life on a planet 50 ly away, we'd have people wanting to communicate. In which case, NASA should say sure:
NASA: Hi there, who are you? (Aliens are known to speak English)
(50 years later)
Alien Babe: I'm Bambi, have you got a lot of money?
(50 years later)
NASA: Ummm...oh yes, fer sure.
Re: (Score:3)
Are they really wasting time on getting better pictures of Neptune's rings, that could be better spent on getting spectra of exoplanet atmospheres that might detect evidence for alien life and change humanity forever ?!
A reasonable criticism, I personally would consider the question "if we are alone" one of the most significant in science for this decade, as now for the first time we have some tools to try to answer it, however:
- science is pretty entangled, e.g. studying properties of atoms lead to discovering of nuclear magnetic resonance [nih.gov] in 1945, which lead to MRIs today, and there are numerous similar examples, one cannot just focus all the efforts on one area, because it might lead to a dead end, whilst a wide spectr
Re: (Score:1)
"- JWST was not really designed (from what I read) to detect exo-life by exo-planets spectra - is still too small, it can possibly give us hints or clues but only in really favorable conditions"
You need to read more:
"One of the main uses of the James Webb Space Telescope will be to study the atmospheres of exoplanets, to search for the building blocks of life elsewhere in the universe."
https://webb.nasa.gov/content/... [nasa.gov]
Methane source is interesting (Score:3, Funny)
A methane gas giant must have had a source of creating methane that we do not currently understand. Compressed organics are our source as are cows and politicians, on Neptune there must be huge numbers of celestial politicians and cows, otherwise the gas giant could not exist.
Re: Methane source is interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Neptune is a gas station for the galactic bypass the Vogons are building.
Just hope that I don't have to listen to their commander's poetry. I am in the cargo hold hoping that they don't find me. I thought that the plan was to send LNG ships to Neptune this winter to make up for the gas shortages in Europe but I guess Germany will just have to tough it out this year. The Vogons might have their work done for them if the thorium g bomb goes off. Then they would not have to justify killing off earths population to create a bypass we will have done it for them.
Re: Methane source is interesting (Score:2)
Would the radiation from Thorium g penetrate very far underground? Could people survive in mines?
Re: (Score:1)
Would the radiation from Thorium g penetrate very far underground? Could people survive in mines?
Simple or we need to ask the galactic council if the Vogons could move the earth instead of just pulverizing it.
As for the cave survivors only the most fertile and willing males and a higher percentage of females will help repopulate the new earth after the thorium g levels drop to a survivable level and the human race can emerge from the mines.
An adequate supply of Maga hats could help keep the aggressive males from killing each other by mistaking rivals for Dems, waring them would become mandatory and he
Re: Methane source is interesting (Score:2)
Methane is useless without an oxidizer. Have you seen any oxidizing gas giants lately ? No ?
Qualification: In Decades, In Weeks, Since X-Mas (Score:2)
If we pointed this at earth (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)