B Any new news from Parker?

32,562
8,451
Why are they so stingy with their information?
Because data analysis takes time, especially if unexpected things appear, and the scientists don't want to release things they have to revert later because they turn out to be wrong with more analysis.
Remember the OPERA superluminal neutrinos? Do you want more of that? Do you think the Parker scientists want more of that?
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,913
3,597
Because data analysis takes time, especially if unexpected things appear, and the scientists don't want to release things they have to revert later because they turn out to be wrong with more analysis.
Remember the OPERA superluminal neutrinos? Do you want more of that? Do you think the Parker scientists want more of that?
That's disingenuous, I'm afraid. We all know that reports back from space are never published as complete theories. The bottom line comes years after the initial data is released. Every bit of data that's reported from extreme situations is published with enormous caveats; it's always been that way. Is it really likely that, for instance, there is no information yet about how the temperatures compare with expected. Is there no new spectroscopic data available?
The superluminal neutrinos thing was an interesting set of results and it was always acknowledged that it was based on very marginal data. Not all the data from Parker is 'marginal'.
I don't think it's the "Scientists" who make decisions about what can be released. The publicity for this mission is out of character, compared with other missions elsewhere. Can you tell me of another mission which has been handled in this way?
 
32,562
8,451
That's disingenuous, I'm afraid.
I get that impression from your posts.
The superluminal neutrinos thing was an interesting set of results and it was always acknowledged that it was based on very marginal data.
Its statistical significance was high. The scientists said "we don't understand our results, please help finding the problem" but you know that's not how the announcement was received by many. If the Parker Solar Probe scientists report "the temperature at point X appears to be twice as high as we expect" and find a bug in their analysis a few months later this will undermine the credibility of them. It won't get as many news as superluminal neutrinos, but it is still something everyone wants to avoid.

They don't even have the full dataset from the first orbit. It is still being downloaded.
I don't think it's the "Scientists" who make decisions about what can be released.
What you think doesn't change reality. How exactly would a non-scientist release data from scientists who don't prepare something to be released? And why did you put scientists in quotation marks?
Can you tell me of another mission which has been handled in this way?
What is "this way"? Properly study the data before results are released? Basically every mission where results are more complicated than simple pictures.

Gaia took data for 1.5 years before releasing a preliminary star density map, and 2.5 years before the first major data release (DR1). Before that there were just simple alerts if something unexpected happened (like a new supernova). If Parker follows a similar scheme you can keep asking for results for another year, and keep asking for more detailed results for full two years.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,913
3,597
How exactly would a non-scientist release data from scientists who don't prepare something to be released?
If the non-Scientist holds the purse strings (which they usually do) then the Scientist often does what they're told. We all know that the people with the funds do not 'like' negative results and you tend to get funding only when the case is put in terms of positive results. We are both old enough and ugly enough to have come across that effect in our lives, surely. Scientists are fighting a rearguard action to have Science done "properly".
But we have actually had a message from Parker, even if it's very sparse, so I should count my blessings.
The publicity content that seems to be aimed at the public has been more about the Engineering and the so called records that will be broken during the mission - none of which would be a surprise, bearing in mind where it's going.
PS I found, in the spec sheet for the mission, that the Downlink Data Rate is about 555kb/s which is not super fast but quite adequate for downloading Gigabytes of data in a few days.
 

Buzz Bloom

Gold Member
1,925
319
 
32,562
8,451
If the non-Scientist holds the purse strings (which they usually do) then the Scientist often does what they're told.
Being extremely impatient is one thing. But making factually wrong statements is worse.

The spacecraft is in space and funding for its operation is secured. There is no need to publish bad preliminary stuff that will be full of errors because there was not enough time to analyze the data properly.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,913
3,597
But making factually wrong statements is worse.
That's a tad 'straw man'. I have never suggested that as an option.
I have read that there are Five basic experiments on the mission, one of which is Imaging. Are you suggesting that the data processing of a solar image would involve months of computer time?
 
As reported from NASA here: All Systems Go As Parker Solar Probe Begins Second Sun Orbit, they downloaded 17 Gigabits of data, not that much, from first perihelion.
Rest of data will be downloaded after this second perihelion, probably first perihelion data acquired was mainly to verify and correct fly data and to check probe health.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,913
3,597
Engineering Data has to take priority, I guess and 17Gb is not a lot by modern PC standards. Does that represent 1/7 of the total expected or 1/7 of ‘experiment’ data?
 
Engineering Data has to take priority, I guess and 17Gb is not a lot by modern PC standards. Does that represent 1/7 of the total expected or 1/7 of ‘experiment’ data?
Yes, surely first orbit around the sun, I suppose, have to be used to check probe sanity and mission path, so the minimum necessary data was planned to acquire in first orbit for tuning fly as required.

Parker are flying trough an extreme elliptical orbit, so, very fast and near sun in perihelion but slow and far away in aphelion, thus we have to have patience to gather data from next coming orbits, not that more than Juno have done, by Jove :D
 
And about data volume, I don't know how much this 17 Gigabits are against full volume but they are a very small data comparing to an optical camera aboard modern probes, with 47 Megapixel and more, 10 or more bit for pixel , is a huge data to download within the small bitrate that Parker, or other fast or far probe, can afford.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,913
3,597
And about data volume, I don't know how much this 17 Gigabits are against full volume but they are a very small data comparing to an optical camera aboard modern probes, with 47 Megapixel and more, 10 or more bit for pixel , is a huge data to download within the small bitrate that Parker, or other fast or far probe, can afford.
I understood Parker was not a basic imaging (i.e. HD pretty pictures) exercise - partly because the features are expected to be much more coarse and ever changing than a distant galaxy or planet surface. We take many tens of GB for a 'decent' picture but it doesn't have to be like that, but a few tens of kB would identify lots of structures.
In some ways the comms chain is relatively easy (not too far away) so the Signal Level can be pretty good. Otoh, the Noise will be a lot worse than the CMBR background from deep space probes.
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,591
4,869
Sophiecentaur, I am a but puzzled by what your point actually is. Either the scientists are ready or they are not, right? Is it that you think they are ready and not releasing their results? Or do you think that they are not ready and yet should be?
 
Last edited:

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,913
3,597
No, you misunderstand me. You have made a factually incorrect statement.
With your terse use of words you have failed to made it clear what statement you are referring to. Are you implying that the funding bodies do not call the tune? You can't do the work without the money.
Sophiecentaur, I am a but puzzled by what your point actually is. Either the scientists are ready or they are not, right? Is it that you think they are ready and not releasing their results? Or do you think that they are not ready and yet should be?
You seem to be implying that I am a dissatisfied customer but I am not. I am just observing that there seems to be a lack of information and I am wondering why. I find it difficult to believe that there is absolutely no intermediate scientific information available. Most space missions get something out as soon as possible. All I want is for someone to give a good reason that this mission should be different from others. We all know that the public love images and I cannot believe that, in the few GB of data received, there is not some fuzzy picture available. Likewise, I find it hard to believe that there are no hints about the spectroscopic or thermal conditions yet. Let's face it, Nasa will be anxious for some ideas about ball park figures in their first batch of data.
Parker looks a bit like a Russian or Chinese style mission.
 
32,562
8,451
With your terse use of words you have failed to made it clear what statement you are referring to.
The one I cited directly above. I can't see how this could possibly have been unclear.
Are you implying that the funding bodies do not call the tune? You can't do the work without the money.
See above. The mission has its funding already. And proper scientists won't release unfinished work independent of the funding situation. Yes you can find some who will do that, but they won't work for something as prominent as Parker.
You seem to be implying that I am a dissatisfied customer but I am not.
Only because you are not a customer. You are clearly dissatisfied.

You didn't answer V50's main question, by the way.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,913
3,597
As usual, @mfb, you are not helping me out here. Was I right or was I wrong about which “non factual” statement you referred to? Small amounts of ‘superfluous’ information can be very helpful in conversations. the language benefits greatly from redundancy and PF doesn’t charge per word like the old telegrams used to.😉
But surely you must be aware that funding of future projects and keeping the politicos sweet is at the back of every research team’s minds.
Have you noticed that, whilst you have been making points about ‘things needing to be done properly’, other posters have actually made useful technical points; much more interesting.
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,591
4,869
You seem to be implying that I am a dissatisfied customer but I am not.
It sure sounds like you are.

I'm also not sure what you want. Pretty pictures? We've had those for months. Actual measurements? That gets us back to my question - do you think the science team is ready to release or not?
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,913
3,597
It sure sounds like you are.
Perhaps if you are looking for it?? If the weather has been different from usual and I mention that it appears that way, I am not "complaining". I am pointing out an observed phenomenon and I am inviting answers as to whether it's really there and or why it could be happening. If "Scientists" on PF feel protective towards the Parker Scientists then fair enough but I am not looking to apportion blame to anyone so their vicarious concern is not necessary.
Possible worries about premature release of information are not well founded. We have had years of the 'Yes there's water on Mars / Moon - No there's not' dialogue and that discussion has been useful for all of us. Should we have waited (still be waiting ?) for more definitive data?
The one or two posts on this thread that have actually discussed practicalities have been useful and gratefully received. The above post from @Roberto Teso was interesting and constructive - thanks. I am becoming more aware of the consequences of data rate limits that apply.
 
To return on topic, first perihelion occoured in november 5 2018 and first data reporting was in december 12 2018, so a month later or so, may be that whe can have other data in late may / first weeks of june.

There's a lot of variables to consider: shielding Parker from solar wind / heat until you can orient antenna toward Earth, Solar weather that can disturb downlink, position of probe compared to DSN antennas, data elaboration priority…
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,591
4,869
Perhaps if you are looking for it??
You might ask yourself if your intent is not to complain, why multiple people think you are.

Possible worries about premature release of information are not well founded.
Now we're getting somewhere! You are admitting you want "premature" information, and the Parker science team isn't making it available.
 

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor
Gold Member
22,913
3,597
You might ask yourself if your intent is not to complain, why multiple people think you are.



Now we're getting somewhere! You are admitting you want "premature" information, and the Parker science team isn't making it available.
I really can't understand why you want to turn this into an argument about 'doing things properly'. Why pounce on the he use of the word "premature"? I could have chosen a better one - like 'early' or 'advance' to make my meaning clear. If the NASA PR people can't use wording to cover their backsides about early data then they are not doing their jobs.
Even a comment about the progress of the analysis would be better than nothing and it would not be unprecedented to keep the public sweet and informed. It's pretty standard practice with high profile projects.
Why not make some technical contributions to this thread, rather than trying to rap my knuckles about the way I have expressed my interest? Others have managed it in a very helpful way.
 
In Parker mission website here, Parker Solar Probe on the Spacecraft section there’s this image where is written that science operation duration is circa 11 days and cruise / downlink between from 77 to 158 days
Parker Solar Probe: Concet of Operations


In the same site you can find all media available in multimedia section as they become published.

If you want to deepen your knowledge, there this paper by A. Vourlidas et al. (2014), The Wide-Field Imager for Solar Probe Plus, fantastic reading IMO, where there’s a very detailed description of WISPR (section 2 and 3) and data production (section 4) where at 4.4.2 is written:
Quicklook L1 data may be used for mission operations planning purposes and will be made public as soon as it is processed.
but this implies at least from 88 to 169 days at last to become true.

Otherway you can also use Solarsoft, http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/ or https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/solarsoft/ that will be filled with Parker data as is for SOHO, TRACE and many other solar observation, but data arrival timing don’t change.
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,591
4,869
I really can't understand why you want to turn this into an argument about 'doing things properly'.
Because you seem to be arguing that the Parker team is acting improperly.

Why not make some technical contributions to this thread, rather than trying to rap my knuckles about the way I have expressed my interest?
No technical contributions, because I have no experience with either solar physics. But I have been pressured to make results public before they were ready, and I don't much care for it.

I also question the scientific value of data that is made public before the science team believes it is ready - i.e. correct.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top