Rosetta Takes Stunning Self-Portrait 10 Miles From Comet's Surface

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rosetta Takes Stunning Self-Portrait 10 Miles From Comet's Surface

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday October 14, 2014 @06:18AM from the pretty-pictures dept.

astroengine writes: At a distance of only 10 miles from comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko's surface, the European Rosetta mission has captured yet another dazzling self portrait with the dark comet lurking in the background. But the orbiter couldn't have snapped this picture without the help of a little friend — the attached Philae lander that is currently undergoing preparations for its historic comet surface landing in November.

62 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Let's see if the EU predictions are correct. by trout007 · 2014-10-14 06:22 · Score: 4, Informative

https://www.thunderbolts.info/...

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
1. Re:Let's see if the EU predictions are correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  Like usual, they spend a significant part of the writing discussing what mainstream theories predict and get that wrong. Maybe they should spend more time just sticking to their predictions, and not setting up strawmen that don't make their predictions any more or less right.
2. Re:Let's see if the EU predictions are correct. by r1348 · 2014-10-14 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully better than the EU's economic predictions...
3. Re:Let's see if the EU predictions are correct. by Charliemopps · 2014-10-14 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.thunderbolts.info/...
  We are just as likely to find a tribe of bigfoot living on it. And no, I'm not kidding. There would have to be as much wrong with modern sience for the Electric Universe to be correct, that Vacuum loving Sasquatches would be equally as likely.
4. Re:Let's see if the EU predictions are correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  they spend a significant part of the writing discussing what mainstream theories predict and get that wrong.
  Okay, I've seen this quite a few times in the last week. Attacking an opponents argument is not automatically a straw man. What exactly are you suggesting that they got wrong?
  From Wiki:
  
  A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.
  
  The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
  If they actually discuss a particular theory's arguments--instead of replacing it with something else of their own and claiming their opponent said it--then it would be a straw man.
  FFS people, this isn't hard.
5. Re:Let's see if the EU predictions are correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, totally futzed that. Should've used preview.
  Fixing my next-to-last statement:
  If they're just discussing a particular theory's arguments--instead of replacing it with something else of their own and claiming their opponent said it--then it's not a straw man. A straw man is basically equivalent to putting words in someone's mouth and then saying, "look, they're wrong!" So, when you accuse someone of a straw man, you need to specify what it is they claim that was never said by the original person. Otherwise, your statement is no more useful than going "nyah nyah I can't hear you, you're wrong, nyah nyah nyah."
6. Re:Let's see if the EU predictions are correct. by davester666 · 2014-10-14 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  Article correction: it did NOT take a picture of itself/a selfie. The lander took a picture of it's transporter, with the asteroid photobombing the picture.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
7. Re:Let's see if the EU predictions are correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-15 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  Attacking an opponents argument is not automatically a straw man.
  
  Which is not what the post you replied to claimed, it instead claimed they were incorrect about the predictions of mainstream theories which is putting words in the mouths of other people. In this case it includes saying that the surface morphology is not consistent, or that there are no triple lobe examples, or that the collision of two objects is improbable, or that at CME would not traditionally have an effect... so just about everything they say. EU related stuff seems to have a big problem with saying what astrophysicists say and do, and yet being completely wrong about that, spending too much time talking about things that would take ten seconds to see are wrong by opening a textbook or going to a conference. Maybe they're theories about space are correct, but their descriptions of what most scientists say and do tend not to be.
That's called a Selfie by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 06:25 · Score: 1

Get with the times, old fart.
1. Re:That's called a Selfie by oodaloop · 2014-10-14 06:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I prefer "Lawn Clearance Technician".
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
2. Re:That's called a Selfie by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  The submitter didn't want to be confused with a retarded surface dweller, at risk of repelling competent readers.
  
  Now go take your "lol this one guy didnt know waht a selfie was" to the facetweets.
3. Re:That's called a Selfie by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  So, you observe, orient, decide, and then act at high speed, buzzing around your lawn to pepper carbon-based-substrates with precipitated sodium chloride?
  Reminds me of this
free market by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 06:27 · Score: 0

roman_mir told me that government monopolies on spacecraft selfies are a betrayal of free market principles !
Typical Rosetta by slazzy · 2014-10-14 06:29 · Score: 3, Funny

Typical... yet more showing off from self-absorbed Rosetta and her selfies. I bet she posts them right to her Facebook account too.

--
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
1. Re:Typical Rosetta by Chocolate+Teapot · 2014-10-14 06:58 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  At least it didn't pull a duck face.
  
  --
  Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
2. Re:Typical Rosetta by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, hackers lifted this selfie from Rosetta's iPhone and released it to de interwebz.
3. Re:Typical Rosetta by Andrio · 2014-10-14 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Even our most advanced space robots aren't immune to taking selfies.
  
  --
  The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
4. Re:Typical Rosetta by mythosaz · 2014-10-14 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Rosetta has no clothes on. Scandalous.
5. Re:Typical Rosetta by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  Stop !
  Rosetta makes me think about Émilie Dequenne...
Miles? by Grizzley9 · 2014-10-14 06:36 · Score: 2, Funny

"At a distance of only 10 miles from comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko's surface, the European Rosetta mission..."
An EU mission using miles as a distance calculation...we've seen this movie before unfortunately.
1. Re:Miles? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Fortunately, the ESA is full of smart people and good technology. Unit conversions are a solved problem.
2. Re:Miles? by Punko · 2014-10-14 06:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Its miles only in the summary; the article is in SI units. Apparently, someone believes that folks on Slashdot either don't know what a kilometer is or are incapable of converting them to another unit of measurement.
  
  --
  If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
3. Re:Miles? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  Judging by the outcry from Americans when SI units are used ... they're right.
4. Re:Miles? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Personally, I would have gone with 176 football fields.
5. Re:Miles? by MildlyTangy · 2014-10-14 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Its miles only in the summary; the article is in SI units. Apparently, someone believes that folks on Slashdot either don't know what a kilometer is or are incapable of converting them to another unit of measurement.
  I think its mainly because everybody thinks only Muricans read Slashdot. Hence all the US centric articles and odd measurement units.
6. Re:Miles? by MildlyTangy · 2014-10-14 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  Personally, I would have gone with 176 football fields.
  Which sort of Football? Soccer? Rugby? American football? AFL?
7. Re:Miles? by oodaloop · 2014-10-14 07:26 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  The outcry seems to be mostly from self-righteous Europeans who look down on anyone using any unit that came before the metric system. Most Americans I know don't have strong feelings either way about the whole thing.
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
8. Re:Miles? by geekoid · 2014-10-14 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  I have very strong feeling about it. I could, and have, write a 4000 word essay breaking down exactly why we should be metric, showiunf examples of harm from not being metric, as well as the long term impact of how other countries perceive us.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
9. Re:Miles? by geekoid · 2014-10-14 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  Probable American football, since it's the only one with a single regulation field size.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
10. Re:Miles? by CODiNE · 2014-10-14 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  That's easy!
  A kilometer is 1000MB
  A kibimeter is 1024MB
  (Assuming a bitrate of 256mb/sec)
  
  --
  Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
11. Re:Miles? by Punko · 2014-10-14 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Except for Canadian Football. But then you'd not want to use our field, its bigger
  
  --
  If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
12. Re:Miles? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  4000? Wow!
13. Re:Miles? by sconeu · 2014-10-14 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like *SOMEONE* in Canada is trying to... overcompensate...
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
14. Re:Miles? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  Woah, they are in for a big surprise if the distance is in miles, but the fuel is measured in liters.
15. Re:Miles? by Livius · 2014-10-14 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean a kilometre.
16. Re: Miles? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  Don't you mean 4k ?
17. Re:Miles? by MoaDweeb · 2014-10-14 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Rugby Union sets it as 100m * 70m http://www.nzrugby.co.nz/the_g...
  
  --
  New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
18. Re:Miles? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  mb is millibit, right?
19. Re:Miles? by steelfood · 2014-10-14 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  They took the picture 16km out, which conveniently converts nicely to an even 10 miles. It's like they wanted Americans to convert.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
20. Re:Miles? by weilawei · 2014-10-14 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Both systems work just fine. Conversions aren't hard. I also enjoy the FFF system of units (furlong/firkin/fortnight).
What is this supposed to achieve? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 06:48 · Score: 0, Funny

I am all for space exploration, but is this the best way to spend our money?
The Chinese and the Indians are beating us in the space race. We need to start establishing colonies on the Moon and Mars.
I do not want this to become a reality
1. Re:What is this supposed to achieve? by mmell · 2014-10-14 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  Well, it costs a lot of time, effort and money to get anything to or from our moon, and even more to get anything to any of the planetary bodies in our solar system. If we want to exploit space, we might wan to consider exploiting those resources which are nearest to us. Comets and asteroids fill the bill there, so we might want to start by learning if there is anything worth exploiting there.
2. Re:What is this supposed to achieve? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  This is the first opportunity to study comets up close. If you don't think studying comets at this level to obtain a better understanding of solar system evolution is worth this investment than please explain how you can obtain the same return investing in martian or lunar colonies with current technology.
Good! by spiritplumber · 2014-10-14 07:04 · Score: 1

If the public catches wind of a new space race that the US is losing, then NASA will get more money! Excellent!

--
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Historic? by fustakrakich · 2014-10-14 07:19 · Score: 1

A tiny bit presumptuous, no?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:Historic? by exploder · 2014-10-14 07:28 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I agree that the word "historic" is probably overapplied, but come on, it's going to land on a fucking comet for the first time in, uh, what's that word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, history.
  
  --
  Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
2. Re:Historic? by geekoid · 2014-10-14 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  "famous or important in history, or potentially so."
  So yes, historic.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
3. Re:Historic? by fustakrakich · 2014-10-14 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  *History* presumes the event has already happened. Well, *history* doesn't, but using the word for a future event seems illogical. Let's compromise and call it an historic attempt (up to, but not including the present moment), until the 12th, in the afternoon or evening.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
4. Re:Historic? by fustakrakich · 2014-10-14 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  It still relates to past (the definition of history) events, which may have the potential to become historic. Some events become historic immediately after they happen, and some a long time afterwards, but not before.
  Like you say there: important in *history*
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
5. Re:Historic? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  No, absolutely not. This picture looks just like the artist's impressions that adorned the covers of the scifi comics I read as a kid in the 70s. As someone who can honestly claim that their earliest childhood memory was watching Neil Armstrong's 'small step' on a black and white TV, this is at least as exciting as any other unmanned mission we've ever sent up.
6. Re:Historic? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Have you been treated for your Aspergers?
7. Re:Historic? by MozeeToby · 2014-10-14 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Historic
  Adj.
  1) famous or important in history, or potentially so.
  If you're going to be pedantic, you need to at least be accurate.
8. Re:Historic? by fustakrakich · 2014-10-14 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  famous or important in history
  History - a study of past events. An event has the potential of being historic after it happens.
  Read the rest of the thread. I don't feel like repeating myself.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
PHOTOSHOPPED! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 07:55 · Score: 0

The shadows are all wrong. When are people going to stop falling for this crap?
And, for Christ's sake, that's not a self-portrait any more than me taking a picture of my arm is a self-portrait.
1. Re:PHOTOSHOPPED! by Punko · 2014-10-14 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  And, for Christ's sake, that's not a self-portrait any more than me taking a picture of my arm is a self-portrait.
  
  You mean a bad self-portrait ??
  
  --
  If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
2. Re:PHOTOSHOPPED! by Last_Available_Usern · 2014-10-14 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it is. It's two exposures (one short and one long) combined into one frame to accurately show the detail on both the spacecraft and the asteroid.
3. Re:PHOTOSHOPPED! by Last_Available_Usern · 2014-10-14 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Comet, sorry.
4. Re:PHOTOSHOPPED! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  It was a joke. Humans do something cool in space and take a picture of it. Someone claims it is obviously fake because of the shadows.
No thanks to obama by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-14 08:41 · Score: 0

derp
Not quite complete by SlowMovingTarget · 2014-10-14 12:28 · Score: 1

Needs a banana for scale.