June 2nd, 2018
Yesterday Friday June, 1st 2018 I wrote this
|
Someone just informed me that NASA released an announcement today in the media
Gizmodo - Astronomers Spot Surprising Evidence of Methane Dunes on Pluto. Quote Astronomers peering closely at images of Pluto have spotted what look like dunes on the surface of the former planet. Six months ago I wrote my Sastrugi page 87 which identified these exact same dunes on Pluto. Last month my hit count on the Sastrugi page skyrocketed and became the number one most read page on my monthly Top Ten page. Some popular person on Facebook linked to my Satrugi page sending a torrent of hits my way. Today NASA scientists including Alan Stern announce THEY found these features on Pluto. Three years pass and Alan and team don't see dunes on Pluto but six months after I spot them and one month after my Sastrugi traffic spikes, "NASA scientists spot them after peering closely at images of Pluto", RIGHT! |
|
|
I obviously don't want direct credit for this observation (or I'd use my real name) but a nod to my web site is at least in order
I identified the same NASA practice on my Big Bro page which starts like this On Sept 2nd 2017, I created my Eruptions page. Last week I came across a paper released by NASA published Nov 7th, 2017. The paper is called. A Search for Temporal Changes on Pluto and Charon = Change with time The timing of this paper is interesting because for nearly two and a half years NASA didn't say a word about or bother looking for potential plumes or streaking effects from plumes on Pluto, Then two months after I post Eruptions, NASA releases a paper on this very subject (things that make you go hmm). Alan! At least give my site credit for creating thought provoking ideas and providing additional information for your team to explore or confirm. It bothers me that you take credit without giving credit where its due. |
|
September 2017, I showed, on my Eruptions page, how Pluto has no plumes on the surface unlike Triton, two months later November 2017, NASA comes out with a paper on Pluto plumes claiming Pluto has plumes which end up being nothing more than surface fractures and wind swept tholin. (the same wind swept tholin they now use as evidence for creating snow dunes) I responded to their false plumes on my Big Bro page which led me to observe wind swept patterns of Sastrugi snow dunes, now six months later Alan Stern and team take credit for finding these snow dunes.
Today Saturday June 2nd, 2018
I was pretty upset to see these scientists take credit for my observations but now its time to get back to work,
We differ
Here's one key difference between them and me.
NASA scientists made up their mind regarding what they'd find long before we got to Pluto, this restricts and limits their vision which falls primarily within the confines of their predetermined view. |
|
I, on the other hand, was a complete blank slate (didn't have a clue) when I first saw Pluto. I literally have spent hundreds of hours staring at every pixel of every image I can get my hands on and I marvel and ask questions first. Then I do it again and again always asking, what am I looking at, what could cause this, what am I seeing, what is this?
I read NASA papers which sometimes help but are also misleading as they already know before they look what they will find. The NASA papers are good for data like ratio's, sizes, shapes, content, dimensions but not as much so when it comes to interpretation. A couple NASA Pluto lords (overseers of the truth) like Alan Stern or Bill McKinnon put forth the gospel of Pluto and everyone aligns their view with the word of the chosen few.
These sastrugi dunes are a perfect case in point. The reason NASA scientists never saw these dunes staring them in the face is because they already knew these were sublimation pits. They clearly stated these features were sublimation pits created by mass wasting in a paper in Aug 2016.
Dec 22nd, 2017 I wrote my Sastrugi page demonstrating how Pluto had wind swept sastrugi (snow ripples) and presented these below images as evidence. At this point, NASA scientists had been calling these features sublimation pits for well over a year and put the subject to rest, after all, they already knew what these features were, they identified, classified and verified them via models, they had written a paper on these features so the subject was closed nothing else to see here and they moved on. On the other hand, I compared them to sand dunes and indicated they were created by Pluto's winds and were in fact sastrugi ripples not sublimation pits.
In this image I was demonstrating how the winds followed or channeled by the contour of the low elevation troughs of the polygonal cells picked up speed creating these sastrugi near the cell edges while the overall direction of wind was SE.
I read NASA papers which sometimes help but are also misleading as they already know before they look what they will find. The NASA papers are good for data like ratio's, sizes, shapes, content, dimensions but not as much so when it comes to interpretation. A couple NASA Pluto lords (overseers of the truth) like Alan Stern or Bill McKinnon put forth the gospel of Pluto and everyone aligns their view with the word of the chosen few.
These sastrugi dunes are a perfect case in point. The reason NASA scientists never saw these dunes staring them in the face is because they already knew these were sublimation pits. They clearly stated these features were sublimation pits created by mass wasting in a paper in Aug 2016.
Dec 22nd, 2017 I wrote my Sastrugi page demonstrating how Pluto had wind swept sastrugi (snow ripples) and presented these below images as evidence. At this point, NASA scientists had been calling these features sublimation pits for well over a year and put the subject to rest, after all, they already knew what these features were, they identified, classified and verified them via models, they had written a paper on these features so the subject was closed nothing else to see here and they moved on. On the other hand, I compared them to sand dunes and indicated they were created by Pluto's winds and were in fact sastrugi ripples not sublimation pits.
In this image I was demonstrating how the winds followed or channeled by the contour of the low elevation troughs of the polygonal cells picked up speed creating these sastrugi near the cell edges while the overall direction of wind was SE.
December 2017, I identified these features as wind blown sastrugi similar to sand dune ripples or waves
In this image I wanted to draw the viewers eye to the many sastrugi snow dunes with red lines
NASA had previously reported that Pluto's atmosphere was thin like Mars'. I wanted to demonstrate that even though the atmosphere was thin, it could transport material long distances and was therefore significant enough to create these sastrugi dunes. My concern at the time was that everyone well that is every NASA scientists was calling these ripples sublimation pits. I instead saw them as sastrugi (wind blown snow ripples) which is what they are. These next three images are what I used to support this wind swept snow ripple premise.
direction of wind based on dark tholin stains extending downwind from tholin covered iceberg mountains.
I used the below image to demonstrate how sastrugi developed and accumulated on the windward side of these mountains but were lacking on the leeward side and how sastrugi were lacking from the polygonal cell's elevated center but existed along its lower trough edges.
I used the below image to demonstrate how far the winds carried tholin across the surface of Sputnik Planitia suggesting they were dense and strong enough to move tholin many many miles, therefore they were capable of pushing snow across the surface as well forming ripples. I was arguing against NASA's claim that these were sublimation pits and calling them what they are which is sastrugi snow dunes or snow ripples formed by wind not mass wasting sublimation pits.
|
A year and a half prior to me creating my Sastrugi page, NASA in August 2016 released a paper calling these features "mass wasting sublimation pits suggested by their modeling".
|
| ||
|
Their mass wasting concept on the surface of Sputnik Planitia, no doubt, was formulated from sources like this J. Moore et al., paper where mass wasting is used to describe some of the features on Callisto.
In essence these New Horizons scientists are looking over the landscape of Pluto and applying previously expressed concepts from other papers. |
| ||
|
Take note of how they use a model as supporting evidence of the "pits" occurring from a required role of mass wasting as if a model becomes evidence itself and with this model as evidence mass wasting becomes the requirement used to identify these features. Case closed, features identified, NASA scientists are done with the issue, thank you world, moving on. These features were then put to rest until I challenged their logic and rational. Quote from the NASA paper Elsewhere in the cellular plains, small shoulder-to-shoulder pits are elongate and begin to form chains ( Figs. 2, 4 b and e). Figure 2 is the same location as the one where I observed sastrugi wind swept snow dunes after which, the scientists take credit for observing. |
|
This area called figure 2, identified in the NASA August 2016 paper is the same area where I identified Sastrugi. A year and 4 months later in December of 2017 I wrote my Sastrugi page. In 2016, these features are identified by NASA as sublimation pits created by mass wasting and their model supports this fact. Case closed NASA knows, in their mind, what these features are and say nothing further on the subject for nearly two years and have no reason to revisit this issue until six months after I identified them as wind swept snow rippled sastrugi. |
|
Six months after I write my Sastrugi page NASA, through "diligent peering" at Pluto discover these same features, in the same location with the same rational and draw the same conclusions which I drew 6 months previous. Its good to know they are "diligently peering" at my web site then taking credit for my work.
After I presented my observations about the sastrugi on Sputnik Planitia
NASA now says Wind streaks are well known on Venus and Mars, are present even under the tenuous atmosphere of Triton, and are generally considered to represent the wind direction. (But NASA's plumes somehow run in perpendicular and diagonal lines) We use a model to examine the saltation of sand-sized (in this case, ~200 to 300 mm) particles on Pluto. Once initiated, the model indicates that saltation can be sustained even under the low (Earth-like; 1 to 10ms−1) wind speeds predicted at the surface today... This implies that the topography and/or surface composition has influenced the local wind regime, as was anticipated... |
| ||
The combination of Pluto’s low gravity (0.62 m s−1, or 1 =16 that of Earth), sparse atmosphere [1 Pa], extreme cold [~45 K], and surface composition [N2, CO, H2O, and CH4 ices] made pre-encounter predictions of surface processes challenging. However, pre-encounter speculation included that eolian processes, and potentially dunes, might be found on Pluto, because, despite the relatively thin atmosphere, the winds could possibly sustain saltation (i.e., particle movement by ballistic hops) in the current surface conditions.
Here NASA is trying to suggest how obvious it was there would be dunes on Pluto and they knew these features might exist even before they flew by. The paper indicates these features exist on Titan and even comet 67P so obviously they might exist on Pluto, I mean, duh! who wouldn't have seen that coming? My question then is why did they previously look at these features and NOT call them eolian dunes, why did it take two years to figure out that which they now claim to be such a well understood and obvious feature? Why did they first claim these features were only created by mass wasting if snow dunes were such an obvious choice? If it was so obvious why did they have to peer closely to see the obvious?
The multiple references to pre-encounter predictions appears to be a direct defensive response to me accusing them of being blinded by deciding what they'd find before we arrived. They also mention (my same observations) how the rolling hills with troughs forming topographic features channel and influence the wind, forming the sastrugi as winds are generated by a gravity driven flow toward lower regions. And they make a point to say these features are not sastrugi.
Wiki Quote
Sastrugi, or zastrugi, are sharp irregular grooves or ridges formed on a snow surface by wind erosion, saltation of snow particles, and deposition,..The ridges are usually parallel to the prevailing winds.
The sastrugi on Pluto in most cases ran perpendicular to the direction of wind so I felt I needed to address this discrepancy between what Wiki said and what I observed on Pluto's surface so I added Youtube videos on my Sastrugi page to show how sastrugi wind formed snow dunes in parallel waves that ran perpendicular to the wind direction not just parallel to the direction of wind travel. NASA picks up this same concept in the below quote.
Quote from NASA paper
Terrestrial and planetary dunes that form straight ridges can occur either perpendicular to the wind, forming transverse dunes, or parallel to the net local wind regime, forming longitudinal (or linear) dunes, and regional variation in the alignment of such dunes on Earth is typically associated with meso- or large-scale atmospheric patterns
NASA scientists are using the same exact arguments I use to prove these sastrugi snow dunes are formed by winds migrating frosty snow rather than by a process of mass wasting by sublimation (NASA's sublimation pits). In their paper they protect their previous statement about sublimation by saying the winds couldn't create these sastrugi without the aid of sublimation lofting the small particles of nitrogen off the surface so that the winds could then carry the particles into the shape of dunes. And while they may be correct when saying that, nevertheless, they are directly using and or defending points I made on my Sastrugi page strongly suggesting they have developed their paper as a direct result of reading my Sastrugi page and then taking credit for those observations.
They take credit for every point I make which they previously ignored;
They argue in defense of their models and pre-encounter predictions which I continually discredit as stifling and limiting their creative interpretations of the landscape.
They specifically state these snow formed ripples are not sastrugi.
Sounds to me like they are reading my pages and taking credit for my observations.
Here NASA is trying to suggest how obvious it was there would be dunes on Pluto and they knew these features might exist even before they flew by. The paper indicates these features exist on Titan and even comet 67P so obviously they might exist on Pluto, I mean, duh! who wouldn't have seen that coming? My question then is why did they previously look at these features and NOT call them eolian dunes, why did it take two years to figure out that which they now claim to be such a well understood and obvious feature? Why did they first claim these features were only created by mass wasting if snow dunes were such an obvious choice? If it was so obvious why did they have to peer closely to see the obvious?
The multiple references to pre-encounter predictions appears to be a direct defensive response to me accusing them of being blinded by deciding what they'd find before we arrived. They also mention (my same observations) how the rolling hills with troughs forming topographic features channel and influence the wind, forming the sastrugi as winds are generated by a gravity driven flow toward lower regions. And they make a point to say these features are not sastrugi.
Wiki Quote
Sastrugi, or zastrugi, are sharp irregular grooves or ridges formed on a snow surface by wind erosion, saltation of snow particles, and deposition,..The ridges are usually parallel to the prevailing winds.
The sastrugi on Pluto in most cases ran perpendicular to the direction of wind so I felt I needed to address this discrepancy between what Wiki said and what I observed on Pluto's surface so I added Youtube videos on my Sastrugi page to show how sastrugi wind formed snow dunes in parallel waves that ran perpendicular to the wind direction not just parallel to the direction of wind travel. NASA picks up this same concept in the below quote.
Quote from NASA paper
Terrestrial and planetary dunes that form straight ridges can occur either perpendicular to the wind, forming transverse dunes, or parallel to the net local wind regime, forming longitudinal (or linear) dunes, and regional variation in the alignment of such dunes on Earth is typically associated with meso- or large-scale atmospheric patterns
NASA scientists are using the same exact arguments I use to prove these sastrugi snow dunes are formed by winds migrating frosty snow rather than by a process of mass wasting by sublimation (NASA's sublimation pits). In their paper they protect their previous statement about sublimation by saying the winds couldn't create these sastrugi without the aid of sublimation lofting the small particles of nitrogen off the surface so that the winds could then carry the particles into the shape of dunes. And while they may be correct when saying that, nevertheless, they are directly using and or defending points I made on my Sastrugi page strongly suggesting they have developed their paper as a direct result of reading my Sastrugi page and then taking credit for those observations.
They take credit for every point I make which they previously ignored;
- Direction of wind,
- Wind controlled by topography,
- Atmospheric density,
- Wind formed ripples.
- Ripples are formed both parallel and perpendicular to direction of wind
They argue in defense of their models and pre-encounter predictions which I continually discredit as stifling and limiting their creative interpretations of the landscape.
They specifically state these snow formed ripples are not sastrugi.
Sounds to me like they are reading my pages and taking credit for my observations.
|
Two years ago they used a model to prove these features are sublimation pits created by mass wasting now they use a model to prove a concept they call saltation NASA paper - we use a model to examine the saltation of sand-sized particles Wiki - Sastrugi = saltation of snow particles NASA - The transverse orientation also shows that these ridges cannot be sastrugi (erosional snowridges that form parallel to net winds). Wiki - The ridges are usually parallel to the prevailing winds; they are steep on the windward side and sloping to the leeward side. |
|
Here NASA is directly arguing against my reference to calling these features sastrugi. Calling them sastrugi or snow dunes is (to me) mostly a matter of semantics. The whole point in calling them sastrugi was to reference the fact these ripples were created by wind.
To be fair it does matter that we properly identify features.
I don't mind at all that NASA scientists disagree with me. They have a valid point that technically these are more akin to snow dunes than sastrugi. But to get hung up on semantics is exactly where these scientists continue to fall on their face. They tend to be so focused on the details they miss the big picture and that's why they missed these features as wind swept ripples in the first place.
I could likewise via semantics tear apart their use of the word "snow" to define the compositional material that forms these ripples. Nit picking something down to the point you feel you're assessment is beyond correction is at the core of most science. And its important to be precise. But when there's a bigger picture to observe then sometimes we need to let go of the trivial disparity in our description.
To be fair it does matter that we properly identify features.
I don't mind at all that NASA scientists disagree with me. They have a valid point that technically these are more akin to snow dunes than sastrugi. But to get hung up on semantics is exactly where these scientists continue to fall on their face. They tend to be so focused on the details they miss the big picture and that's why they missed these features as wind swept ripples in the first place.
I could likewise via semantics tear apart their use of the word "snow" to define the compositional material that forms these ripples. Nit picking something down to the point you feel you're assessment is beyond correction is at the core of most science. And its important to be precise. But when there's a bigger picture to observe then sometimes we need to let go of the trivial disparity in our description.
|
The point was and is, wind is creating and shaping waves or ripples on the surface of Pluto that's the point I was making on my Sastrugi page and its still the crux of the issue.
NASA was calling these features sublimation pits created by mass wasting. I was using the word sastrugi to catch people's attention with a single word while describing wind driven ripples. |
Image at the top of my Sastrugi page identifying sastrugi and snow dunes as wind formed ripples
|
The other significant and relevant point here is, they took my observations without giving my site any credit and claim to have found these features simply because they were "diligently peering" at Pluto.
In both their papers, models prove their assessment. Previous NASA models support the concept these features are formed by sublimation mass wasting not wind because they assumed the wind wasn't dense enough to form sastrugi "snow dunes". Now the new model supports the concept that the wind in conjunction with sublimation can not only create sublimation pits but snow dunes as well. Models are only a reflection of what its creator is able to see or wants to find or is able to formulate. Once I made this observation obvious to see, they formulated models to reflect the obvious, duh!
This is a point I keep making about models. Models can be made to say anything their creator wants them to say or they only say what their creator's are capable of visualizing. In either case, model's, like our gods are limited by our ability to create them.
In both their papers, models prove their assessment. Previous NASA models support the concept these features are formed by sublimation mass wasting not wind because they assumed the wind wasn't dense enough to form sastrugi "snow dunes". Now the new model supports the concept that the wind in conjunction with sublimation can not only create sublimation pits but snow dunes as well. Models are only a reflection of what its creator is able to see or wants to find or is able to formulate. Once I made this observation obvious to see, they formulated models to reflect the obvious, duh!
This is a point I keep making about models. Models can be made to say anything their creator wants them to say or they only say what their creator's are capable of visualizing. In either case, model's, like our gods are limited by our ability to create them.
|
Notice how they are now showing how winds are the cause of the sastrugi ripples, whereas, previously these were pits created by mass wasting. |
|
|
Notice how they have drawn parallel lines within the polygonal cells to highlight the ripples within the wind driven zone which is exactly the same thing I did six months prior to highlight these wind swept sastrugi ripples? |
|
It seems peculiar that NASA scientists are peering so closely at Pluto that they see what I pointed out six months ago but have completely missed this giant bulls eye of a cryovolcano called Elliot Crater, even though I've sent this exact image to them via Twitter.
|
Two years ago I identified real cryovolcanoes on Pluto and tweeted images of them to Alan Stern but all I get from Alan on the subject is dead silence.
Wright Mons touted by Alan as a cryovolcano is not a volcano but Elliot Crater is a cryovolcano as well as others which I've identified. Even though the evidence is overwhelming, I get nothing from Alan when I show him these images. Its as if he's offended by the fact that I (a nobody) identified these features before he did. Here's a 10 min video I created showing the cryovolcanoes. |
|
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say they miss the big picture while scrutinizing over and analyzing a grain of sand. How do you miss the fact Elliot is a cryovolcano but you can identify grains of snow sand creating snow dunes?
When I began this expedition of discovery, I expected to be shocked and amazed by Pluto but have also been shocked and amazed by the New Horizons scientific team.
And now they are stealing credit for my observations regarding wind swept rippled snow dunes which I call sastrugi.
I am glad they learned something new about Pluto as the whole world benefits from this knowledge but it seems only right to give credit where credit is due and not pretend like they are diligently peering at Pluto. It is, however, a bit disgusting to watch the world shower them with praise and accolades, knowing they are taking credit for an observation which I made and they learned from reading my site.
When I began this expedition of discovery, I expected to be shocked and amazed by Pluto but have also been shocked and amazed by the New Horizons scientific team.
- Bill McKinnon concluded Pluto collided with Charon 20 years before we arrived then after our arrival Kelsi Singer claimed altered manipulated impact data related to the small moons prove the small moons are 4 byr old and this altered data supports their Pluto/Charon collision concept.
- McKinnon claimed a 4 byr old impactor between 150-250 km could gouge out an area 150 km deep by 1,300 km long by 900 km wide which is impossible. He used 5 degree impact angles to sell the concept this hypothetical impact created the elongated structure of Sputnik Planitia while admitting there is no ejecta. Later he changes his tune claiming there is ejecta, sells it with J. Keane cartoons, changes the impact angle to 60 degrees ignores the shape of SP and then claims this supports true polar wander (skin slip) in a NW to SE direction.
- McKinnon compares SP with Hellas Basin on Mars as supporting evidence both are impact basins without rings but as a planetary scientists, McKinnon seems to be unaware that Hellas like SP is not an impact basin and that's why both do not have rings as both are active geological sites not impact sites.
- They claim this hypothesized SP impact basin filled with atmospheric nitrogen and a subsurface ocean which makes SP the densest zone on Pluto which causes Pluto's skin to counter rotate and slip away from Charon which is its greatest source of gravitational pull.
- They claim there is a bulging subsurface ocean from the impact which in turn is creating a fictitious positive gravity anomaly that forced Pluto's densest area SP to rotate away from Charon its gravitationally strongest area,
- They call the N2 ice convective which is insulated from below by a 63 km conductive ice shell trapping interior heat to create a water/ammonia based ocean. An atmospheric snow supposedly created a sea of nitrogen in the SP basin which is bubbling (convecting) heat while sitting on a blanket of 63 km insulating conductive (non heat transferring) water ice.
- The subsurface ocean 150 km below is supposed to be freezing creating the expansion fractures as they claim there are no signs of compression features. The bulging ocean reaching to within 63 km of SP is, however, somehow still liquid causing a positive gravity anomaly.
- They claim there are no compression features but there is a compression ridge with fold mountains between -30 and 0 degrees latitude. The ridge runs all the way from the north pole down to at least -30 degrees latitude.
- They claim the frozen N2, CO and CH4 atmosphere has created a lava lamp convecting N2 sea of fluid forming mounds of polygonal cells where sublimation pits are supposed to migrate in a conveyor belt manner outward from the center of the cells to their edges (a hypothesis which is 9 orders of magnitude away from testable reality).
- Then, when I pointed out the significance of there being no plumes on Pluto they used perpendicular and diagonally aligned fractures to suggest these surface cracks were plumes. Some of the fractures used by J, Keane to support Pluto's skin slip (true polar wander) were used by Stern and McKinnon's paper to prove Pluto showed signs of plumes. Keane sees cracks where Stern sees plumes. In this particular case I also see cracks primarily because they intersect at perpendicular and diagonal angles. Plumes on Triton run parallel to each other as they are wind driven. Stern's plumes on Pluto intersect at diagonal and perpendicular angles, these are not plumes.
- Stern misidentified Wright Mons as a cryovolcano while ignoring real cryovolcanoes around Viking Terra and at the Spider. I have sent multiple images of real cryovolcanoes to Stern on Twitter only to be ignored.
And now they are stealing credit for my observations regarding wind swept rippled snow dunes which I call sastrugi.
I am glad they learned something new about Pluto as the whole world benefits from this knowledge but it seems only right to give credit where credit is due and not pretend like they are diligently peering at Pluto. It is, however, a bit disgusting to watch the world shower them with praise and accolades, knowing they are taking credit for an observation which I made and they learned from reading my site.
|
How low can you go?
Up till now, I've tried to be respectful while disagreeing with several of their findings but man this is low. How desperate are you people that you need to steal credit for my observations? You're scientists for god sake, go science Pluto and stop stealing credit for my work or at least acknowledge where you got your inspiration from. OK, lets do this together, say it with me, "plutorules.com". |
|
If you smart people really want to impress the world show them all the cryovolcanoes I've identified on Pluto and how we know some of them are active because of the young fluid nitrogen spilling out Elliot's volcanic mouth, but show a little respect and admit where you got the information, plutorules.com go ahead try it,, you'll feel good about it.
One of the most difficult land features for me to figure out was the old dormant Pahoehoe lava that spilled into SP from the side of the volcano I call Kilauea cryovolcano but once my eyes opened to what this feature is, BLAM!, its now so obvious this is a pahoehoe lava flow.
Yesterday June 3, 2018 there was an unusually high spike in traffic on my Mordor Crater page, I suspect we will be seeing a NASA released paper in 1 to 6 months regarding the tholin on the north or south pole of Charon and/or something about Pluto shine. I need to go read my Mordor Crater page to see what's worth stealing eh hmm sorry I meant peering closely at.
One of the most difficult land features for me to figure out was the old dormant Pahoehoe lava that spilled into SP from the side of the volcano I call Kilauea cryovolcano but once my eyes opened to what this feature is, BLAM!, its now so obvious this is a pahoehoe lava flow.
Yesterday June 3, 2018 there was an unusually high spike in traffic on my Mordor Crater page, I suspect we will be seeing a NASA released paper in 1 to 6 months regarding the tholin on the north or south pole of Charon and/or something about Pluto shine. I need to go read my Mordor Crater page to see what's worth stealing eh hmm sorry I meant peering closely at.
|
Three weeks later
Update June 22nd, 2018 Interesting coincidence. Nothing new is revealed about Charon in this article, the timing, however, is interesting. The article does reiterate NASA's previous assessment that Charon is spray painted atmospherically by Pluto via methane creating the red tholin on Charon's north pole. For an alternative perspective, you might want to read my Mordor's Crater page. NASA's full article. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/charon-at-40-four-decades-of-discovery-on-pluto-s-largest-moon I must be a prophet. |
|