Any updates on the first-ever Parker perihelion results?

[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.

 

[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.