Examining contents of outerspace

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Does anyone know if NASA scientists ever took an empty container into outer space, sealed it, then brought it into a lab to determine the contents of space? I wouldn't even begin to know where to look for such an experiment.




posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


it would probably implode



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
You might find something here in the sidebar.

science.nasa.gov...



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Does anyone know if NASA scientists ever took an empty container into outer space, sealed it, then brought it into a lab to determine the contents of space? I wouldn't even begin to know where to look for such an experiment.


I get what your saying...so...how would you know it was empty when you sent it up?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


The best we could do here on earth to make an "empty" container is to use a vacuum pump to pull a hard vacuum on the container. But even then there would be some small amount of the air particles still in the container to contaminate the containers contents after it was opened in outer space and then re sealed. The best, and only really effective, way to study the emptiness (which is a fallacy anyway) of outer space is to study it in outer space. I am quite sure this has already been done in any number of ways on manned and unmanned missions.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I seriously doubt it. This experiment would be similar to asking if anyone has sent an empty container to Earth to examine the contents of earth - you will get different contents depending on where you send it.

I assume that you mean the contents of interstellar space (which is pretty far away). The answer to that is of course, no.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Does anyone know if NASA scientists ever took an empty container into outer space, sealed it, then brought it into a lab to determine the contents of space? I wouldn't even begin to know where to look for such an experiment.
There was an experiment similar to what you describe using a sample return probe. Unfortunately, the probe's parachute failed to deploy when it returned to Earth, so it crash landed, and the seal on the experiment was broken, though they did try to salvage it.

Genesis (spacecraft)


The Genesis spacecraft was a NASA sample return probe which collected a sample of solar wind and returned it to Earth for analysis. It was the first NASA sample return mission to return material since the Apollo Program, and the first to return material from beyond the orbit of the Moon.[3] Genesis was launched on August 8, 2001, and crash-landed in Utah on September 8, 2004, after a design flaw prevented the deployment of its drogue parachute. The crash contaminated many of the sample collectors, and although most were damaged, many of the collectors were successfully recovered.

The Genesis science team demonstrated that some of the contamination could be removed or avoided, and that the solar wind could be analyzed using a variety of approaches.[5] It is relatively easy to see the solar wind, but the precision measurements are difficult and techniques are still being refined in laboratories worldwide. Still, as of March 2008 there is reason to believe that all of the mission's major science objectives will be achieved successfully.
I'm not sure how you define "outer space", but this is the furthest sample obtained, and it's not very "outer", it's still from our inner solar system.

We are now just beginning to get data on "outer space" outside our solar system from the voyager probe, though sample return is not going to happen on that mission. That will be more like real outer space and will be quite different from our inner solar system. The sun is throwing off tons of material into the solar wind and that's largely what is collected in the genesis experiment. Outer space, outside our solar system, does not contain similar amounts of solar wind material. Here's some information about the extended mission of Voyager, which is related:

Voyager, the Interstellar Mission

The mission objective of the Voyager Interstellar Mission (VIM) is to extend the NASA exploration of the solar system beyond the neighborhood of the outer planets to the outer limits of the Sun's sphere of influence, and possibly beyond. This extended mission is continuing to characterize the outer solar system environment and search for the heliopause boundary, the outer limits of the Sun's magnetic field and outward flow of the solar wind. Penetration of the heliopause boundary between the solar wind and the interstellar medium will allow measurements to be made of the interstellar fields, particles and waves unaffected by the solar wind.
That mission is getting closer to what I would call outer space, though the term has a broad definition and could apply to densities of material from one hydrogen atom per cubic meter in intergalactic space, to other parts of outer space where the hydrogen can be a million times as dense, with one million hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Space passes trough matter. So the space u "collected" above earth will be different back at the lab. You cant move space. You can suck out all the particles from a jar though.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
There are a few things you need to understand about ultra high vacuum before you can even attempt such a thing.

Firstly, space is very empty between the stars, back during my astronomy course I was informed that, in a very dense cloud you might get 1-50atoms per cubic meter... which is you might agree is not very much.

With modest equipment on Earth you can generate a vacuum of 10^-10mbar using a turbo molecular pump. At room temperature, that pressure equates about 2.41x10^12 atoms per cubic meter which is ALOT higher than 1-50 atoms.

Now the other misconception is that at those pressures, you dont suck the atoms out, instead you sweep them. As the atoms/molecules move around (roughly in straight lines at those pressures) they will hit the walls of the chamber and bounce off (or stick, but lets assume they bounce for now) until they hit the blades of the turbo pump. The turbo literally knocks the molecules into the lower stages of turbo until they are then removed from the system by a backing pump.

So the classic idea of migration of high density to low density is not strictly adhered to at ultra high vacuum since the path length between interacting molecules is larger than the size of the chamber and the density is too low.

So if you was to go out there with a super amazing vacuum... you need to open the camber, wait for a while, collect your handful of atoms and then close the chamber making sure you seal it well enough that nothing can get in. For those who haven't worked with ultra high vacuum, it basically involves a copper or other metal gasket and a knife edge seal. It is not something that is trivial to do in an automated manner.


So basically what you propose is amazingly difficult to achieve in reality. The best vacuum ever achieved is somewhere around 1x10-13mbar which is still about 3x9 atoms per cubic meter.


The basic difficulty is cleaning the materials, surface finish of the chamber and then pulling all the molecules out. You might think steel doesn't absorb anything, but when you have worked with ultra-high vacuum you start to realize that steel actually does hold onto molecules in the air. I spent the last 3 years working with such systems and once you have a system clean and down to a good 10-8 mbar level vacuum, you dont want to open it up, because the moment you do, any humidity in the air causes water to stick to the steel and you then spend about 3 weeks pumping the damn thing out again to get it back to 10^-8.

The method that would be more useful i think would be a cryopump, which is when you get a device to generate kelvin scale temperatures, an object like this can 'freeze' out molecules that hit it, and so you could just collect molecules on that. BUT... since alot of gas out in space is simply hydrogen and helium, you are not going to simply be able to freeze it out, the freezing temperatures themselves for this is very low also.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
So basically what you propose is amazingly difficult to achieve in reality. The best vacuum ever achieved is somewhere around 1x10-13mbar which is still about 3x9 atoms per cubic meter.
I assume that means 3x10^9. Thanks, I was wondering how good the best on earth was but I wasn't interested enough to look it up. That sounds about right though. 10^6 atoms per cubic meter was a common figure I found when looking up space vacuums so even that is 3000 times better than the best vacuum on earth. Your lower density numbers also match what I found, though nobody has directly measured those.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

I don't know much about this subject, but.....
I had read somewhere that when astronaughts arrive back, their suits smell of burning metal or something.
If there is a smell would that be considered as something, and not nothing, a smell is something.

edit on 19/11/12 by chloe2850 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Conventional Space ( as in the gap between objects with mass) cannot be described as nothing.
If Space was indeed made up of "nothing" why does it take light (an EM Wave fucntion, particle with low relativistic mass) a period of time to traverse it?

Instead we should see space as a superfulid vacum where energy exists in fractal vortices of constant phase change.
Each piece of superfluid vacum space or "Quanta" occupies its own position within the supersymetery meaning there is a fundamental "soup" extending in all directions we find ourselves suspended within.

We may well have quantum bits of reality folating around right down to the planck scale, where, if we could ever observe, things seems to theoretically dissapear into other dimensions through quantum manifolds.

If we reallly want to understand space we can probably just look around us as we are a part of the system...there are a few phase changes and quantum density gradients here on earth but Space is everywhere lol.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks man, good catch, it was indeed supposed to be x10^9

The speed of light, is defined as being in vacuum, it is finite. It slows down when passing through material with different dielectric constant, which can be in dense gas or in solids... not sure however if any of what was in the previous post actually made sense or was more of a jumble of buzz words stitched together with blagg



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by chloe2850
reply to post by jiggerj
 

I don't know much about this subject, but.....
I had read somewhere that when astronaughts arrive back, their suits smell of burning metal or something.
If there is a smell would that be considered as something, and not nothing, a smell is something.

edit on 19/11/12 by chloe2850 because: (no reason given)


Yup!
I just wonder if a sample of space could be taken, when all of the known substances in the sample are discovered, whatever is left must be dark energy, right?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

We'd have to figure out what dark matter is first, then what's left might be dark energy.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I imagine you could just turn on a mass spectrometer in space and see what happens to find out what's out there.

It's probably a tiny concentration of everything on the periodic table of the element with concentrations decreasing as the atomic number increases. Then, of course, there are waves of various frequencies and wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum. Then there's probably a whole host of weird stuff that I don't even know about


Other than that, I don't think that there's any way to take a "sample" of space. It's sort of just the absence of stuff with some generally common matter floating in it. I'll bet there's some sort of esoteric "stuff" that space is made up of like tiny strings or something, but I don't feel like looking that up.
edit on 24-11-2012 by Mayson because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by jiggerj
 

We'd have to figure out what dark matter is first, then what's left might be dark energy.


you think there would be a relationship like.... regular matter and regular energy?





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join