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

[sophiecentaur]

No technical contributions, because I have no experience with either solar physics.

So you were just arguing for the sake of arguing, it seems. You have put the situation in black and white and managed to take offence on behalf of someone else.

i.e. correct.

There is seldom such a thing as correct. Everything has uncertainly and everyone is aware of that. Neither of us knows the situation and it appears that you were defending something that didn't actually need defending; fighting someone else's (non existent) battle.
In spite of that, there have been useful contributions to the thread, which I appreciate greatly.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So you were just arguing for the sake of arguing, it seems

Unloess you're a solar physicist, no more than you. Only difference is that my position is the correct one.

verything has uncertainly and everyone is aware of that.

That's right, but the thing that takes time in a scientific measurement is the determination of the uncertainties. If they have time to make public a number with correct uncertainties, they have time to make public a correct number with correct uncertainties.

Neither of us knows the situation

True, but only one of us is criticizing the science team - at least implicitly.

 

[sophiecentaur]

True, but only one of us is criticizing the science team - at least implicitly.

I have already said that I am not criticising them so what are you complaining about? I am asking for a reason and, by your own admission, you cannot provide one. All you can say is that they must know what they're doing and I agree that they probably do. So why are you taking part here if you cannot contribute except to spoil the atmosphere?
Perhaps we should not pursue this line any further.

 

[mfb]

I am asking for a reason

And the reason has been stated multiple times now: Data analysis takes time. What else do you expect to hear? None of us here is part of the collaboration I assume, and even if someone would be they couldn't share internal information.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think you may have mentioned this before. Did you have anything more useful to add?

 

[Vanadium 50]

"'Shut up', he explained."

Sophiecentaur, I still have no earthly idea what you point is. You say it's not a complaint, but pretty much everybody here seems to think it is. People have asked you question after question trying to get you to clarify, but at best one can say you're explaining what your point isn't. So let me repeat two of the questions left unanswered: (1) How long should it take to get preliminary results out, and on what basis do you make this estimate? (2) Why do you find 'data analysis takes time' to be an unsatisfactory answer?

 

[sophiecentaur]

but pretty much everybody here seems to think it is.

"Everybody" actually seems to insist of two members. Other members have given more positive responses. Perhaps my writing skills are lacking but, if I am not actually lying - and I cannot think why I would be - then you have to accept that I am not complaining. How you choose, time after time, to construe what I write in those terms, it doesn't change my reason for posting the original question. Frankly, I get the impression that you want some sort of apology or climbdown from me. Perhaps it was a "You're complaining about Scientists so shut up" message in the first place.

(1) How long should it take to get preliminary results out, and on what basis do you make this estimate?

Apparently, from this website, there have been preliminary results and I now find they are available - but they seem not to have been mentioned by Nasa on the Parker blog pages for the public. If you had been anxious to do more than just complain about my attitude then you could probably have found this information, told me and I would have been grateful. With the help of other contributions, I am now getting a better picture of what's going on and I think I have the answer to my original QUESTION (not complaint). The answer is that Nasa have regarded the Engineering of getting the craft to where it is and keeping it alive and working as much more newsworthy than any intermediate results. So the blogs have loads of impressive facts about that aspect of the mission and they are soft pedaling (but not hiding) the output facts.
Bearing in mind that the downlink rate is slow (0.5Mbs^-1) and sporadic has meant that the received data is not many GB, I would have been surprised that analysis has taken so long (and it now appears not to have). Compare the figures with the EHT exercise which has a truck load of hard drives worth of data - now they really did have every reason to take a while to analyse that lot.
If you want to prove someone wrong on PF, Facts are what do it. You have not actually provided me with any, which is not PF style - just managed to get personal and setting your defence lines on behalf of the Parker Scientists. You could perhaps accuse me of being too lazy to do all the necessary initial reading round about this but people are often only too pleased to tell you what they have found out. PF is about conversations, ain't it?
I should be grateful if you could ease up on what is turning out to be a bit of a trolling session and try to be a bit more civilised in your responses. No one wins in that sort of intercourse.

 

[Zeke137]

So, I'd like to chip into this thread if I may. I'll be quoting from a number of your posts and trying to give my take on your comments.

From your post on Jan 13 2019:

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.

You're right - we did all appreciate it, and as we have seen, those images got better as the spacecraft got closer to its' encounter with UT. The important point to note here is that the LORRI instrument responsible for that first image had been calibrated and used on many occasions over a period of several years before it returned that particular image. So, for that instrument, it was business as usual.

From another of your posts on Jan 13 2019

My posts actually just show 'surprise' at the long wait - particularly as some results have actually been present but no publically.

Here you're wrong: no science results have yet been gathered. The spacecraft first made use of its' science-gathering instruments during its' first orbit between September and November 2018. Measurements taken by the instruments during this "first-light" phase of the mission - completely in line with commissioning of all other spacecraft -based instruments in missions past, present and future - were used by the science team only to perform essential calibration of the instruments. As a by-product of the commissioning, a few images were released to the public of early visualizations of data arising from these measurements, but these will most probably not be used in final published scientific papers.

From another of your posts on Apr 05 2019

If the non-Scientist holds the purse strings (which they usually do) then the Scientist often does what they're told.

Well, NASA funded the Parker Solar Probe (PSP) from funds provided by Congress. NASA is entrusted by Congress to apportion those funds within the scope of NASA operations as NASA sees fit. It's therefore NASA which manages the overall operation of projects like PSP, and NASA appoints Principal Investigators and their teams to manage each of those projects. According to the Wiki, "NASA is is an independent agency of the United States Federal Government responsible for the civilian space program, as well as aeronautics and aerospace research.".

Note the research part - NASA is not just an agency redistributing public funds and managing projects, but also actively pursues research. So, in this case, it's scientists holding the purse-strings of other scientists.

[TBC...]

 

[Zeke137]

[Continuing...]

From another of your posts on Apr 05 2019

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.

Your first two sentences can be answered as follows: the spacecraft has been in commissioning phase. Completely normal. Your third sentence is completely off the mark - all new space-based observatories have a long commissioning period, which can extend to several months or even longer, depending on the specific requirements of the mission.

Consider just one example, the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO), which first arrived into a highly elliptical orbit around Mars in October 2016. Starting in March 2017, it gradually lowered its' orbit by aerobraking until it finally achieved its' intended orbit on Feb 20 2018. Only then could science properly begin: "The spacecraft took its first photos of the surface of Mars on 15 April 2018.[61] Data on the first atmospheric occultation is being analysed." (Wiki) - Two and a half years of waiting for first images, and yet longer for first science results.

From another of your posts on Jan 13 2019

Whatever the reason for the delay, it is still out of character, which makes one wonder

Do you now consíder the months-long wait for first scientific results from PSP "out of character"? Does waiting a few months still "make one wonder"?

From your most recent post of Apr 13 2019

Apparently, from this website, there have been preliminary results and I now find they are available - but they seem not to have been mentioned by Nasa on the Parker blog pages for the public

If you had followed the link https://blogs.nasa.gov/parkersolarp...ing-first-light-data-from-parker-solar-probe/ at the bottom of that page you linked to you would have been able to read the following:

These early observations – while not yet examples of the key science observations Parker Solar Probe will take closer to the Sun – show that each of the instruments is working well

and

All instruments returned data that not only serves for calibration, but also captures glimpses of what we expect them to measure near the Sun to solve the mysteries of the solar atmosphere, the corona

And so on, each section in that page explaining how the measurements taken during the first-light commissioning phase serve only to show whether, and how well, each instrument has performed in first-light.

Also in that page, on the right-hand side, are links to archives of posts in that blog. Reading the post from March 2019, one can read that

On March 30, 2019, Parker Solar Probe begins the second solar encounter phase of its mission, culminating in its closest approach to the Sun, called perihelion, on April 4 at 6:40 p.m. EDT. During this solar encounter phase, which lasts until April 10, the spacecraft ’s four suites of science instruments are fully operational and storing science data collected from within the Sun’s corona

And

science data from this second solar encounter phase will downlink to Earth over several weeks later in spring 2019.

So, to all those who just don't seem to be able to hold their breath for several months, I say: don't even try. The data from the first science orbit haven't even been downloaded yet, and it will take some time (weeks/months) after they're downloaded before the first science products can be released. So, watch that space...

 

[sophiecentaur]

@Zeke137 Thank you for that information, from someone who is clearly familiar with the business. It was far more use to me (and others) than some of the other posts on the thread.
"TBC" yes please.

 

[Zeke137]

You're very welcome!

 

[jedishrfu]

Thanks @Zeke137. Since we'll have to wait some months before the scientific results of Parker become available, I think it's best that we close this thread and thank everyone for their contributions.

Once Parker results become public, we can open a new thread to contain the discussion.

Thank you all again.