Deep Impact - затишье перед бурей или отказ от пустых догм?
Александр Гончаров
Эксперимент по активному изучению строения ядра кометы Темпль-1 его
бомбардировкой прошел блестяще и показал высочайший профессиональный уровень
всех, кто в нем участвовал. Но возникла пауза, которую автор этих строк,
имеющий свой взгляд на происхождение комет, объясняет тем, что полученные
данные, мягко говоря, не согласуются с существующими представлениями
человечества об этих загадочных небесных объектах. По моей версии,
обоснованной еще в 1985 году, кометы образуются в результате пробивания
астероидами (малыми твердыми телами) колец планет-гигантов Солнечной
системы. Действительно, имеющиеся кольца у больших планет могут сталкиваться
с астероидами (малыми телами), поскольку здесь нет никакого запрета. И даже
можно оценить вероятность, используя, например, земную статистику падения
метеоритов. И эта вероятность, скажу вам, достаточно высока. И что
произойдет в результате "атаки" кольца, подозрительно бликого по составу с
тем, что имеется в кометных хвостах? Задача, в принципе, допускает
моделирование и расчет. Понятно, что при определенных условиях твердое тело
на большой скорости может пролететь насквозь и уйти от планеты-гиганта. Но
оно будет "запачкано" веществом кольца, состоящим из летучих компонентов.
Вот вам и конкретнейший механизм! Извольте! И никакой мистики не требуется и
специальное Облако Оорта ("кометный банк") изобретать нет нужды. Все
довольно банально и тех, кто про первозданное вещество уверяет вынужден
разочаровать. Еще эксперимент "Вега", вопреки всем тогда делавшимся
заявлениям о содержании гигантских количеств воды, снега, льда и пара,
показал, что 96 процентов солнечного света поверхностью ядра кометы
поглощается, а это, извините, хорошего качества черное тело! Никак не снег и
не лед. Попытки объяснить моделью "мартовского сугроба" просто несолидны и
неуместны - сила тяжести весьма мала и давление паров, расширяющихся в
вакуум просто не дает возможности говорить о таком механизме. В тех условиях
образование подобной грязевой корочки невозможно. Да и чего-то одна сторона
ядра кометы Галлея (оно вращалось) была более активна. Видимо, за малые доли
секунды, когда пробивается кольцо толщиной не более нескольких километров,
ядро просто не успело повернуться. Но аргументов можно привести еще довольно
много, а что же эксперимент с кометой Темпль-1 показал? Да показал он то,
что выбросов из приближающегося ядра особо не видно, а само ядро темное,
имеет как и ядро кометы Галлея кратеры на поверхности (считается, что
кратеры - ударные образования, а при таянии ядра они бы просто сгладились и
исчезли), более того, видна слоистая структура, что прям-таки озадачивает
многих исследователей. Словом, ситуация тупиковая. За долгие годы весь
научный мир привык к гипотезе о существовании облака Оорта - этой
романтической гипотезе, которая стала официальной доктриной. Эта гипотеза
фигурирует во всех учебниках и во многих статьях и, кажется, стала всех
устраивать. Возможно, для своего времени, появление подобной гипотезы было
закономерно, поскольку о существовании колец было известно только у планеты
Сатурн, а основная масса известных тогда комет почему-то по афелиям орбит
классифицировалась в семейства планет-гигантов Солнечной системы. Но настал
момент, когда надо отказаться от пустых догм.
Можно поздравить НАСА с этим блестящим результатом. К сожалению, в 1986 году
руководители эксперимента "Вега" не прислушались к тем идеям, которые кратко
изложены здесь и совершили ошибку: две дорогих и сложных "Веги" ("Вега-1" и
"Вега-2") прошли далеко от ядра кометы Галлея, поскольку предполагалось, что
выбросы из него велики. Простенький аппарат "Джотто" прошел близко от ядра и
показал неожиданно низкую плотность пыли. Кроме того, именно "Джотто" сделал
достаточно приличные снимки ядра, которые я бы назвал первыми снимками ядра
кометы. Вся заслуга "Вег" состояла в том, что они помогли навести аппарат
"Джотто" - таково мое мнение! При имевшейся возможности хотя бы одну из них
надо было направить в ядро, поскольку информация передавалась в реальном
времени и можно было получить действительно уникальную информацию, но шанс
был упущен. Зачем был сделан столь бестолковый дубль - непонятно. Правда нам
с гордостью заявляли, что сохранена работоспособность обеих станций, но
достойного применения им так и не нашлось.
Briefly:
"The comets are formed from asteroids as the result of asteroid piercing
through the rings of the major planets of the Solar system"
Alex Goncharov, 1985
P.S. It not ice! - Stony, Iron-stony, Ferrouse (as meteorite, but not snow
and ice!- It only small quantity)
(Some times ago it was on www.starlab.ru and also in official WPTB archive
with regisration number!), all confirm doc's in Samara (I am in Moscow
now!), different letters, e-mail (also NASA and ESA)....
(I was surprised to see one of my article on web-site www.km.ru (thanks
Yahoo!!)).
Address of article is next:
http://student.km.ru/ref_show_frame.asp?id=2D8550F4034E4DE1B4436C2AC413F0D0&
search=#srch0
К сожалению, более подробные материалы на русском с сайта www.starlab.ru
спустя некоторое время загадочно исчезли, правда несколько переделана
структура сайта, но эти web-страницы у меня полностью скопированы на жесткий
диск.
Remarks: of course, the own gravitation force on Halley-comet surface is
large, than force to out from rotary of its body (thanks My opponents on
www.starlab.ru - old forum! - I calculated it), but both forces is very
small absolute value! It no prolem for this situation (pressure to vacuum is
too large!).
My opinion about Deep Impact - the outstanding experiment! Congrats! And now
is need only reject empty dogma about icy comet nucleus. It good chance
Некоторые выдержки из моей недавней публикации на Starlab.ru (все июльские публикации с сайта «слетели», как уже бывало, неполадки произошли 20 июля в ходе профилактических работ…) Что
касается оценки вероятности, то я учитывал тот факт, что вероятность
попадания при «стрельбе» с произвольного направления в плоский (практически)
диск в два раза меньше, чем в шар того же диаметра (значение интеграла);
учитывал, что «внутреннюю» часть надо при этом вычесть, учитывал, если не
ошибаюсь, «экранирующий» эффект самой планеты-гиганта, находящейся внутри
(не со всех направлений в конкретную площадку возможно попадание). Скорость
принималась большой (траектория принимал за прямую - важно было хотя бы
оценить возможность самого механизма). Статистику брал достаточно
приблизительную земную (размеры колец известны, размеры Земли тоже). Для
Сатурна, если не подводит память, крупное тело примерно раз в неделю
попадать должно (в равновероятном распределении малых тел в космосе, то есть
считал, что камней там на некий объем бывает примерно столько же, сколько в
окрестностях Земли (разумеется, можно строить и более точную модель - не так
уж это в данном случае принципиально). Мои материалы были на этом сайте - их
Тимур размещал. Там все это было. Копии в Самаре, я туда поеду, видимо, лишь
в августе, тогда скопирую на CD. Полагаю, что не все кометы, которые таким
образом формируются (есть еще более редкий механизм прохода с прошиванием
атмосферы Земли, Венеры - на высотах более 100 км - есть факты наблюдений,
они зафиксированы), наблюдаемы в настоящее время.
...
У меня очень много переписки, поэтому некая (кажущаяся) резкость критики
имеет основание - не надо монополизировать право на истину и не надо вопросы
о научной истине решать <голосованием>. Тогда будет конструктивный диалог. В
те годы я работал в филиале ФИАН. Мне как-то директор намекнул, чтобы я
бросил писать - на него давление оказывают (а он хотел в член-коры,
кажись) - это нормально? Это порядочно? Для меня этот вопрос давно не
научный (механизм просто обязан быть - запретов нет!), а политический. Есть
некое мнение - оно всех устраивает. А с фактами не стыкуется (с новыми, в
том числе). Взяли тогда да и сболтнули сгоряча про 80 тонн пара в секунду из
ядра кометы Галлея (это физический предел для черного тела с поглощением 96
% света - они сами дали эту цифру, с учетом размеров и солнечной постоянной
на том расстоянии, с учетом всех необходимых теплот для всех фазовых
переходов от 3 Кельвина - температуры фона), да после моих писем
спохватились и замолчали (потом цифирка поскромнее появилась). Да много там
на чем обожглись. Все потому, что догматики полные.
В приложении к Заявке есть про Тунгусский феномен (отсутствие метеорного
тела, кратера, наличие признаков ударной волны и т.д.) - все объяснено.
Заявка имеет регистрацию 1986 года! Насколько я недавно узнал из частной
телефонной беседы (г-н Ефремов В.П. - зам. Директора одного из институтов,
принявших участие в эксперименте Deep Impact - расчетная часть,
моделирование удара) у них в институте была лет десять назад защищена
диссертация по Тунгусскому феномену (моделировалось для разных углов входа в
атмосферу), при этом, полагаю, господа не дали ссылку на мои работы
1985-1986 года (а я ознакомил весьма большой круг лиц - это документально
подтверждено - это в качестве того - чей все-таки приоритет идеи, хотя, не
спорю, расчетная часть имеет самостоятельную ценность).
Comets&Logic
Goncharov Alexander
1. INTRODUCTION
The year of 1986 is the Halley comet year. The history of cometology
retained the following curious case. In 1910, when its (i.e. the Halley
comet's) previous visit to the Sun took place, one of the March numbers of a
newspaper "Golos Samary" ("The Voice of Samara") reported, that a certain
monk sold shrewdly at the central city square the leaves of "Charm against
meeting with Halley comet" of the following content: "You are devil! Satan!
Never world Velzewool! Don't feign you are a celestial star! Don't deceive
the Orthodoxes, hide your godless tail, because the God's stars have no
tails:Dip your tail into fiery river, let it reduce to ashes, let it char,
let it fry! Etc:" This curiosity was reprinted by "Russkiye Vedomosti"
("Russian Registers") on the 3-rd of April, 1910 and went down in the
history of the Russian science.
It is interesting to note, that the next visit of the Halley comet was in
1986 and coincided with the 400th anniversary of the city of Kuibyshev
(formerly and now afresh - SAMARA! - rem. A.G.).
The author of this article, living in Kuibyshev, dedicated to this
significant date the application for the discovery "Comets formation
phenomenon" [1,2], which, as the author considers, convincingly confirms and
at last resolves a so-called comet problem.
2. EXISTING VIEWS (HYPOTHESES) ON THE COMETS FORMATION MECHANISM
In accordance with the views, which were shared by the most part of the
astronomers before the experiment "Vega" ("Venus-Halley"), the comets
originate from the so-called comet cloud of Oort and consist basically of
dirty ice [3].
This hypothesis cannot convincingly explain the fact why the comets are
grouped around the major planets of the Solar system (in families of
planet-giants). Besides, the mechanism of comets breaking-away from the Oort
cloud is actually very unconvincing.
The Nemesida hypothesis (the dwarfish star - the satellite of the Sun) did
not save the situation.
The second basic hypothesis (S.K.Vsehswiatsky) states, that the comets are
the result of volcanism on the major planets or their satellites. Yet it's
obvious, that this mechanism demandes too high initial speed.
The basic hypothesis now, after the experiment "Vega", is the idea that the
asteroids are dead comets. The author considers this point of view as an
intermediate stage on the way to the truth.
3. A CONCRETE COMETS FORMATION MECHANISM
The basic author's idea is the following: "The comets are formed from
asteroids as the result of asteroids piercing through the rings of the major
planets of the Solar system".
Indeed, it is known that the planets of the Solar system can be collided
with small space bodies including asteroids. The major planets (Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus, probably, Neptune) are surrounded by rings consisting of
separate particles. The rings can also be subjected to collisions with
asteroids because they are not the exception in this sense. During these
collisions the rings may be pierced through because they are not very dense.
For instance, the thickness of the Saturn ring is about 2-5 km, moreover the
stars can be viewed through them. A typical size of the particles is about 1
cm (in accordance with the data of "Pioneer-11").
It is interesting to note, that the space apparatus "Voyager" discovered the
two Saturn satellites in the ring system, moreover, one of them is moving in
the ring, but the other has a slightly slanting orbit and therefore it finds
itself either at one or the other side periodically. This circumstance
confirms the possibility of piercing of the ring. The destruction of both
the ring particles and asteroid and the distribution spectrum of the
particles by speed will take place as a result of the piercing of the ring
by asteroid as strong as the concrete circumstances allow. Besides the
asteroid flown through the ring takes off some quantity of its substance.
The small fragments of this collision can generate the meteor flows
afterwards.
A basic part of the asteroid (a big "piece") will be soiled by the ring
substance and, actually, this very part forms the comet. Indeed, the
chemical composition of comet tails and major planets rings are remarkably
similar: H2O (ice, snow, steam), different frozen gases and other volatile
components (to the point, the Saturn rings are localized inside the Roche's
sphere for a liquid body).
The above-mentioned mechanism makes clear and obvious the fact, that the
periodical comets (i.e. by the type of orbits - orbit classification in
families) are conventionally grouped around the major planets having the
rings.
The Jupiter ring is less dense than Saturn rings and it probably consists of
snow and gas. This partially explains the fact, that the most of
short-period comets (Jupiterian family) have a faint tail or only have a
coma (here it is necessary to take into consideration the rapid evolution,
as far as the period is short enough).
A periodical variations of glitter of the Donati and Halley (with 52-hour
period) comets are explained by the fact, that monolithic nucleus of these
comets has an asymmetrical stretching form and accomplishes the rotary
motion. This rotation may be the result of collision with the particles of
the ring.
A basic mass component of a comet nucleus is determined by the type of
mother's asteroid: stony, iron-stony, ferrous.
The facts of the division of some comet nuclei may be explained by the
presence of cracks in the nucleus (it may be the result of the collision
with the ring). It may lead to the thermodeformation in the vicinity of the
Sun.
The orbits of the most part of comets lie in the ecliptic plane or near it,
although the orbits of separate comets are precessing. This circumstance is
normal in the proposed mechanism frames.
Let us value the frequency of the comets rise. Let us take the Earth
statistics.
In the current century (here - in the 20th century - rem. A.G.) the next
coarse enough meteorites fell to the Earth (on the land): Tungus in 1908,
Sihote-Alin in 1947, Fenes-County in 1948, and some others. Adopting that
the water surface of the Earth is more, than thrice larger that of the land,
we suppose, that about 15 coarse meteorite fell onto the Earth in this
century. Considering that the radius of our planet is nearly equal to 6370
km, we shall get, that on each 2.7.106 km2 of the transverse section area of
the Earth (i.e. the ball) may be one collision with a space body in century.
The outside diameter of the Saturn rings is nearly 2.74.105 km and the width
of the rings is 5 times as great as the Earth diameter, hence, the Saturn
rings area is equal to ~ 4.2.1010 km2. Considering the relative frequency
(on the unit of the transverse section area) of the collisions of Saturn
rings with small space bodies (with asteroids) equal to the that of the
Earth, and also considering that the probability of the hit into the flat
disk from the free direction is half as much as that of a ball of the same
transverse section area, it's possible to get the value of nearly 7800
collisions in a century (i.e. every week!). As a result of this collisions
the ring may be pierced and the comet is formed. Still in this calculation
was not taken into consideration the gravitation and screening influence of
planet-giant itself, the influence of the mutual speed of collisions, the
finite thickness of the rings and the angle of interaction, the sizes and
mass of the asteroid and the particles of the ring, etc., so the real
frequency of the comet forming will be less, than it is calculated.
Considering the real value even 10 times less, we'll see, that the figure
still remaines big enough (we discover not more than 10-20 comets every year
as average this refer to all the families taken together).
The best criterium of the truth is the experiment. The author considers that
the space experiment "Vega - Jiotto" shiningly confirms his hypothesis.
Indeed, it turned out that the nucleus is monolithic and it has the
asymmetrical form, it is darker, than it was supposed from the "ice"
hypothesis. Still the concrete analisis of the results will be given in the
next chapter.
4. A CRITICISM OF THE REALIZATION OF THE EXPERIMENT "VEGA" AND THE
INTERPRETATION OF ITS RESULTS, GIVEN BY THE ISR OF THE AS OF THE USSR
(Remarks: - This chapter is, basically, the co-name author's article of
20.03.86
About 150 soviet organization and enterprises took part in the creation of
the station "Vega" [4]. The considerable forces and means were taken for the
experiment carrying out. It may seeme, that the experiment have passed
successfully, the unique data have been received about the structure of
comet nucleus. Still, the author of these lines does not agree with a such
synonymous appreciation, although he doesn't deny the fact, that there
really as received some unique information.
Even more, than a year ago before the peak of the events of the experiment
"Vega", the author formulated and argumentally substantiated the hypothesis
about comets forming in the result of piercing the rings of the
planet-giants of Solar system by asteroids. This hypothesis was prevented to
the ISR and other organizations. Unfortunately the hypothesis has not been
considered at the ISR and author received only formal letters.
Comrades from the ISR adopted the ice nucleus comet (with soils) hypothesis
among their weapons, as a dogma, which, ostensibly, was shiningly confirmed
by the experiment. In accordance with this hypothesis, the ice comet nucleus
must gush out great quantities of steam and dust, that was reflected on the
experiment itself: the minimum distance from the nucleus at which the both
"Vega" apparatuses passed by, was intentionally chose within the limits of
8-9 thou km, although the actual precision of pointing was not worse than
1500 km. Only apparatus "Jiotto" (although not without the aid of the
"Vegas") passed closely to the nucleus and showed the features of a relief:
hills, craters.
In conformity with the author hypothesis the comet nucleus must be
monolithic: stony, iron-stony, ferrous - by the type of mother's asteroid.
Gases, given off by nucleus under the Solar heating, - are the result of
absorbtion and adsobtion the gases and other volatile components, composing
the particles of the rings of major-planets. Thus, the ejections from the
comet nucleus ("soiled" asteroid) must be comparatively small. To the point,
it is confirmed by the data of apparatus "ICE" (ex "ISEE-3"), which passed
through the tail of Jacobini-Cinner comet on 11 September 1985 (before the
peak of the experiment "Vega") the distance of 7850 km from the nucleus and
which fixed an unexpectedly small density of the dust [5,6]. The experiment
with the station "Vega-1" showed, that dust density is significantly less,
than it was predicted by the "ice" model of the nucleus. In connection with
this circumstance author sent a telegram at the ISR. The mistake may be
corrected, inasmuch as also "Vega-2" took place and it trajectory may be
improved so that photos would qualitative really, still it is no happened:
But, after all, strictly speaking, even if both "Vegas" would be directed
straight to the nucleus (with the accuracy of aiming equal to 1500 km all
the same the result would be negative: they wouldn't hit the aim!) and on
approaching to it they would be put out of order but still the task of the
stations would be fulfilled as far as the information was transferred to the
Earth in the real time. Nowadays the capacity for work of the two stations
are no longer of any importance because the unique chance has been lost:
There were two "Vegas" and each of them passed by the comet nucleus at the
distance of 8-9 thousands km! It may be compared with the situation when the
volcano eruption taking place at the Kamtchatka is observed from Moscow. It
at least "Vega-2" approached closer to the nucleus then it would be possible
to excuse the ambiguities and sheer blunder of the type: "The Halley-comet
has a double nucleus?!" or ":it seems that the nucleus has no clear
boundaries, - it is similar to a boiling pot" [7] - according to the data of
"Vega-1". In [8] the following figures are offered: the time error of the
meeting with the nucleus is 10-20 s, a relative velocity of the approach of
SA (space apparatus) to the comet is less than 80 km/s. Consequently, the
possible error of the two "Vegas" aiming (multiply these figures) is not
more than 1.5 thousand km. Why was it necessary to fulfil such a senseless
double? And who was interested in it?
However, it was proudly declared that both of the stations are keeping their
capacity for work and now the objects in Universe are searched that might be
studied by the "Vegas". Still, this declaration sounds as no more than an
attempt to appologise their own mistakes (but to-day we don't hear much
about these searches). Let us wish the ISR sucsess as far as the area of the
searches is very wide: the whole boundless space!
Probably the author is a little bit exaggerating, on the photos of "Vega-2"
something is seen and this was shown for first time by TV USSR on the 24th
of April, 1986 (after the program "Vremya" ("Time")), but in this very
TV-program a sacramental statement was formulated: the comet nucleus is a
dark, coal-like body having the coefficient of reflection comparable with
that of asteroids! But you see, the author of this paper expressed his
opinion on this point even more definitely more than a year ago! My first
letter to the ISR was sent on the 20th of February, 1985! Then at the same
TV-program an incorrect conclusion was heard about that the comet nucleus
was still icy. The same very thesis was formulated by Academician
R.Z.Sagdeyev in [9, p.88]: ":the hypothesis according to which the comet
nucleus is an enormous block of "dirty" ice of an irregular form has been
confirmed:Its surface is covered by a crust of some refractory material
having the thickness of about a centimeter - the composition of this
material is being specified". The thesis is repeated with a really enviable
persistence! R.Z.Sagdeyev is echoed by Professor V.I. Moroz the author of
the so-called nucleus model in the form of a "March snow-drift" [10,11] that
at first sight seems to be convincing. But this is at first sight only! The
case is that this model is not in principle able-bodied! Though I had no
chache to pick the nucleus of the Halley comet with my finger still I
declare that the comparison of the comet nucleus with the March snow-drift
is erroneous because of quite different physical condition. We know that
specks of dust and mud don't fly away from the snow-drift due to the
gravitation, and the Halley comet nucleus has practically no gravitation
influence, as far as its mass is too small. Add to this the pressure of
vapours being formed and dilating into vacuum: Under such circumstances even
the crust of porous platinum would not keep at the surface for any
considerable period of time, to say nothing of the impossibility of the
process of the crust growth resulting in its self-renewal, i.e. the "March
snow-drift" model that was widely advertised in disabled and groundless in
principle!
Basing on the theory of the icy nucleus it is difficult to explain the hills
and craters at the surface discovered by "Jiotto", not by the "Vegas", as
far as the melting of ice leads to the smoothing of "wounds" (Mr.
B.A.Vorontsov-Veliaminov is of the opinion that craters are percussive
formations).
Probably, R.Z.Sagdeyev and his colleagues being the focus of attention of
the press and taking a great interest in giving away autographs were too
busy and had no time not only to analyse the materials which I sent them but
even to go deep into their own statements. Let us recall the situation
around the experiment "Vega": at first there were a lot of advertising in
the press, by radio and TV, then the experiment itself was carried out and
were promised that the results were to be published soon. Now the racket has
been finally faded and it turns out that to "process the obtained material"
requires a considerable time (more than a year) and the results will be
published in special journals. And nowadays our attention is switched over
to the project "Phobos" ("Fobos") (writed in 1986 - Rem. A.G.). As for the
Halley comet, it turns out that the answer to all the questions might be
finally given probably only in 76 years when its next visit to the Sun takes
place and we'll have at our disposal different technical possibilities -
such a "regret" was expressed by the Academician R.Z.Sagdeyev (wasn't it
done so that not to return any longer to this an unpleasant for him
questions?). I am afraid that this "regret" is simulated. Still I suppose
that tens of millions of roubles were not wasted only for the sake of vague
knowledge?
However, it is interesting to note that in [9] R.Z.Sagdeyev writes: ":the
inevitability of the objective tendency doesn't diminish our responsibility
before this (i.e. communist - A.G.) future:". Here undoubtedly Acad.
R.Z.Sagdeyev is right. I would like to remind of that the USA are planning
to realize their projects "Asteroid Flieby" and "Comet's Rendezvous" earlier
than in 76 years - and the USSR may lose its priority in the science of
comets:
A comet nucleus reflects approximately 4% of the incident light [12], so it
may be conclude that it is a black body of a good quality! And it was really
difficult to call it icy.
In [10] R.Z.Sagdeyev revealed a turn in his views that is unexpected enough,
the academician writes: "Outwardly it (i.e. the object - A.G.) is somewhat
like Mars's satellites - Phobos and Daimos (the "Phobos" - project is in
prospect with R.Z.Sagdeyev (in 1986) - here is a sound logical connection
for you! - A.G.) but still more similar analogues may be some small
satellites of Saturn and Uranus. This keeps within the frames of the
hypothesis (I wonder, which and whose? As far as before this there was said
a lot of nonsense about the cloud of Oort, Nemesida, etc. - A.G.), assuming,
that comet nuclei were formed comparatively not far from the Sun,
approximately at the placewhere the major planets are located - from Jupiter
to Neptune, and then were thrown off at a greater distance during the
formation of these planets" (underlined by A.G.). Any explanation is
needless: For Academician R.Z.Sagdeyev it remains nothing but to wait a
little more and to pronounce quite a fatal phrase: "It seems to me that
comet nuclei were generated out of asteroids while the latter were punching
the rings of the major planets of the Solar system:" - i.e. to read at last
the formula of my discovery.
In [13] we were told that during the "Vega" - experiment the amount of steam
lost by the comet nucleus every second was measured for the first time. And
the figure of tens of tons was cited. It would be interesting to know in
what way this figure was obtained as far as there were no direct
measurements of this index (for this purpose it would be ideal to place the
comet nucleus into a sack!). However the author of this paper having at his
disposal such values as the cross section of the nucleus, integral flow of
the solar energy per unit of the area (i.e. solar constant taking into
account the distance from the Sun) has determined the amount of water that
may be heated from 3oK (the temperature of the cosmic background) up to the
vaporous condition (with the account of all the phase transfers) per 1
second and has obtained the figure of the same order that in [13], assuming
that ice is a black body (Kabs = 0.96). It means that this figure was simply
calculated in ISR on the basis of their faulse model, i.e. the desirable was
claimed as real.
The apparatus "Jiotto" revealed the jet escaping of gas (vapours). The
intensity in jets may not be higher than the physical limit caused by the
ideal conditions of the solar heating (as far as the nucleus is not a
gas-bag) and also by the accepted physical model (let it be even a black icy
nucleus), consequently, the intensity out of the jet is much lower than the
physical limit and the total loss of the nucleus mass in the form of vapour
is in any case considerably lower than the figure mentioned in [13] and
which representing the physical limit. Besides, it is known that the
Halley-comet nucleus is rotating and one side of it is more active [14] and
consequently the other is on the contrary less active. This circumstance
reinforces the "activity contrast" and lowers the index. Thus the figure of
40 tons of the vapour lost by the comet per one second is exaggerated (and
not by the order!), and if to take into account my hypothesis (i.e. the
nucleus is the asteroid in its basis) it is exaggerated still more. The
"Vega" - apparatuses passed at a great relative velocity (~ 80 km/s) by the
Halley comet nucleus thus creating their own blast, the amount of the
registered dust and gas is to be distributed over a lot of kilometers of the
trajectory; the dust and gas in their basic part may fly together with the
comet and break off from it not so fast as it may seem - taking account of
all the forces and factors (many of them though weak act in great scales)
may lead to an unusual result.
Note that the fact consisting in that one side is more active than the other
substantially confirms the mechanism of the comets formation as the result
of punching the rings of the major planets of the Solar system by asteroids
(see the materials of the application for the discovery), as far as the time
of punching the ring by an asteroid (<1 s) is not sufficient for the
asteroid to swing significantly. The porosity of coaly hondrites, for
instance (and as hondrites may serve asteroids and also, in particular, the
nucleus of the Halley-comet) may reach the value of more than 20% [15], that
may promote a significant adsorption and absorption of volatile components
which the ring contains. You should not forget that the punching of the ring
(the layer of small bodies of the finite thickness and some average density)
by a large asteroid is the process of a successive interaction of a massive
monolithic body of irregular form with a great number of small bodies during
a certain time interval. In this case as the evaporation of the colliding
bodies is going on the shock wave will be growing "smoothly" enough and
exerting its influence for a long time. In general, the physics of such an
interaction differes from the physics of the stroke of two solid bodies
commensurable with each other and is of interest as the object of a separate
investigation both theoretical and experimental. It is obvious, however,
that this circumstance may promote the capture of the volatile components of
the ring.
And now some remarks in respect of the photoes made by the "Vegas"
apparatuses. In [10] Academician R.Z.Sagdeyev says that: "Powerful dust
rejections are slightly camouflaging the nucleus surface but a detailed
photometrical treatment allowed to determine its form, dimensions and
reflecting ability". However there's no statement that they succeeded is
seeing the nucleus surface itself. There's no doubt that the averaging of
images, space filtering, etc., may "emphasize" something but they are not
able to "extract" the information that is absent in the initial image. In
this connection the statement that the images of the comet nucleus proper
were obtained is not quiet correct. Incorrect and groundless is also the
statement about that "...in comets... the material of which the Solar system
was generated is preserved in its original form" [4]. Comets occur and die
nowadays with the probability which estimated the above.
After the "Vega" experiment a number of new hypotheses of the comet
formation appeared, but they don't resolve all the contradiction in contrast
to that offered by the author. At present the major part of specialists
suppose that asteroids are dead comets (those left after the melting of
ice - the main component). This point of view is an intermediate one, as far
as it would be more correct to say: some asteroids are dead comets (the main
component of the comet mass is the asteroid proper).
The basic arguments were formulated by the author as far back as the
beginning of 1985 and were expressed in the letters, besides in 1986 they
found their reflection in the materials of the Application. At present these
materials may be only supplemented in the light of the new experimental
facts and data.
The potent aspects of the hypothesis are:
- its concrete character and the absence of any obstacles for the further
concretization; absence of any abstractions of the type comet cloud of Oort,
Nemesida, etc., that were seen by nobody;
- logical inevitability of the offered mechanism, caused by the absence of
physical interdictions and the finite value of the probability of the event;
- possibility of a versatile verification;
- logical connection with all the available facts.
Besides, the hypothesis at the same time gives a harmonious picture of such
a phenomenon as the "Tungus meteorite" (appendix to the Application, here
chapter 6), that in general agrees with new views on this phenomenon [16]
and removes any misticism and mystery, created around this sensational
question.
5. TERMINOLOGY AND EXCEPTION TO THE RULE
If the term "comet" implies a small celestial body with a gaseous cover
(coma) or tail consisting of gas and dust that is probably more concrete
than a vague meaning of this word given in dictionaries, then the author
proposes to call the comets formed as result of piercimg of the major
planets of the Solar system by asteroids to call these comets
"samaroid(s)" - in honour of the city of Samara which in 1986 celebrated its
400th anniversary (that was also the year of the Halley-comet). As it
follows from the introduction to this article this name "samaroid" is quite
justified.
For the comets formed as a result of an asteroid passing along the
trajectory close to the tangent through the atmosphere of such planets as
the Earth, Mars and Venus (the Earth group) - it is known at least one case
when a bolide (fire-ball) entered the atmosphere of the Earth, passed it
through and then again went away beyond the limits of the atmosphere and at
this it didn't become the Earth satellite - the author proposes the name (or
term) "novid". Though the probability of the formation of weak comets is
such a way is almost zero, still it should not be fully excluded out of the
sphere of our attention. After the contact with the atmosphere any celestial
body takes away with it a portion of gases. Even SA - artificial Earth
satellites have their own atmosphere. The term "novid" descend from the name
of a small and very picturesque village "Novinky" situated in the Zhiguli
mountains near the city of Samara within the area of the first national park
in Russia (not 1st in the USSR) "Samarskaya Luka".
The two terms proposed by the author symbolize the unity of great and small
in the Universe...
For the comets out of the cloud Oort (let it be so! - the author is just
enough) the author offers the term "Oortides". - Let the Time to prove the
vitality of these names.
Thus, the "cosmic bulldozer" - the Halley-comet is, apparently, a
ferrous-stony "samaroid" belonging to the Neptune (or Uranus?) family.
6. TUNGUS PHENOMENON
One of the arguments against the proposed mechanism of the comet formation
may be a false interpretation of the event that took place in 1908 and is
known under the name "Tungus meteorite" as far as the zone of fall was of an
unusual character; the meteorite proper was not found. In this connection a
great number of hypotheses appeared on the collision of the Earth and the
icy comet that later on evaporated. But as far as the comet is no more than
a "dirty asteroid" and is not a very original one as for the results of its
influence then the author offers the following non-contradictory explanation
of the event (without any pretension on originality).
At 8 o'clock a.m. on the 30th of June, 1908, in the Tungus taiga the event
took place known under the name of "Tungus meteorite".
The examination of the place of the Tungus meteorite fall in 1927 and later
on showed the absence of the meteor body and craters. The woods within the
radius of 30 km was brought down by the blast [17, p.54]. All these in total
was unlike a usual fall of meteorite.
Take notice of several facts.
After the fall of Sihote-Alin meteorite in 1947 numerous splinters were
found. On having analysed these splinters a soviet scientist E.L.Krinov
marked out conditionally three stages of the meteorite splintering into
composing parts by a number of characteristic signs [17, p.42].
At the Tungus meteorite fall an unusual phenomenon was observed: at the vast
territory to the west of the place of the meteorite fall the night from the
30th of June to the 1st of July practically did not set in [17, p.53]. The
sky was light and even in England it was possible to read a paper at this
time (this phenomenon is, apparently, belonging to the type of "crepuscular"
ones as far as this season the Sun sets not far beyond the horizon and the
diffusion of Solar light may occur in the upper layers on fine-dispersed
particles). At the same time to the east of the place of the meteorite fall
there was nothing of the kind. This circumstance substantially confirms the
assumption that the trajectory of the Tungus meteorite fall was close to the
tangent to the Earth surface, i.e. the meteorite entered the atmosphere of
the Earth at the small angle to the horizon. At such a trajectory the
meteorite must move significantly longer in the Earth atmosphere,
experiencing at this its resistance and being subjected to destruction.
Thus, there are all the grounds to suppose that the number of stages of
destruction of the Tungus meteorite was more than that of the Sihote-Alin
meteorite (mentioned above) and on approaching to the place of its fall the
Tungus meteorite was almost completely destroyed to small splinters, forming
a kind of a cloud consisting of stony hail or "rain" if the body was melted
in addition. On collision of this cloud with the Earth surface a powerful
blast must be generated over a great area and in fact this phenomenon took
place in case of the Tungus meteorite. Besides, recently in the region of
the explosion the microscopic balls were discovered. These balls were not of
the earthly nature [17, p.55].
Thus, the Tungus meteorite is a small cosmic-body entered the Earth
atmosphere by the trajectory close to the tangent and consequently subjected
to the full destruction.
References
1. "This enigmatic Halley comet". "Volzhkaya Zarya" ("Volga's sunset glow")
(a newspaper), 18 April, 1986, Kuibyshev, Russia, USSR.
2. A.G.Goncharov. Application for the discovery "Comets formation
phenomenon". Archives of the All-Union Patent Library, ? OT-11432, Moscow.
3. F.L.Whipple. "Orbiting the Sun", London, 1981.
4. "Pravda", the issue on the 19th March, 1986.
5. E.Mukin. "Meeting with the Comet of Jacobini-Cinner", "Science and
Technique", 1986, ? 6, p.20, Moscow.
6. G.K.Brandt, M.B.Nider-junior. Comet Tails Structure, "In the World of
Science" - "V Mire Nauki"(Translated in Russian), 1983, v.3, p.24-33.
7. "Pravda", the issue on the 12th March, 1986.
8. "The Way to the Comet", "Pravda", the issue on the 17th April, 1986.
9. "Communist", v.5, 1986, Moscow.
10. "Meeting with Halley-comet", "Pravda", the issue on the 6th of May,
1986.
11. "From "Vega" to "Phobos"", "Znaniye-sila" ("Knowledze is Force"), 1986,
v.12, p. 11-14, Moscow.
12. "Science and Technique", 1986, v.11, p.6, Riga, Latvia, USSR.
13. "Science and Life", 1986, v.7, Moscow.
14. V.M.Balebanov, ""Vega"- project: final stage", collect. "Modern
Achievments in Cosmonautics", Moscow, "Znaniye"("Knowledge"), 1986.
15. B.A.Vorontsov-Veliaminov. "Origin of Small Bodies of the Solar System",
"Astronomical Journal", 1986, v.63, ed.1, p. 181-183, Moscow.
16. N.N.Piluguin, T.A.Chernova. "Radiation Heat exchange of a Meteors-Body
in Approximation of Radiant Heat-Conduction", "Cosmic Researches", 1986,
v.24, ed.1, p. 58.
17. V.S.Guetman. "Meteors and Meteorites", Moscow, "Znaniye", Ser.
Cosmonautics, Astronomy. 1984, v. 2.
|
Общение
Свободный раздел
