Space In General

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbleBelly542
  • 4,719 comments
  • 341,856 views
"Weighing 100 kilos (220 pounds) on Earth, Philae has a mass of just one gramme (0.03 of an ounce)—less than a feather—on the low-gravity, four-kilometre comet.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-11-comet-probe-science-treasure-hours.html"

Seriously... how dumb are journalists these days? And it's a physics magazine which makes this an absolute howler.
 
A2K78
Let me restate myself, but I don't have a problem with space exploration(even though its irrational seeing how we'll never realistically colonize space/other planets, let alone find the origins of life out there ),
Click to expand...
That's a big word. Never is a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really long time. This thinking is what slows science the most. Science is incremental. What an unmanned craft might discover on another planet might just provide the ability to develop the means to do these things.

Of course, you left out the mining of resources, which doesn't seem so ridiculous as companies are in the early stages of developing the ability to do that now.

my problem however is when governments the world over loot their citizens under the guise of "science" for the sake of bragging rights and national pride....it has been so ever since sputnik and very is so now.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, are we still in a space race? It now seems so odd to have an International Space Station.
 
A2K78
this thing is going fail and for this very fact that we will come to realization that all forms of [government sponsored] space exploration is nothing but a waste of money and lacks real reason.

Overall its quite a shame that european taxpayers are being bilked out of billions for the bragging rights of landing on a hunk of rock.

speaking of, Felix Baumgartner is right on the money about space exploration:

http://www.cnet.com/news/felix-baumgartner-mars-is-a-waste-of-your-tax-dollars/
Click to expand...
As a European, I've paid roughly 5 dollars towards this thing. I'd gladly pay 500 if I knew it would lead to more awesome space stuff.
 
Hadn't seen that @Dotini, thank you :D And it's bloody beautiful :D

14999812157_dbac4557dc_o.jpg
 
TenEightyOne
I doubt an RTG would be suitable in this case; the mission packaging is completely different from Pioneer which has the advantage of being able to hold RTG away from the body (in Pioneer's case that's a generation module but it's the same principle). RTGs are EMF-abundant and get extremely hot around the chamber, probably not ideal for this pakage.
Click to expand...

But the rovers are all RTG powered, have the system closely mounted and were delivered in a similar manner to Mars, frankly nothing which is going to be running on the ground shouldn't be powered this way. Yes its a chunk of ice and heat isn't ideal but they could have used a coke can sized RTG which would have a negligible effect on something so extremely cold and would have provided at least a couple of weeks power.

I think ESA just thought the mission was so short it didn't warrant the added complexity of an RTG seeing as solar would have been ample if it had landed properly. I hope they won't make that mistake again.
 
Last edited:
Robin.
But the rovers are all RTG powered, have the system closely mounted and were delivered in a similar manner to Mars, frankly nothing which is going to be running on the ground shouldn't be powered this way. Yes its a chunk of ice and heat isn't ideal but they could have used a coke can sized RTG which would have a negligible effect on something so extremely cold and would have provided at least a couple of weeks power.

I think ESA just thought the mission was so short it didn't warrant the added complexity of an RTG seeing as solar would have been ample if it had landed properly. I don't they will make that mistake again.
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between the composition of a planet and a comet? Or the difference between the surface temperatures of the comet or Mars? Or the heatsink requirements of the different vehicles? The heat output of the RTG was specifically vital to the Mars rovers and the construction was "wide" enough that EMF wasn't a problem.

This is a different surface, landing profile, robot profile, everything. It's interesting that you regard the scientists' studied decision not to use RTG as "a mistake", fortunately they seem to have had mission success without you :)
 
I don't think 30 hours of science for a 10 year mission can be considered a success. Apart from the accolade of landing they got some things done but it was one giant compromise which is a big shame. Even the anchors didn't work, where was the redundancy?

As for the RTG, they could have found a way if they wanted to but they took a gamble.
 
Robin.
I don't think 30 hours of science for a 10 year mission can be considered a success. Apart from the accolade of landing they got some things done but it was one giant compromise which is a big shame. Even the anchors didn't work, where was the redundancy?
Click to expand...

The mission was an overriding success, what off Earth are you talking about???

"They got some things done"? Yes, all the things they'd planned to. And there's still the second "landing" to go. You don't seem to realise what a feat it was even approaching an artificial orbit.
 
Overriding success? when they were all panicking by the hour to save this mission going down the drain... fingers crossed for every signal being send down and back up.... not knowing if there's even enough power to drill....certainly not the definition of 'success'. More like they achieved the most they could given the circumstances.

Getting to the comet was an amazing feat but they should have had better contingencies in place knowing that it was likely the landing would be tricky. It's like the lander was built for best case scenario or total bust and the science suffered as a result because they didn't get the time nor the location they wanted.
 
Robin.
It's like the lander was built for best case scenario or total bust
Click to expand...

Yes. That's spaceshots on a tiny budget for you. And it WAS a tiny budget relatively.

Robin.
...the science suffered as a result because they didn't get the time nor the location they wanted.
Click to expand...

Source required.

Of the mission objectives for the first landing every single one was achieved, no? No data remains unretrieved from the lander which landed 8m away from its target. And the second 'landing' is looking feasible too.

I'm still not sure you understand the difference between a miniscule comet and a planet.
 
The mission duration was 1-6 weeks... that already wasn't achieved. Rushed measurements and samples taken all at once instead of multiple ones over time = science suffered.
 
Robin.
The mission duration was 1-6 weeks... that already wasn't achieved. Rushed measurements and samples taken all at once instead of multiple ones over time = science suffered.
Click to expand...

??? The mission is ongoing.
 
TenEightyOne
??? The mission is ongoing.
Click to expand...

Philae is currently not functioning so the mission is at best postponed or cancelled until further developments, ongoing would mean operational and performing tasks on a daily basis... like Rosetta.

I would love as much as the next person for Philae to recharge and resume the mission but in it's current position it's unlikely to ever manage to conduct the textbook plan of what wanted to be done if it had landed correctly.
 
Robin.
Philae is currently not functioning so the mission is at best postponed or cancelled until further developments, ongoing would mean operational and performing tasks on a daily basis.

I would love as much as the next person for Philae to recharge and resume the mission but in it's current position it's unlikely to ever manage to conduct the textbook plan of what wanted to be done if it has landed correctly.
Click to expand...

And it's just moved. And again. And it just moved again. The comet isn't a planet. It's heading to the sun.

We know that the harpoons didn't fire or didn't penetrate... we also know that Philae picks up less sunlight per-rotation than is desirable. Its data was collected and returned and the flight continues.

You're still missing that source, by the way. And there was no textbook plan, this has to be one of the most difficult space missions ever undertaken and the plan was always fluid. So far it's exceeded the wildest realistic expectations, a 10 year flight to land within 8m of your target. On a comet. And collect and send back data.

The big surprise was the dust clouds raised in the footage; their effect on the solar panels is also unkown. We'll see how the Rosetta reflection plan goes as the comet gets nearer to the sun, I guess that'll be the timeframe that decides on when the second landing begins.
 
The mission duration was an example of a source 1-6 weeks... failed. It wasn't 1-6 weeks in 30 hour segments spread over potentiality a year... plus it landed HALF A MILE off target... bouncing is not landing. Landing properly and having it's harpoons work is hardly a wild expectation.
 
Robin.
The mission duration was an example of a source 1-6 weeks... failed. It wasn't 1-6 weeks in 30 hour segments spread over potentiality a year...
Click to expand...

That was one of the plans, it's called contingency.

Robin.
Landing properly and having it's harpoons work is hardly a wild expectation.
Click to expand...

You knew the surface composition ten years ago? Why didn't you say something man? :D

In fact there were three attachment systems, and one still worked. The harpoon plan was always risky.

You seem determined to paint this mission as a failure, I'm really not sure why. The probe is currently in shadow but comets change shape as they near the sun, and regardless a shedload of data has already been returned.

Rosetta may also be able to help illuminate Philae once her exact position is known, she'll stay "up" for as long as required, there's no date set for her descent.

Philae has delivered almost 100% of her primary goals, the secondaries are contingent. No failure, only space exploration.
 
Last edited:
Was this the Beagle 2 rover? It's starting to sound like it from the comments in here.
 
Robin.
Yes its a chunk of ice
Click to expand...

The question "What is the comet made of?" is the crux of the mission. I found the following comment in an ESA blog:

"The MUPUS instrument was deployed but the surface was so hard that the shaft of its hammer broke as reported in the BBC's "Sky AT Night" special tonight.. The question of, is the surface rock or ice remains an open one, for us at least. The harpoons may have fired as planned, but bounced off the very hard subsurface, the ice screws were deployed but could not dig into the subsurface for the same reason. The plot thickens as they say."

At about the 34:20 mark in this Rosetta mission results video, OSIRIS Principle Investigator Holger Sierks remarks upon the color of the comet. He makes the enigmatic statement that although the color is gray, the bright areas look less reddish, and the comet would look red if it weren't so dark.

 
Last edited:
I'm with Robin. on this one... at €1 per European citizen per five-year period since 1996, or €3.50 each in total, I'm demanding nothing short of perfection. To put this sum in perspective, every European citizen could have bought a pint of lager (or a half pint if in London or Edinburgh), or put some money towards a Big Mac (or Whopper if you prefer Burger King). Of course, I'm being facetious... in reality, we're talking about €1.4 bn that could have been spent on fighting terrorists, Ebola virus, terrorists with Ebola virus, or Bob Geldof. But no. We had to attempt a ridiculously hard mission that had a very low chance of success, and all we got in return was some lousy chemicals, pictures and data that we could have got for free if we had just been patient and waited 30 years for the Chinese to do it for us. It's enough to make a man vote UKIP.

Disgusted,
Cheltenham
 
Quite a few carbon-containing compounds - carbides, carbonates, cyanides, and even simple oxides of carbon are considered inorganic. The almost invisible line between organic and inorganic carbon compounds is watercooler gossip; useful when organising our thoughts to find a common ground when conversing about chemistry.
Nowadays (since scientific discoveries constantly bring new elements of chemical activity to light we keep changing our perceptions of what's what) any compound regarded to contain a fair amount of carbon can be classified as 'organic' —even though many of the organic compounds known today have no connection to any substance found in living organisms.
Some schools teach that an organic compound is one that contains one or more C-H bonds while others will also include C-C bonds in the definition. And there are chemists out there who will say - as these chemists are saying - if a molecule contains carbon―it is organic.
My man-on-the-street judgement is on hold till acolytes of both Hoyle and Gamov agree on the birth of the mass 5 particle.
Having qualified the hype - I'll gladly say this: "Amazing job throwing that chunk of particles on a rock so far away. Good pitching."

Even with all the "may suggest"s and "likely to"s and other subtle disclaimers by these rocket scientists made in the conclusions outlined at present.

You might even say that I, too, am with Robin on this one. ;)
 
New Horizons is about to wake up.

The Pluto encounter technically begins on Jan. 15, 2015. Over the next six months, the spacecraft will use seven different science instruments to study the geology and topography of Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, map the two objects' surface compositions and temperatures, study Pluto's atmosphere and search for undiscovered moons and rings in the dwarf planet system, among other things, team members said.

So we should get pictures of Pluto soon. I've been waiting a long time for this moment. Finally.
 
photonrider
Quite a few carbon-containing compounds - carbides, carbonates, cyanides, and even simple oxides of carbon are considered inorganic. The almost invisible line between organic and inorganic carbon compounds is watercooler gossip; useful when organising our thoughts to find a common ground when conversing about chemistry.
Click to expand...

However, if this mission chooses to describe the compounds as 'organics' (and noone's suggesting 'life' despite what tomorrow's clickbaiters may say) then I'd go with their judgement. I don't believe the German team were rocket scientists though, do you have a source for that? I thought they were an independent team.

All that said; I guess that regardless of the word "organics" if we have found that the things we consider to be the "building blocks of life" (we'll see a lot more of that phrase) are travelling through the cosmos then wow-anyway :D
 
When Rosetta was being designed, the astrophysicists told the engineers to make a lander for a smooth, spherical dirty snowball. Since then we have learned comets are more apt to be rocky dumbbells, so little wonder it had trouble on the landing. They brought a knife to a gunfight, so to speak.

But it's way too early to give up on the science discoveries to be had from this mission. Rosetta, the mothership, is still operating just fine, and will be studying the comet with numerous instruments over the next year as 67P goes around the sun developing long jets and tails. Philae did accomplish something like 80% percent of its scheduled science mission, despite the botched landing. Many reports are still in the works. It has made the major discovery that the surface of the comet is indeed far harder than anticipated. And it may come back to wakefulness to make more observations and measurements as 67P nears the sun and the brighter solar light recharges its batteries.

Rosetta may be turn out to be the long-sought mission of discovery that enables us to understand comets in a new way; discovers what they are made of, and so maybe where they come from.
 

Latest Posts

Back