Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Successful Rosetta Lift-Off

Posted by timothy on from the off-to-meet-the-star-seed dept.

CrystalFalcon writes "The BBC is reporting that the Rosetta spacecraft has had a successful lift-off after a two cancelled launch attempts. Rosetta is targeted at a near-Earth comet, and features a 'lander.' The European Space Agency has more information on the mission."

28 comments

  1. TOUCHDOWN!!! by Hougaard · · Score: 4, Funny

    Touchdown in 2014 ...

    So we wait...

    and we wait...

    and we wait ...

    and .........

    1. Re:TOUCHDOWN!!! by Arngautr · · Score: 1

      Imagine how long it'd be if (as I half expected) they failed to launch for the next couple years.

    2. Re:TOUCHDOWN!!! by hashinclude · · Score: 1, Funny

      You mean like DNF? I hope not ...

      --
      US is now divided as the "Red" and "blue" states. Red States = communist countries. Coincidence? I think not
    3. Re:TOUCHDOWN!!! by snake_dad · · Score: 4, Informative
      IMHO it's well worth the wait. Rosetta/Philae have some 21 different instruments on board, it should give us a real insight into what makes comets tick. Anyway, here's the SpaceFlightNow.com Mission Status Center.

      And if you really can't wait 10 years... NASA's Stardust will bring back some pieces of comet in only 685 days :)

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    4. Re:TOUCHDOWN!!! by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      From the article:

      This will set the spacecraft on its long Solar System journey that will take around the Sun four times, around Mars once (2007), the Earth three times (2005, 2007, 2009), and into the asteroid belt twice.

      My celestial mechanics aren't all that hot, but wouldn't the probe maybe get there a bit quicker if it used a more direct route? It's going to be passing back this way in 2009? WTF?

      Okay, okay, I imagine that it's all to do with "Slingshotting" off of various planets etc. to build up speed, like some insanely complex snooker trick-shot (like that bit in Red Dwarf where Lister pots the comet into the black hole), but wouldn't it be a helluva lot quicker if ESA had stuck an ion engine or something onto the probe, like they're doing with the SMART moon mission? Why didn't they? I mean, even if it added a few years onto the development time, wouldn't it have got there quicker?

      --

      evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
    5. Re:TOUCHDOWN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      comets tick

      no they go SWWOOOOOOSSSSSSHH!

    6. Re:TOUCHDOWN!!! by eggstasy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, dude, this isnt Star Trek, our propulsion technology is horribly primitive and so our spaceships kinda have to "sail" instead of going directly from one place to another. You see, it would take a fuel tank the size of a small asteroid to get anywhere, and dont forget that the fuel itself has to be pushed by something, requiring even more fuel, which also has to be pushed by something...
      Our current way of sending things anywhere is more like throwing a rock with your arm, after solving a bunch of really complicated equations to calculate the best way of throwing it so the wind (gravity) will give you the best free ride.
      Of course they may very well want to take advantage of this opportunity to study the sun or something... I'm not a rocket scientist.

    7. Re:TOUCHDOWN!!! by titusjan · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...but wouldn't it be a helluva lot quicker if ESA had stuck an ion engine or something onto the probe, like they're doing with the SMART moon mission? Why didn't they? I mean, even if it added a few years onto the development time, wouldn't it have got there quicker?

      SMART is ESA's first mission using the ion drive and is used to test the technology. I think that, when the Rosetta project was given the go ahead in 1993, the ion drive was either not avalaible in its current form or SMART was selected as the test project. And you can not change the design of a long running project like Rosetta half way, without a significant cost penalty.

      I saw that the NASA have launched Deep Space 1 in 1998. This probe flew by the commet Borrelly in 2001, using ion propulsion. As with the recent ESA and NASA mars missions, you can not compare the projects directly -- Deep Space 1 was a high risk project, didn't land, the speed/trajectories of the commets differ, etc -- but it shows the ion drive is certainly an option.

      Pepijn Kenter.

    8. Re:TOUCHDOWN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, DS1 flew _past_ a comet. Rosetta is going to match orbits with a comet and stick a harpoon into it. Comet orbits are really high eccentricity, and when they're in the inner solar system they move _fast_. Matching speeds with one of these things is a hell of a job, and I'm not surprised they need so many gravity assists.

    9. Re:TOUCHDOWN!!! by mikerich · · Score: 2, Informative
      I saw that the NASA have launched Deep Space 1 in 1998. This probe flew by the commet Borrelly in 2001, using ion propulsion. As with the recent ESA and NASA mars missions, you can not compare the projects directly -- Deep Space 1 was a high risk project, didn't land, the speed/trajectories of the commets differ, etc -- but it shows the ion drive is certainly an option.

      It's amazing that ion propulsion has taken so long to (ahem) take off. The first space craft to use ion thrusters was Zond 2 which flew to Mars in (wait for it) 1964! The craft suffered power failures en-route and lost communications shortly before flying past the planet at a distance of only 1500km. Had it survived, it would have been the second spacecraft to make a close approach to Mars - beaten by one month by the American probe Mariner 4.

      The same ion engines were flown in 1965 on an identical spacecraft - Zond 3. It was sent past the Moon, returned some superb images and then flew on into deep space where it retransmitted the images. The Soviets were trying to improve their deep space tracking systems and used Zond 3 as a test bed for future missions.

      As far as I know the engines were never flown again. Strange.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

  2. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    2nd post.

    My last message to you, radio land, before I go to bed: Batman touched my junk liberally.

  3. Obligatory DNF reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But will we be able to play DNF at least THEN??

    Ducks

  4. Water? by yeejiun · · Score: 4, Funny

    50 bucks I say they find water there and then suspect there is life and then spend 50 years looking for it without success.

  5. commet gets a friend? by ndevice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rosetta's heading out to drop the 'Philae' lander onto Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Curious name for a lander.

    I wonder how the lander is going to stay on the comet once the comet gets closer to the sun and starts ejecting mass.

    1. Re:commet gets a friend? by Jump · · Score: 3, Informative

      Usually, comets eject mass not all over the place but small confined areas. I'm more worried about the electronics surviving such extreme conditions.

      It will be fun to watch the firework going off. Since it takes only 6.6 years to go around the sun, this comet must be rather burned out and less active then a fresh comet from outside the solar system. Still, it must be a fantastic scenic view.

    2. Re:commet gets a friend? by richie2000 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Curious name for a lander.

      It's named after the Nile island where the Rosetta stone was discovered. Apparantly, a 15-year old girl suggested the name in some kind of competition they never bothered to tell me about and she got to go see the launch.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    3. Re:commet gets a friend? by Yazeran · · Score: 1

      It's named after the Nile island where the Rosetta stone was discovered.

      Sorry to correct, but Philae is not the location where the Rosetta stone was found by the french ingeneers under Napoleon. The Rosetta stone was found in the Nile delta whereas the iland of Philae is in southern Egypt near the border to Sudan.

      Philae was! the island where the Isis temple once stood (was moved to a nearby island in the 1960's by UNESCO when the new Aswan dam was build). This temple was the Eyptian temple which survived the longest after christianity's introduction to Egypt. The temple was ordred closed in 500 something by a Roman emperor (in Constantinople, pressent Istanbul).

      Yours Yazeran

      Plan: To go to Mars one day with a hammer.

    4. Re:commet gets a friend? by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      I stand corrected. Philae is where the obelisk where the names of Cleopatra and Ptolemy in Egyptian hieroglyphs were found, enabling Champollion to start dechiphering the Rosetta stone (which was found elsewhere).

      Thanks for the clarification.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  6. Attached by Harpoon by ControlFreal · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wonder how the lander is going to stay on the comet once the comet gets closer to the sun and starts ejecting mass.

    The lander will fire a harpoon into the comet to ensure it doesn't bounce off again.

    --
    Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
    1. Re:Attached by Harpoon by TruffleGuy · · Score: 1

      What do you mean again? It fell off once before?

      --
      i am we todd did... i am sofa king we todd did
    2. Re:Attached by Harpoon by scorp1us · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This idea is just sooo bad.
      You're going to launch harpoon at a block of ice and hope it sticks? What is to say that:
      1) The harppon doesn't glance off
      2) the harpoon fractures the ice in 1/2 (or less)
      3) The launch of the harpoon sends the lander flying backwards, the impending jerk at the end of the cord pulls it back out of the ice (assuming it attaches securely in the first place) or damages the lander.

      It just sounds like a 1 in a billion shot to me. (No pun intended. I'd think a drill-in and screw-in would me more reliable.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    3. Re:Attached by Harpoon by cjameshuff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1: if the harpoon doesn't get a good hold, the probe probably will drift away from the comet. Getting the probe that close in the first place will still be a huge achievement, and it'll still return useful data.

      2: It's a comet. An orbital ice-berg that's been bashed around for billions of years. A little harpoon isn't going to break it in half. Might smash a small chunk off, but it won't split the comet in half.

      3: The lander's heading toward the comet already, the harpoon launch recoil (assuming there is any) is unlikely to overcome the probe's momentum. And it is probably a small rocket harpoon, with practicaly no recoil.

      As for the drill-and-screw...a harpoon would be far more likely to get the initial hold. It's a quite well understood technology. On Earth, drilling typically requires rather firm support for the machinery doing the drilling. For the probe, it would require maneuvering up to the comet and holding position next to it while it attempted to drill in an anchor, at a distance from any human which makes real-time remote control impossible. Plus, it would be far more mechanically complex, a lot heavier, and a lot more power-hungry. The harpoon could use a small solid-fuel rocket, the drill would require a motor and power supply to run it. Not to mention the fuel required to hold the probe in place while drilling.

    4. Re:Attached by Harpoon by mikerich · · Score: 1
      The harppon doesn't glance off Comets appear to have a consistency more like a snowball than solid ice, the harpoon will go straight in.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    5. Re:Attached by Harpoon by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      1: if the harpoon doesn't get a good hold, the probe probably will drift away from the comet. Getting the probe that close in the first place will still be a huge achievement, and it'll still return useful data.
      We've already done that. Flybys and collect dust, it's no big deal these days!

      2: It's a comet. An orbital ice-berg that's been bashed around for billions of years. A little harpoon isn't going to break it in half. Might smash a small chunk off, but it won't split the comet in half.

      Right Shoemaker-Levvy was supposed to hold together, but got ripped apart from tidal forces. Those forces are not that great, and are very small and smooth in comparison to being harpooned. harpooning is a rather sudden and aburpt force.

      3: The lander's heading toward the comet already, the harpoon launch recoil (assuming there is any) is unlikely to overcome the probe's momentum. And it is probably a small rocket harpoon, with practicaly no recoil.

      Well this is the eastting to plan for.. knowing the mass of harpoon and probe, we can provide specific amount of force to acheive exactly what we want.


      As for the drill-and-screw...a harpoon would be far more likely to get the initial hold. It's a quite well understood technology. On Earth, drilling typically requires rather firm support for the machinery doing the drilling. For the probe, it would require maneuvering up to the comet and holding position next to it while it attempted to drill in an anchor, at a distance from any human which makes real-time remote control impossible. Plus, it would be far more mechanically complex, a lot heavier, and a lot more power-hungry. The harpoon could use a small solid-fuel rocket, the drill would require a motor and power supply to run it. Not to mention the fuel required to hold the probe in place while drilling.

      It's all realtively easy. Get out infront of the thing, activate retro rockets and constantly decel against the ting to keep you planted. While tou do that you drill ing several CM (It doesn't take my dewalt long to drill through solid ice (Particualrly if the bit is heated). Using several small bits, each one at a differnt angle ('toed' in) you'd have yourself a very stable base in seconds.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    6. Re:Attached by Harpoon by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      That last PH is mine.. whoops, runaway itallics...

      Anyway, You get several core samples at the same time. (Collect the ice out of the flutes of the bit)

      If the consistancey is closer to that of snow, then drilling will need to go deaper but will be much easier

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    7. Re:Attached by Harpoon by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      We've done flybys...but not of this comet, and even if it comes loose from the comet, it is likely to stick close to it for a longer period than any of our other probes.

      As for Shoemaker-Levy 9...it smacked into a gas giant after being torn apart by the tidal forces caused by being that deep in Jupiter's gravity well. The same tidal forces that make Io the most volcanic body in the solar system. This is not a comparable situation. In addition, I don't recall anyone being surprised that it broke up.

      Using constant thrust to hold the probe on the comet surface while it anchors itself would require very finely-controlled thrusters, plus a great deal of extra fuel, plus motors, transmissions, the drill bits and anchors themselves, and a power supply sufficient to run them (which would be overkill for running the rest of the probe after it landed). More parts to fail, more mass to carry along, more complex to design, and a complicated operation to perform which would have to be completely automated, all to get the probe anchored far more strongly than it needs to be. The harpoon is small, simple, a lot easier to do, and far less to go wrong.

  7. 0th post by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 3, Funny

    These "Fr1st P0st" posts kind of become moot when you provided the article in the first place. :-)

  8. Fail or fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    It will fail in the end, because God created the universe in seven days, and all things are in the sky are unchanging lights on transparent spheres around the Earth, which is the center of the universe.

    God will strike the probe down, for our audacity to questionhis divine will.