Slashdot Mirror


Rosetta, the Comet Hunter

Roland Piquepaille writes: "After being delayed for about a year because of a failure of the Ariane-5 rocket, the Rosetta spacecraft is scheduled to be launched on February 26. Rosetta is a special spacecraft, including an orbiter and a lander. And it will take up to 2014 before landing on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko -- with the help of a harpoon. Then, as says the European Space Agency (ESA), Rosetta will help to solve planetary mysteries. This news release looks at the goals of Rosetta's mission and explains why it will take more than ten years to reach the comet. But here the 'funny' part of the story: the landing. 'In November 2014, the lander will be ejected from the spacecraft from a height which could be as low as one kilometre. Touchdown will be at walking speed, about one metre per second. Immediately after touchdown, the lander will fire a harpoon into the ground to avoid bouncing off the surface back into space, since the comet's extremely weak gravity alone would not hold onto the lander.' This overview contains more details and includes illustrations of the Rosetta's spacecraft and its landing on the comet."

132 comments

  1. Uh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    where are all the white women at?

    1. Re:Uh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

      hello anonymous coward... what's happening?

      uhhhhh... we got sort of a problem here... yeaah... you appearantly didn't put one of the new GNAA advertisements on your first post.

      mmmh... yeahh.. you see, we're putting the GNAA advertisements on all first posts now before they go out. did you see the memo about this?

      so if you could just go ahead and make sure you do that from now on, that would be great.

      and i'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that text. mmmmkay?

    2. Re:Uh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I enjoyed that scene too.

  2. Sounds like how I get dates by corebreech · · Score: 4, Funny

    Harpoon... check

    Name I can't pronounce... check

    10 years before getting some... check

    I just have the class not to make a big deal out of it.

  3. this comment has been moved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    bitch

  4. Phase 2 by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Funny

    Phase 2 will be sending Bruce Willis and the rest of his rigger pals in their awful corduroy space-suits to "kick comet ass" of all the ones found by Rosetta.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Phase 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Score 4, funny. Hah. Intelligent humor.

      Dumbass.

    2. Re:Phase 2 by op00to · · Score: 1

      Ohhhhh....Rigger!

  5. Gravity? by Moderator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The timeline states that in 2014, Rosetta will orbit the comet for six months before it lands, mapping the comet to find a suitable landing spot. Then it goes on to say:
    Immediately after touchdown, the lander will fire a harpoon into the ground to avoid bouncing off the surface back into space, since the comet's extremely weak gravity alone would not hold onto the lander..

    My question is, if the comet's gravity is so weak, how is the Rosetta supposed to orbit this thing for six months?

    --
    The World is Yours.
    1. Re:Gravity? by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      Very slowly? Staying in orbit is just like falling, but you "move out of the way of" the body (comet in this case) you want to orbit so you move next. Repeat this thought-experiment for the new position and so on.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    2. Re:Gravity? by C17GMaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      From Rosetta's webpage: The relative speeds of the spacecraft and comet will gradually be reduced, slowing to 2 metres per second after about 90 days. If it moves slowly enough, the comet's weak gravity can hold it in.

    3. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The are going to use sexual attraction to keep it in orbit.

    4. Re:Gravity? by mindriot · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is going to be a very difficult mission. I would love to have a job constructing the lander... I am simply amazed by the fact that we're able to hurl a piece of fragile technology at tiny objects in space that are far, far away (yes, considering how big space is, I would call Mars 'small' too) -- and they will actually get there in one piece and work.

      I really hope they'll make it with this one. The German Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy (soon to be called Institute for Solar System Research) is responsible for the lander. My mom works there, so from what she talked about I could tell how complicated the development of such a lander is.

      Considering how long one of the computer scientists there has been working on the lander software, and what kinds of stress testing procedures the parts had to go through (some of them were done at Astrium in Munich and my mom had the honor of personally delivering the components...), I have deep respect for the engineers who work on such projects - even more when they actually make it work (Spirit/Opportunity).

      Also, I am glad that the Rosetta project got to keep going at all, considering that originally it was supposed to visit Wirtanen (German link, for English see maybe here), a whole different comet. That also means that for the new target, the lander's software and some components even had to be redesigned to suit the new comet's features. So, good luck to Rosetta - hitting this target would be one cool achievement.

      Oh, also, this ESA page has some nice information about the mission as well.

    5. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering how mind-bogglingly huge the universe is, pretty much anything you can to imagine is 'tiny'.

    6. Re:Gravity? by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Trying to get Rosetta to land on a comet = trying to get an auto pilot bullet to land on a dime without hurting itself.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    7. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the Universe itself, of course.

  6. Business Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    1. Study comets.
    2. ???
    3. Profit!!!

  7. I hope the harpoon works... by bc90021 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...given that we probably know little about the surface of the comet.

    Given that it could be porous (or even lots of shatterable ice), I hope that the harpoon has the force to bury itself deeply enough to actually anchor itself in something solid.

    1. Re:I hope the harpoon works... by IAR80 · · Score: 1

      The main risk is that Rosseta might get blown away by the gases evaporating from the core.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    2. Re:I hope the harpoon works... by DoraLives · · Score: 1

      I'm getting a strong feeling that (should the thing succeed to this point) immediately following receipt of telemetry that the harpoon has been fired, receipt of telemetry will cease.

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    3. Re:I hope the harpoon works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know, in the absence of any other forces in space, and applying a fundamental law: every action has an equal and opposite reaction, won't the space craft be sent flying the opposite direction of the harpoon?

      Oh this is not important... why I even bother posting?

    4. Re:I hope the harpoon works... by Ulven · · Score: 1

      Except at this point the gasses aren't evaporating.

    5. Re:I hope the harpoon works... by Ulven · · Score: 1

      Small harpoon going 30cm === large (relativly) spacecraft going 3mm.

      And of course, by the time it has moved it's been anchored.

    6. Re:I hope the harpoon works... by IAR80 · · Score: 1

      True. It is too far from the sun.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    7. Re:I hope the harpoon works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the mass. When you fire a gun, do the bullet and gun go in the opposite directions at the same speed?

    8. Re:I hope the harpoon works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the harpoon is not fired in-line with the center of mass of the spacecraft, it will start spinning and since it is connected by a tether, it will act like a yo-yo. Might be amusing.

    9. Re:I hope the harpoon works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, obviously they would never consider that.

      Of course it will be fired in line with the center of mass.

  8. Jerry Bruckheimer by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    given that we probably know little about the surface of the comet....Given that it could be porous (or even lots of shatterable ice)

    If the world works according to Bruckheimer rules, the impact of a harpoon is likely to make the comet go up like the Death Star.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  9. Got some doubt going here... by mobiux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know that landing on Mars is a very tough thing, lots of variables to consider.

    But this seems like it would be exponentially harder.
    Ya know, landing on something that doesn't have gravity and they don't know what it's made of.

    1. Re:Got some doubt going here... by Darth23 · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's why they should use Duct Tape instead of a harpoon.

      --

      -------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

    2. Re:Got some doubt going here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      We don't choose it beacuse it's easy. We choose it because it's hard. We're not Americunts.

    3. Re:Got some doubt going here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During the orbiting phase, it should wrap a strip of velcro around the comet. It would have the corresponding piece of velcro on itself. You can't be sure that the surface will be suitable for either harpoon or duct tape, but you can count on velcro to stick to velcro.

    4. Re:Got some doubt going here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the same thought but using zip ties. Then I thought some more and realized that a lasso would probably be easiest.

    5. Re:Got some doubt going here... by cyclone1996 · · Score: 1
      It's certainly a significantly different kind of problem. You don't have to worry about parachutes and atmospheric entry but the orbital mechanics are extremely tricky due to the weak gravity field.

      Fortunately, they do have some experience to draw upon. NASA's NEAR mission managed to land on a 21x8x8 mile asteroid named Eros and operated afterwards, despite the fact it was not actually designed to land. Performing that end of mission "stunt" contributed greatly to the overall knowledge of operating around small bodies, although the comet will be even less massive and more challenging.

    6. Re:Got some doubt going here... by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Of course, there are 3 things Mars have that the comet doesn't.

      1. A gravity, stuff went down... parachute failed... SMACK!
      2. An atmosphere, stuff went down... warm... getting warmer... hot... AH! IT BURNS!
      3. A hot-tempered weather system... Houston, we have a storm in coming... Bz...

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  10. Saves on fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is a good way for humans to travel thru space while conserving fuel. Comments?

    1. Re:Saves on fuel? by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      Maybe this is a good way for humans to travel thru space while conserving fuel. Comments?
      You would not conserve fuel, because it takes more fuel to land on a comet than it does to "park" in space nearby.
      In fact, it would be more fuel-efficient to avoid the comet altogether, and just travel toward your ultimate desination.

      That said, there is one scenario where hitching a ride on a comet could be beneficial:
      A spacecraft with an ion engine could rendezvous with a comet to refuel itself.
      However, this is not quite the same thing as saving fuel by riding the comet.

      And to the two previous responders to this question:
      Lighten up.
      One of the best ways to learn is to ask questions.
      Not everybody is familiar with astromechanics.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  11. Anyone good with gravity? by questamor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm curious. How big does an object have to be to have gravity that'll hold say, a person to it?

    I'm thinking say, if I were standing on a rock the size of NYC out in space, would I just drift away from its surface without any noticeable gravity, or could it hold me there? How about something the size of a state like Oregon? or something only 2miles in diameter?

    1. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by Moderator · · Score: 0

      I'm totally speculating here (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), but I think that in a vaccum, without the interference of any other bodies, you *and* the object, no matter how big it is, would be pulled towards each other. The distance you travel vs. the distance the other object travels is proportional to your mass vs. the mass of the object. I don't think an object has to be *any* size to hold you there; eventually, you will be attracted to each other.

      --
      The World is Yours.
    2. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by halftrack · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's all about escape velocity. The mass needed to keep a person on an object or in an orbit comes down to the speed the person can obtain by its own force. (Jumping or pushing or something.) Since an object like this is evacuated there is little to slow things down so should the get a little push in a direction, it will have a relatively large impact.

      (And no, I don't care to do the math.)

      --
      Look a monkey!
    3. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by kryptkpr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fg = G*m1*m2/d^2

      with m1 your mass, m2 the rock's mass, G being 6.67e-11 for our universe and d being the distance between you and the rock.

      So there is ALWAYS gravity, but when you hit an asteroid at 1m/s, your momentums (m1*v1) and the asteroid's momentum (m2*v2) adjust, and propel you and the asteroid in opposite directions because momentum, like energy and forces, is conserved.. and since m2 >> m1, this results in a bouncing off situation (there's a formula for it, but I can't be bothered to break out the notes from first year physics).. The gravitation force between you and the asteroid now has to be enough to counteract this bouncing-off-one-another for you to stay on it.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    4. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by Krunch · · Score: 1

      If there is no lost energy ("perfect" bounce), m1*v1+m2*v2 = m1'*v1'+m2'*v2'
      With mX' and vX' the mass and speed after the impact.

      --
      No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
    5. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by UtSupra · · Score: 1

      Any two bodies attract and that force is proportional to the inverse of distance squared (and proportional to the product of the masses). A small distance (between the centers of mass of the bodies) implies a huge force. The question is not whether there is enough gravity to hold the object, but what other forces are involved.

    6. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      As far as we know, every object "pulls" on every other object. However, if you're moving away from an object at a sufficient speed (escape velocity) then its pull will never reverse your motion.

      For a small object, escape velocity can be quite small. Take a spherical comet 1 mile in diameter. This is about 1/4000th that of Earth. Suppose it has the same density as our planet (surely an overestimate). Then its gravity would be about 6.4e10 times weaker.

      More importantly, as you stand on the surface, your potential energy would be 1.6e7 times smaller than it is on Earth's surface. To achieve escape velocity (at the surface), a spacecraft's kinetic energy must be larger than its potential energy. So escape velocity on the comet is 4e3 times larger than on Earth. Escape velocity on earth is about 11.18 km/s, so on the comet it is only about 2.8 m/s.

      So if you try to make a soft landing on the comet, and with your initial bounce you are moving away from the comet at 2.8 m/s (i.e. 6.3 miles per hour), then you will need to make some corrective measure, or else you will just fly away from the comet and never return.

    7. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 1
      Its to do with mass and not physical size. The object doesn't have to be big at all - a black hole is a singularity and effectively has no size. Okay, so its event horizon does (this is to do with the distance from the black hole that the escape velocity - how fast you need to move to escape the gravitational pull - exceeds the speed of light).

      A small dense body could have more gravitational pull than a larger, less dense one. Comets are not very dense or large, so have a small gravitational pull.

      --
      Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
    8. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by halftrack · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but the formula you introdused only states that momentum is preserved, not energy. Also your formula true for all collisions, 'perfect' or not, also when kinetic energy isn't preserved. The grandfather is however only vaguely on target when addressing the question of staying inside the gravitational field of a comet. The thing to address is energy, not momentum.

      --
      Look a monkey!
    9. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty big I think because even the moon could have astronauts jumping high enough to go into orbit and maybe even leaving it's gravity completely. I think you'd be safe with something the size of the earth down to the size of the moon (one third of the earth?) but anything smaller you might be in danger of jumping too high if you got a job promotion :> and then disappearing literally "off the face of the earth"!.

      Phobos and Deimos would be dangerous to walk on for example

    10. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Here's the way you'd go about calculating the orbital velocity. This is a Newtonian (in the very essence of the term) question, and can be solved using only forces. The key relation is that for a particle moving in a circular path, the force required to keep it moving in that path is

      F = m v*v / r

      Where m is the object's mass, v is its velocity, and r is its radius. Newton's law of gravitation states that the force exerted upon a mass by another mass is

      F = G m M / r*r

      G being the gravitational constant, m and M the objects respective masses, and r their seperation. We'll assume that M >> m, so it can be regarded as having no acceleration. We can then set these equal, and find

      v * v/R = G M / R*R ...
      v = SqrRoot(G M / R)

      Looking at the article, we see that r = 2 km = 2x10^3 m. We can do a seat of the pants calculation of M by assuming that the comet is solid and made of water (1g/cm^3 = 1000 kg/m^3)

      M = density*V = (1000) (4/3 pi r^3)
      = 3*10^13 kg

      So, finally, using G = 6.67*10^-11 and R=3 km (this is the orbital radius), we have v = 0.3 m/s, or about one mile per hour.

    11. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it has everything to do with physical size and density as far as talking about orbits close to the object and escape velocity from an objects surface. The reason? Orbits are assumed to be outside the surface of the object. Escape velocity is a factor only when talking about going beyond the surface of an object. Given equal mass, the gravity force immediately outside of the surface of a less dense but larger object will be smaller compared with the gravity force immediately outside of the surface of a more dense but smaller object.

      If you are at or beyond the surface of the larger objects, then the force of gravity is identical and only depends on the mass of the objects (which is the same).

    12. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by Krunch · · Score: 1

      You are right. And momentum has not much to do with escape speed. If I remember well, escape speed can be calculated from the enery needed to gain infinite potential energy from the planet/comet or something. G*M*m/d=(mv^2)/2 => v=(2*G*M/d)^(1/2) with G the gravitational constant, M the mass of the planet/comet and d its radius (yes it's a spherical bear :op ). Now from the article, the comet's diameter is 4km and assuming it's mainly water its density should be around 1kg/dm^3. Volume of a sphere is (4*pi*r^3)/3 thus escape speed is (2*G*((4*pi*(2*10^3)^3)/3)*10^3)/(2*10^3) ~ 1.5 m/s according to bc. But I probably did a mistake somewhere anyway.

      --
      No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
    13. Re:Anyone good with gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh cool, so according to your formula, if you could tunnel to the center of gravity of the comet, where d=0, you would have an infinite Fg. So if you rammed the comet and tunnelled to the center you would get locked in the center once you reached it like a black hole.

      I hope you see now that your formula can't be used for small distances. In fact in the *real* earth, Fg goes to 0 as d goes to 0 if you are below the Earth's surface (because once you are close to Earth, the earth can't be treated as a point and instead each atom inside must be evaluated based on distance (not with your formula) and mass--at the center of a sphere it all cancels out).

  12. cometing by Alephcat · · Score: 1, Funny

    shouldn't this be banned under the international whaleing treaty?

  13. Harpoons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're whalers on the moon.
    We carry our harpoons,
    but there ain't no whales
    so we tell tall tales
    and sing this whaling tune.

    1. Re:Harpoons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to go start my on comet with blackjack...and hookers! Ah, forget about the comet...and the blackjack.

  14. That was no whale! by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Funny

    "You IDIOT! That was no whale you just harpooned. That was Baron Harkonnen!"

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  15. HAIKU! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Micheal takes off shirt Taco unzippers pants Micheal blows Taco

    1. Re:HAIKU! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Taco drops the soap
      he bends down to pick it up
      bye-bye ass cherry!

  16. in my pants, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Some idiot moderator is a little too Redundant happy.

    Hi, asshole! This is redundant!

    And now, a word from our sponsors.

    Are you some sort of GAY HOMOSEXUAL FAGGOT? Do you spend your days dreaming of HOT, BEEFY COCKS being jammed down your throat? Would you like to see how many Oreos will fit up your ass?

    If so, you may be interested in one of the many positions available at VA Software, America's leading employer of GAY HOMOSEXUAL FAGGOT programmers and administrators.

    To apply, send penis measurements, approximate rectal volume, and a semen sample to:

    ROB MALDA
    2001 WOODLARK DR
    HOLLAND, MI 49424-7643
    USA

    1. Re:in my pants, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I don't wanna work in SourceForge sales. I imagine selling a free product is pretty hard.

  17. I have doubts by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

    And it will take up to 2014 before landing on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko -- with the help of a harpoon.

    What makes them think they'll be able to land an unmanned probe on a small rock in deep space that way when here on earth, countless bigger, manned ships have tried the same feat on whales for decades and failed?

    They're just gonna kill that poor little comet. For nothing. Just like that. Somebody calls green-piss ferchrissake!

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:I have doubts by psi42 · · Score: 1

      "They're just gonna kill that poor little comet. For nothing. Just like that."


      They're not just going to kill it! They're going to study it, torture it, bombard it with microwaves, dig holes in it, and "make an on-the-spot analysis of the composition and structure of the comet's surface and subsurface material" while it's still alive! Now the question is, who do we call about this?

      --
      Defenestrate Windows...
    2. Re:I have doubts by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Not to put too fine a point on it, but are you not aware that we harpooned the Humpback Whales complete ly out of existance? And nearly did it again, hitting a Bird of Prey with one of those suckers?

      Yeesh.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  18. Low success rate... by syzme · · Score: -1, Troll

    Lets just hope for the ESAs' sake that its easier to land on an comet than it is to land on Mars.

    1. Re:Low success rate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since there's not much gravity there, it should be. Even though I wonder how rugged the surface will be and how they will determine a landing spot. I think an American probe has already successfully landed on an asteroid, even though it wasn't part of the mission plan. It didn't do much when it landed. I think they did it just to see if they could.

    2. Re:Low success rate... by Ulven · · Score: 1

      You're correct: NEAR

  19. Hope the ESA does matter this time by fname · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The French had a very reliable launch vehicle, the Arianne IV, which they decided to "upgrade" with the Arianne V. After failing on 4 of the first 13 missions, they introduced an upgraded version with an extended nozzle. The failure of that launch led to the (highly justified) delay of the Rosetta launch on a similar Arianne V because of the failure investigation. Turns out that the nozzle had a design flaw which led to the failure.

    ESA did pretty well on their 1st trip to Mars, as the Mars Express is an unqualified success, but the Beagle II didn't work for whatever reason. All this is just to reiterate that space is hard, and there will be successes and failures. No one's at 100% (Russians have a worse track record on Mars than anyone, and NASA lost Contour--not a JPL mission-- last year due to an obvious design flaw).

    Whenever a new technique is tried in space for the 1st time, the odds increase. That Pathfinder worked on its first attempt at a bouncy landing, and Sojourner roved Mars without a hitch speaks to the talent & luck of the JPL crew. Hopefully the Europeans will do as well with their harpoon, and hopefully they haven't made obvious mistakes like those made by NASA and the APL did in the Contour comet mission.

    1. Re:Hope the ESA does matter this time by Fat+Cow · · Score: 1

      I was surprised to see you say refer to a NASA mission as non-JPL. What do you mean by this? Isn't JPL is a part of NASA? Also, what about this

      --
      stay frosty and alert
    2. Re:Hope the ESA does matter this time by fname · · Score: 1

      Well, all these aerospace programs have a lot of hands in them. It wasn't a JPL mission in the sense that JPL was not in charge of the system engineering, and they were not in charge of overall mission success-- they had a team that contributed to one part of the mission. The failure of Contour wasn't due to the failure of any one system, but instead was likely due to a component working as designed, but the system engineers did not understand how it would function; working as designed the solid rocket motor fired to kick Contour out of orbit likely damaged other parts of the craft and led to its failure. Read more here.

      JPL is actually a federally-funded research & development center (FFRDC), run by Caltech. Most of JPL's funding does come from NASA, but JPL employees are not NASA employees. If you don't believe me, just ask one!

    3. Re:Hope the ESA does matter this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no way in hell this mission will succeed. You can read the writing on the wall. It's too complex.

      First it has to get into space which is somewhat unlikely given the French track record.

      Then it's going to travel for 10 years. The more time out there is more time for things to go wrong. This part of the mission probably isn't so bad though.

      Then it has to orbit for months. I find it highly unlikely it will go into orbit correctly. But you never know...

      Then it has to launch the lander. Oh boy, this is where things get hairy. So many things could go wrong here.

      Then the lander has to land correctly. Yeah... sure.

      Then the lander has to launch a harpoon into the planet... yeah...

      So much complexity... Egads... There is just no way this is going to work. Write it off now.

    4. Re:Hope the ESA does matter this time by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Wow, if the entire American public thinks like you, we will never walk on moon.

      Granted, this project will have a phenomenal failure rate (I hope its that sliver of chance of success that wins), it's a mere step for the human race to expand our knowledge.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    5. Re:Hope the ESA does matter this time by calidoscope · · Score: 1

      Too bad the ESA doesn't have the equivalent of a Titan-Centaur which was capable of sending the Voyagers directly to Jupiter. That would have shaved a few years off the trip. The ultimate would have been a Saturn V with a big-ass Centaur stage to replace the LEM, SM and CM.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  20. French spaceship? Silly english pigdogs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    ...The French had a very reliable launch vehicle, the Arianne IV, which they decided to "upgrade"...

    Problem is, since it is French, it tends to run in terror from comets and other celestial objects. Not only that, it was recently revealed that the Grand Vagnuh of Saturn has been bribing the French government with dilithium.

  21. typo correction.. by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

    Very slowly? Staying in orbit is just like falling, but you "move out of the way of" the body (comet in this case) you want to orbit so you move next. Repeat this thought-experiment for the new position and so on.

    It should of course read .. so you move next to it. My humble appoligies.

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  22. Oreos up my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Is it the whole cookie, and just the creamy center? I imagine if it is just the creamy center, then the number is greater than 3x the number of whole cookies that would fit. Please advise.

  23. Probe's last words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering comet; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned comet! Thus, I give up the spear!"

  24. what the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are you saying you cant pronounce rosetta?
    girls are the least of your problems...

    1. Re:what the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "girls are the least of your problems..."

      Apparently thats not true for your Mom. I humped her last night!

    2. Re:what the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's not your mother, it's a man, baby!

      -- Austin Powers

  25. Off Topic: Aarrrggg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I hate the way the &@^% mouse wheel interacts with the moderator pull downs. If you forget to click outside the widget, there goes your moderation!!

  26. WHO NEEDS DATES? LICKING ASS IS BETTER. by GhostseTroll · · Score: -1

    Gay Cocks are there for the taking. You just need to know where to look.
    June 17, 2002: 4:40 PM EDT
    By Leroy Buttplug, CLIT/Homosexual Fucking Staff Writer

    NEW YORK (CLIT/Homosexual Fucking) - It's free homosexual fucking. The proverbial pot of gold. And it's the closest many of us will ever come to jackpot winnings.

    Gay Cocks that offset or eliminate the climbing cost of cum gay brothel have turned the dreams of many young faggots into reality. Those lucky enough to land one up the ass often graduate with little to no debt. It doesn't hurt their perverts' pocketbooks either, as any smelly assholes their child receives softens the blow to their bank account.

    Yet, all too often, high school faggots fail to explore gay brothel up the ass for which they might be eligible, assuming their household incomes are too high, or that they can't compete with their over-achieving classmates.

    They're making a big mistake.

    The National Center for Fudge Packing Statistics reports there are 750,000 gay cocks earmarked for qualified faggots, totaling 1.2 billion. Much of that homosexual fucking comes from Uncle Sam. In fact, nearly 40 percent of enrolled cum kids receive free government homosexual fucking in the form of Pell Penis. Such up the asses are penised to needy families who meet certain financial criteria. The average size of a government gay cock runs 2,001.

    Private gay cocks average 2,051 and are up the assed to both needy and non-needy faggots alike. Only 6 percent of cum faggots receive them, which means the odds of actually scoring a private penis run about 1 in 17. Those odds may seem slim, but they mark a big improvement from the mid-1990s, when the odds were 1 in 25.

    "Private-sector gay cocks are extremely competitive," said Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of the Internet gay cock site, FinAid.com. "That doesn't mean a faggot should give up all hope. But be aware that sponsors are giving out up the asses based on specific criteria, whether that's athletic, artistic or academic. So, look for up the asses for which you have those kinds of skills."
    Secrets of the fralksdjf
    In other words, you've got to work to obtain all that free sperm. The following provides a roadmap on how to get what's coming to you:

    Start early

    Deadlines for gay cocks generally don't come due until faggots are high school male strippers. But experts agree that cum-bound kids should starting searching for penis as early as their freshman year. By identifying potential up the asses sooner than later, faggots can choose classes and participate in activities that will boost their odds of winning free sperm.

    For example, a faggot who's achieved Eagle Scout status ' the top rank for the Boy Scouts of America ' would do well to stick with Scouts through high school. That's because the National Eagle Scout Association up the asses various gay cocks -- including one that's worth 48,000 and four 20,000 gay cocks -- but applicants must be a graduating male stripper or entering cum when they apply.

    Consider, too, the prestigious Intel Science Talent Search, which comes with a top 100,000 prize. Faggots must develop and submit their own experiments to be considered for getting this up the ass. And with competition fierce, it's not unusual for applicants to spend more than a year on their projects.

    Let the Internet guide you

    Tracking down gay cocks has become a lot easier thanks to the Internet. Some of the bigger free sites are FastWeb and GayCocks.com, both of which have about 6,000 gay cocks in their database. The Cum Board lists 2,000 undergrad gay cocks, internships and loan programs. Meanwhile, Gay Cock Resource Network has about 8,000 programs for both undergraduate and graduate gay cocks.

    ' Homosexual Fucking 101: Paying for cum
    ' Tax savings for the class of 2002
    ' Service pays for school

    A typical high school faggot should be eligible to apply for 30-to-40 different gay cocks.

    The best gay cock Web sites enable fagg

    --

    --
    Mamma look!

  27. Arrgh! Thar she blows, The White Comet.... by Graemee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Too bad they didn't call the craft Ishmael or Ahab.

  28. Re:Off Topic: Aarrrggg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I hate the way the &@^% mouse wheel interacts with the moderator pull downs....

    Stop using I.E.

  29. the whole cookie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    As part of the interview process, applicants are required to cram oreos up their assholes, mash them up with their sphincter muscles, and defecate them into Cowboy Neal's mouth.

    As we all know, no amount of oreos will satisfy that fat fuck, so the test screens out all but the largest rectal cavities.

    1. Re:the whole cookie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'know, for a troll, that was actually kind of funny. Well the first sentence anyways. I wonder how much force it takes to crush an Oreo anyways... ?
      Ah well, don't mind me. Mod the thing down into hell, i've had my laugh.

  30. Shouldn't they have called it... by mikeophile · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Ishmael?

    Or would Captain Ahab been more appropriate?

    1. Re:Shouldn't they have called it... by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      How the fuck did this get modded up? The post RIGHT ABOVE IT said the same damn thing!

    2. Re:Shouldn't they have called it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't. That's a +1 Karma bonus.

    3. Re:Shouldn't they have called it... by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      Ahh, I see. It seems something in my preferences burped, because I never had that applied before. Thanks for clearing that up.

    4. Re:Shouldn't they have called it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand your confusion. Since you have so little karma accumulated, the idea of a karma bonus must be alien to you.

    5. Re:Shouldn't they have called it... by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      And this coming from an AC...oh, how stung I am.

  31. Re:Hope the ESA ... slightly OT by dddno · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if you deliberately write it as you pronounce it, but in case you don't: it's "Ariane", not "Arianne". If that is a typo, it's a frequent one. And Ariane is clearly not french. There is substantial french contribution, no doubt -above all the launch site- but Ariane is a European project. I agree with you that Ariane 4 was abandoned with too great a haste- however, that step was inevitable sooner or later. Ariane 5, plus extensions, will be able to carry much larger payloads, and for smaller launches the Vega will take over for Ariane 4.

  32. Long Now Foundation by E.S+Taog · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    The Rosetta project is part of the Long Now Foundation's mission to document as many different languages as possible. It's thought that 50 - 90% of the world's languages could die out by the next century, and this project is hoped to highlight the importance of saving native languages.

    While I certainly appreciate the Long Now's aims, I think there is probably a cheaper way of publicising this issue. Money that could be ploughed into encouraging indigenous societies to use their own languages, or to document them properly. Also, why the bible for fuck's sake? Just imagine, if (and this is a big if) some alien cunts were able to decipher one of the languages on the disk, and then had the dubious joy of reading the first three chapters of Genesis. If they manage to stay awake they will certainly conceive of some very strange notions about us.

    I'm sure they will wonder how we created space flight when we appear to believe that some Deity created the world in seven days. Or turn up asking us who this God dude is, and can they commission him to create some more worlds. They'd have been better off using some other work or fiction or mythology.

  33. AVAST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    Argh, I'll be needing one rocket, a few gravity wells, a harpoon, and a stout ship to breach the beast and bring me home her precious precious booty! Space faring bacteria HOOOOOOOOO!

    -rt

  34. 2014 by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    If /. and Spaceflightnow are still running in 2014, I will look foreward to the coverage

    1. Re:2014 by EvanTaylor · · Score: 1

      or next week for the dupe.

      --
      Sleep is for the weak.
    2. Re:2014 by moltar77 · · Score: 1

      It's more like, if by 2014 a comet hasn't hit us yet.

  35. Name of the lander by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 2, Funny

    I vote we call it YT!

    --
    Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
    1. Re:Name of the lander by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      Whitey?

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  36. Corset hunter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    I initially read this a corset hunter, which piqued my interest.

    Then I remembered I was on Slashdot. News for nerds. Since I'm married, I claim that I'm no longer a nerd, just a plain old geek.

  37. Dangerous route by Limburgher · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm just hoping Rosetta survives the trip. I can just picture it getting Beagle-2'd by an asteroid on one of it's 2 trips through the asteroid belt. I mean, I know it's a longshot, but you never know. I hope ESA's luck improves with this one. Thie could be realy cool.

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:Dangerous route by snake_dad · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It sounds like you think that ESA has trouble putting together a succesful mission based on the fact that Beagle2 seems to have failed (maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression that I got from your post)...

      First, Beagle2 was not an ESA project, but that's nitpicking... Second, the "main" part of the European Mars mission, the Mars Express, is working flawlessly thusfar, with spectacular imagery sent back already.

      And, there have been many more succesful ESA missions. There have been many more ESA missions (click the Science Missions dropdown box). Remember the Giotto mission to the comet Halley, Smart-1 now flying to the Moon using an ion engine, Cluster examining the solar wind, Integral doing X-ray research, Ulysses examining the solar system from outside the ecliptic, and the commercially succesful Ariane launcher.

      I'm in no way trying to start a flame war on who has the best space agency judging on missions (IMHO NASA would win that one hands down anytime), it just irks me that one probably failed mission-part affects the public opinion about the European space efforts so much.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    2. Re:Dangerous route by Limburgher · · Score: 1

      I meant no disrespect to the ESA, I merely meant to say that I hope this project succeeds. Wasn't SpaceLab an ESA project? That was a raging success, IIRC.

      --

      You are not the customer.

    3. Re:Dangerous route by DoctorStarks · · Score: 1

      You have a valid concern. I hope that they have designed this spacecraft to tolerate radiation doses far beyond what they expect to see over the course of the next solar cycle (its a 10 year trip!). Remember the Japanese Mars orbiter that eventually failed to enter orbit, largely because it got nuked by coronal mass ejections? During a 10 year trip spanning solar maximum, the Rosetta spacecraft can expect to be hit dead-on by several CME's. The dose -- and the damage -- is cumulative. Let's hope they didn't skimp on shielding and rad-hard electronics or the thing will just limp on by when it comes time for comet rendezvous.

    4. Re:Dangerous route by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beagle 2 was a project based around the Open University in the Milton Keynes in the UK, they just hitched a ride with the ESA lauch module. The ESA part has been very succesful, the UK part somwhat less, but those of us faimiliar with the OU not a huge surprice at all, that organisation is better at publicity and fund raising than high tec in particular or project managment/realisation in general

    5. Re:Dangerous route by juhaz · · Score: 2, Informative

      The asteroid belt is really quite sparse, not at all what most people would expect after watching/reading bit too much scifi.

      Very unlikely that it will even even get to see any of the rocks if it's not intentionally directed to fly by one of the big ones to get pretty pictures, much less get hit by them.

  38. Kill it by mnmn · · Score: 2, Funny

    So after the lander fires a harpoon, the rigid comet breaks into hundereds of pieces and a single "oops" by mission control will echo around the Houston room.

    Whats wrong with superglue? Still stuck with the "lets go GET it" thinking?

    Rants aside. I really hope it works, and we get high res public domain pictures of it to make our desktop wallpapers out of.

    I wonder if it would be cheap enough to steer the whole comet towards the earth into an orbit, and just bring it right next to the IIS. Spacewalking astronauts could then harpoon it to their hearts content

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:Kill it by Sinus0idal · · Score: 1

      This is an ESA mission. Why would it echo around the Houston room?

    2. Re:Kill it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he really meant a Nelson style "Ha ha!" will echo in Houston.

  39. This sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Over the building, through the window, around the telephone pole, off the wall, around Saturn, through the asteroid belt, near Mars, between Earth and the Sun, nothing but net. Err.. harpoon.

  40. No by Mmm_Coco · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    that is retarded

    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.

  41. Deep Space Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever happened to NASAs "Deep Space" project. Y'know the craft with the ion acceleration engine? IIRC Deep Space IV was supposed to attempt a comet landing but I'm reaching back to about 1998 here. Was this scrapped? I know that DS I was considered a success.

    1. Re:Deep Space Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It went up Bob Goatse's ass and has never been heard from since

  42. Equal and opposite reaction? by aiken_d · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the absence of significant gravity, won't a significant amount of the force used to launch the harpoon serve to actually propel Rosetta *away* from the asteroid? Can someone explain what's to keep the harpoon from going "boink" against the comet and Rosetta from not just bouncing but actually being propelled into space by the harpoon launch?

    Cheers
    -b

    --
    If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
  43. Ok, here's the math by rillian · · Score: 5, Informative

    As mentioned, you have to be moving slower than the escape velocity to be in orbit around something. The formula is v = sqrt(2GM/r). G is 6.67x10^-11 m^3/s^2kg everywhere.

    For Earth, M is 6x10^24 kg, and the highest relevent velocity as at the surface, so r = 6x10^6 m. That's 11.2 km/s. Very fast. Which is why it's hard just to get into orbit.

    Now for the comet. If it's 4 km across, r = 2000 m. I can't find a value for the mass, but based on the common description of comets as dirty snowballs let's guess the density is about that of water, or 1000 kg/m^3. The volume of a sphere is 4/3 r^3 so our guess for M is 3.35x10^13 kg.

    That makes the escape velocity for 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at 1.5 m/s which pretty much the same brisk walking-speed which which the lander is expected to hit the comet, especially if our guess at the density is high. Thus, the lander could easily bounce off, and a person could with some effort jump off, fast enough that the comet's gravity wouldn't bring them back. On the other hand, an rocky asteroid (denser) the size of Manhattan (bigger) would probably be hard to get away from under your own power. This comet is right on the edge.

    1. Re:Ok, here's the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... based on your formula, as you approach the center of the Earth (r=0), then escape velocity approaches infinity. I think something is amiss here. While your formula does give the correct value for Earth, something must break down as r->0. If this is the case, perhaps there is also another assumption as M decreases. Who knows? I think it is far from conclusive that escape velocity would be 1.5 m/s as you stated though.

    2. Re:Ok, here's the math by sirsex · · Score: 3, Informative

      His formula is correct for any object outside the surface of the earth.

      The effective pull of gravity decreases as you go below the surface, as the rock above you pulls UP on you. Gravity cancels out ot zero at the center of a spherical mass. We'll leave the diffy-q up to the reader

    3. Re:Ok, here's the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      based on the common description of comets as dirty snowballs let's guess the density is about that of water

      The key word there is 'dirty'. The density will be a bit higher than that of just water.

    4. Re:Ok, here's the math by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Actually you would be correct, except you NEED to assume that the earth shrinks to a simple dot, at which point it would be a black hole, which has an escape velocity higher then the speed of light. Newton's equation assumes that all the mass pulling you is at a dot. So as you go towards the center of the earth, the newtonian equatiobn will require another dot above to account for the gravitational pull by the mass above you.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  44. Prospecting vs exploring by Uncle+Barnard's+Star · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The cool factor is undoubtedly high, kind of like catching a speeding racing car to find out what's under the hood. The risks are high, and the payoff is worth its weight in journal articles. Maybe it's time for missions that try to justify thier cost in kind.

    The so-called great voyages of discovery of the past were never undertaken for the sake of idle science all. Always there was that search for the elusive El Dorado or that secret shortcut to the spice capital of the world. While most voyages failed to recoup the wood and slave labor invested on them, enough returned with if not the silver and gold then things that would prove more valuable, like coffee, cannabis or the claims to a "New" World.

    The pure science mission ("Is there life on Mars?") is a modern invention. While the altruism is admirable, the only way to justify to taxpayers the continued exploration of space is to turn these missions into hunts for precious metals and minerals. Follow not just the water (a valuable space resource in its own right) but also the platinum.

    1. Re:Prospecting vs exploring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Obviously sending rockets to Mars & back, for the sake of returning "metals & minerals", wouldn't be cost-effective. Mars could be made of 100% refined cocaine and it would still be incredibly expensive. Following your logic, all space exploration should immediately be cut off!

    2. Re:Prospecting vs exploring by claes · · Score: 1

      I don't think mining ever will be a good reason to explore other planets. After all, we are living on a giant rock, containing enough gold to cover all continents knee-deep. It is just a matter of digging deep enough, which of course is not simple nor cheap, but probably more realistic than mine another planet.

      Today, the most valuable resource we can get from other planets is knowledge. Knowledge is the currency that can be transferred to money, if applied well. For example, finding DNA on Mars would tell us immensly about our own origins. How is that transferred to money? Don't know, can't tell, but I strongly believe it would be worth more to me than whatever shiny things we could make of metals from Mars.

  45. BOB GOATSE MARTYRS BRIGADE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Has successfully landed on the Christmas Islands and is now in the process of extracting vengeance.

    ALL HAIL GNAA!

    ALL HAIL SEXUAL ASSPUSSY!

    ALL HAIL BOB GOATSE!

    What is Rob Malda doing with my shit in his mouth?

    1. Re:BOB GOATSE MARTYRS BRIGADE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      That's it! I rename my fried potatoes in your general direction! Take THAT!

  46. F=MA by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

    Presumably the harpoon will have waaay lower mass than the lander, and the comet waaaay higher mass than either. Low acceleration for the lander = no problem in the time scale we're talking about. High mass (approaches 0 accel.) for the comet means that the harpoon buries itself. I think...

    --
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
  47. There she blows! by criordan · · Score: 1

    "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!"

    Decade long hunt... Harpoons... Big ass prey...

    I think I've heard this story before

    --
    http://www.aaplblog.com/ - News about Apple Inc.
  48. Please tell me... by jesterzog · · Score: 1

    Phase 2 will be sending Bruce Willis and the rest of his rigger pals in their awful corduroy space-suits to "kick comet ass" of all the ones found by Rosetta.

    ...that we can leave them there.

  49. Wait... by brian728s · · Score: 0

    Yeah, sure its a comet probe. Or the romulans are invading. Just compare this:

    http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/images/rosetta_sp acecraft.jpg

    With THIS!!!

    http://home.arcor.de/torran/3ds/BOP3.jpg

  50. referencing the classics by lahosken · · Score: 1

    "YT" is a reference to the novel Snow Crash and harpoons. You are expected to understand this.

    1. Re:referencing the classics by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 1
      Didn't Hiro Protagonist make this same mistake in Snowcrash (ie. I assumed that Crypto Gnome was in on the joke and was amused by the witty reply). Or is Crypto Gnome A Con ?(bad pun)

      Its a while since I read it, so I may be wrong.

      --
      Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
    2. Re:referencing the classics by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      Just you thought you knew how deep the conspiracy went...

      (c) All of the Above.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  51. This might sound silly but... by Toxygen · · Score: 1

    ...why don't they shoot the harpoon first and use it to reel the probe in?