Because why would it? The steady state dust disk of the KB has an estimated mass of 1 millionth the mass of Earth [1]. For comparison, that's about the mass of Saturn's 100km-moon Phoebe or about half the estimated mass of Saturn's rings. Now imagine taking half of Saturn's rings and spread them out from a disk to a sphere covering the whole solar system. That wouldn't result in a particularly high particle density. In the case of Ultima Thule, gravitation alone is enough to have any nearby dust settle on its surface pretty quickly. The latest results from the dust counter instrument [2] measure particle density in km³, which says a lot about the actual number of particles out there (plus the density drops off exponentially with increasing particle size). [1] www.lpl.arizona.edu/~renu/malhotra_preprints/ISP_Nov04.html [2] www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2018/pdf/2537.pdf
@@GardenerEarthGuy That's an excellent question! There's a lot of parameters (speed, angle of inclination, distance, ...) that have to be just right in order to get a somewhat stable orbit. It's hard enough for big and regular bodies like Earth (which is why artificial satellites require active station-keeping) and even harder for irregularly shaped bodies like Ultima Thule with its patchy gravitational field and uneven rotation. In general objects either pass by while getting a slight nudge that changes their trajectory - or they crash into the body. It's basically the same reason why asteroids and comets either miss Earth or become meteorites instead of forming a ring system over time.
🎯I always appreciate Seti presentation. I follow seti work since the 90's. 👍Thanks to everyone who help Seti survive because they help the world community understanding the Universe !🎇
Great question/answer session. One question I wish were asked was if you were to dig into Ultima Thule with a spade, how easy would it be? And also, I didn't realize that the ices on Ultima Thule can sublimate when hit by sunlight. So if you were to shovel thru the surface, how fast would the suddenly exposed ice sublimate? Would it be an immediate violent explosion? Or would be take a couple minutes for the sunlight to heat the ice up?
They wouldn't have been able to answer that question. The reason is because, as he said, they didn't have the sensors and other equipment necessary to see anything but the surface - which appeared to be water ice. One answer about its composition was that they didn't know whether you would be able to stand on its surface, or fall right through it. But any gasses that were trapped inside any object would, if exposed to sunlight by some process (they hypothesized a gunshot, or digging a pit), sublimate - the speed of sublimation depending on the depth of the gas, and its composition.
Both these lobes are relatively flat on the bottom. Could it be, they were once a single sphere? Perhaps the large crater on the small one is an impact crater that separated it into 2/3 and 1/3, and they rejoined at the hip. Some of the impactor rounding out the flats slightly and forming at the joint. Just wondering.
I don't see why it is odd since it's not the first object that has a double lobe. It is more like the norm and I don't buy the concept that it is two object stick together, it seem to me that it formed that way and the bright points could be electric extrusion eroding the neck. After all, what is the odd of so many objects got the same form in space without pulverizing itself.
They probably never orbited each other, but formed close enough to slowly attracted each other (over thousands/millions of years) while orbiting the sun. Sense they are more then likely made of extremely low snow ball like density, they collided with very low energy. Basically locking lips and never letting go. That same collision sent it rotating on its current axis. That would be my educated guess theory.
@@frederickbecker8672 Ok, but last time a probe tried to land in 67P comet it kicked many times until it stopped and the pictures of this comet looks much more like solid rock than dust snowball. How much are you reasoning with old information/paradigm? First the solar system was immutable, now big planets can change orbits, then they knew all about Jupiter, then they do not... Why do we take then so seriously, as if they know all? As time goes by, astrophysics paradigms looks like religion, no body can rationally challenge.
@@DomingosCJMScience is a method, not a belief system. A day may come when Newtons laws and Quantum theory is obsolete or advanced. With that said, we must take what we know through proven test and experimentation to form a working hypothesis about this object. If it was formed in the Kuibler belt, then as far as we know its made of frozen gasses. Then the core of these objects would be very low dense hard ice, while the outside would be snowy dust probably from the impact or other. Yes, other objects do have the peanut shape like Halley's comet. Halley's shape has been formed by it passing closely to the sun, therefor its shape is from thermal activities. Finally, we can only speculate. we are talking about 4.5 billion years. Some day we may find out this object came from the rocky inner solar system.
I suspect the reason for the pancake shape of Ultima comes from its primordial origins. As the material merged it formed into disk shape as our early solar system probably did. The material merged into the sub components that seem to have stuck together. The brighter areas are the friction between the balls of material. This friction grind off small debris that settled mostly in the vicinity that the came from. Thule maybe had a larger mass to start with, and formed a bit more round. Neither Ultima or Thule would have had enough mass to force it into a sphere. If we could land a small probe on Ultima, I bet there would be obvious micro quakes that could be detected.
I am very impressed. Look forward to more images. Too bad NASA did not drop a probe down on that one. I know, traveling at such high speeds and barely able to get a glimpse, still that fly by was quite a feat.
Always find it weird to compare it with Voyagers record. I mean if spacecraft built decades later can't do better (even with much smaller budget), somthing went wrong. Still, doesn't take anything away from either achievement.
The choice of name is what bothers me about this. Ya'll know what the Thule Society was, right? Hence my curiosity. Now answer why the US has a base (one of the US Space Command bases) in Greenland named "Thule". It also happens to have been almost hit by a meteorite a few months back. I guess they even had to employ measures to avoid being struck. Nothing, is as it first appears.
From the beggining I said that bigger part is FLAT and no scientis would listen. And now, I say that bigger object was creating with natural spinning, and slow down this spinning after attached Thule - becaus of bigger vector.
how can you deny a theory? You either prove it or disprove it. As soon as religious terms enter the debate, everybody concerned with science can leave the room.
@@DomingosCJM Everything, (almost), comes down to some form of 'belief'. However the plausibility of a theory or hypothesis or faith varies according to the evidence which supports it.
16:03 what flew by lower left corner?
I have listened to her voice for years on Big Picture Science but this is the first I have seen of her, nice to finally have a face with the voice :-)
I’m more interested why the probe isn’t encountering any debris halos
Because why would it?
The steady state dust disk of the KB has an estimated mass of 1 millionth the mass of Earth [1]. For comparison, that's about the mass of Saturn's 100km-moon Phoebe or about half the estimated mass of Saturn's rings.
Now imagine taking half of Saturn's rings and spread them out from a disk to a sphere covering the whole solar system.
That wouldn't result in a particularly high particle density. In the case of Ultima Thule, gravitation alone is enough to have any nearby dust settle on its surface pretty quickly.
The latest results from the dust counter instrument [2] measure particle density in km³, which says a lot about the actual number of particles out there (plus the density drops off exponentially with increasing particle size).
[1] www.lpl.arizona.edu/~renu/malhotra_preprints/ISP_Nov04.html
[2] www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2018/pdf/2537.pdf
@@totalermist why clump and not take their own orbits?
@@GardenerEarthGuy That's an excellent question!
There's a lot of parameters (speed, angle of inclination, distance, ...) that have to be just right in order to get a somewhat stable orbit.
It's hard enough for big and regular bodies like Earth (which is why artificial satellites require active station-keeping) and even harder for irregularly shaped bodies like Ultima Thule with its patchy gravitational field and uneven rotation.
In general objects either pass by while getting a slight nudge that changes their trajectory - or they crash into the body. It's basically the same reason why asteroids and comets either miss Earth or become meteorites instead of forming a ring system over time.
that ultima thule stopper was ultimately savage!!Are the images available in our constellation.Please!!
🎯I always appreciate Seti presentation. I follow seti work since the 90's. 👍Thanks to everyone who help Seti survive because they help the world community understanding the Universe !🎇
Thank you for creating and sharing this discussion. Exploring glimpses of Ultima Thule put me in a complete state of awe and of wonder. 🌻
Great question/answer session. One question I wish were asked was if you were to dig into Ultima Thule with a spade, how easy would it be? And also, I didn't realize that the ices on Ultima Thule can sublimate when hit by sunlight. So if you were to shovel thru the surface, how fast would the suddenly exposed ice sublimate? Would it be an immediate violent explosion? Or would be take a couple minutes for the sunlight to heat the ice up?
They wouldn't have been able to answer that question. The reason is because, as he said, they didn't have the sensors and other equipment necessary to see anything but the surface - which appeared to be water ice. One answer about its composition was that they didn't know whether you would be able to stand on its surface, or fall right through it. But any gasses that were trapped inside any object would, if exposed to sunlight by some process (they hypothesized a gunshot, or digging a pit), sublimate - the speed of sublimation depending on the depth of the gas, and its composition.
Both these lobes are relatively flat on the bottom. Could it be, they were once a single sphere? Perhaps the large crater on the small one is an impact crater that separated it into 2/3 and 1/3, and they rejoined at the hip. Some of the impactor rounding out the flats slightly and forming at the joint. Just wondering.
I don't see why it is odd since it's not the first object that has a double lobe. It is more like the norm and I don't buy the concept that it is two object stick together, it seem to me that it formed that way and the bright points could be electric extrusion eroding the neck.
After all, what is the odd of so many objects got the same form in space without pulverizing itself.
Right....
Dunno.
Nah. It's 2 independent objects that gently melted together, hence the 2 unique shapes.
They probably never orbited each other, but formed close enough to slowly attracted each other (over thousands/millions of years) while orbiting the sun. Sense they are more then likely made of extremely low snow ball like density, they collided with very low energy. Basically locking lips and never letting go. That same collision sent it rotating on its current axis. That would be my educated guess theory.
@@frederickbecker8672 Ok, but last time a probe tried to land in 67P comet it kicked many times until it stopped and the pictures of this comet looks much more like solid rock than dust snowball. How much are you reasoning with old information/paradigm?
First the solar system was immutable, now big planets can change orbits, then they knew all about Jupiter, then they do not...
Why do we take then so seriously, as if they know all?
As time goes by, astrophysics paradigms looks like religion, no body can rationally challenge.
@@DomingosCJMScience is a method, not a belief system. A day may come when Newtons laws and Quantum theory is obsolete or advanced. With that said, we must take what we know through proven test and experimentation to form a working hypothesis about this object. If it was formed in the Kuibler belt, then as far as we know its made of frozen gasses. Then the core of these objects would be very low dense hard ice, while the outside would be snowy dust probably from the impact or other.
Yes, other objects do have the peanut shape like Halley's comet. Halley's shape has been formed by it passing closely to the sun, therefor its shape is from thermal activities.
Finally, we can only speculate. we are talking about 4.5 billion years. Some day we may find out this object came from the rocky inner solar system.
I suspect the reason for the pancake shape of Ultima comes from its primordial origins. As the material merged it formed into disk shape as our early solar system probably did. The material merged into the sub components that seem to have stuck together. The brighter areas are the friction between the balls of material. This friction grind off small debris that settled mostly in the vicinity that the came from. Thule maybe had a larger mass to start with, and formed a bit more round. Neither Ultima or Thule would have had enough mass to force it into a sphere. If we could land a small probe on Ultima, I bet there would be obvious micro quakes that could be detected.
I am very impressed. Look forward to more images. Too bad NASA did not drop a probe down on that one. I know, traveling at such high speeds and barely able to get a glimpse, still that fly by was quite a feat.
maybe they can learn how to slow down next time
55:20
A droplet that never broke free...
Always find it weird to compare it with Voyagers record. I mean if spacecraft built decades later can't do better (even with much smaller budget), somthing went wrong.
Still, doesn't take anything away from either achievement.
4:45 why the hell are these people have their arms up in praise like they are in the sistine chapel
What a silly comment!
They are excited.
34:00 mark is a flat-earthers wet dream
How many theories have to be conjured up before they start looking at electric currents and electrical extruding.
Here and now i conjure up the theory that 2+2 =5.
When will you stop looking at math books and believe me?
Thunderbolts project ' i love the EU Theory .
The choice of name is what bothers me about this. Ya'll know what the Thule Society was, right? Hence my curiosity. Now answer why the US has a base (one of the US Space Command bases) in Greenland named "Thule". It also happens to have been almost hit by a meteorite a few months back. I guess they even had to employ measures to avoid being struck. Nothing, is as it first appears.
"Voice of God" made my day :))
Figuratively speaking ;-)
From the beggining I said that bigger part is FLAT and no scientis would listen. And now, I say that bigger object was creating with natural spinning, and slow down this spinning after attached Thule - becaus of bigger vector.
ok who stole thev other nine bowling pins, lol
Zoom!
The carl sagan institute of Velikovsky centers ! And all deniers of the electric universe !
You don't have to hit them to get EMP'ed by them !
how can you deny a theory? You either prove it or disprove it.
As soon as religious terms enter the debate, everybody concerned with science can leave the room.
@@5Andysalive 'Denier' is the therm used to discredit people who question global warming...
Do you < believe > in global warming?
@@DomingosCJM Everything, (almost), comes down to some form of 'belief'. However the plausibility of a theory or hypothesis or faith varies according to the evidence which supports it.
They changed the name from Ultimate Thule because "Nazis". You can't make this shit up...
Fred Cink tell that to the people that threw a fit.
Ultima Thule = ultimate fool....It's BS