Whenever I think of POM, two thing immediately come to mind. The first is that this polymer probably has more names associated with it than any other polymer. POM is also commonly referred to as acetal, polyacetal, and Delrin (the latter being a tradename that is well on its way to becoming generic). Most other polymers have only a couple of names associated with them.
But the other immediate thought is POM is well known for it's low coefficient of friction (COF) - it's excellent for making plastic gears and other parts that slide past each other. So is the low COF part of the reason that the probe had such a difficulty in landing and staying landed?
Don't laugh. There may be lots of polymer on the surface
"If the polymer covers much of the comet, it could explain the object’s dark colour..." For such a strong visual effect, the polymer is would have to be more than just a monolayer. Additionally, "The polymer may also be masking signals from other interesting compounds formed earlier in the comet's history...", again, indicative of a thicker layer. (And did you notice how junky polymers are already taking the blame polluting up the comet.)
Landing a probe on any comet will always be challenging since the gravitational attraction is so low. But having a slippery surface is only going to make matters worse. This is still mostly speculative, but if it turns out in the future that there actually is a slippery, thick layer of POM on the surface, well, you read it hear first.
I have a jar of the stuff laying on my bench. I'm a synthetic organic chemist, and no, I never thought my C1 synthon was indeed a "proper" polymer, i.e. something attractive for its mechanical properties. I thought it was too labile towards acids to find any useful application. I was wrong.
The acid hydrolysis is definitely an issue, but still, there are enough applications where that's not concern.
Post a Comment