Discussion
NASA always has a PA person giving a running commentary on the mission status which I find (usually) pretty informative.
ESA has gone down the route of a "stand up" type presenter hosting a kind of "interview show" which I don't think tells us an awful lot about what is actually happening.
ESA has gone down the route of a "stand up" type presenter hosting a kind of "interview show" which I don't think tells us an awful lot about what is actually happening.
Why is it a problem?
You design in the requirements you want within the limitations of the technology that is available to you at the time of the design.
Later probes can have more capable software on board if needed - and it is sometimes possible to upgrade the software on an older spacecraft even as it is flying through space.
You design in the requirements you want within the limitations of the technology that is available to you at the time of the design.
Later probes can have more capable software on board if needed - and it is sometimes possible to upgrade the software on an older spacecraft even as it is flying through space.
Can we not encourage any conspiracy idiocy please? It's a real struggle keeping discussions on spaceflight sensible and intelligent sometimes.
I think they have done an absolutely fantastic job and plaudits are due all around.
I expect they will overcome the various technical hiccups they've encountered and return some ground breaking (literally) science.
This is a genuine and marvellous space "first" for the ESA.
I think they have done an absolutely fantastic job and plaudits are due all around.
I expect they will overcome the various technical hiccups they've encountered and return some ground breaking (literally) science.
This is a genuine and marvellous space "first" for the ESA.
jammy_basturd said:
I was thinking the same thing. It's not exactly been a hugely successful landing.
Of the four systems designed to land the craft, the thrusters, harpoons, screws and dampers, only the dampers have actually worked. Surely these are the most critical systems in the whole mission and should have been designed to be able to cope a bit better than they have?
How do you know when something of this nature has been designed as well as it needs to be?Of the four systems designed to land the craft, the thrusters, harpoons, screws and dampers, only the dampers have actually worked. Surely these are the most critical systems in the whole mission and should have been designed to be able to cope a bit better than they have?
This is a genuine "first" in space exploration. No one has ever touched down on a comet before. No one knows what the surface of a comet is actually like. That is one of the things that this probe is actually hoping to find out.
And after a ten year, billion mile journey in space, I am frankly impressed that ANY of the mechanics work at all.
Both Voyagers DON'T work. Or, to be precise, certain instruments on the Voyager spacecraft have either broken down by now or have been turned off to conserve the remaining power.
Space IS a hostile environment for a spacecraft. The spacecraft will undergo quite extreme temperature variances over time which can cause joints, mechanics and solar panels to deteriorate.
There is also quite a hostile radiation environment to cope with with two quite different types of radiation to handle - solar radiation (from the sun, naturally) and cosmic radiation from deep space - which can be highly damaging to spacecraft electronics.
Finally, space is pretty dusty - especially in and around the asteroid belt or close to cometary nuclei - so the spacecraft will be getting pelted by micro particles - often at very high speeds, which will erode and damage components.
Space IS a hostile environment for a spacecraft. The spacecraft will undergo quite extreme temperature variances over time which can cause joints, mechanics and solar panels to deteriorate.
There is also quite a hostile radiation environment to cope with with two quite different types of radiation to handle - solar radiation (from the sun, naturally) and cosmic radiation from deep space - which can be highly damaging to spacecraft electronics.
Finally, space is pretty dusty - especially in and around the asteroid belt or close to cometary nuclei - so the spacecraft will be getting pelted by micro particles - often at very high speeds, which will erode and damage components.
My thoughts too. If it's not firmly anchored, any attempt to push a drill or scoop into the surface may only serve to push the lander into the air.
It will be interesting to discover the true "firmness" of the surface i.e. whether it is quite solid (like, say, the moon) or "soufflé" or porous like.
It will be interesting to discover the true "firmness" of the surface i.e. whether it is quite solid (like, say, the moon) or "soufflé" or porous like.
The problem with a first mission to a comet is that you have no idea at all about the consistency of the surface or even what lies underneath. If you fired a bullet probe into the comet it might go straight through and out the other side for all you know.
Having said that, NASA did try something along these lines with their Deep Impact probe in 2005 -
Having said that, NASA did try something along these lines with their Deep Impact probe in 2005 -
ash73 said:
That sounds overly optimistic; part of the objective was to test the thruster and harpoon landing system and it failed. Does a 1km bounce that nearly put it back in orbit count as a "controlled touchdown"?
The harpoon and thruster system were NOTHING to do with the scientific objectives of Philae. They were engineering solutions to providing a stable platform to enable the science to be carried out. If they can carry out the science - even if for only a short time - without the harpoon having been activated, they will have achieved their scientific objective.Science is what this mission is all about.
Very few (relatively speaking) space probes are powered by nuclear isotopes. They tend to get used in circumstances where it is anticipated that the probe will not be getting enough sunlight to power the spacecraft and the experiments on board.
It was not expected that this lander would be short on sunlight - so solar panels made sense.
And, of course, there is always a risk in launching objects into space that contain these radioactive power sources and they only tend to get used when there is absolutely no alternative.
It was not expected that this lander would be short on sunlight - so solar panels made sense.
And, of course, there is always a risk in launching objects into space that contain these radioactive power sources and they only tend to get used when there is absolutely no alternative.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff