B Any updates on the first-ever Parker perihelion results?

[sophiecentaur]

The first perihelion of Parker was a while ago now and some data has, apparently, been sent back and presented. But I can't find any information about the data. Does anyone have a link where I can find out some more details about this first-in-history project results?

 

[Ratman]

The updates should be here: https://blogs.nasa.gov/parkersolarprobe/ but they aren't. Probably the team is processing the data.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The updates should be here: https://blogs.nasa.gov/parkersolarprobe/ but they aren't. Probably the team is processing the data.

That's probably what they would say but how many TB of data is there to process and why is it nearly 2 months since data started arriving and still nothing in the popular media? IT does strike me as strange that they are not falling over themselves to justify the expense of the mission with a few "Guess what chaps" bits of first time information.
What could be wrong?

 

[phyzguy]

Um... the government is shut down, perhaps?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Um... the government is shut down, perhaps?

I read this first as a 'conspiracy theory' ironic suggestion - but then I though again.
But I would imagine the Parker project staff would work for nothing if they could see some useful results at the end of this.
Note, we can't yet blame Brexit for it - but people may well try to, at some stage.

 

[davenn]

Um... the government is shut down, perhaps?

that was my first thought as well

 

[mfb]

Data analysis takes time. They could show some pictures, but we have pictures of the Sun from Earth as well, pictures from the probe wouldn't look different to non-experts.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Data analysis takes time.

Oh yes but the data link is slow so there is limit to just how much can have arrived and they have already presented some results. Even if they are just confirmatory about existing theories, results would be interesting. Pictures may not be as interesting as the non pictorial data.
I hope it's not just because people don't appreciate 'null' experimental results.

 

[mfb]

and they have already presented some results

So what exactly is your point? That they haven't worked as fast as you would like to?

 

[sophiecentaur]

So what exactly is your point? That they haven't worked as fast as you would like to?

My OP was no more a complaint than a remark that sunspot numbers are low or that global temperatures are rising. My point is that it seems out of character to be delaying even minimal communication of data. It's normal to publish some sort of result asap. The very first Ultima Thule picture was rotten quality and only told us two things - the object is there and has two parts but the image went out and we all appreciated it. Are you not waiting for Parker results with bated breath?
I know images are 'different' data from other stuff but if there was something to tell a conference then that would normally have been made public in a pre-digested form. Organisations are funded because of public opinion (or military requirements). Spending on Moon projects dropped because the public were not seduced well enough by NASA and I am 'just wondering'.

 

[mfb]

I know data analysis takes time and they will publish things when they are studied properly. Presenting preliminary results (beyond pictures) quickly means more work in total, which means the publications will come out later.
I prefer them working on the proper analyses, and release intermediate results only where time matters (e.g. intermediate Gaia data because of all the things that depend on it) or not too much extra work.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I know data analysis takes time and they will publish things when they are studied properly. Presenting preliminary results (beyond pictures) quickly means more work in total, which means the publications will come out later.
I prefer them working on the proper analyses, and release intermediate results only where time matters (e.g. intermediate Gaia data because of all the things that depend on it) or not too much extra work.

That is a point but PR is a huge part of any space endeavour. Whatever the reason for the delay, it is still out of character, which makes one wonder. The PR people in any organisation are not the ones who do the 'work' so they are not too busy to keep in touch with the public.
"Strange results / exactly what we would have expected / poor quality data so far" would all be possible messages that could have come out from the project after two months. Why not? By the nature of the comms channel, they are not dealing with an insuperable amount of data from a few weeks of transmission. Wouldn't we expect some sort of statement of when to expect some results - even before the project launch?

 

[mfb]

Whatever the reason for the delay, it is still out of character

Delay relative to what? Where do you get the idea from that we are entitled to have results after x weeks? And how did you determine x?

The PR people in any organisation are not the ones who do the 'work' so they are not too busy to keep in touch with the public.

The work is in the research part, writing press releases is easy.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Delay relative to what?

Relative to the time that usually elapses for publishing prelim data from other projects.
There is no "entitlement" involved in my remarks - you are reading more into my posts than is there. If it were the very first space mission to fly, I wouldn't have a reason to wonder. But there have been hundreds of missions to date and they usually seem to, at least, drip feed the public whenever possible with prelim results.
Just saying that there's a lot of data and it takes a long time to analyse is hardly a reason for the wait. The only reason for an extended 'wait' is usually when they're waiting for a rare suitable event out there as with gravity wave detection.
I am not a dissatisfied customer looking for an apology / excuse from Parker. I am just wondering about the situation. In many such cases, PF would have come back with a useful and informed reply.

 

[mfb]

Just saying that there's a lot of data and it takes a long time to analyse is hardly a reason for the wait.

It is. It is in fact the only reason. If it wouldn't take time to get and analyze the data we would have some results by now.

as with gravity wave detection

Gravitational waves. Gravity waves are things like water waves, they have been known much longer.

I am not a dissatisfied customer looking for an apology / excuse from Parker.

That's exactly the impression I get from your posts, however.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It is. It is in fact the only reason.

That is merely your assertion. What we can say is that it 'may' be the reason.

That's exactly the impression I get

If that's what you're looking for then it could give that impression. My posts actually just show 'surprise' at the long wait - particularly as some results have actually been present but no publically.

Gravity waves are things like water waves,

As far as I know, they are not detected every day, though. I thought my meaning was perfectly clear. Is the only solar phenomenon that they are looking for of that nature?

 

[Janus]

That's probably what they would say but how many TB of data is there to process and why is it nearly 2 months since data started arriving and still nothing in the popular media? IT does strike me as strange that they are not falling over themselves to justify the expense of the mission with a few "Guess what chaps" bits of first time information.
What could be wrong?

According to the blog, the data wasn't scheduled to start downloading via the Deep Space Network until Dec 7th, and this download was going to take several weeks. We are now just a bit under 6 weeks after Dec 7th, and 6 weeks falls in the range of "several". So it is conceivable that they haven't even finished downloading the data yet.

 

[sophiecentaur]

According to the blog, the data wasn't scheduled to start downloading via the Deep Space Network until Dec 7th, and this download was going to take several weeks. We are now just a bit under 6 weeks after Dec 7th, and 6 weeks falls in the range of "several". So it is conceivable that they haven't even finished downloading the data yet.

Thanks for that positive response.
I read that transmissions had to be delayed until Parker was to one side of the Sun. Presumably that is to protect the transmitting system and possibly to eliminate or reduce solar noise with a directive receive dish. Although wouldn't receive antenna need to be very narrow beam? I would imagine that the transmit power would be fairly high (solar powered!) but maybe the carrier to noise ratio is poor due to its noisy neighbour.
The main reason for my interest / concern was that I understood that some results had already been presented. Perhaps all will be clear, once they start to publish.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The last entry in the NASA Parker Mission news was 12 Dec. Nothing since. Before there was anything to tell us, there was an entry every couple of weeks. Nasa usually keeps its loyal public informed about every move it makes - it's needs US money. I am still still surprised that there hasn't been a peep out of them. I hope it's only because the staff have just not been getting paid.

 

[Ratman]

Check the blog, they posted just after the shutdown was suspended.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Check the blog, they posted just after the shutdown was suspended.

Right. There just had to be a reason other than processing power and data transmission rate.
Makes you think of all the other unfortunate consequences there must have followed such drastic action as cutting off the flow of money needed to make a country function.
A small delay in finding out about the Sun is one of the less drastic results.

 

[stefan r]

The blog says this:

The spacecraft has been delivering data from its instruments to Earth via the Deep Space Network, and to date more than 17 gigabits of science data has been downloaded. The full dataset from the first orbit will be downloaded by April.

It kind of makes sense to publish full sets of data IMO.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The blog says this:It kind of makes sense to publish full sets of data IMO.

That's not the normal approach for presenting data from space exploits. You could argue that there was no point in publishing the first fuzzy images of asteroids, waiting for the close up HD ones but that is not the style.
It may be 'worthy' to wait until the final results but no experimenter waits until the end of the project when the early data is available. For a start, the processing may not be optimal and that could mean a lot of wasted time.
The PUBLIC want results and they are the ones that fund this stuff.
Also, I understood that the first set of data had been downloaded completely to 'make room for' the next lot.

But all that's irrelevant. My point is that the lack of info is out of character and I still hold to that. And a very good reason (the battle about the Wall) has been suggested for the delay - everyone is on forced leave.

 

[litup]

Right. There just had to be a reason other than processing power and data transmission rate.
Makes you think of all the other unfortunate consequences there must have followed such drastic action as cutting off the flow of money needed to make a country function.
A small delay in finding out about the Sun is one of the less drastic results.

The blog said it only reached full operational status on Jan. 1 so by 12 December, it wasn't fully ready for prime time.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Still nothing of significant interest about the actual results - despite loads of positive statements about the next approach. Nasa's comment on the data (on their blog) was:
"“The data we have received hints at many new things that we’ve not seen before and at potential new discoveries. Parker Solar Probe is delivering on the mission’s promise of revealing the mysteries of our Sun.”

Now that's packed with information, isn't it?. What are the "hints"? Why are they so stingy with their information? The lowest of low detail information would be gratefully received by the World's amateur Astronomers.

 

[mfb]

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]

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?

 

[mfb]

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]

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]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/and-the-blobs-just-keep-on-coming

 

[mfb]

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]

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?

 

[Roberto Teso]

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]

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?

 

[Roberto Teso]

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

 

[Roberto Teso]

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]

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]

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?

 

[mfb]

That's a tad 'straw man'. I have never suggested that as an option.

No, you misunderstand me. You have made a factually incorrect statement.

 

[sophiecentaur]

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.

 

[mfb]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Roberto Teso]

The first full size image of coronal streamer coming from WISPR was published here: Preparing for Discovery With NASA's Parker Solar Probe in december 12 2018. You can monitor data downlink here: Deep Space Network Now, but only when happen, having to share DSN with other spacecraft s.

 

[sophiecentaur]

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.

 

[Roberto Teso]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Roberto Teso]

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

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), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273351399_The_Wide-Field_Imager_for_Solar_Probe_Plus_WISPR, 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]

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.