Jump to content

Rosetta, Philae and Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

Vicomt

By Vicomt
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

Teirusu

Teirusu

Posted
Posted
'Pioneer anomaly' is due to asymmetric radiation of heat, the rest has nothing to do with this. Philae doesn't have lightning suppressors or lightning discharge antennae last time I checked, there should have been a massive, damaging discharge if your model was right. There wasn't.

Not that I truly believe in the electric universe theory myself (Although the Standard Model is quite holey itself) but in this case, there wouldn't have to be some massive discharge. You have to remember that Rosetta matched orbits with 67P and came up from behind the comet/asteroid itself and thus came from a similar orbital distance. It was also in orbit around 67P for some time before hand. Thus, it's possible that whatever charge difference existed was eventually balanced out before the landing.

...Its also quite possible that the reason the harpoons and thrusters failed in the first place was some kind of discharge shorting out the lander. The electronics would be fine, I'd imagine, simply because of their construction. Spacecraft gear is usually highly shielded from from radiation and is built to be quite tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Technical Ben

Technical Ben

Posted
Posted

Best short answer is "charges do not work that way in a vacuum".

Best long answer is "find out more about charges first".

Think about what is being explained, and how not to brush off comments, but actually check. Such as, "Is radiation shielding the same as a static discharge shielding?" Before making a claim they are...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teirusu

Teirusu

Posted
Posted
Best short answer is "charges do not work that way in a vacuum".

Best long answer is "find out more about charges first".

Think about what is being explained, and how not to brush off comments, but actually check. Such as, "Is radiation shielding the same as a static discharge shielding?" Before making a claim they are...

I never said they were the same, you should reread my comment a bit deeper as I didn't make that claim. My claim is that 'because of the construction of the spacecraft' the electronics would probably be fine from some kind of discharge. I gave 'highly shielded from from radiation' as an example of such construction, but not necessarily the reason they would survive, mostly because they're built tough. These things aren't like your typical cell phone with their fragile electronics. The cores of these things are built to survive cosmic rays and gamma rays. (Hopefully many times) What are these? High energy particles that when they hit something.. transfer their energy. (Discharge)

And you do realize the solar system isn't a complete vacuum... right? Solar plasma, solar wind, any of these strike a bell? These are all a constant in space (In our local system) and thus, is not a complete vacuum. There can be a transfer of charge from non-touching objects, it just doesn't happen very fast. But of course, Rosetta spent plenty of years in space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kryten

Kryten

Posted
Posted

Excellent reading comprehension there. That's comet Tempel 1, and it's being hit with a 300kg impactor going about 10km/s. If you think we need to rewrite basic physics and cosmology to explain why that might make a big flash, I can't help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
O-Doc

O-Doc

Posted
Posted
You guys are smart. Don't let this guy troll you.

On any other forum I regular I would use slightly different language to respond to this post. Instead, let's all enjoy a quote from one of the greatest minds of the 20th century:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.â€Â

― Michael Crichton

It's up to you to decide whether or not your attitude is going to serve, or has served, your productive capacities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kryten

Kryten

Posted
Posted

I'm not relying on 'consensus'; I know enough about physics to recognise that 'electric universe theory' is about as scientific as homeopathy or flood geology. We've already had people in this thread have to come up with worldwide conspiracies to explain issues with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aningaaq

Aningaaq

Posted
Posted
On any other forum I regular I would use slightly different language to respond to this post. Instead, let's all enjoy a quote from one of the greatest minds of the 20th century:

It's up to you to decide whether or not your attitude is going to serve, or has served, your productive capacities.

I apologize for back seat moderating. I just felt that this thread was going to be shortly derailed. It sounded like trolling. I didn't say he was wrong or they were right. I meant "smart" as in to recognize when someone might be trolling. I'm not trying to oppress opinions here (I was asking questions earlier about CONSERT data if you think I have nothing better to do). I just see an impass here and maybe I hoped that it could be settled in private message or they could agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
O-Doc

O-Doc

Posted
Posted
Excellent reading comprehension there. That's comet Tempel 1, and it's being hit with a 300kg impactor going about 10km/s. If you think we need to rewrite basic physics and cosmology to explain why that might make a big flash, I can't help you.
“In addition to brightening by a factor of about 4, the characteristics of the mid-infrared light were like a chameleon and within five minutes of the collision it looked like an entirely new object.â€Â

- David Harker of the University of San Diego

Not even close to an argument there Kyten. You can of course show where the research team turned around and said "Yup, we expected that. We did the math you know." :)

They didn't get the results they expected and fobbed it off as the comet being made of a fine dust. How does a comet, supposedly made of ice have a consistency of talcum powder? How did it not completely fly apart on impact if that's the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Camacha

Camacha

Posted
Posted

Please guys, ignore the trolls and leave them be. Going into it only prolongs the disturbance - you are not going to convince them with facts.

Certainly will. Antenna had to be a specific distance from surface for experiment to work correctly. How much of it they'll be able to salvage depends on how precisely they can determine orientation of the lander. Last I've heard, they aren't sure which end is up. maybe that changed.

I think I heard an ESA statement that the experiment would work, even when it would happen to be upside down. I cannot remember where I read, heard or saw it in the torrent of Rosetta information the past few days, though I will have a go at finding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aningaaq

Aningaaq

Posted
Posted
Please guys, ignore the trolls and leave them be. Going into it only prolongs the disturbance - you are not going to convince them with facts.

I think I heard an ESA statement that the experiment would work, even when it would happen to be upside down. I cannot remember where I read, heard or saw it in the torrent of Rosetta information the past few days, though I will have a go at finding it.

Yes, please have a go. I am interested in reading about that. I think, correct me if I am wrong, but the Rosetta sends the electromagnetic waves down and the Philae receives them then sends the data back to Rosetta. If this is the case, the antenna is on Rosetta and the receiver on Philae then perhaps the position of Philae wouldn't be too big of a problem? I'm really not sure. I have experience with GPR here on Earth but the CONSERT is a whole different instrument. Quite an amazing piece of technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Camacha

Camacha

Posted
Posted (edited)

I came across this (old) .pdf with some interesting details I had not seen elsewhere before.

Yes, please have a go. I am interested in reading about that. I think, correct me if I am wrong, but the Rosetta sends the electromagnetic waves down and the Philae receives them then sends the data back to Rosetta. If this is the case, the antenna is on Rosetta and the receiver on Philae then perhaps the position of Philae wouldn't be too big of a problem? I'm really not sure. I have experience with GPR here on Earth but the CONSERT is a whole different instrument. Quite an amazing piece of technology.

It is a bit of a dodgy source, since the quote comes from the interviewer and spelling seems to vary (and I am sure I heard or saw it elsewhere), but this website seems to confirm upside down operation:

CONCERT is my favorite instrument because because it will continue to work even if Philea lands upside down!

I will look for a more trustworthy source.

Edited by Camacha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vanamonde

Vanamonde

Posted
Posted

Guys, we would rather not have to close a thread on such an interesting and current subject, so how about we leave the topic of cosmology for another time and stick to the subject at hand? Any further discussion of the electric universe in this thread will be considered off-topic and subject to infractions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aningaaq

Aningaaq

Posted
Posted
I came across this (old) .pdf with some interesting details I had not seen elsewhere before.

It is a bit of a dodgy source, since the quote comes from the interviewer and spelling seems to vary (and I am sure I heard or saw it elsewhere), but this website seems to confirm upside down operation:

I will look for a more trustworthy source.

I will look into it too. I've posted a couple messages on ESA's multiple facebook pages about this and will post any responses here. In my experience with GPR, antenna placement is really crucial for good measurements. I've had so much data distorted with the antenna being affected by topography. Some of my research has suffered due to poor surveying. But then again, they probably did plan for irregular topography so it is possible that the data may be corrected or unaffected by Philae's position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Streetwind

Streetwind

Posted
Posted

Yeah, let's get back on topic here. I have just the thing:

They spotted Philae! http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/16/philae_spotted_after_first_landing/

(Well, not it's current resting position, but mid-bounce after the first touchdown.)

And what's more, the blog says its thanks for the community involvement in discovering this - and even mentions a name that KSP forum readers might be familiar with... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
K^2

K^2

Posted
Posted

Wait, I somehow missed that part of the news about lander trouble. They've lost it? They actually lost the lander? As in, the thing that traveled through Solar System for a decade, performing a triple Earth flyby, came so close to Mars that it nearly scraped atmosphere, and managed to visit several other rocks before rendezvous with 67P? They managed to lose it on a 4km dusty snowball after all that? How embarrassing.

You know, whether they find it or not, and regardless of what other data we gather from the whole deal, this says something about us as a species. We'll do the impossible just to get there, and then go home, because we lost the keys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...