Updates Rosetta Mission News

[RisingFury]

Yes, it's 1/4. It's from the surface formula for a sphere. A=4 x pi x r^2. If you have 2x distance you get 1/4 light per area.

I think you're trying to write this:
1 / r^2, not 1 / r^4

 

[fsci123]

At mission end (Rosetta orbiter) there is talk about landing it, too, on the surface. All they'd need to do is get close, and let it settle in place.

While that's happening, imagine the closeup pictures. Thousands of pixels per meter!

Could the orbiter use the remaining fuel to land and then hop from surface to surface?

 

[Urwumpe]

Could the orbiter use the remaining fuel to land and then hop from surface to surface?

Doubtful. It is even doubtful that you can land the probe on the comet - the distance is much larger than during Hayabusa and the comet way more complex shaped, so any kind of remote control is impossible.

Any kind of "landing" on the comet by Rosetta would be a "make or break" attempt.

 

[statickid]

Hence, "mission end" --make or break isnt much of a risk

 

[Urwumpe]

OSIRIS pictures of Philae taking a walk on the wild side:

 

[Notebook]

BBC article on the walk...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30083969

N.

 

[Topper]

As far as I know from all the information I've got, it seems that the drill was a sucsess and all 10 experiments has been completed.

I read different sources, one is here:

http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2014/nov/philae-power-drilling.cfm

So it seems that the "Philae mission" was a full success, even if the batteries went out of power just after transmitting all the data!

But I will be carefull: Maybe it's a bit early to say this...

Can somebody confirm (maybe from an official source)?

 

[Urwumpe]

So it seems that the "Philae mission" was a full success, even if the batteries went out of power just after transmitting all the data!

But I will be carefull: Maybe it's a bit early to say this...

Can somebody confirm (maybe from an official source)?

So far, even the official sources seem to agree there.

Also, the scientists are optimistic that the mishap with the landing site could turn out to be an advantage later. The lander could maybe survive the perihelion passage and collect data even after the planned EOL.

 

[Unstung]

So far, even the official sources seem to agree there.

Also, the scientists are optimistic that the mishap with the landing site could turn out to be an advantage later. The lander could maybe survive the perihelion passage and collect data even after the planned EOL.

From a quick calculation, the light will be about five times as intense when Philae reaches perihelion than when it landed. If the logic is correct, Philae will receive the equivalent of 7.5 hours of sunlight per 12-hour day at 67P's current distance. This is more than enough to charge Philae's batteries based on the plans that the lander would wake up with only 6 hours of light per day at its current distance from the sun. These assumptions, of course, neglect how much dust will settle on Philae, how much of its solar panels are exposed to sunlight, and how the lighting conditions will change.

 

[ISProgram]

As far as I know from all the information I've got, it theems that the drill was a sucsess and all 10 experiments has been completed.

I read different sources, one is here:

http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2014/nov/philae-power-drilling.cfm

So it seems that the "Philae mission" was a full success, even if the batteries went out of power just after transmitting all the data!

But I will be carefull: Maybe it's a bit early to say this...

Can somebody confirm (maybe from an official source)?

From what I've heard/read, the COSAC ovens didn't get any samples.

 

[Notebook]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30082878

MUPUS scientists tried each of the hammer's three power settings - and after failing to penetrate the surface using those, proceeded to a "secret" fourth setting. This setting, nicknamed "desperate mode", broke the hammer.

Nevertheless, the exercise suggests the surface of the comet may have a tensile strength approaching that of sandstone.

Just call me Thor...

N.

 

[Unstung]

Could the surface at the slope where Philae landed be tougher than its flat landing site? BBC assumes that the surface at the landing site had a similar consistency: "That hard surface might also explain why Philae bounced so high - maybe a kilometre up - after its initial landing".

 

[Urwumpe]

Could the surface at the slope where Philae landed be tougher than its flat landing site? BBC assumes that the surface at the landing site had a similar consistency: "That hard surface might also explain why Philae bounced so high - maybe a kilometre up - after its initial landing".

The Rosetta mission is already much more curious than anybody could have expected - how wrong have we really been about comets?

 

[MattBaker]

I'll take bets if it's actually a Mass Relay or alien spacecraft!:thumbup:

 

[statickid]

OSIRIS pictures of Philae taking a walk on the wild side:

thats so weird!

Does anyone have the reasoning about the path... I don't understand the "touchdown point"... was that location of the second bounce? or are those images just at an odd angle showing the height as an illusion of transverse movement? whats going on there??

 

[Urwumpe]

thats so weird!

Does anyone have the reasoning about the path... I don't understand the "touchdown point"... was that location of the second bounce? or are those images just at an odd angle showing the height as an illusion of transverse movement? whats going on there??

Remember that Rosetta was moving as well, when the pictures were taken. So, you have not only different times, but also different angles to the comet surface.

---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 AM ----------

A German update article about the first results of the instruments of Philae:

http://www.esa.int/ger/ESA_in_your_...o_Harte_Eisschichten_und_organische_Molekuele

 

[n122vu]

Could the surface at the slope where Philae landed be tougher than its flat landing site? BBC assumes that the surface at the landing site had a similar consistency: "That hard surface might also explain why Philae bounced so high - maybe a kilometre up - after its initial landing".

Rockhound: We're in segment 202, lateral grid nine, site 15H32; give or take a few yards. Captain America here blew the landing by 26 miles!
Col. Sharp: How the hell do you know that?
Rockhound: Because I'm a genius.
Watts: The gauges will not read. They're all peaked like we're plugged into some magnetic field.
Rockhound: [sarcastically] Who on this spaceship wants to know why?
Gruber: By all means.
Rockhound: The reason we were shooting for grid eight was because thermographics indicated that grid nine was compressed iron ferrite...which means you've landed us on a iron plate!

 

[Unstung]

[words]

the reference

my head

 

[Thunder Chicken]

From a quick calculation, the light will be about five times as intense when Philae reaches perihelion than when it landed. If the logic is correct, Philae will receive the equivalent of 7.5 hours of sunlight per 12-hour day at 67P's current distance. This is more than enough to charge Philae's batteries based on the plans that the lander would wake up with only 6 hours of light per day at its current distance from the sun. These assumptions, of course, neglect how much dust will settle on Philae, how much of its solar panels are exposed to sunlight, and how the lighting conditions will change.

It isn't just a matter of net energy; the panels may not be able to withstand such high solar intensities, even for short periods. The panels really have no way to dissipate heat except to re-radiate heat to the surroundings so the panels may get quite hot, possibly enough to damage them. 10.5 hours of exposure to shadow may not help if the panels fry in the 1.5 hours of exposure.

It appears that the designers were aware of this and anticipated that Philae might burn-out as it approached perihelion. Being in the shade may compress any remaining lifetime as it will be closer to the sun before it gets sufficient net energy to power up, but the intensity may be such that it burns up soon afterwards.

 

[boogabooga]

the reference

my head

Armageddon (1998), but you were better off not knowing.

Is there anything holding the lander to the comet?

When the comet starts ejecting material, could there be enough force to push the lander off of the comet?