Rosetta Comet Orbiter -** 120 Icy Patches ** Philae Phones Home ** Ceres Fly Over Video ** New Coma Discovery ** Picture MOTHER LODE !

The thing that struck me right away is how familiar the cliff landscape looked close up.

[link to v-g.me.uk]

You have loose material built up on the cliff tops. Gullies running vertically. Horizontal ledges with more loose material built up on them. A scree fan and boulder field at the bottom. I wonder what processes on the comet could make features similar to this ice shattered rhyolite cliff in North Wales. Is the sun ablating away material doing the same job as the ice wind and rain on Cloggy?

K

Yes, and the "cliff landslided" area isn't just the darker ridges. It looks to have encompassed most of the ridgeline in view. One has to wonder how far out that formation extended from landscrapped/sculpted viewed edge before it gave way .... more than once??

The thing I come away with is that the newer landslide (darker area) appears to be rather rocky, where the older (lighter) landslided areas on the ends looks icy, but it could be light colored dust.

If you click to zoom and look at the lower left hand corner of the landslide/debris field it looks like something exploded.... 45 degree marks along escarpment.

Last Edited by Birkeland on 08/15/2014 07:13 PM

No room for dirty snowballs!

It's going to be fascinating to see this comet come alive. I think these dark eroded cliff areas, parallel to the Sun's rays, could be the active areas on the comet that will start producing the dust and gas as the comet warms up. I also think that the lighter dusty material is acting as insulation, protecting the areas it blankets form the full effects of the Sun. We shall see in the coming months.

K

We've seen all sides of the nucleus now. This is the side I predict they will land on:
[link to www.esa.int]

Last Edited by Birkeland on 08/16/2014 10:07 AM

Part of this thread involves voltage predictions. IMO, nasa has underestimated the voltage at the nucleus (and at asteroids).

Just wondering if maybe the relatively slow triangular approach to the comet wasn't partially designed to offset (balance)any differential between craft and nucleus as a safety precaution to sensitive on-board electronics??

...just a thought!

Maybe in 2 years we'll see the voltages present throughout the mission?

I don't have any real idea apart from what I picked up listening to Stefan Ulamec's presentation last week.

[link to blogs.esa.int]

I did quite a long post about it.

Thread: Rosetta Comet Orbiter -** 120 Icy Patches ** Philae Phones Home ** Ceres Fly Over Video ** New Coma Discovery ** Picture MOTHER LODE ! (Page 6)

K

Well as I replied to you before, you are going to have to explain how the solar wind has stopped conducting electricity if you want to maintain that comets have a pd to the Sun or any other body.

Thread: Rosetta Comet Orbiter -** 120 Icy Patches ** Philae Phones Home ** Ceres Fly Over Video ** New Coma Discovery ** Picture MOTHER LODE ! (Page 7)

If you have no explanation then you have to accept that there is no voltage.




No, the triangular ( hyperbolic ) orbit is being performed so that Rosetta can weigh the comet. 67P will bend these orbital legs. The flight dynamics people will measure this bend and that will tell them the mass of 67P and therefore provide the information they need to go into a low elliptical orbit.

If you reject the idea of a conductive solar wind then you have to treat the high vacuum of space as a vacuum capacitor. In that scenario there is no leakage but a sudden dielectric breakdown event as I wrote about earlier.

Thread: Rosetta Comet Orbiter -** 120 Icy Patches ** Philae Phones Home ** Ceres Fly Over Video ** New Coma Discovery ** Picture MOTHER LODE ! (Page 2)

Except we know that hasn't happened and it won't happen. You can still put your money where your mouth is and name a voltage or distance, I am amazed that only one universal electrician has done so. It looks like you guys have no confidence in your beliefs.



(EDIT) ^^^ The following goes doubly for for you too.


Everything that Rosetta has found so far has falsified electric comet beliefs, here is a quick list:

A cold surface, not thousand of degrees.
A porous dusty surface, not rock or iron.
Early dust production, dust is not produced in EC until arcing occurs.
Early water emission, EC says comets are bone dry.
Icy patches on the surface, EC says comets are hot and dry.
No sparky action, EC says Rosetta would have been destroyed by thousands of km long lightning boltzzz.

I hope they release an early estimate of the density soon as this should also conflict with EC beliefs. I still need to write about the cynical way the Thunderb0lts blog has written about Rosetta.

K

Thanks for the reply.

Just 2 quick comments. Neither of us have the required voltage data to even start addressing the issue and I expect we won't see it for quite a spell.

And I understand the surveying of the comet. I did say partially designed and could have said it differently.

Didn't they start the triangular orbit before Rosetta "reached" the comet on Aug 6th. I'll look into that as it may be reflected it the burns.

Last Edited by Birkeland on 08/16/2014 02:03 PM

I found the following concerning the crafts timeline to Philae deployment.

From ESA:
Arrival
"The spacecraft will eventually arrive in the comet’s vicinity in May 2014. Rosetta’s thrusters will then brake the spacecraft, so that it can match Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko’s orbit."

"Over the next six months, it will edge closer to the black, dormant nucleus until it is only a few dozen kilometres away. The way will then be clear for the exciting transition to global mapping, lander deployment and the comet chase towards the Sun."

Interesting 6 month close approach but not enough detail for what I was seeking -- inconclusive, but certainly leaves the door open, imho, for the possibility that a slow 6 month approach could secondarily be to protect sensitive equipment from electrical spikes. And once again nobody outside of the mission teams has the data to confirm or deny voltage changes.

This info does seem to suggest that global mapping won't start until November, which I think is wrong. Surely global mapping is happening now as part of the landing site search....right?
I think maybe they expected the landing site to be a slam dunk.



Last Edited by Birkeland on 08/16/2014 03:02 PM

Yes we both know the voltage.

You can start with the axiomatic truth that the solar system is filled with interstellar medium containing the ionised solar wind.

You can therefore deduce that every comet nucleus in the outer solar system is at the same voltage as the Sun and every other body, because it is immersed in a conductive medium.

In order to have the big lightning discharges the EU describes, you would have to deny the existence of the solar wind, in order to have voltage differences.

But in order to conduct currents across millions of miles , as EU demands, you would need a conductive plasma, the very thing you have to deny exists to have a voltage difference. It's a sort of reductio ad absurdum.

So no voltage difference unless of course you like to prove the solar wind does not exist, good luck with that.

K

more about the orbits and mapping later.

interesting

Everything that Rosetta has found so far has falsified electric comet beliefs, here is a quick list:

That is wrong and you know it - where is your dirty snowball? Your desperation in trying to deflect away from this observation of 'no dirty snowball' says a lot about your scientific methodology.

What do you say to Holgar's Sierks declaration that 67p looks nothing like they expected - where is your "smooth hull shaped body" - predicted by classical theory.



A cold surface, not thousand of degrees.

Where has Plasma/Electrical theory predicted that comets should be thousands of degrees?

The specific prediction is that where electrical machining occurs on the cliffs and angular surfaces (that shouldn't be there in classical theory) high energy plasma events will take place. How does your dirty sublimating snowball produce X-Rays?

Why is Rosetta hotter than your dirty snowball prediction?

A porous dusty surface, not rock or iron.

All photographed comets have had the same rocky appearance, StarDust captured minerals in the comet tail that can only come from high temperature formation - how does your dirty snowball explain the presence of Olivine and other minerals found on rocky planets.

Early water emission, EC says comets are bone dry.

Water or OH- ions?

Icy patches on the surface, EC says comets are hot and dry.

No it doesn't it says comets are rocky bodies similar to asteroids. Which is what the pictures seem to show.


No sparky action, EC says Rosetta would have been destroyed by thousands of km long lightning boltzzz.


No it doesn't, there is a fundamental difference between a satellite slowly adjusting and coming into orbit where charges equalize and an impactor fired at thousands of mph from a distance.

According to ESA's site the craft will take 6 months to slowly approach the nucleus before Philae is deployed. (No explanation given for the slow approach, except for "the way will be clear." Clear from what?? Discharges? Aliens? Dark Matter?)

"The spacecraft will eventually arrive in the comet’s vicinity in May 2014. ... Over the next six months, it will edge closer to the black, dormant nucleus until it is only a few dozen kilometres away. The way will then be clear for the exciting transition to global mapping, lander deployment and the comet chase towards the Sun."

As I stated earlier they have to be mapping now to find that goldilocks landing spot..seems they had to have expected the landing spot to be a slam dunk pick a plunk.

I would add that one to the list of Rosetta mission surprises...perhaps the biggest as the landing is all or nothing for Philae. Shoulda maybe been equipped with a laser drill instead of an ice harpoon.

And that would be a real shame if Philae doesn't land successfully. Sure they will get plenty of data from Rosetta in November and the during the trip past perihelion but not the data Philae could retrieve.

Last Edited by Birkeland on 08/17/2014 10:45 AM

If you are not going to log in and want to keep replying, choose a name at least.

This comet conforms to the Whipple comet model, but all observations so far show it does not conform to the electric comet belief system. Here is Whipple's 1949 paper on Enke. Please tell us how 67P's nucleus is not how Whipple hypothesised it would be?

[link to articles.adsabs.harvard.edu]

I have no desperation, I do have cold hard facts which support my assertions. Deflection ?, I intend to keep this thread going for as long as I can and document all interesting findings from Rosetta. As for science, you people don't do science. Let me explain how it works. You come up a testable hypothesis that makes strong predictions, most likely incorporating laws that will produce numbers that can be matched to observation. You test the hypothesis against observational or experimental results and either it conforms with results so you have the makings of a theory or the results falsify your hypothesis so you have to go back, reject your initial hypothesis and think again. All you people do is say vague things like "you may or may not see a flash", "craters can look a little like welding" I have never once seen any formula on your websites showing how you are going to calculate your comet zap. I have done more maths on electric comets in this thread than I have seen from any of you lot.

Thread: Rosetta Comet Orbiter -** 120 Icy Patches ** Philae Phones Home ** Ceres Fly Over Video ** New Coma Discovery ** Picture MOTHER LODE ! (Page 2)
( ^ edit to fix link )

What I found, within a few minutes, was that Paschen's law has no solutions for interplanetary ( or comet coma ) gas pressure so there is no dielectric breakdown arc or lightning, something you lot seem to have been incapable of doing in how ever many years you believed in this rot! That's how you do science.



There is no "smooth hull shaped body - predicted by classical theory." Where do you get that bullshit from?
You have a misquote from Holgar's Sierks, who apparently said, "It was so surprising to see that this is not a hull-shaped body, as we’ve thought it’d be" When talking about the morphology which is suggestive of a contact binary. I am sure Holgar's Sierks knows what comet nuclei look like.

[link to spaceobs.org]

Too much to fit in one post more later...

K

It's not a theory, as I told you previously. You have no testable, falsifiable hypothesis that makes strong predictions and you have no confirming evidence.

Comets make comas, here is 67P's

[link to sci.esa.int]

Electric comet belief says coma and tail materials are produced from arcing on the surface of the comet.

"The observed jets of comets are electric arc discharges to the nucleus, producing “electrical discharge machining” (EDM) of the surface. The excavated material is accelerated into space along the jets’ observed filamentary arcs. "
[link to www.thunderbolts.info]

and

[link to www.thunderbolts.info (secure)]

And any good comet electrician will tell you "temperatures of an electric arc, which can be tens of thousands of degrees"

[link to www.holoscience.com]

So if 67P is producing a coma, which I have showed you and comas are produced from material "electrically sputtered" form the surface of comets at temperatures of "tens of thousands of degrees" and there is "no ice" to remove heat from the surface what temperature are we to assume you think it is. You people produce no testable models, no formulae, no numbers, just waffle.




Back to one of the first things I think I ever wrote on this site. Go read it and learn something.
Thread: Electric Universe and Electric Comet folks - ISON predictions wanted. (Page 7)



It isn't, It's warmer than a surface composed completely of ice could be, but Whipple, in his paper stated that cometary surface would be predominantly dusty, It's right there in the abstract to Whipple's paper I gave you. Since that early result, VIRTIS has been able to map the comet closer and has found warmer dusty patches and colder patches. The average temperature is only around 200K, so it is extremely cold in human terms.



That's about as far as the analysis goes with you people. X looks a bit like Y so it is Y. You say craters are formed by sparky fun because they can look a little like welded surfaces, conveniently ignoring that fact that craters can be produced by impacts, volcanism, water scouring, explosive outgassing, suffosion, karst processes, bombs and a man with a shovel. To true believers they are all caused by sparky fun.

So you can tell the difference between a rocky surface and a dusty surface? Well VIRITIS says you're wrong, the thermal inertia of the surface is too low for it to be rocky, it is predominantly dusty ( very porous ).

K

more to come...

( edit for spelling )

The Whipple paper describes comets as being an icy conglomerate. It must be pretty obvious, even to electrickerists that you don't form methane ice at the same time, place, temperature and by the same process that forms silicate or carbonaceous rocks. The whole point of the Rosetta mission is to understand comet formation and the history of the early solar system. You seem to be using "dirty snowball" as a derogatory term. It was a phrase invented by journalists who had a hard time understanding Whipple's paper, there is no "dirty snowball theory", there is the Whipple model of comets.

[link to www.astronomy.com]



Yes actual water not hydroxyl ions. Of course by next week thudingbolts will say "of course we said comets had water ice all along" That's the beauty of it, you just modify it to say whatever has just been discovered. It makes no falsifiable strong predictions at all. David Deutsch says the difference between great theories and mediocre ones is that great theories are hard to modify. Your beliefs are so malleable they can say anything and still be called electric comet.

MIRO results:

[link to blogs.esa.int]



There you go again, ch ch ch changes.

"hot dry rocky nucleus", "hot dry rock with no snow or ice at all" amongst others.
[link to www.jmccanneyscience.com]

Asteroid is a meaninglessly vague term here. Many near earth asteroids are extinct comet nuclei and as I have stated several times in this thread there is no distinct line to be drawn between comets and certain classes of asteroid. If you mean dense rocky or metalic S-type and M-type say so. If you mean low density, dusty bodies full of volatiles then that is exactly what science says comets are.



Oh right, let me get this straight. According to you electric comet "theory" says that comets are cold bodies containing water ice that are not electrically charged, hey that sounds familiar. I wonder what new modifications will be made to electric comet story while Rosetta is returning data.



By what process do charges equalise ??? Go on, give me a laugh. Here to help you out.

Thread: Rosetta Comet Orbiter -** 120 Icy Patches ** Philae Phones Home ** Ceres Fly Over Video ** New Coma Discovery ** Picture MOTHER LODE ! (Page 2)

K

Electrical Discharge Machining is self-evident on bodies like Vesta (a planetary embryo according to Nasa), Mars and Phobos to name just 3 in our system.

And when we look at the grand museum of EDM, Mars, we note that there is a plethora of anomalies that planetary scientists cannot explain and haven't successfully come to grips with for over 40 years.



If scientists are having to change their theory of planetary formation due to the data from Dawn on the asteroid Vesta, then the Rosetta mission should follow suit, imo. The Dawn data gathering mission took one year to complete and the conclusions another year, so I wouldn't expect the Rosetta/Philae conclusions until at least June 2016.

Last Edited by Birkeland on 08/17/2014 12:52 PM

Ha, you are too quick replying!



There, fixed that for you. I remember some guy saying "I'm not going to post any videos or ramble about EU going forward here." If you want to talk about electrickery, keep it relevant to Rosetta and comet 67P. This is not a general electrickery thread.



Vesta suffered a remelting event ( unique amongst large asteroids ) shortly after formation. You will tell me that was because it was plugged into the mains, most other people would conclude it was most likely a large impact event. I don't want this to become a Vesta thread though, why not start a Vesta thread of your own?

You asked something about the schedule of orbits and mapping before. I will check what I have written about that and if I didn't cover it properly I will make a new post about it. In the meantime, here is the schedule for orbital manoeuvres over the next few weeks.




[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

K

Thanks for the orbital schedule.

I was commenting on EDM or EAM (arc machining) that was part of the conversation as well as the asteroid/comet/planetary formation aspect to this all. It isn't inseparable. The theories are interwoven.

You had just stated - "Asteroid is a meaninglessly vague term here. Many near earth asteroids are extinct comet nuclei and as I have stated several times in this thread there is no distinct line to be drawn between comets and certain classes of asteroid."

And - "The whole point of the Rosetta mission is to understand comet formation and the history of the early solar system."

WBTW was the mission of Dawn to Vesta. It could be stated that the mission to Vesta was not only about asteroids or planetary/solar system formation but cometary as well, for as you say certain asteroids are dead comets. And certain asteroids can become live comets as was discovered last year with the 6-tailed asteroid/comet.

At least the vid I posted was only 13 minutes long. There is an 80 minute one that goes into great detail about EDM and Mars ... if you're interested. It's referenced in the 13 min vid I posted.

Last Edited by Birkeland on 08/17/2014 02:12 PM

Hey astro tell us how that represents ice and dust versus electric machining.

why would it be shaped like that, nasa shill. tell us the "Settled Science" answers

THIS ^^

OP is a astro shillple

i can't wait for the op to eat his words

DUDE seriously, you're fucking lame, you dont want to discuss anything that debate your EGO HELD beliefs???

god you suck major astro balls. everyone is in the know that the current model is bogus and nasa has just started to use words like voltage just recently.

to me it seems like "settle Science" is starting to sound more like EU.

Hey better late than never i guess.

Last week Nasa announced that Siding Spring will cause auroras in the Martian atmosphere.

Several weeks ago McCanney said the same thing on his radio program - alluding to the comet's electrical interaction with Mars.

This seems to be an unprecedented statement from Nasa. No where in the history of their commentary of comets has this ever been stated. In fact, when Hally passed close to Earth in 1910 no such phenomenon was reported or even speculated.

From a standard theory standpoint how exactly does a comet with a fuzzy watery coma cause auroras??

We know from standard science that auroras are an electrical phenomenon.

"An aurora is a natural light display in the sky, especially in the high latitude regions, caused by the collision of solar wind and magnetospheric charged particles with the high altitude atmosphere"


And yes according to standard theory they rely a great deal on magnetism while almost completely ignoring electrical conditions all together. So given that Mars basically has no magnetosphere, it makes the Martian aurora claim all the more fantastical from standard theory, doesn't it?

James Dimwit McCanney also said that ISON is bigger than Mars (was it?) and would change the orbit of Mars (did it?).



Earth went through the tail of Halley's Comet - it was never supposed to come in contact with its coma. In fact Halley was 22 million kilometers away at closest approach.



Did you read the NASA article? Or do you just parrot the ThunderDolts?

"Unlike Earth, which has a global magnetic field that shields our entire planet, Mars has a patchwork of "magnetic umbrellas" that sprout out of the surface in hundreds of places all around the planet. If Martian auroras occur, they would appear in the canopies of these magnetic umbrellas."
[link to science.nasa.gov]

Easy to research things - why don't you do it before you make a fool of yourself?

.

Uh-oh McCanney hot button. All hands on deck.

Looks like Nasa is parroting McCanney.

Yes, I read the article and posted about it on another thread last week. Got a great laugh out of the "magic umbrella" theory....lol

Still doesn't explain how a coma of gas and ice (per standard theory) will light up the atmosphere.

Where in that article does it say how these auroras will be "sparked"?

Here's another one for you all to chew on. I had mentioned the possibility of water falling on Mars from SS's tail on Astro's thread about SS a while back. I'm sure you remember.

Here's some tidbits from an article 3 days ago that speaks to the Mars orbiters and what they will be doing around the 19th of October.

"Oct 19 18:47-20:16: 2 CRISM and 4 HiRISE scans of the nucleus with CTX riding along. The comet will be roughly 300,000 kilometers away, so the images will have lower resolution than the close-approach ones by a factor of about two. The MCS and MARCI observations that follow the comet imaging are the ones most likely to show effects of the coma's interaction with Mars' atmosphere. These might include heating of the middle atmosphere due to dust flying into it. In response to that heating, the atmosphere should inflate, causing vertical motion within the atmosphere. And the increased amount of dust in the middle atmosphere could seed clouds that weren't there before."
[link to www.planetary.org]

Hmmm ... not sure exactly what they mean by dust could seed clouds that weren't there before. How does dust seed a cloud that isn't there?? Where did the clouds come from that they say the dust will seed? A little confusing and ambiguous, but perhaps alluding to a possible rain event (standard theory style??). In this case they got rather awkwardly out in front of McCanney, again. Don't know how else to say it.

I know recently (this year) NASA has said that water can enter Earths atmosphere in dust particles.

"Could Space Dust have Delivered Life’s Ingredients to Earth?"
Feb. 6, 2014
"For the first time, scientists have detected water molecules on the surface of interplanetary dust particles. The water forms in tiny bubbles when solar wind irradiates and damages the dust grains floating through space."

"Previous research had shown that space dust also contains organic carbon—another key ingredient for life. Taken together, these findings raise the intriguing possibility that dust trickling down from space could have seeded life’s building blocks on our own planet—and potentially elsewhere."
[link to astrobiology.nasa.gov]


FYI .... for future reference if you see no quotes then it's my words.

Last Edited by Birkeland on 08/17/2014 08:48 PM

There is no prize for the most tremendously buthurt sparkologist, professor, nice try anyway.

Yes, I have posted somewhere before about Iwan Williams and the safari park.

[link to astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org]



Lol, thanks but no thanks. I have a whole series of vids on tensor calculus and Riemann surfaces if you are having trouble sleeping.

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]



BG-Fan, are you seriously telling me that you don't think the electrical and magnetic properties of comets have been studied over the last 150 years. I think you need the kids book of comets or something. 1852 William Swan produced diatomic carbon spectra that matched William Huggin's comet coma spectra, so we have know for at least 152 years that outer comas contain ionised material, please catch up. As to under what circumstances this could or could not cause auroras that is beyond the ability of anyone here to calculate. This McCanney guy is picking up on what JPL were saying over a year and a half ago, RE auroras.

[link to www.fromquarkstoquasars.com]

[link to www.gizmag.com]


Wow, you really need to catch up on your 19th century science.

[link to www.boundless.com (secure)]



No, what you need for aurora is collisions of differing gasses ( ionised and donors ) in a low gas pressure environment with ionised gasses that have de-excitation spectra in the visible range. No need for a magnetosphere. Why would it be fantastical when it is scientists using their knowledge and skills that are predicting this.



Seriously why didn't you post this in Dr Astro's Siding Spring thread or better yet one of your own. I have already asked you to keep on topic, you are a regular poster so you know what is going on here, I am fine about you posting about Rosetta and 67P eletrickery stuff as I have already said. We had something like 3,400 threads on crappy comet ISON that did nothing then fell apart. Is it too much to ask to have one active thread on the most exciting and interesting space mission of the century so far, that is going to revolutionise our understanding of comets, is it really ???

K

How come I see stars?

Here is the NAVCAM image from the 16th

[link to www.esa.int]

You will notice that in most of the NAVCAM images you can see stars. So how come you can see stars here but not in the Apollo pictures from the surface of the Moon? Cameras, both film and digital have a dynamic range. That is the spread of light intensity from dim to bright that they can represent in one image. The OSIRIS NAC can currently show both 67P and some background stars. At the moment 67P is rather dim. It is 3.5 times further from the Sun than the Earth is. To give you an idea of the relative sizes of the Sun as seen from Earth and 67P look at this, the Sun as seen from 67P will be closest to Jupiter in this image.

[link to www.foundalis.com]

67P is also dark. The amount of light it reflects from it's surface ( it's albedo ) is around 4%. For the moon this figure is 12%, so three times brighter. In the NAVCAM image, 67P's coma is too dark and faint to see, but if OSIRIS image data is adjusted to show the coma then the comet nucleus itself becomes totally overexposed.

[link to www.esa.int]

You can see the same effect in this video of the Moon occulting Saturn. As the astronomer adjusts his camera to show the detail on Saturn, the Moon becomes completely overexposed. Conversely, when detail of the Moon's surface is shown, Saturn would be too dim to see.



[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

K

You say science has no way of knowing under what circumstances their electric comet can produce auroras? That's interesting.

"But Comet Siding Spring represents an opportunity to observe a natural experiment, in which a perturbation is applied and we can see the response."

Perturbation is about all the science and calculating I see concerning the coming possible Martian auroras in this article, that and magical magnetic umbrellas -- seems they have resorted to throwing shit against the wall.

[link to science.nasa.gov]

Was going to reply to a few other of your comments, but why bother, seems Nasa's electric asteroid has turned into an electric comet, which was only a matter of time imo -- mainly because of the coming Siding Springs encounter with Mars.


Here's my bottom line on the current state of comet chasing and observing:

Rosetta/Philae Mission
-closed data policy limits public access of data for 2 years. Most exciting time for public will be the week surrounding the Philae landing. The rest of the time is basically snoozefest for the public. The overall mission is fantastic accomplishment.

Siding Spring encounter with Mars
-incoming non-periodical will buzz Mars where there are 7 NASA/ESA assets to capture the event.
-not a mission so the data should flow freely, except maybe from MAVEN
-best chance so far to see and study a non-periodical
-being a non-periodical at perhaps its most active phase (near Mars) it should be quite a show