You just can't imagine what it takes to land a probe safely on a comet, but the ESA managed it.
Thats some technical achievement.
|
I suppose as a child of the seventies I still get excited about stuff like this. It was good to see someone laughing on the news..
|
They aren't sure how long it will stick though - the harpoon has failed to deploy.
|
They need to send Bruce Willis. He'd know what to do.
|
He would....he's so good he should be in reality.
|
I'm really looking forward to seeing some footage later, and snarling about some of the commentary which can be lamentable these days. I suppose there will be a Sky at Night special programme soon, if not later tonight. I haven't checked.
Can't help being pleased with Europe for getting this together. It's a bit miniaturist compared to driving around on the moon in a Chevy convertible and sending a remote control vehicle to analyse the soil on Mars, but seems to have been well executed... and it really is rocket science too among other things, so not easy. Chapeau!
|
>> They aren't sure how long it will stick though - the harpoon has failed to deploy.>>
Actually there are at least three of them.
But you can't expect a woman driver to get absolutely everything right at 30,000mph...:-)
|
PS
Google didn't lose any time marking the achievement...:-)
|
Our local Comet has been closed for a while, so which one was it ?
|
And what was that black and white photo of Hob Nob all about ?
|
twitter is trending
#WeCanLandOnACometBut We Cant find a missing plane on our own planet 😳
|
Blimey! look at that emoticon! how did I get that on there!
|
It isn't missing. It's at the bottom of a deep bit of ocean, gone for ever down there.
|
However often it's posted, it doesn't work. Crippled at source.
|
It does work, just that not everyone can see it. Bit like high pitched sounds.
|
Is the emoticons bigger news than the probe landing on a comet? 😀
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 12 Nov 14 at 21:37
|
Whilst this was, in its time, a fine piece of forum software time has moved on. Significantly so.
Bandwidth, storage and CPU no longer bring the necessary restrictions they once did. On those subjects, if one had the time and inclination, one could open up the Forum considerably more.
However, not having those things {pictures, HTML commands, emoticons, etc. etc.) has no doubt saved the moderators work and Stephen considerable stress.
Human behaviour has not grown up at the same rate as technology. (including mine).
Its a shame we can't post pictures, I'd often like to. But it would get abused or at least cause more work.
And if one could control such facilities and avoid people wishing and trying to abuse it, that would be MUCH bigger news than landing on a comet.
|
>> Its a shame we can't post pictures, I'd often like to. But it would get abused or at least cause more work.
I agree. And it would not impact Khoo systems bandwidth if the image was a URL to a remote site. But it would get abused.
|
Whilst this was, in its time, a fine piece of forum software time has moved on. Significantly so.
In its way it still is. This is the most readable of the various forums I frequent, mainly because it forces contributors to keep the formatting simple and clear. And we don't repeat an entire post, containing an enormous picture and seventeen different fonts, just to stick on a '+1'.
|
SQ
>> just to stick on a '+1'.
+1
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Nov 14 at 10:08
|
Here you go, land your own probe - The classic Lunar Lander game
my.ign.com/atari/lunar-lander
|
>> we don't repeat an entire post
Some people do! (no, not you)
|
They didn't exactly land, more bounced it on.
Although I dare say even Fursty hasn't 'bounced' it that long.
;>)
|
The gravitational pull between them is probably as small as that between two becalmed ships (although I realise that particular force isn't gravity).
|
How big is this comet that they landed a thing the size of a washing machine on? I saw 10 billion tons - I think.
What does that mean? I have had a scroll through the BBC news items, is it as big as a football stadium, or what?
|
>> How big is this comet that they landed a thing the size of a washing
>> machine on? I saw 10 billion tons - I think.
>>
>> What does that mean? I have had a scroll through the BBC news items, is
>> it as big as a football stadium, or what?
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
The comet has now been observed from Earth on seven approaches to the Sun: in 1969, 1976, 1982, 1989, 1996, 2002 and 2009. It was also imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope in 2003, which allowed estimates of its size and shape to be made – an irregular object roughly 3 x 5 km across.
|
A lot bigger than a football pitch. If it hit Earth it would really spoil your day. The large lobe is about 4x3x 1 kilometres
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
|
>> The gravitational pull between them is probably as small as that between two becalmed ships
>> (although I realise that particular force isn't gravity).
>>
Comet has much greater mass than any ship.
All masses have a gravitational field so two ships are attracting one another by gravity as is everything else in the universe although, strangely ,gravity is the weakest force in the universe.
|
>> >> The gravitational pull between them is probably as small as that between two becalmed
>> ships
>> >> (although I realise that particular force isn't gravity).
>> >>
>>
>> Comet has much greater mass than any ship.
>>
>> All masses have a gravitational field so two ships are attracting one another by gravity
>> as is everything else in the universe although, strangely ,gravity is the weakest force in
>> the universe.
>>
Sorry, I wasn't being very clear.
I was suggesting a comparable scale of attraction to that exerted between a large comet and a small spaceship which might be experienced on earth.
I suggested the palpable attraction experienced by two becalmed ships that drift too close to each other. That force is not gravitational (which is negligible) but is caused by gentle wave pressure on the outward facing sides of the ships, but diminished in the calmer water in between. There is a recognised danger there because they can slowly be pushed together, risking for example survivors in the water between, or simply snagging of rigging.
The image of the two space objects bumping under the influence of very small forces struck me as perhaps analogous.
|
>> They didn't exactly land, more bounced it on.
landed on it three times it seems. The first bounce is reported as being 4 hours!
|
My back-of-envelope arithmetic suggests the comet has about one four-hundred-billionth of the mass (and hence gravity) of earth. There may be a more accurate calculation in one of the news links. But I'm sure Bruce Willis would have no difficulty walking on it.
|
If you jumped on it, I wonder whether you could measurably alter its course?
|
>> If you jumped on it, I wonder whether you could measurably alter its course?
Don't be ridiculous, only Bruce Willis with a thermo nuclear warhead would move it.
|