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

[boolybooly]

If it completes the isotope ratio analysis its a success.

[AndreyATGB]

Is on surface? Yes

Is a lander designed to be on the surface? Yes

Functioning? Yes

That's pretty successful in my eyes.

[RocketPilot573]

Is on surface? Yes

Is a lander designed to be on the surface? Yes

Functioning? Yes

That's pretty successful in my eyes.

However the area is too shady and the power will drain in a few days.

Functioning? Not for long.

[Sky_walker]

However the area is too shady and the power will drain in a few days.

Functioning? Not for long.

We've been going through this. Run quickly though last page. TL;DR: It will function long enough.

[Motokid600]

So whats the deal with Philae's feet/achors? The probe landed three times so did the anchors make an attempt to grab hold three times? Or where they one and done and if they couldn't grab hold the first time then that's it.. Im just curious as to how the rover bounced without the anchors being deployed.

[GregA]

Proposed new thread rules. You get to be critical of ESA for their landing on comet technique when you can stick a "landed on comet" trick of your own devising... No, Kerbal missions don't count.

Way to go ESA!!! You advanced landing on Comet science more than anyone else in history! Well done.

On the other hand, shame on planetary science, and particle physicists. You guys need to step up your game. You so far have failed to give us a basic reason why every small object has a double lobe shape like that, and provide a basic mechanism for why there is water in that there coma when there is obviously none on the comet.

[GregA]

So whats the deal with Philae's feet/achors? The probe landed three times so did the anchors make an attempt to grab hold three times? Or where they one and done and if they couldn't grab hold the first time then that's it.. Im just curious as to how the rover bounced without the anchors being deployed.

The Comet is not made of ice. Everyone thought it would be made of ice. They were wrong. This mission is going to rewrite all of particle physics. They obviously have very basic theory about the cosmos wrong. Particle physics is officially a crank science now.

Edited November 14, 2014 by GregA

[Kryten]

The Comet is not made of ice. Everyone thought it would be made of ice. They were wrong. This mission is going to rewrite all of particle physics. They obviously have very basic cosmological theory about the cosmos wrong. Particle physics is officially a crank science now.

If it was made completely of ice it'd fade away like the morning dew. Ice sublimates, non-ice compouds (the 'dirt' in 'dirty snowball') are left behind, forming dark, porous surface crust. This has been predicted for decades, is basically common sense, and doesn't even have anything to do with particle physics.

[Motokid600]

The Comet is not made of ice. Everyone thought it would be made of ice. They were wrong. This mission is going to rewrite all of particle physics. They obviously have very basic theory about the cosmos wrong. Particle physics is officially a crank science now.

No I wasn't asking why it didn't stick the landing. I am asking about the anchors/feet themselves. I work with similar tools on my job. ( "similar" ) When Philae first hit the surface. Did it's feet attempt to grab hold despite the bounce? Do the anchors reset so in order to try again? Or do the anchors not fire until after a confirmation that both feet are planted on the ground?

Because the animations I've seen show the feet anchoring in on impact... But Philae bounced.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Motokid600

[Kryten]

No I wasn't asking why it didn't stick the landing. I am asking about the anchors/feet themselves. I work with similar tools on my job. ( "similar" ) When Philae first hit the surface. Did it's feet attempt to grab hold despite the bounce? Do the anchors reset so in order to try again? Or do the anchors not fire until after a confirmation that both feet are planted on the ground?

Because the animations I've seen show the feet anchoring in on impact.

The mechanisms on the feet are screws, and as far as I can tell they just kept turning until Philae stopped moving. It's unclear if they've actually 'bitten in' or not.

[GregA]

If it was made completely of ice it'd fade away like the morning dew. Ice sublimates, non-ice compouds (the 'dirt' in 'dirty snowball') are left behind, forming dark, porous surface crust. This has been predicted for decades, is basically common sense, and doesn't even have anything to do with particle physics.

LOL. Yes, thats why they put harpoons and ice screws onto the probe. Because ESA thought the surface would be made of obviously carbonaceous materials.

You guys are a chuckle a minute.

[Kryten]

LOL. Yes, thats why they put harpoons and ice screws onto the probe. Because ESA thought the surface would be made of obviously carbonaceous materials.

What would you suggest? Superglue?

[dharak1]

Be advised, hostile troll inbound. Just a moment until he gets this thread locked or posts removed.

[Motokid600]

Thanks fot the clarification Kryten.

LOL. Yes, thats why they put harpoons and ice screws onto the probe. Because ESA thought the surface would be made of obviously carbonaceous materials.

You guys are a chuckle a minute.

Are you implying a drill bit is incapable of penetrating rock?

[GregA]

Thanks fot the clarification Kryten.

Are you implying a drill bit is incapable of penetrating rock?

Those auger shaped ones that are on the lander? Yes. Yes, an auger shaped drill bit is incapable of of penetrating rock. If I were drilling in rock or concrete I would use either a masonry bit, with a hardened steel tip. Or alternatively I would use a core drill, with a diamond carbide tip.

I would never use an auger bit on rock.

The auger bit I use, I use to cut holes in ice when I go ice fishing.

[Motokid600]

Those auger shaped ones that are on the lander? Yes. Yes, an auger shaped drill bit is incapable of of penetrating rock. If I were drilling in rock or concrete I would use either a masonry bit, with a hardened steel tip. Or alternatively I would use a core drill, with a diamond carbide tip.

I would never use an auger bit on rock.

The auger bit I use, I use to cut holes in ice when I go ice fishing.

Fair point. But now that I think about it a masonry drill is slow... and needs a hammer action. That cold thrust would've needed to be far more powerful. An auger can sink in quick. So I guess ESA was more or less banking on the surface being softer or.. the anchor feet simply wouldn't work and they'd have to rely on gravity or the harpoons. And, well.. we got one of those.

[GregA]

Fair point. But now that I think about it a masonry drill is slow... and needs a hammer action. That cold thrust would've needed to be far more powerful. An auger can sink in quick. So I guess ESA was more or less banking on the surface being softer or.. the anchor feet simply wouldn't work and they'd have to rely on gravity or the harpoons. And, well.. we got one of those.

Well then again. The auger feet would be for snow drift like surfaces, the harpoons would be for ice like surfaces. Because if there is any harpoon device anywhere that fires projectiles into concrete or stone, I am unaware.

/wild speculation

The harpoons did fire, pushed the lander off of the rock, and that is why the craft bounced so high?

/end wild speculation

But I am inclined to trust ESA when they say the harpoons didn't fire.

[Kryten]

Well then again. The auger feet would be for snow drift like surfaces, the harpoons would be for ice like surfaces. Because if there is any harpoon device anywhere that fires projectiles into concrete or stone, I am unaware.

It wouldn't be anything like concrete or most stone. Pumice maybe, but even that'd be pushing it.

[Aethon]

Nice report on the BBC world service I caught on my commute from work explained that Philae has the capacity to reactivate if the sunlight should increase due to Cherry- Gerry moving closer to the sun. If it receives more solar energy it can warm itself up and reactivate it's systems.

Sorry no link, but you should be able to find a pod cast of Nov 13, 2014 BBC news.

[GregA]

It wouldn't be anything like concrete or most stone. Pumice maybe, but even that'd be pushing it.

hmmm no.

IT is pretty clear that what is going on around comets is electrical in nature. That the comet is apparently entirely composed of carbonaceous chondrites is the smoking gun. The comet has picked up a positive charge from the outer solar system. As it gets to the inner solar system the rocks are broken down by a sputtering process. Thus the liberated water we can see in the coma.

ESA is of course going to be very careful and deliberate as they release science.

But this comet is literally an earth shattering new revelation.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Specialist290
Nothing to see here.

[AgentMOO]

They should do the CONSERT test before it dies.

[Kryten]

That the comet is apparently entirely composed of carbonaceous chondrites is the smoking gun.

We KNOW comets have ice under the crust due to deep impact results. Did you think this was the first mission to a comet?

[AgentMOO]

What is CONSERT?

Probably the most important experiment. It's the only instrument on both Rosetta and Philae. The orientation of the lander doesn't matter. Indeed the experiment could be done even if the lander didn't land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONSERT

[GregA]

We KNOW comets have ice under the crust due to deep impact results. Did you think this was the first mission to a comet?

What part of.... there is no water ice, are you misunderstanding?

Also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(spacecraft)

we read this from their results...

"Initial results were surprising as the material excavated by the impact contained more dust and less ice than had been expected."

These new results just confirm those earlier results that all the water is tied up in carbonaceous chondrites.

Now we have absolute and total proof that this thing is not made up of 20% water ice. Which is vastly different from "dirty snow ball" theory btw.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Specialist290
Nothing to see here.

[Kryten]

What part of.... there is no water ice, are you misunderstanding?

On the surface yes. Sunlight causes sublimation, this is very basic stuff. If what you were saying was right, deep impact shouldn't have detected any water at all.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Specialist290
Nothing to see here.