
Jupiter surprises scientists in Juno’s first flybys - JumpCrisscross
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-juno-jupiter-surprises-20170525-story.html
======
kkylin
More pictures:
[https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Jupiter?subse...](https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Jupiter?subselect=Mission%3AJuno%3ATarget%3AJupiter)

------
wcdolphin
Im so impressed these scientists were so excited to be proven wrong. Such a
pure and genuine interest in the pursuit of knowledge.

~~~
ms013
I'm not sure why this would be impressive. That's how science has always
worked, and scientists very often get excited when new data increases the
likelihood that some previously held idea is false. In fact, more often than
not what irritates scientists is when experiments increase support for
existing theories since that usually means that other theories are less likely
to hold (e.g., LHC and supersymmetry theories). That results in people who had
invested long periods of time into work that the data now says is bogus having
mild existential crises - "damnit nature - now what?".

It says something unfortunate about the current perception of science if
people think scientists getting excited about new data contradicting theories
is something noteworthy.

~~~
kbutler
Climate scientist Phil Jones in Feb. 2005:

‘We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?’

'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the
file rather than send to anyone.'

You can say what you want about the antagonistic nature of climate science
(the pro-AGW site skeptical science excuses the above quotes on that basis),
but I think science flourishes best when opposing viewpoints are vigorously
but truthfully defended.

I find the above quotations inexcusable.

~~~
jellicle
> vigorously but truthfully defended.

Indeed! And the climate-deniers being talked about are very far indeed from
truthful or scientific, so there's no point in doing anything to aid their
campaign of deceit. They'll lie about it either way.

~~~
kbutler
Justifying bad action (hiding or misrepresenting data, allowing untruthful
hyperbolic statements, ad hominem attacks) on the basis of hypothetical bad
action is hardly helpful.

> climate-deniers

I've never heard anyone deny the climate.

I've never actually heard anyone deny climate change, except those who assert
there was no significant change before the 19th or 20th century.

Very few even deny anthropogenic climate change - most just question the
magnitude, relative attribution, or whether it will be easier to adapt rather
than attempt to prevent.

You probably meant "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change denier", which
is just an intentionally offensive way to say, "Someone who disagrees with the
consensus position so we hope you'll ignore them".

------
krylon
It is incredible how everywhere we look in the solar system, we find things we
did not expect. It looks like there is not a boring spot to be found here.

I still wish somebody would send a similar probe to Uranus and/or Neptune, but
I am also excited that there is still plenty to discover in, on, and around
Jupiter!

~~~
qubex
It's kind of like planet Earth writ large: I don't think there's a single part
of the planet's surface that could be reasonably described as ’boring’ or
’uninteresting’ despite the fact we are in possession of a bunch of reasonably
accurate average statistics that broadly summarise all of it.

------
Kenji
_“The lesson I take from this is, if you want to learn something about these
complex systems, you have to look at them,” Flasar said. “Because you’re not
going to figure it out from first principles. [...]_

I think this is a great insight. First principles are fantastic to plan drafts
and establish key concepts, but building & testing are equally important.

------
buf
As a long time general consumer of anything space related, this article hits
the spot.

------
perseusprime11
I am finding it hard to imagine the constitution of Jupiter. The findings say
it doesn't have a solid core but diffuse. How can a planet not have a surface?
How does gravity work if it is just gases?

------
appleflaxen
it's such a shame we've spent so much on manned space flight when unmanned
missions give us results like this.

what was the last similar result that came from manned flight (that _couldn
't_ have been accomplished in an unmanned flight)?

~~~
kmm
The only achievement I can come up with that hasn't been done with unmanned
probes is a serious sample return mission. The Apollo mission brought back 382
kg of lunar material. Unmanned Soviet missions have brought back a total of
0.32 kg. Would we back then have been capable of building an unmanned system
capable of investigating rocks, cleaving samples, and bringing back hundreds
of kilograms? Are we now?

~~~
appleflaxen
good example. but you are comparing the soviet space program to the US space
program. You seem to have good data on the yield of moon rocks; do you have
any data on cost per kg? It would be interesting to see!

And even if it did make sense historically, with as far as robotics have come
in 2017 I can't see a reason why we would do a similar manned mission in the
future.

Thanks for the data!

~~~
kmm
It's hard to find data on the individual cost of Soviet space programs.
Wikipedia gives the total cost for the Luna program at 4.5 billion dollars,
but that figure is unsourced, and it's unclear whether they're 1969 or 2008
dollars.

In any case, the Apollo program easily wins in kg/dollar. The total cost of
the Apollo program was just 22 billion 1969 dollars, so a bit more than 60
million 1969 dollars per kilo and obviously the program did much, much more
than just return some rocks. On the other hand, just launching the Proton-K
rocket that got the Luna 16 to the moon cost 100 million 1969 dollars, so up
to 1 billion dollars per kilo. And that's not counting the development cost of
the vehicle etc...

Good news for the future though, China is planning to send a sample-return
mission in November[0] and they plan to return at least 2 kilograms. If they
succeed, I guess you don't need humans for that either

0:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_5)

------
imranq
This is awesome

