jerromyjon
- 1,244
- 189
I just want to fly a predator drone... landers and rovers are just too "20th century" for me.Dotini said:On Sony Playstation 3, you can load GranTurismo 6 and drive a lunar rover.
I just want to fly a predator drone... landers and rovers are just too "20th century" for me.Dotini said:On Sony Playstation 3, you can load GranTurismo 6 and drive a lunar rover.
jerromyjon said:Are the harpoons temporary until the legs drill?
mfb said:...
Edit: "Hollywood is good, but Rosetta is better" - Livestream a minute ago.
marcus said:What I think now is that all they have to anchor with is the two harpoons they have been talking about.
I don't have a clear picture of the mechanism. Also I heard a disconcerting bit of news announced from the Lander control room at Köln.
They had an unexpectedly soft landing, which seems good. But when they tried to fire the harpoons, either they did not fire, or they fired but did not take hold. The speaker said they were now studying the situation and considering whether to try again.
Does anybody have a diagram of the anchor mechanisms?
Greg Bernhardt said:Yashbhatt those videos really put into perspective how bonkers awesome this achievement is!
Greg Bernhardt said:Mission controllers say Philae's anchoring harpoons failed to fire
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/world/comet-landing-countdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
So what does that mean? It will bounce off the comet at some point?
OmCheeto said:I was up until 4 am this morning, catching up, and watching videos.
I'm having technical difficulties embedding my favorite video I saw, so you'll have to just Google:
"Demonstrating Rosetta’s Philae lander on the Space Station"
It's on youtube.
Yashbhatt said:Talking about this one ?
marcus said:links to some side information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philae_( spacecraft )
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/ spacecraft Display.do?id=PHILAE
My rough guess is that the gravity where she is is about 1 mm per second per second. or about 1/10000 of a gee.
the mass of the lander is about 220 pounds, so the weight force would be about 0.02 pounds.
I could be off by quite a bit, can someone help with more accurate estimate of the comet's mass and surface gravity at the landing site?
A friend on another forum informs me it's on the surface, but moving around some.Greg Bernhardt said:Mission controllers say Philae's anchoring harpoons failed to fire
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/world/comet-landing-countdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
So what does that mean? It will bounce off the comet at some point?
Marcus, alas, gravity at the surface is equal to 0 (zero).marcus said:links to some side information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philae_( spacecraft )
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/ spacecraft Display.do?id=PHILAE
My rough guess is that the gravity where she is is about 1 mm per second per second. or about 1/10000 of a gee.
the mass of the lander is about 220 pounds, so the weight force would be about 0.02 pounds.
I could be off by quite a bit, can someone help with more accurate estimate of the comet's mass and surface gravity at the landing site?
no, the comet has mass, its gravity is non-zero, its just very smallEU2AA said:Marcus, alas, gravity at the surface is equal to 0 (zero).
Yes, the comet is not going anywhere. But we are talking about Philae ...Yashbhatt said:There was some engineer on Slooh who said that even though of the harpoons have failed, the comet will remain on the surface.
Troubling news!Dotini said:BBC says it may have bounced, and telemetry is lost til Thursday. Humph.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30026398#
MIB!davenn said:no, the comet has mass, its gravity is non-zero, its just very small
Frank also points out that humans must learn to understand the notion of scope in the universe; i.e. a very important and grand thing can be very small.