|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 23, 2024 21:40:20 GMT
There are companies working on the problem of drilling through 50,000 feet of solid ice pack at the surface of the moon Europa in order to access the ocean underneath.
One plan uses decaying radioactive material to continuously melt through the ice.
Meanwhile, there is the opinion that geysers seen along the surface get a good deal of the pressure from the weight of the ice sheet (as well as other more prominent factors)...
If the pressure is a factor, wouldn't the probe melting through the ice pop open another geysers, so to speak!?
Meaning that whatever probe is melting through the ice also has to ultimately make it through a geysers blast at the end??
If that's so, perhaps build a probe that can rocket its way down an existing geyser vent instead of melting a new path since the end result is basically the sane: fighting geyser type flows and pressures.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 23, 2024 23:46:08 GMT
There are companies working on the problem of drilling through 50,000 feet of solid ice pack at the surface of the moon Europa in order to access the ocean underneath. One plan uses decaying radioactive material to continuously melt through the ice. Meanwhile, there is the opinion that geysers seen along the surface get a good deal of the pressure from the weight of the ice sheet (as well as other more prominent factors)... If the pressure is a factor, wouldn't the probe melting through the ice pop open another geysers, so to speak!? Meaning that whatever probe is melting through the ice also has to ultimately make it through a geysers blast at the end?? If that's so, perhaps build a probe that can rocket its way down an existing geyser vent instead of melting a new path since the end result is basically the sane: fighting geyser type flows and pressures. assuming the geysers are more of pressure releases, then yes, you have the chance of your drill rig being affected by one. however, trying to put your rig down an existing release channel would be affected by the irregularities in the natural channel. oil rigs deal with drilling into pressurized chambers. it was a malfunction in the systems meant to deal with that that caused the deepwater horizon incident. it was supposed to contain the release of pressure, and the containment system failed. however, earlier drill rigs, just had some form of space where the released pressure just blasted up through or past the drill hardware, resulting in the classig "gusher" |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Nov 24, 2024 0:06:57 GMT
So if all they want is the water, why not just get it from the existing geysers?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 24, 2024 1:08:08 GMT
So if all they want is the water, why not just get it from the existing geysers? If looking for something like bacteria or proof of the existence of microbes, I'd say the geyser stream IS a perfectly wise place to start. However, they state that they want a path leading directly to the ocean such that submersible drones or probes can explore it outright. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 24, 2024 1:14:52 GMT
There are companies working on the problem of drilling through 50,000 feet of solid ice pack at the surface of the moon Europa in order to access the ocean underneath. One plan uses decaying radioactive material to continuously melt through the ice. Meanwhile, there is the opinion that geysers seen along the surface get a good deal of the pressure from the weight of the ice sheet (as well as other more prominent factors)... If the pressure is a factor, wouldn't the probe melting through the ice pop open another geysers, so to speak!? Meaning that whatever probe is melting through the ice also has to ultimately make it through a geysers blast at the end?? If that's so, perhaps build a probe that can rocket its way down an existing geyser vent instead of melting a new path since the end result is basically the sane: fighting geyser type flows and pressures. assuming the geysers are more of pressure releases, then yes, you have the chance of your drill rig being affected by one. however, trying to put your rig down an existing release channel would be affected by the irregularities in the natural channel. oil rigs deal with drilling into pressurized chambers. it was a malfunction in the systems meant to deal with that that caused the deepwater horizon incident. it was supposed to contain the release of pressure, and the containment system failed. however, earlier drill rigs, just had some form of space where the released pressure just blasted up through or past the drill hardware, resulting in the classig "gusher" One deep-ocean camera, following (by teather) a piece of said radioactive decaying "hot" material... that arrangement COULD be expected to slide down an existing geyser cavern while cutting a better path, if necessary... just so long as said geyser is extinct or dormant. It COULD be that hard to see "dormant" geysers exist, but haven't yet been found. But, refilling with slush and ice might be part of going dormant. Maybe use live geysers, but time going down between eruptions? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Nov 24, 2024 1:17:03 GMT
So if all they want is the water, why not just get it from the existing geysers? If looking for something like bacteria or proof of the existence of microbes, I'd say the geyser stream IS a perfectly wise place to start. However, they state that they want a path leading directly to the ocean such that submersible drones or probes can explore it outright. In that case, the radioactively heated probe may be the way to go. As the probe melts is way down, the water above it could refreeze and prevent a geyser from forming. But if there is any life down there, it would be a shame to contaminate it with radioactivity. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 24, 2024 2:51:58 GMT
If looking for something like bacteria or proof of the existence of microbes, I'd say the geyser stream IS a perfectly wise place to start. However, they state that they want a path leading directly to the ocean such that submersible drones or probes can explore it outright. In that case, the radioactively heated probe may be the way to go. As the probe melts is way down, the water above it could refreeze and prevent a geyser from forming. But if there is any life down there, it would be a shame to contaminate it with radioactivity. we're America, it's what we do. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 24, 2024 9:36:42 GMT
If looking for something like bacteria or proof of the existence of microbes, I'd say the geyser stream IS a perfectly wise place to start. However, they state that they want a path leading directly to the ocean such that submersible drones or probes can explore it outright. In that case, the radioactively heated probe may be the way to go. As the probe melts is way down, the water above it could refreeze and prevent a geyser from forming. But if there is any life down there, it would be a shame to contaminate it with radioactivity. When first hearing they were drilling or melting through 50,000 feet of pack ice I imagined the weight of dual Mt. Everests stacked one atop the other. And then I remembered those images showing geysers bursting water so many feet up and outward. The sorts of fire hose forces must be many many times that of an actual fire hose. But wait. I think again and this is not Earth. Not Earth's gravity. Not Earth's kind of geyser. Doing in my head back of the envelope estimates, it COULD be that something might be able to actually swim "up stream" along a geyser on Europa. Trout are powerful upstream swimmers. Imagine a perfectly made trout robot able to swim as hard or maybe even harder than a real trout. Next, picture the Europa geyser for what it likely really is: not a fire hose. But a flow of water in low low gravity. I wonder what the flow of water on Europa is really like. It's NOT two Everests stacked atop one another at all...with regard to ice pack weight forces... Wonder what it's really like. How the geysers in these ice moons reach such high altitudes, but in incredibly low low gravity. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Nov 24, 2024 13:16:16 GMT
Wonder what it's really like. How the geysers in these ice moons reach such high altitudes, but in incredibly low low gravity. I think you may have just answered your own question. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 24, 2024 17:51:17 GMT
Wonder what it's really like. How the geysers in these ice moons reach such high altitudes, but in incredibly low low gravity. I think you may have just answered your own question. No. Above the sentence you clipped, I'm actually concerned with the rate of flow inside the geyser tube. Is it a fire hose, such that a trout might struggle going upstream. Or, is it gentler, where a trout could make it upstream while the low gravity allows for such high altitudes... that sort of pondering. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 25, 2024 2:03:53 GMT
I think you may have just answered your own question. No. Above the sentence you clipped, I'm actually concerned with the rate of flow inside the geyser tube. Is it a fire hose, such that a trout might struggle going upstream. Or, is it gentler, where a trout could make it upstream while the low gravity allows for such high altitudes... that sort of pondering. I think a robotic fish would not be a good model to attempt, just because we really aren't experts in robotic fish. I'm thinking... well, I'm having trouble thinking because Mrs T is on a speakerphone to tech support with Verizon, because her phone had delayed receipt of a few text messages in the past few weeks. anyway, gravity... the tech support person isn't understanding the nature of the problem... so gravity... anyway. um... gravity... we're dealing with relative mass. Mrs T's not a computer person. anyway. I'm thinking that the relative flow rate of the geyser may not be changed that much under different amounts of gravity. maybe I'm wrong. if you know how high the plume goes, and you know the gravity on europa. 1.315m/s 2 then you should be able to reverse calculate the velocity that the geyser water is going when it leaves the surface. I'm definitely not going to be able to figure out the calculation with so much distraction in the background. maybe knowing how long it takes the geyser to reach peak height and stop gaining altitude would be easier to calculate. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 25, 2024 4:18:54 GMT
No. Above the sentence you clipped, I'm actually concerned with the rate of flow inside the geyser tube. Is it a fire hose, such that a trout might struggle going upstream. Or, is it gentler, where a trout could make it upstream while the low gravity allows for such high altitudes... that sort of pondering. I think a robotic fish would not be a good model to attempt, just because we really aren't experts in robotic fish. I'm thinking... well, I'm having trouble thinking because Mrs T is on a speakerphone to tech support with Verizon, because her phone had delayed receipt of a few text messages in the past few weeks. anyway, gravity... the tech support person isn't understanding the nature of the problem... so gravity... anyway. um... gravity... we're dealing with relative mass. Mrs T's not a computer person. anyway. I'm thinking that the relative flow rate of the geyser may not be changed that much under different amounts of gravity. maybe I'm wrong. if you know how high the plume goes, and you know the gravity on europa. 1.315m/s 2 then you should be able to reverse calculate the velocity that the geyser water is going when it leaves the surface. I'm definitely not going to be able to figure out the calculation with so much distraction in the background. maybe knowing how long it takes the geyser to reach peak height and stop gaining altitude would be easier to calculate. Well, no doubt you are correct in regard to my suggestion that a mechanical fish could be successfully constructed. I was merely grasping for mental visuals. You know, seeing something quickly in the mind's eye, something quickly squirming its way down through all those natural ice pathways, caverns and water. Anyway with regard to the geyser estimates.. Well, we could back engineer the estimated energy, and maybe work out the forces and pressures involved for a few different geyser holes. A similar idea might be when someone fires a bullet upward. It reaches a given altitude. And, if you know that altitude and the acceleration due to gravity and the mass of the bullet you can estimate the amount of potential energy the bullet represents at that altitude... you can then guess it took that much energy to get it up there So the bullet's potential energy at altitude equals the amount of energy that was used to get it up there. Gravitational Potential Energy is mass x acceleration due to gravity x height of altitude (from surface of planet or its center??). That value is in Joules. So the energy of the geyser must be as powerful as that potential energy at altitude. (I think) Then if you have the mass of water involved, and then pick a reasonable hole for the geyser, you could set some formula like Burnulies (or something) equal to the number of Joules obtained? That might spit out velocity of the fluid mass if the correct formula is chosen. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 25, 2024 5:13:14 GMT
I think a robotic fish would not be a good model to attempt, just because we really aren't experts in robotic fish. I'm thinking... well, I'm having trouble thinking because Mrs T is on a speakerphone to tech support with Verizon, because her phone had delayed receipt of a few text messages in the past few weeks. anyway, gravity... the tech support person isn't understanding the nature of the problem... so gravity... anyway. um... gravity... we're dealing with relative mass. Mrs T's not a computer person. anyway. I'm thinking that the relative flow rate of the geyser may not be changed that much under different amounts of gravity. maybe I'm wrong. if you know how high the plume goes, and you know the gravity on europa. 1.315m/s 2 then you should be able to reverse calculate the velocity that the geyser water is going when it leaves the surface. I'm definitely not going to be able to figure out the calculation with so much distraction in the background. maybe knowing how long it takes the geyser to reach peak height and stop gaining altitude would be easier to calculate. Well, no doubt you are correct in regard to my suggestion that a mechanical fish could be successfully constructed. I was merely grasping for mental visuals. You know, seeing something quickly in the mind's eye, something quickly squirming its way down through all those natural ice pathways, caverns and water. Anyway with regard to the geyser estimates.. Well, we could back engineer the estimated energy, and maybe work out the forces and pressures involved for a few different geyser holes. A similar idea might be when someone fires a bullet upward. It reaches a given altitude. And, if you know that altitude and the acceleration due to gravity and the mass of the bullet you can estimate the amount of potential energy the bullet represents at that altitude... you can then guess it took that much energy to get it up there So the bullet's potential energy at altitude equals the amount of energy that was used to get it up there. Gravitational Potential Energy is mass x acceleration due to gravity x height of altitude (from surface of planet or its center??). That value is in Joules. So the energy of the geyser must be as powerful as that potential energy at altitude. (I think) Then if you have the mass of water involved, and then pick a reasonable hole for the geyser, you could set some formula like Burnulies (or something) equal to the number of Joules obtained? That might spit out velocity of the fluid mass if the correct formula is chosen. I guess the other calculation would be how long it takes to hit it's highest reach, and the gravitational acceleration. I.E. (making the math easy on me) if it accelerates at 1 meter per second per second, and it takes 3 seconds to come to a stop, you can conclude that it was going 3 seconds worth of gravitational acceleration, therefore it launched at (if my math is right) 6 meters per second. if you're going to emulate a natural thing, a centipede might be a better option. if you make your probe with rear facing bristles, and design it to move in a serpentine pattern, then theoretically, the bristles will provide forward motion regardless of the shape of the hole it is going down - as long as the bristles mostly remain in contact with the walls. pressure of the bristle against the wall, will push it "forward" while removing pressure will allow the bristle to reposition. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 25, 2024 17:22:45 GMT
Well, no doubt you are correct in regard to my suggestion that a mechanical fish could be successfully constructed. I was merely grasping for mental visuals. You know, seeing something quickly in the mind's eye, something quickly squirming its way down through all those natural ice pathways, caverns and water. Anyway with regard to the geyser estimates.. Well, we could back engineer the estimated energy, and maybe work out the forces and pressures involved for a few different geyser holes. A similar idea might be when someone fires a bullet upward. It reaches a given altitude. And, if you know that altitude and the acceleration due to gravity and the mass of the bullet you can estimate the amount of potential energy the bullet represents at that altitude... you can then guess it took that much energy to get it up there So the bullet's potential energy at altitude equals the amount of energy that was used to get it up there. Gravitational Potential Energy is mass x acceleration due to gravity x height of altitude (from surface of planet or its center??). That value is in Joules. So the energy of the geyser must be as powerful as that potential energy at altitude. (I think) Then if you have the mass of water involved, and then pick a reasonable hole for the geyser, you could set some formula like Burnulies (or something) equal to the number of Joules obtained? That might spit out velocity of the fluid mass if the correct formula is chosen. I guess the other calculation would be how long it takes to hit it's highest reach, and the gravitational acceleration. I.E. (making the math easy on me) if it accelerates at 1 meter per second per second, and it takes 3 seconds to come to a stop, you can conclude that it was going 3 seconds worth of gravitational acceleration, therefore it launched at (if my math is right) 6 meters per second. if you're going to emulate a natural thing, a centipede might be a better option. if you make your probe with rear facing bristles, and design it to move in a serpentine pattern, then theoretically, the bristles will provide forward motion regardless of the shape of the hole it is going down - as long as the bristles mostly remain in contact with the walls. pressure of the bristle against the wall, will push it "forward" while removing pressure will allow the bristle to reposition. I'll go to Wikipedia, Europa.. Subsurface Ocean, Plumes... Quote, "The estimated eruption rate at Europa is about 7000 kg/s" And from another section it states the estimated altitude as 200 kilometers above Europa's surface for the geyser height. Velocity of flow rate formula requires nozzle width though. (Dimensions of a geyser, basically) Anyway, using the falling formula, and Europa's gravitational acceleration, and knowing time up equals time back down, we could figure the time it takes to fall on Europa from a height of 200 kilometers, and then assume it took that amount of time to be squirted up to 200 kilometers. That sounds like the rate calculation you suggested? Problem is though, is that calculated time value worth using anywhere. Say I wanted the muzzle velocity for a given rifle so I fired the bullet upward and did get the number of seconds it fell back to earth... doesn't seem too logical to me at the moment that the muzzle velocity is directly related to this falling time value? Is it, somebody? Europa Wiki: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)#:~:text=The%20tidal%20forces%20are%20about,for%20the%20plumes%20of%20Enceladus. Flow rate and it's relationship to velocity: phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/12%3A_Fluid_Dynamics_and_Its_Biological_and_Medical_Applications/12.01%3A_Flow_Rate_and_Its_Relation_to_VelocityFalling formula, starting from rest: www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/How-Fast-and-How-FarTypical geyser dimensions, earth: www.nps.gov/features/yell/ofvec/exhibits/eruption/plumbing/ofthroat.htm (It's a starting point. Different in a number of obvious ways though, naturally) |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 25, 2024 21:42:13 GMT
No. Above the sentence you clipped, I'm actually concerned with the rate of flow inside the geyser tube. Is it a fire hose, such that a trout might struggle going upstream. Or, is it gentler, where a trout could make it upstream while the low gravity allows for such high altitudes... that sort of pondering. I think a robotic fish would not be a good model to attempt, just because we really aren't experts in robotic fish. I'm thinking... well, I'm having trouble thinking because Mrs T is on a speakerphone to tech support with Verizon, because her phone had delayed receipt of a few text messages in the past few weeks. anyway, gravity... the tech support person isn't understanding the nature of the problem... so gravity... anyway. um... gravity... we're dealing with relative mass. Mrs T's not a computer person. anyway. I'm thinking that the relative flow rate of the geyser may not be changed that much under different amounts of gravity. maybe I'm wrong. if you know how high the plume goes, and you know the gravity on europa. 1.315m/s 2 then you should be able to reverse calculate the velocity that the geyser water is going when it leaves the surface. I'm definitely not going to be able to figure out the calculation with so much distraction in the background. maybe knowing how long it takes the geyser to reach peak height and stop gaining altitude would be easier to calculate. To get the amount of time that the exiting water experiences leaving the geyser to the time it impacts with Europa's surface, we could simply double the time that something falls from the geyser's apogee height. This way we have the parabolic leg that depicts falling from altitude AND the parabolic leg getting up TO that altitude (since the kinematic formula for falling from rest is really just the last parabolic leg AND since it is well established in kinematics that the time value going up is the same time value going down) Displacement (down) equals half the acceleration due to gravity multiplied by time squared : d = 0.5gtt Rearrange to get time - t = sqrt(d/0.5g) t = sqrt(200000/0.5*1.315) t = sqrt(200000/0.6575) t = sqrt(304182.51) t = 551.527 seconds On Europa, it takes in the neighborhood of 9 to 10 minutes to fall fromm 200 kilometers. So long because of low gravity. Doubling this time value would depict the overall parabolic arch (with regard to time) 2*551.527 = 1103.055 seconds time for the geyser water to leave the exit hole and then impact with the surface of Europa, no air resistance involved. Using other kinematic formulas it is possible to estimate an initial velocity of a "ball" shot up from Europa's surface, reaching an apogee of 200 kilometers within the 9 to 10 minute timeframe established. One other thing I am considering... There is discussion that the forces involved are weight of icepack and internal temperatures and pressures due to the moon being pulled upon by nearby planets. But, here's something I'm wondering about: Take a bucket of water and set it on the surface of the moon. Zero air pressure should do something to the water like make it boil. Then, to make it sort of worse, place a lid having a hole atop the bucket. Are we making a jet? No other forces required? Perhaps in the case of these icy water moons, the geyser effect is at least partially just exposed water subjected to the vacuum of space, sent through a tiny hole? I want that initial velocity. Albeit the formula is written for a "ball" tossed upward with a given initial velocity. OK. This is an over simplified example. One where we shoot a "ball" straight upward with no air resistance to an altitude of 200 kilometers in about 9 minutes. Again, I question if the geyser isn't really a fire hose of liquid water but, instead, water vapor boiling away and shot through a hole due to zero air pressure. Anyway, since our ball lands where it was launched, given basic kinematics, the starting upward velocity will match the downward final velocity. So, to see how fast the ball was launched, all we need is the final velocity. V = gt g is 1.315 m/ss t is 551.527s V = 1.315*551.527 V = 725.258 m/s But, Again, that's a ball launched from Europa's surface to reach 200 kilometers. Basically the ball is launched at over 1600 MPH. So does that mean a column of water leaving the geyser is also going 1,600+ MPH? If so, I don't think a robot anything is going to insert itself there and then make its way down into THAT hole... On the other hand, if as I say, the stuff leaving the geyser hole isn't really a column of water, but a vapor gas formed because there is a sort of boiling going on at the surface because there is no air pressure, then whatever robot has to face a 1,600 mph stream of gases that might actually not be very dense... In other words, when we think of a jet having 1,600 mph wind, that's a dense type of gas, here on earth. In space, water vapor going 1,600 mph might not be that dense, thereby having less momentum behind it.. All speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 26, 2024 0:27:04 GMT
the math is above my skill level.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 26, 2024 1:51:16 GMT
the math is above my skill level. I feel this way too, actually. Because the "maths" I've chosen are not at all any sort of "fluid dynamics" which are very likely required. But, if these vents have water of some sort spewing upward and outward at 1,000 to 2,000 mph, then before I say a robot stands NO chance crawling or wriggling its way in there I'd like to know exactly what state the water is in. Is it a column of liquid like from a fire hose? Or, is it merely thin, wispy vapor having density less than a percent that of Earth's atmosphere? One may rightfully declare that if it's a fire hose situation then "game over" with regard to forcing a probe into that!! But, There might still be something to be done. The link above in one of the previous posts I wrote there is a link detailing the inside of "Old Faithful" geyser. It discusses various changing mouth dimensions on the way down, causing me to think about Bernoullie's formula for fluid velocity. Tighten the nozzle increases flow rate. Widen nozzle to slow flow rate. Perhaps excavating the mouth of a geyser, widening it with explosives, could reduce the velocity such that a powerful probe COULD actually manage to work its way inside? So would knocking the nozzle off a fire hose make the flow less intense? How much less? And, if it's all just wispy vapor wind instead, it very well could be that a crawler probe forces its way into that. Especially if the density is one percent Earth's atmosphere. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 26, 2024 2:36:38 GMT
the math is above my skill level. I feel this way too, actually. Because the "maths" I've chosen are not at all any sort of "fluid dynamics" which are very likely required. But, if these vents have water of some sort spewing upward and outward at 1,000 to 2,000 mph, then before I say a robot stands NO chance crawling or wriggling its way in there I'd like to know exactly what state the water is in. Is it a column of liquid like from a fire hose? Or, is it merely thin, wispy vapor having density less than a percent that of Earth's atmosphere? One may rightfully declare that if it's a fire hose situation then "game over" with regard to forcing a probe into that!! But, There might still be something to be done. The link above in one of the previous posts I wrote there is a link detailing the inside of "Old Faithful" geyser. It discusses various changing mouth dimensions on the way down, causing me to think about Bernoullie's formula for fluid velocity. Tighten the nozzle increases flow rate. Widen nozzle to slow flow rate. Perhaps excavating the mouth of a geyser, widening it with explosives, could reduce the velocity such that a powerful probe COULD actually manage to work its way inside? So would knocking the nozzle off a fire hose make the flow less intense? How much less? And, if it's all just wispy vapor wind instead, it very well could be that a crawler probe forces its way into that. Especially if the density is one percent Earth's atmosphere. it might be back to haveing the probe melt its way in and let the ice freeze behind it. I know from reading the words about the history of yellowstone that doing things to the throat of a geyser there has been known to have rather exciting results. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 26, 2024 5:12:58 GMT
I feel this way too, actually. Because the "maths" I've chosen are not at all any sort of "fluid dynamics" which are very likely required. But, if these vents have water of some sort spewing upward and outward at 1,000 to 2,000 mph, then before I say a robot stands NO chance crawling or wriggling its way in there I'd like to know exactly what state the water is in. Is it a column of liquid like from a fire hose? Or, is it merely thin, wispy vapor having density less than a percent that of Earth's atmosphere? One may rightfully declare that if it's a fire hose situation then "game over" with regard to forcing a probe into that!! But, There might still be something to be done. The link above in one of the previous posts I wrote there is a link detailing the inside of "Old Faithful" geyser. It discusses various changing mouth dimensions on the way down, causing me to think about Bernoullie's formula for fluid velocity. Tighten the nozzle increases flow rate. Widen nozzle to slow flow rate. Perhaps excavating the mouth of a geyser, widening it with explosives, could reduce the velocity such that a powerful probe COULD actually manage to work its way inside? So would knocking the nozzle off a fire hose make the flow less intense? How much less? And, if it's all just wispy vapor wind instead, it very well could be that a crawler probe forces its way into that. Especially if the density is one percent Earth's atmosphere. it might be back to haveing the probe melt its way in and let the ice freeze behind it. I know from reading the words about the history of yellowstone that doing things to the throat of a geyser there has been known to have rather exciting results. Water freezing in such a vacuum, forming a protective case is worth looking at closely I think. I think there are two prevailing concepts we deal with here.. Water either cools from some warmer starting temperature, ultimately creating a crust, trapping the liquid water inside. Or the water boils away from a surface having no atmospheric pressure, resulting in freezing. I feel one effect is slightly more prevalent than the other, depending on some things. As such, creating a liquid pool at the surface would either trigger the immediate icing as you say, or a rapid boiling away of some water into a quick, thin vapor. Probably a bit of both, as I say. But since there is no atmosphere, there isn't any chilly winter air to help trigger freezing by convection. Instead, the water meets vacuum above, while being surrounded by extremely frozen ice. So what does a bucket of water do in space when the bucket itself is super frozen ice? Does the water boil away first? Or freeze? Does it really matter how far away from a sun or star it is? Would adjacent pack ice that is itself far, far below zero degrees speed the transition so much that sublimation can't keep up? Would melting water there result in ice or gas? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 26, 2024 14:40:34 GMT
it might be back to haveing the probe melt its way in and let the ice freeze behind it. I know from reading the words about the history of yellowstone that doing things to the throat of a geyser there has been known to have rather exciting results. Water freezing in such a vacuum, forming a protective case is worth looking at closely I think. I think there are two prevailing concepts we deal with here.. Water either cools from some warmer starting temperature, ultimately creating a crust, trapping the liquid water inside. Or the water boils away from a surface having no atmospheric pressure, resulting in freezing. I feel one effect is slightly more prevalent than the other, depending on some things. As such, creating a liquid pool at the surface would either trigger the immediate icing as you say, or a rapid boiling away of some water into a quick, thin vapor. Probably a bit of both, as I say. But since there is no atmosphere, there isn't any chilly winter air to help trigger freezing by convection. Instead, the water meets vacuum above, while being surrounded by extremely frozen ice. So what does a bucket of water do in space when the bucket itself is super frozen ice? Does the water boil away first? Or freeze? Does it really matter how far away from a sun or star it is? Would adjacent pack ice that is itself far, far below zero degrees speed the transition so much that sublimation can't keep up? Would melting water there result in ice or gas? a look at google says that europa's atmosphere is mostly oxygen at a very low atmospheric pressure. that makes me think that it is actually stratified - an outer layer of hydrogen, and a lower layer of oxygen, which is basically formed from decomposing water vapor, and then a surface layer of water vapor that would deposit as frost or sublimate as temperature and pressure varies. that said, the geyser cycle could be almost completely pressure driven. the weight of the icepack would lower the freezing point of ice at the bottom of the pack, causing it to melt - and then be forced up through fissures. as it percolated up the fissure, the pressure would reduce to the point it would start boiling off, ultimately ejecting a mixture of still cold water and vapor as a geyser, which would then partly evaporate from the low pressure, and partly freeze from the low temperature. |
|
