UKC

http://new.livestream.com/esa/cometlanding

In reply to malk:


Yeah, this is pretty cool, I love it.

In reply to malk:

Damn! Double post

In reply to malk:

How does this attempt rate alongside man landing on the moon?

Is it comparable in complexity and daring-do?

In reply to The Lemming:

Based on no more than clueless speculation, i'd say the moon landings were child's play compared to this. All said i'm of the opinion that the moon landings are massively overhyped and not so much of an achievement as they are made to be when compared to other human feats, so take that as you will.

In reply to The Lemming:

I think it vastly more complex than the moon landings (although somewhat mitigated by technology developments since the moon landings)

But Daring-do? no where near. The worst that can happen is someone's expensive toy breaks. Actually putting a living, breathing perosn on the moon and then getting them back safely requires much more sizeable balls

In reply to The Lemming:



Obviously far more complex, but probably not relative to the day's technology.
Totally insignificant in comparison as far as daring-do since no human lives are at stake,

In reply to Mr Lopez:

I think it is almost impossible to overhype the moon landings. A completely boggling technological achievement way ahead of its time.

In reply to malk:

lots of cheering.

Does this mean that the craft has landed successfully?

In reply to The Lemming:

I believe that on contact a signal is sent but they are now waiting to see if it's in an operable orientation

In reply to The Lemming:

Yup it's down and operational!

In reply to Clarence:

Amazing achievement.

In reply to malk:

On the news last night they said it would be like landing in a slate quarry

From the first pics the rock looks nothing like slate, more like sandstone. Good bouldering potential though.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


All fairly easy given the low gravity situation!

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


I'm sure that the boulderer's would still make excuses for why they could not 'send it'.

In reply to The Lemming:

No boulderers would bother, it is definitely a "shirt on" situation.

In reply to malk:

Any Clanger pics come back yet?

Isn't it "derring-do"? (The Lemming is off the hook due to acknowledged dyslexia but everyone's now repeating it!)

Or am I wrong?

In reply to The Lemming:

How do you think the moon landings rated alongside Columbus sailing for The New World in 1492?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I do consider the early sea exploration 'voyages' as bigger achievements than the moon landings. Working out and acquiring the sea faring knowledge, using stars for navigation being the most advanced technology available. Bunch of people surviving months at a time in a boat with no idea when/if they'll be finding land and not knowing if there's anything out there. Truly sailing into the unknown with nothing but their knowledge to rely on. Ballsy and mindboggling to the extreme, but easily discounted now that we are used to it.

In reply to Blue Straggler:
On a side note, i read last week that some recently compiled evidence suggest Columbus was born a few kilometers from my hometown. Completely off-topic, but... Get in!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yes. Though I believe it entered the English language due to a misreading of the old word for daring!

In reply to malk:

Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot!!!!


yes. This is exciting AND important. A damn sight more than just an expensive toy.

In reply to malk:
Amazing that they seem to have got the thing to stick rather than just bounce off and drift off into space.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


I'm so glad you said this! I feel awfully pedantic but as I was reading the thread all I could think was, "Who is going to point this out!?"

Obviously this comet malarkey is more impressive though because we all know the moon landing was faked. =D

In reply to Bob_the_Builder:


It's my job! All in a day's work

In reply to malk:

Just got in from playing at the local wall.

Any interesting developments?

Radio 2 news commented that the craft may not have landed and bolted itself down securely enough.

In reply to Robert Durran:
Absolutely agree.

Landing on a tiny comet after 4 billion miles clearly seems to be a greater technical feat than than landing on a much bigger object, with more gravity, 10,000 times less travel distance away. On the other hand, the thought of Bleriot's primitive flight raises more pimples on me than does any modern day transatlantic scheduled flight,

The moon landings were, I believe, an amazing technical achievement for their time, and a mind blowing feat of human endeavour. Just imagine yourself, standing on the moon (so you've already survived the hair-raising launch and moon landing), in a suit, looking at the misshapen tin can that brought you there that is your only escape route. Look up and see the earth, so far away, look at the immediate surroundings, so desolate, think of the long series of things that has to go without mishap if you are to get back safely....Try to stay calm.

In reply to mbh:

In terms of derring do, I'd like to see the cojones of the people who managed to colonise various islands in the South Pacific, including Australia - 1.000s of miles of the, ahem, 'Pacific' ocean in frigging canoes. (Must have been a big disappointment when they got there and found them swigging Fosters.)

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Hard to know what was in their heads. Likewise with the Vikings and Columbus et al. Did they think, the whole time, that salvation was just over the horizon? We know that Armstrong & co knew the score. They were incredibly brave. And they got back. So they kept their cool enough to do that, the technology worked and the physics turned out to be correct. None of that was a given.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Is it fair to assume that those people(s) did it out of desperation whereas Columbus et al took a choice to leave behind a perfectly comfortable life and home, and go out into the great unknown? And thus does this alter the comparison a little? Something I've often wondered and it's why I originally cited Columbus rather than the Polynesians etc.

In reply to malk:

What happens if the Philae Lander does find life in any of the samples that it collects?

Surely that has to be the discovery of the century?

In reply to elsewhere:

Eh.....don't speak too soon.....

In reply to mbh:

Their deep significance was to demonstrate just what mankind can achieve in a very short time given enough motivation, resources and effort. I'm not sure whether that makes me depressed or optimistic about the future though......

In reply to mbh:


By studying clouds and birds other natural phenomena, and using currents,the Polynesians apparently had quite a good idea of what they were headed for and how to get back. Having said that they still had balls of steel.

Obviously the moon landings were harder than Rosetta because the had to get actors faking minimal gravity and had to get far more people to promise to keep the secret.

In reply to malk:

Nice lien...

In reply to The Lemming:

Any lifeforms found will be asked the pre-eminent question that any user of this parish should know. And in return it's first communication with humans will be "Is Kinder in yet?'

In reply to Robert Durran:


Not only technological. The astronauts on Apollo 11 later wrote that 1. the day before they estimated their chances of safely landing at 50%, and 2. the public assumed at the time that space was safe whereas they [the astronauts, who were test pilots not given to hysteria or exaggeration] knew otherwise - that it was fraught with danger. Brave guys.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'far more people to promise to keep the secret.'

That part was easy. The just recruited the same people who had got together to shoot Kennedy and promised them another gig in 2001.

In reply to malk:

How do they talk to it? How long does it the messages to get there and how do they point them in the right direction? Can't get my head around that kind of thing, realise we have advanced from "message in a bottle" but that is a long way away.

In reply to Moley:

Basically by radio. They know where in the sky to point the signal so can concentrate it in that direction. It takes around 30 minutes for the signal to get there which means it's nearly four times as far away from the earth as the Sun is. They don't talk to the lander directly - it doesn't have enough power to transmit back to earth - so they send the messages to Rosetta which relays them to the lander. There'll be a lot of confirmation and validation of messages going on, with computers everything has to be spot on.

In reply to Bob:

I find it incredible to Skype to Australia, talking to a machine a few billion miles away is virtually beyond my comprehension.
If someone had said that would be possible when I was born 60 years ago, they would have been considered mad. And 60 years from now, some of you will be looking back on this as "ordinary".

In reply to malk:

The first image from Philae is now live:
https://twitter.com/ESA_Rosetta/status/532833867817033728/photo/1

Absolutely astonishing stuff.

In reply to tony:

Bottom right looks like an anchor to me.

Go scientists.

I'm guessing that NASA is behind in the Space Race now that they are competing with Europe, China, Russia, India and the Misterons

In reply to Moley:


Using big radio dishes like these: http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/

A bit like a Sky satellite dish, only bigger and sending signals both ways.

In reply to malk:

Anybody know how much energy the robot takes to send signals and power itself?

And how long before the power dies?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Pardon my ignorance but what does this mean?

In reply to felt:

Phone home to the robot to instruct it to perform its experiments.

In reply to felt:


He means that it's both a transmitter (i.e. it can talk) and receiver (it can listen). "Sending signals both ways" is a bit of a weird way to say it.

In reply to The Lemming:


Rosetta itself has solar panels generating 400 Watts (depending a bit on distance from the Sun). The communications high-gain antenna is a 2.2-m dish with a power of 28 Watts (= about one light bulb).


Not a problem, since it is solar power from the solar panels.

In reply to felt:


Simply that the big radio dishes on Earth both send signals to Rosetta (to command it), and also receive signals and data from the instruments. The dishes have to be big, since a 28 Watt transmitter at that range gives a weak signal by the time it gets to Earth. The power received on Earth is only 0.0000000000000000000000270 Watts!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Any inside info on what is in the pipeline for future space exploration?

In reply to The Lemming:


These things all have long lead times, so what is in the pipeline is well known, e.g.: http://www.esa.int/ESA/Our_Missions

Next big event is likely to be a flyby of Pluto next year by NASA: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/

In reply to Moley:


I'm even more in awe; even using Skype is beyond me......

In reply to Bob and Coel Hellier:

OK, I thought as much, thanks.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That remark, by the way, was for the Rosetta spacecraft. For the Philae lander it's different. It also has solar panels, but how effective they'll be will depend a lot on how it has landed, and things like dust contamination, so its battery could get depleted in a few days.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think of it all as "magic", far easier for my little brain.

In reply to malk:

Check out this neat ESA video

"As Tomek Bagiński’s short film Ambition makes clear, it is the essence of what it means to be human, to attempt difficult things, to reach for seemingly impossible goals, to learn, adapt and evolve"

youtube.com/watch?v=H08tGjXNHO4&

In reply to Coel Hellier:


There does seem to be a suggestion that it's wound up in a hole of some sort, which might effect how well the solar panels work

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Pardon my ignorance, but is that enough to interfere with my car radio? Only, I experienced some brief interference on Radio 4, just as Woman's Hour started this morning, and naturally concluded that it was probably due to Rosetta.

I'm all in favour of space exploration, but not at the price of it disturbing my listening pleasure... I in tend to write to ESA to enquire whether they'd mind turning it down a bit.

In reply to malk:
It is a quite amazing achievement, one made possible not only by the knowledge and intelligence of the scientists and engineers involved but also by the wealth of technologies available to them, many not dreamed of when the moon landings took place. In terms of comparison perhaps it is more apt to compare the complexity of the mission with the Cassini Huygens mission and the landing on Titan. Made rather more complex by the nature of the journey and problems of rendezvous with a comet, not least because there is not the aid of a decent gravitational pull to help the spacecraft into orbit. But, correspondingly easier from the point of view of not having to survive atmospheric entry and a much more violent descent.

Isn't it a bit meaningless to compare with Apollo as the space programmes of the 60s came from almost a standing start and with far less experience, international cooperation and technology available. Electronic computers in their infancy and simply not available in the size, power and form they have been used in this mission (I believe FORTH is involved). This mission involves no complexity of life support, space suits, food technology. No rendezvous in lunar orbit after return from the surface and no computation or engineering of a return trajectory to earth and subsequent re-entry and capsule recovery. No biometric telemetry and in flight adjustments by the crew or sextant involved.

Perhaps the Russian landing and retrieval of lunar samples for return to earth is comparable but done again with the benefit of far less technology.

I'm staggered by all of these achievements and it belittles our intellect to try to rank them anachronistically.

By the way let's not forget the benefit of the internet and information technology, search engines etc and the vast availability of data available to the scientists and engineers compared with the age of Apollo! Manufacturers data available instantly instead of waiting for paper copies. No Read only memory to be hand knitted by ladies in factories before testing the computer programs!

In reply to wercat:


I'll add to that: by cooperation between countries which were locked in war only 70 years ago (and less than that when the program first started). When Europe works it can do great things.

In reply to wercat:

'No Read only memory to be hand knitted by ladies in factories before testing the computer programs!'

I suspect a lot of the younger generation will think you're being humorous here, and not realise that it was literally true!

In reply to the thread:

Good update on the situation here:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/11/13/comet_update_where_is_p...

In reply to malk:

For the first time it would appear that the DM is factually correct with a story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2834467/One-small-step-meme-Twitter...

In reply to malk:

nice little gif showing the difficulty of reaching a comet:

http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/avZGG4q_460sa_v1.gif

In reply to winhill:

That's brilliant, I love the phrase "Enter deep space hibernation". We have two tortoises hibernating in a box in the shed.........I now have an alternative plan!