Discussion
scubadude said:
MartG said:
Rosetta's OSIRIS camera images of Philae during its bounces - looks like they were really unlucky to end up in a shaded location 
AMAZING, we scored a 4billion mile spin bowled wicket! Surprised at the direction it went, how does that relate to the comets spin I wonder? It does seem to have been scooped up by a big cliff, alittle bigger bounce and it might have got into the next "valley"At least we know where it is now...
jammy_basturd said:
Therefore we cannot make any assumptions about the origins of this comet. Surely.
If you lived next to a golf course and found a golf ball in your garden, it's probably safe to assume that it's origin is from the golf course. It could have been dropped from a passing balloon, and while you can't disprove that theory, it's highly unlikely in relation to the far more likely explanation of the miss hit from the neighbouring course. Those are sorts of odds we're dealing with here with the comet came from the Oort Cloud of primordial objects, rather than some other source.outnumbered said:
Most of those pictures are during the descent though... Not bounces.
However, they show rotation of the craft during the decent, the footprint is of the three legs contacting independently in rotation. It shows the direction it went in, imparted by the rotation and angle of attack on landing plus the rocks rotation. All time stamped, with a area of uncertainty for actual time of impact (although they may have the exact time from the telemetry). They will be able to predict the next impact point 2 hours after this. The follow on bounces were much reduced allowing for a much reduced area of uncertainty from which they just need to look for the shadow areas. They will find it soon.Next phase will be to position the Rosetta to reflect the sunlight on that spot on every pass, thus speeding up the charge cycle......
I made the last bit up but I kind of like it......
PhillipM said:
So, since they've already potted the black with landing the damned thing, once we find out where it is, are they going to try for the trick shot of bouncing some sunshine off the orbiter onto the lander? 
It's a nice idea, but it would have meant that the orbiter's solar panels would have been at the wrong angle to collect enough power for itself.So whilst vaguely feasible, it would have been a bit pointless since the orbiter relays the lander's data
Pesty said:
Some stupid questions
Is the surface dusty
With low gravity why don't the small stones float away.
Every time it goes near the sun it vents gas. Is it getting smaller
They are very good questions - Is the surface dusty
With low gravity why don't the small stones float away.
Every time it goes near the sun it vents gas. Is it getting smaller
The surface seems to be LESS dusty than expected. However, they were surprised by the number of rocks and boulders.
An object resting on the surface will stay there unless a force is applied to the object (Newtons 1st law of gravity - an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force). So it won't float off unless a force is applied to it. The venting of gas and other material from beneath the surface could, of course, blast rocks and dust out into space - never to come back.
Any comet that gets close to the sun will lose mass - so yes, it is getting smaller. Eventually, the comet will disintegrate - but it might take a couple of million years.
Eric Mc said:
Any comet that gets close to the sun will lose mass - so yes, it is getting smaller. Eventually, the comet will disintegrate - but it might take a couple of million years.
We have this idea that comets vent huge amounts given the appearance of the tail, I believe Rosetta measured the current loss as 1L/sec (for the whole comet miles across) at present we might need to recalculate how much material a comet needs to loose to make the impressive tail and comma, there is a chance its far less than we think.BTW- Was look at some of the pictures posted yesterday- anyone else notice there is a obvious crack across the neck of the duck?
Eric Mc said:
I expect comets vary quite a bit.
And also, a comet that has made many close passes to the sun may be in a more precarious state than one that has made comparatively few.
Look up at the sky tonight and wait a bit, and you'll see what happens to a comet after many passes near the sunAnd also, a comet that has made many close passes to the sun may be in a more precarious state than one that has made comparatively few.
The Leonid meteor shower is believed to be debris left from an ancient comet
MartG said:
The Leonid meteor shower is believed to be debris left from an ancient comet
As are most of the major meteor showers:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_shower#Establi...
Comet Halley for example gives rise to two meteor showers - the Orionids and the Eta Aquariids
thatdude said:
That Matt dude, his t-shirt is awesome and it's terrible people made him feel so bad for wearing it.
Anyway, I was wondering what journals one should keep an eye on for publications of scientific results from all the data analysis...? I was thinking probably Nature
I have just seen the furore over that........WTF?Anyway, I was wondering what journals one should keep an eye on for publications of scientific results from all the data analysis...? I was thinking probably Nature
Seriously the things some people get outraged over these days is bonkers.
Eric Mc said:
I expect comets vary quite a bit.
And also, a comet that has made many close passes to the sun may be in a more precarious state than one that has made comparatively few.
Oh yes of course, I just wonder if some folk might be underwhelmed if it doesn't look like something out of a Hollywood movie ;-)And also, a comet that has made many close passes to the sun may be in a more precarious state than one that has made comparatively few.
Eric Mc said:
It is a bit sad if people think that reality falls flat compared to CGI.
"a bit"? Its bl**dy awful but its reality sadly.I think its fantastic, the shape and surface details are amazing, the material lacks the layers we are accustomed to seeing as we are used to looking at material formed under gravity on Earth and other planets, in this case its just a giant aggregated snowflake- I had expected some kind of ball but it looks incredible.
The radio and papers are still banging on about the price, I just hope it puts on a show to shut them up, even if only "a bit" :-)
scubadude said:
The radio and papers are still banging on about the price, I just hope it puts on a show to shut them up, even if only "a bit" :-)
A lot more money is wasted on 'newspapers' than has gone into this project.The amount of money is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I read somewhere it's only cost something like 20p year per head capita (the same price as a Chomp).
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 18th November 13:00
Moonhawk said:
The amount of money is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I read somewhere it's only cost something like 20p year per head capita (the same price as a Chomp).
I totally agree, latest news is the lander detected some interesting carbon chemicals before the battery went flat.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff