Anyone watching the comet landing?

[barbos]

But it ended up sitting crooked with less sunlight than we wanted! FAIL

Not less, almost no light. It does not have enough power to do anything except wait for change in light conditions.
The fact is, the thing has crashed and the only reason it's still semi-alive is because it is asteroid with almost no gravity.
Had it been something like Mars it would have been completely dead.

 

[bilby]

Had it ended up on Mars, the navigation team would have stuffed up big time.

Any landing you survive is a success.

 

[barbos]

Had it ended up on Mars, the navigation team would have stuffed up big time.

Any landing you survive is a success.

There was no landing, it was a crash.
so it's really "Any crash you survive is a success"

 

[Ford]

There was no landing, it was a crash.

If it was a Russian probe, it would have claimed the comet as an independent republic and asserted that all other data was propaganda and NASA lies.

 

[fromderinside]

Quibble here. It launched without blowing up. I successfully traversed the gap between earth and the comet. It landed, is on the comet. Its light gathering package deployed. It is getting some sunlight for recharging. It drilled into the comet. It took pictures both from above and from on the comet, That's pretty successful. So its decelerating thrusters failed. It still landed in tact. So its hooks failed to inject. Its on the comet. Successful.

No

Your response is short without evidence. The mission was long and has shown evidence of completing many objectives.

The above reflects my use use of a long existing grading technique. Short and correct, windy and correct, windy and wrong, short and wrong. By that criteria I get a B and you get a D.

...and hylidae gets to ride a bucking pony.

 

[bilby]

No

Your response is short without evidence. The mission was long and has shown evidence of completing many objectives.

The above reflects my use use of a long existing grading technique. Short and correct, windy and correct, windy and wrong, short and wrong. By that criteria I get a B and you get a D.

...and hylidae gets to ride a bucking pony.

Oh, that'd be right. Nobody else gets a bucking pony. Lucky bucking Hylidae.

Buck that. Bucking discrimination if you ask me. Fastards.

 

[fromderinside]

:devil-smiley-029:

 

[GenesisNemesis]

But it ended up sitting crooked with less sunlight than we wanted! FAIL

Not less, almost no light. It does not have enough power to do anything except wait for change in light conditions.
The fact is, the thing has crashed and the only reason it's still semi-alive is because it is asteroid with almost no gravity.
Had it been something like Mars it would have been completely dead.

Man, NASA is such a waste /s

 

[bilby]

Not less, almost no light. It does not have enough power to do anything except wait for change in light conditions.
The fact is, the thing has crashed and the only reason it's still semi-alive is because it is asteroid with almost no gravity.
Had it been something like Mars it would have been completely dead.

Man, NASA is such a waste /s

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?14-Images-that-make-you-laugh&p=87603&viewfull=1#post87603

Yeah, fucking NASA, doing stuff and not doing stuff and everything.

 

[dystopian]

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?14-Images-that-make-you-laugh&p=87603&viewfull=1#post87603

It's sad how many people actually do need to be told this

 

[barbos]

Not less, almost no light. It does not have enough power to do anything except wait for change in light conditions.
The fact is, the thing has crashed and the only reason it's still semi-alive is because it is asteroid with almost no gravity.
Had it been something like Mars it would have been completely dead.

Man, NASA is such a waste /s

No, NASA space robots are great!

 

[Speakpigeon]

I understand that one idea is that 67P was at some point two bodies orbiting each other that later came together into one body. So perhaps the approximate shape is more like two spheres with a really small area of contact due to low gravity. So, if Philae had landed near this "middle" point, my guess is that gravity there would be nearly zero as there would be basically a broadly symmetrical distribution of matter around that small area, like being at the exact mass centre of the Earth. There Philae would weigh much less than 1g, say maybe 0.001g.
EB

View attachment 1542

Rubber ducky!

More like fried Kentucky ET to me.

Philae is on the top of the smaller lobe, probably a bit farther than 2km from the center of mass.

It's hard to say precisely what it weighs, regardless of where it landed, due to varying densities and whatnot (the comet is irregularly made of ice and rocks - not even close to uniformly distributed). As a first estimate, I would guess 1.5gf is pretty close, to within an order of magnitude or so. I'm sure the ESA has a much better model of gravity on the comet and I've seen news reports saying that it weighs about a gram.

It seems to me that since the probe was basicaly dropped from on high by Rosetta, once the screwing mechanism had failed, the probe bouncing back, chances were that, after a number of rebounds, it would land more likely on the outside of one of the big chunks, where indeed it is now. Any amount of absorption of its kinetic energy on landing making it more likely that it stayed on the comet. That being said, you're right, density would be a key factor.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

But it ended up sitting crooked with less sunlight than we wanted! FAIL

Not less, almost no light. It does not have enough power to do anything except wait for change in light conditions.
The fact is, the thing has crashed and the only reason it's still semi-alive is because it is asteroid with almost no gravity.
Had it been something like Mars it would have been completely dead.

The landing system failed but the mission is obviously a success. A mission is defined by its objectives, not by whether the means and principles used to achieve these objectives worked as expected.

Of course, landing on that kind of thing, whih so little gravity, has never been done before, so it's probably no surprise to them that this part failed.

I'd like to know how much they've investigated the various possible landing scenarios and if they had expected at all that it could bounce twice (or more?) and then manage to land safely. It seems not given what I heard but what it did seems rather more likely than anything else once it had failed to get the initial grip.
EB

 

[Malintent]

Not less, almost no light. It does not have enough power to do anything except wait for change in light conditions.
The fact is, the thing has crashed and the only reason it's still semi-alive is because it is asteroid with almost no gravity.
Had it been something like Mars it would have been completely dead.

The landing system failed but the mission is obviously a success. A mission is defined by its objectives, not by whether the means and principles used to achieve these objectives worked as expected.

Of course, landing on that kind of thing, whih so little gravity, has never been done before, so it's probably no surprise to them that this part failed.

I'd like to know how much they've investigated the various possible landing scenarios and if they had expected at all that it could bounce twice (or more?) and then manage to land safely. It seems not given what I heard but what it did seems rather more likely than anything else once it had failed to get the initial grip.
EB

The concern was not that it 'couldn't' land if the anchors failed... but that it would likely land on it's side or head.. making it unusable. They got lucky, in that respect.

 

[Speakpigeon]

(As I said, "and then manage to land safely".)


Also, The BBC reported Philae may have found evidence of molecules basic to life. Hmm... that's carbon, right? That must be why the snow is not so white there.

Sooo successful, it's almost unbearable. Full of new developments too. Or "rebounds" as we say in French.

And they only had since June or July for selecting three possible landing sites. Still, apparently they failed to predict the actual landing site.
And me who thought we knew the laws of gravitation!

Do we know by how much this mission increased the odds that 67P will someday collide with the Earth?
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

Do we know by how much this mission increased the odds that 67P will someday collide with the Earth?
EB

Well, it's in a Jupiter crossing orbit, so left to itself it's almost sure to eventually do a Shoemaker-Levy-9. But now that it's the first comet we ever landed on, there's a fair chance that some day some idiot will decide to move it into a near-earth orbit, for sentimental reasons. So, a factor of a million maybe?

 

[skepticalbip]

Do we know by how much this mission increased the odds that 67P will someday collide with the Earth?
EB

Well, it's in a Jupiter crossing orbit, so left to itself it's almost sure to eventually do a Shoemaker-Levy-9. But now that it's the first comet we ever landed on, there's a fair chance that some day some idiot will decide to move it into a near-earth orbit, for sentimental reasons. So, a factor of a million maybe?

NASA's Deep Impact mission did a hard landing on a comet in 2005, if you could call intentionally ramming the comet to see what flys off a landing.

Do asteroid landings count? The Japanese Hayabusa probe landed on Itokawain in 2005, collected some samples and brought them back to Earth.

Then the NEAR probe landed on, not a comet but, the asteroid Eros in 2001.

 

[dystopian]

Do asteroid landings count? The Japanese Hayabusa probe landed on Itokawain in 2005, collected some samples and brought them back to Earth.

Hayabusa's sample collection failed. The mission did result in the retrieval of about 100 particles of material, but that was far, far, far less then expected and basically just luck. They're scheduled to launch Hayabusa-2 on the 30th of this month though, last I heard.

 

[skepticalbip]

Do asteroid landings count? The Japanese Hayabusa probe landed on Itokawain in 2005, collected some samples and brought them back to Earth.

Hayabusa's sample collection failed. The mission did result in the retrieval of about 100 particles of material, but that was far, far, far less then expected and basically just luck. They're scheduled to launch Hayabusa-2 on the 30th of this month though, last I heard.

True. The detachable mini-lander (sample collecor) that was designed to make the landing failed. But this led to what I thought was an even more impressive feat of landing the Hayabusa probe which was not designed as a lander to collect the sample.

 

[dystopian]

True. The detachable mini-lander (sample collecor) that was designed to make the landing failed. But this led to what I thought was an even more impressive feat of landing the Hayabusa probe which was not designed as a lander to collect the sample.

That's actually not what I meant. The mini-lander failed, yes. The sample collection of the probe itself *also* failed, however. Despite multiple tries.