Scientists Say Goodbye to Philae Comet Lander (cnn.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Say Goodbye to Philae Comet Lander (cnn.com)

Posted by yaelk on Friday February 12, 2016 @06:31AM from the this-is-ground-control-to-major-tom dept.

Today, scientists from the German Aerospace Center (DLR) announced that they are saying goodbye to Philae, the comet lander that is currently perched on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as it races toward the sun. According to Stephan Ulamec, Philae's project manager, "Unfortunately, the probability of Philae re-establishing contact with our team at the DLR Lander Control Center is almost zero." Philae first made history when it successfully landed on a comet in fall of 2014, but problems soon began when commands were not able to reach the robot.

69 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

European Engineering by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 06:34 · Score: -1

They must have let the French do the engineering this time.
1. Re:European Engineering by GuB-42 · 2016-02-12 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  The parts that failed (thruster and harpoons) were made by the German. For the thruster they worked with a Dutch company and built it in Switzerland...
2. Re:European Engineering by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 15:55 · Score: 0
  
  I knew they should have elected to buy from other reputable space harpoon makers.
And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 06:37 · Score: -1

More disgusting corporate welfare.
1. Re: And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 06:43 · Score: -1
  
  Republicans don't care about the people.
2. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  More disgusting corporate welfare.
  Spinoff technology to fields other than space and space exploration? Better understanding of the Solar System, perhaps leading to the human race getting a colony *somewhere off this rock* in preparation for the next Earth-bound major extinction event?
  I do tire of the "NASA has a $19 billion budget and world hunger is not yet solved plus no cure for cancer" mentality. The human race never has and never will pursue only one thing at a time, you know.
  AC, would you eliminate 100% of all science research in favor of socialist welfare programs instead of your "corporate welfare?"
3. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 06:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Spinoff technology to fields other than space and space exploration?
  Perhaps. Unlikely that anything needed for rendezvous with a comet would have commercial spin-offs, but there may be some materials improvements that trickle down.
  
  Better understanding of the Solar System
  Sure, that's a great thing - knowledge is good, and if this is purely in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, I'd be okay with that too.
  
  leading to the human race getting a colony *somewhere off this rock* in preparation for the next Earth-bound major extinction event?
  Now you're just being stupid. Is the human race going to live on comets when we get "off this rock"? Orbital mechanics are well understood at this point, so rendezvous with an object traveling through space isn't really advancing the knowledge of the human race. Barring a fundamental revolution in our understanding and knowledge of physics, there is no practical way we're ever going to cut the cord between Earth and even the remotest colonies in the solar system. As earth lives and dies, so die our colonies inside the solar system. And fundamentally, there's NO way we're sending a manned mission to another star unless:
  1) We have a revolution in physics that allows us to travel near or even above the speed of light, which landing a probe on a comet certainly isn't going to bring us closer to.
  2) We have a massive revolution in our mastery of biological systems and engineering, allowing us to build fault-tolerant systems capable of preserving life across many multiples of the duration of recorded human history, in what essentially amounts to a giant tin can floating through interstellar space, surrounded by hard vacuum. Again, landing a probe on a comet isn't going to bring us closer to that.
  We're stuck on this rock for the foreseeable future, champ. Learn to love it.
4. Re:And how does this help the people? by tnk1 · 2016-02-12 07:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  We're stuck on this rock for the foreseeable future, champ. Learn to love it.
  We will be stuck on this rock forever, if you get your way.
  There are certain things about space and space travel that you only can find out by doing it.
  Learning about comets gives us the ability to see what sort of material makes up a solar system and how it interacts. We're not just doing this to go sightseeing.
  There is some idea that we will somehow be able to magically be able to find all of those advances we need later if we just stay on Earth and focus no effort or money on space exploration. That makes zero sense.
  We can still focus on space exploration while feeding the hungry. As I've pointed out more than once, we already *can* feed the world's population. What keeps us from doing it is actually mostly politics, which fouls up the logistics of actually doing it. We're not actually threatened with extinction and mass starvation simply because we won't add 19 billion dollars or so to our 4-6 trillion dollar budgets.
5. Re:And how does this help the people? by alvinrod · 2016-02-12 07:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You realize the internet that you're using to complain about government spending on started off as a government project right?
  
  At some point in the future we're going to be acquiring large quantities of resources from off-planet and this is another step in that direction. Really, anything that eventually helps humanity move out among the stars is far more important to us than anything we locally do on Earth. We might make life more comfortable for a few, but eventually something disastrous will happen to our planet (some people are even pretty sure we'll be the ones that do it) and we'll need to have a backup. Colonizing other planets and eventually other solar systems (or just being able to survive out in space for extended periods) is incredibly important.
6. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 07:22 · Score: -1
  
  Space Nutters are funny bunch. They desperately care about the entire species' future but at the same time are so misanthropic they invoke socialist welfare as an evil...
  I don't know if it's Asperger's taken to the extreme, or borderline personality disorder, but Space Nutters are not a healthy bunch.
7. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  "We will be stuck on this rock forever, if you get your way."
  If this planet with everything on it is a "rock", why are the other rocks so important to you? Where and how did you arrive at this bizarre religion?
  There is no afterlife for you and your Asperger's programmer friends in space. Deal with it, cupcake.
  NB: Can everyone see the paranoia inherent to the Space Nutter? "if you get your way"!!! Yes, it's not reality or practical limits or the sheer size and hostility of space that's the problem... it's YOU! *YOU*, a person of the species they claim to care so much about!!!
8. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  And it is better there is no escape. All in the same boat, etc. Doesn't stop psychopath politicians today, but will be much worse if there is an escape (which will be only available to the very rich or powerful).
9. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  We're stuck on this rock for the foreseeable future, champ. Learn to love it.
  We will be stuck on this rock forever, if you get your way.
  This roch is big enough. Think it if full? There is enough room which may be called 'inhospitable' but is much much better than any space. The desert? Bottom of (shallow) sea? Much much better than anything in space that we know of.
10. Re:And how does this help the people? by tnk1 · 2016-02-12 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the biggest threat to space exploration is actually the unwillingness of people to do it.
  Even with current technology, we'd have a shot at a Mars landing now, if we focused our resources on it. However, I'm not asking for that. We can take our time on that, but you don't have to shut down one thing to make the other thing happen.
  As for afterlife, I have other plans for the afterlife than floating in space. This isn't about that.
  There are some people out there, apparently you included, who think that throwing all the money at a problem will fix it, and it can never be fixed without all the money. This is not at all true. We can add NASA's entire budget to feeding the hungry, and we'll get the same result. You know why? Because the reason that the billions we're already throwing at aid programs isn't working is politics and corruption. Politics and corruption will eat up *any* amount you send at it.
  Aid packages that have been sent to war zones and areas impoverished by government failures are either regularly left to rot on the docks or are taken by the local powers that be and used to maintain their control over the populations.
  As for health care, everyone is going to die eventually, as you seem to understand with your afterlife comment. It is as much as a black hole as anything else. You're never going to attain immortality for your population, but if somehow you managed to, you'd better have somewhere to put them.
  As for space, yeah, there are vast empty stretches and very inhospitable conditions. Despite that, it is believed that the entire galaxy could be explored in less than 5 million years by robotic exploration. That's because space is big, really big, but there are places to go between here and infinity.
  There's more to life than sitting around trying to feed yourself. There are places where we can still adventure and space is a big one. More than anything, as a species and a culture we need the challenge of space exploration almost as much as we need to remain fed. Looking up keeps us from navel gazing and helps us avoid fighting over petty things.
11. Re: And how does this help the people? by SiggyRadiation · 2016-02-12 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Plus, if we would ever be able to muster the amount of resources needed for solar system colonies or interstellar space travel, those resources would probably be better spent on surviving any major disaster here on earth.
  Even after massive nuclear war or an astroid impact, the earth would still be considerably more hospitable to human life than say mars or venus.
  If a major cataclism is really your concern then invest in a space station with a few hundred people in it, including the means to repopulate the earth. If you can build a generation ship that can colonize an outside world, the you can also *stay* and rebuild earth.
  
  --
  This unique sig is intended to make this user more recognisable.
12. Re:And how does this help the people? by luis_a_espinal · 2016-02-12 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Spinoff technology to fields other than space and space exploration?
  Perhaps. Unlikely that anything needed for rendezvous with a comet would have commercial spin-offs, but there may be some materials improvements that trickle down.
  
  Better understanding of the Solar System
  Sure, that's a great thing - knowledge is good, and if this is purely in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, I'd be okay with that too.
  
  leading to the human race getting a colony *somewhere off this rock* in preparation for the next Earth-bound major extinction event?
  Now you're just being stupid. Is the human race going to live on comets when we get "off this rock"? Orbital mechanics are well understood at this point, so rendezvous with an object traveling through space isn't really advancing the knowledge of the human race.
  
  Yes it does. It helps understand the mechanics and logistics of landing over a comet (such type of landings are not just ruled by orbital mechanics alone.) When we learn to reliably and predictably land over such objects, then we open for ourselves the opportunity to mining them. There is a shitload of ice and building materials on those floating monsters. Not only you open the opportunity to mining them, but to alter their trajectories, or even hollow them up and spinning them to get 1g.
  Imagine you can take a 4km by 4km comet like 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, alter its orbit and park it. Then carve it from the inside out, pilling out the dug out material, melting it. Filter it, separating it into portions of pure water and sludge then mixed with dust, or regolith, synth metal, ceramics or whatever that, when frozen becomes get a robust pykrete.
  Rinse and repeat. Pure water = inner layers, pykrete = outer, protective layers. Rinse and repeat until you get an ice station with an embedded 4km by 4km cylindrical space in it, covered by several kms of ice.
  Spin it till you get some decent g forces. Rinse and repeat, we have millions of floating icebergs on the solar system once we figure out how to use fusion. Fusion + a shitload of Hydrogen == no longer a need for depending on solar power to colonize beyond the belt.
  Sounds impossible? Well fuck, we landed on the moon, we developed nuclear power and that just a mere century from the time of the steam engine. It was impossible to cross the seas, but people did it. Hell, even prehistoric man with nothing but hides, bows and arrows ventured into the Artic... and conquered.
  Technologies advance, and if we really had the motivation, shit like what I just described could be done within decades. For what stop us is not so much technology, but economics and politics.
  
  Barring a fundamental revolution in our understanding and knowledge of physics, there is no practical way we're ever going to cut the cord between Earth and even the remotest colonies in the solar system. As earth lives and dies, so die our colonies inside the solar system. And fundamentally, there's NO way we're sending a manned mission to another star unless:
  What a load of cock. Colony survival does not depend on orbital mechanics or anything of the sort. It would depend on the state of technology. And there is nothing to prevent technology to advance to the point of making self-sustaining colonies.
13. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 08:52 · Score: -1
  
  "There's more to life than sitting around trying to feed yourself. "
  The answer to that isn't space. How much have you travelled on *this* planet? How many rocks, or bugs, or plants, have you picked up with your own hands and explored right here? How many different people or cultures have you gotten in touch with right here? Well?
  I have no idea why you can't see that you have a techno-religion built around space... You have an afterlife, a goal, the worthy and the non-worthy... It's pathetic.
14. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  We will be stuck on this rock forever, if you get your way.
  By "my way," I presume you mean "accepting reality as it is, not as I wish it was?" Because like it or not, staying on this rock is our only option until we:
  1) achieve some absolutely universe-shaking revolution in our understanding of physics, and have both the energy and the material to exploit that revolutionized understanding; (You don't honestly think opening a wormhole (provided it's even possible) between two arbitrary points in space-time will be CHEAP, in terms of energy, do you?)
  or
  2) achieve some universe-shaking revolution in our ability to engineer vastly complex machines that are self-sustaining and resilient to every possible kind of failure possible for literally many multiples of the duration of recorded human history. And then you have to consider that the time, material, and energy costs of doing that suggest are mind-boggling on the scale of a human lifetime, such that you'd be committing literally tens of generations of humans towards just getting this effort off the ground, much less the literally tens or hundreds of thousands of years required to TRAVEL to another star.
  
  There are certain things about space and space travel that you only can find out by doing it.
  Such as? A comet landing did nothing to expand our understanding of the long-term effects on biological systems, certainly. What incredibly crucial bit of knowledge did we glean that will somehow lead to us colonizing the universe? You're engaging in the old "... 3) profit!" hand-waving here, on a colossal scale.
  
  Learning about comets gives us the ability to see what sort of material makes up a solar system and how it interacts. We're not just doing this to go sightseeing.
  And I already said that if the point were just simple scientific curiosity, I'm fine with that - at least we're being honest there. What I take issue with is the mindless chant of "must colonize everything we can see" without any acknowledgement of the fundamental fucking impossibility of it in any practical sense without massive revolutions in our understanding of the universe.
  
  There is some idea that we will somehow be able to magically be able to find all of those advances we need later if we just stay on Earth and focus no effort or money on space exploration. That makes zero sense.
  Demonstrably not my idea, based on the things I've said. In rebuttal, though, there is also some idea that we will somehow magically find all of those advances if we just do SOMETHING, no matter what, as long as it involves launching a rocket and "something something space something gravity something science fiction something species survival." So let me lay it out chapter and verse for you, to help you see the problem.
  1) Space is a motherfucking vacuum. It is completely antithetical to human life. Keeping humans alive in space, and in transit, requires engineering that, 50-60 years since we started blasting humans into orbit, we still regularly have catastrophic mishaps that are killing people.
  2) Space is fucking HUGE. Like, you can't even comprehend how big. Just to the next planet is 8 months. To other planets - YEARS. To other stars - thousands of centuries. How old is your car? Probably 10-20 years, and you're constantly repairing it, right? Now imagine if you had to build a car that would survive being driven for 200,000 years. Oh, and it also must not lose atmosphere or any other materials, ever, during that time. And it must be able to carry enough fuel to keep it moving for that time.
  3) Getting to space is fucking EXPENSIVE. Even if Elon Musk's wildest plans come true, it'll still cost tens of thousands of dollars to launch appreciable mass into earth orbit.
  4) Even if we manage to overcome ALL of that, you're talking about taking a small number of humans, launching the
15. Re: And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Regarding the 'get your way' comment, I think you know full well he meant that common mentality, not you personally (unless you're Donald Trump). Why pretend you're making a valid point then resort to deliberate misrepresentation?
16. Re:And how does this help the people? by Lumpy · 2016-02-12 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  "Actually, the biggest threat to space exploration is actually the unwillingness of people to do it."
  Actually the biggest threat to space exploration is Congress. NASA would have double the budget if they were given only what the military pays for air conditioning TENTS overseas.
  WE spend such a miniscule portion of the budget on space it's embarrassing. Give NASA 10% of the military budget. OR we need to declare war on mars to get the full military budget in line.
  Americans are more interested in killing people than science and exploration. This is a solid fact proven by looking at the last Budget released.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
17. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 09:08 · Score: -1
  
  I've tried to drill some sense into Space Nutters. I have begun to see it's as futile as deprogramming cult members.
  As you saw, they don't accept reality and escape into a home-made sci-fi religion. And they don't want to change.
  You'll note that Space Nutters tend be misanthropic, paranoid, and mostly programmers... Try it, engage some and you'll start seeing the same patterns emerge over and over. The same tired arguments, the same Romantic Gothic scenarios, the same sci-fi "solutions" to problems only they see...
  Truly pathetic. But if you want to see how bad it can get, try reading "The Millennial Project". Hand-waving on a galactic scale. It's a jewel of a book, it never ceases to crack me up.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project:_Colonizing_the_Galaxy_in_Eight_Easy_Steps
18. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  You realize that everything you just wrote simply shouts, "Hi, I'm a Space Nutter, and all of these fanciful ideas are just around the corner."
  
  Sounds impossible? Well fuck, we landed on the moon, we developed nuclear power and that just a mere century from the time of the steam engine. It was impossible to cross the seas, but people did it. Hell, even prehistoric man with nothing but hides, bows and arrows ventured into the Artic... and conquered.
  Yes, in thousands of years of human history, we've gone from bows to nuclear reactors. And you propose that in TENS more years, we're going to somehow invent zero-gravity industrial tools and processes, develop fusion drives, and somehow have the money and energy to launch all kinds of mining and colonization spaceships?
  Talk about a load of cock.
19. Re:And how does this help the people? by bondsbw · 2016-02-12 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  WE spend such a miniscule portion of the budget on space it's embarrassing.
  I agree.
  
  Give NASA 10% of the military budget.
  I disagree. Not about giving them that number, but that there is no reason for that number. Why is 10% special, why not 50% or 5% or an absolute number that has nothing to do with the military budget?
  
  NASA would have double the budget
  This is true for every government program, every private program, and every human on earth. We all want more money, but wanting more does not provide a reasonable argument for deserving more.
  Look, I'm not arguing that NASA shouldn't be given more money but it's a hard sell when the only reason appears to be "I want it to be bigger".
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
20. Re:And how does this help the people? by bondsbw · 2016-02-12 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  You realize the internet that you're using to complain about government spending on started off as a government project right?
  
  So did the freedom of speech. ;-)
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
21. Re:And how does this help the people? by tnk1 · 2016-02-12 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Again, we have this odd fixation on if you want one thing, you couldn't have possibly done the other.
  I've spent quite a bit of time exploring this planet. I have quite literally traveled to the other side of the world from where I live and many other places in between. What I don't understand is why this planet has to be "enough" for me.
  You're making a poor assumption about who you're talking to, because it's all black and white to you. Either I agree with you, or I'm an Aspie who has never left his parent's basement; as if, even if that were true, it somehow refutes what I have been saying. I like Earth just fine, but there are other places than this. I may never go to them, but I think we should try to. For the same reason, I might travel to more terrestrial locations.
  More to the point, you learn more about where you live when you can turn around and put it in perspective. When you go to the Mars or you go to the Moon, even, you can learn things about Earth itself that you can't learn any other way.
  There's no so-called "techno-religion" going on here. And I get it, you're a feet on the ground sort of guy. Fair enough. You don't have to go anywhere. But of all the places that I see my money going to, this is probably one of the few where I feel like we're doing more than putting hand to mouth and taking our turn at the grindstone.
22. Re:And how does this help the people? by tnk1 · 2016-02-12 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  "Actually, the biggest threat to space exploration is actually the unwillingness of people to do it."
  
  Actually the biggest threat to space exploration is Congress.
  
  Two sides of the same coin. Congress doesn't want to do it because either the representatives don't want to, or their voters don't. The usual reason is, as you mentioned, either some military program, or alternately, some social welfare program. Or maybe a bridge to Nowhere for their constituents.
  But no, I don't think Americans are interested in killing people, we are interested in not being attacked. We just have the idea that we will get that by attacking other people *harder*, and Congress is happy to go with that reasoning in order to keep the defense contractor contributions coming in.
23. Re:And how does this help the people? by Mal-2 · 2016-02-12 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Under continuous 1g acceleration, then turning around in the middle and decelerating at the same 1g, relativistic effects will become significant and shorten the subjective time for the people on board a ship greatly. You would reach relativistic speeds in about a year, and only climb back down out of them for about a year at the other end. Thus, the people on board could easily survive the trip in terms of subjective time, though by the time they got there, everyone they knew back home would be long dead for all but the nearest stars. We don't need new physics to do this, we just need new engineering.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
24. Re:And how does this help the people? by KeensMustard · 2016-02-12 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  You realize the internet that you're using to complain about government spending on started off as a government project right?
  You realise the 'manned spaceflight' experiment was effectively over before any government money was spent on the internet? That should give you a hint.
  
  At some point in the future we're going to be acquiring large quantities of resources from off-planet
  [citation needed]
  
  Really, anything that eventually helps humanity move out among the stars is far more important to us than anything we locally do on Earth.
  You do realise we are already moving out amongst the stars right? when it's night, go outside and look up. See those pinpricks of light?
  
  We might make life more comfortable for a few, but eventually something disastrous will happen to our planet (some people are even pretty sure we'll be the ones that do it) and we'll need to have a backup.
  Really?
  You don't think the more responsible route would be for you to tell us what these impending disasters are so that we might save the lives of the earth's 9 billion residents, rather than advocate for a plan that saves what: A dozen people? A score?
  Your plan amounts to advocating genocide in order for you to pursue your political and/or religious goals. You did realise that?
25. Re:And how does this help the people? by KeensMustard · 2016-02-12 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the biggest threat to space exploration is actually the unwillingness of people to do it.
  Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason that people a generally not that interested in this vision of the future is that you have failed to convince them? That the reluctance is not their fault, but yours?
  That the case for space colonisation may not be compelling enough or realistic enough for the skeptical people to want to do it?
26. Re: And how does this help the people? by Hognoxious · 2016-02-12 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter. Even if he means all 7 billion of us.
  The problem with exploring space is space. It's big and it's empty - the clue is in the name - there's nothing to eat and nothing to breathe unless you bring it with you.
  Did I mention that it's big?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
27. Re:And how does this help the people? by TheRealHocusLocus · 2016-02-12 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Look, I'm not arguing that NASA shouldn't be given more money but it's a hard sell when the only reason appears to be "I want it to be bigger".
  Be gentle, action often begins with people sensing that something is wrong. When you're grasping in the air you think, maybe things could start happening if they just had more. But how much more? NASA is GO for what?
  How about GO for a Hypervelocity Asteroid Intercept Vehicle (HAIV): An Innovative Solution to NASA's NEO Impact Threat Mitigation Grand Challenge and Flight Validation Mission Architecture Development?
  Everything about self-sustaining colonies is (regrettably) some years away.
  Exploration is nice, but it is also an unaffordable luxury *IF* there is an unaddressed existential threat.
  Statisticians who attempt to marginalize existential threats by fronting casino odds should be ignored (or worse).
  Every time someone suggests we have found almost all potentially hazardous objects, ask about the others.
  Dinosaurs Are Proof We Need A Space Program. S,M,L,X,2X
  We are now 50 years into the space age, 40 years since impactor dinosaur extinction reached consensus.
  There is on this day no viable mission to address this threat, and little interest.
  Is this evolution in action?
  It's about buying more time for the human race, and Gaia as we know her today.
  PRIORITY ONE: HAIVs on the ground or in orbit, ready to deploy on short notice.
  PRIORITY TWO: Missions to complete our sky survey, especially 'dark' objects.
  PRIORITY THREE: Everything else, since we (may have) bought some more time.
  I recently started a thread about this.
  
  --
  <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
28. Re:And how does this help the people? by TheRealHocusLocus · 2016-02-12 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  How 'bout dem Space Nutters, ain't they kooks?
  Heads in the stars, readin' space booooooks!
  Plannin' dem missions to launch men 'n probes
  or spinny-dizzy colonies in LaGrangian lobes
  wearin' them space suits on Halloween on Earth
  chewin' the Space fat on for all that it's worth!
  Dem nugger-mugger Space Huggers way down South
  stuffin' Space Nutter Central for all that funds allow'th
  How to be a Space Nutter, only one way to hack it
  Get yerself a nuke, find an asteroid and smack it!
  One in a growing series of 'them poem' tributes in the style of Mason Williams
  
  --
  <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
29. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 16:26 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, you've noticed the religious paranoia and misanthropy of the Space Nutters, eh?
30. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 16:49 · Score: 0
  
  "What I don't understand is why this planet has to be "enough" for me."
  And yet it must be. Your fixation on the beyond is religious by definition.
  What, precisely, do you think is out there? A different Periodic Table of Elements? They're all the same from one end of the universe to the other.
31. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 19:06 · Score: 0
  
  Regardless of how stupid space colonization is, your comments scream nutter far worse than anything else here. If you're sincerely trying to argue your point and not troll, you would stop, because you're doing more damage than good. Leave the arguing against expanding space programs to those with coherent, on-topic arguments that have substance instead of devolving into ad hominem and strawman arguments. Those of us who don't want space exploration value your "help" as much as a scientist wanting funds to build a new telescope values the help of a nut screaming about needing a telescope to stop planet X crashing into Earth.
32. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 19:40 · Score: 0
  
  What current technology requires just engineering to produce, yet can maintain 1 g acceleration for 30 days, let alone a year? For just 30 days, using a very high specific impulse of 20000, you would need more than 1e52 parts fuel and one part payload...
  Heck, ignore the specific impulse, and just look at the energy. If you want to get to a relativistic regime, where gamma is at least 2, then you are talking about needing at 1 kg mass-energy equivalent to accelerate a single kilogram of payload. That would require a bit over 1000 kg of uranium in a 100% efficient scheme to extra fission energy. If you carry that on the craft, the rocket equation will still kick in hard. If you try some scheme of transmitting energy, you have to deal with efficiency issues. Moderate power lasers and close range RF can push 10% efficiency, while higher power lasers drop to about 1% (and ignoring coupling efficiency) and longer range RF has trouble with resolving power. So now you're looking at worldwide electricity generation being able to accelerate about 8 kg of material to a gamma of 2, per year, ignoring many other sources of inefficiencies.
  You would need more than just engineering, but fundamental breakthroughs in energy storage density, energy transmission efficiency, and material science before even considering sending a probe at near relativistic speeds, let alone people.
33. Re: And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 21:30 · Score: 0
  
  And yet immeasurable progress in diverse fields has been made from looking into or trying to get to space. Progress that has helped mankind, and that could probably fix many of the world's logistical problems right now if it weren't for burocracy and politics and religious barriers.
  Space is just a frontier for pushing ourselves. Can you name a better (i.e. cheaper relative to the scientific potential) one?
34. Re:And how does this help the people? by Mal-2 · 2016-02-13 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  You'd have to bypass the rocket problem to some degree by launching the various parts separately and assembling them in orbit. This would allow the use of only less energetic but more efficient engines, since you would already be outside the atmosphere. Also, I admit I'm assuming fusion as a power source rather than fission. Calling fusion "an engineering problem" may in fact be premature, but I do expect it to get solved.
  I think a bigger problem than the thrust would be the velocity itself. Hit anything, however minute, and it's going to release a hell of a lot of destructive energy. A way of diverting anything around the hull rather than through it is going to be crucial.
  What I meant by it being engineering and not physics is that, unlike FTL travel, there is no indication it would be in violation of any known laws of physics, yet would still solve the problem of getting people to another star system well within a single human lifespan (in subjective time).
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
35. Re: And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  No, it hasn't. And the bottom of the ocean.
36. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, coherent stuff like "getting the species off this rock", normal and totally sensible things like that?
37. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  The "rocket problem" has nothing to do with getting things off the ground and into orbit, but that for a given change in velocity for a given carried power source, you need exponentially more fuel. Fusion can extra about 1% of the mass energy equivalent of the fuel, so you would still need ~58 kg of fuel per 1 kg of payload for 1g for a year, assuming the craft doesn't carry its own fuel. And that is an important assumption, because if it has to carry its own fuel, it would need to carry more fuel to accelerate the remaining fuel over the course of the flight. If you assumed the fusion fuel was perfect at converting energy to kinetic energy and had an exhaust of gamma 1.01, you would need to carry with you about 250 kg of fuel for every kg of non-fuel, in an ideal world. The exponential is a real problem, because if you drop that to about 75% efficient, you get a fuel to payload ratio of 650.
  If you ignored the relativistic goal and just tried to go fast, accelerating at 1 g for 30 days, and breaking at 1 g for 30 days, you could get to Alpha Centauri in about 50 years, while needing a fuel to payload ratio of only about 4 with a less than perfect fusion engine.
38. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  See, now you're just helping convince the space nutters that anti-space exploration people lack reading comprehension, and can further be ignored. From the comment you replied to:
  
  Leave the arguing against expanding space programs to those with coherent
39. Re: And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  And indeed we are exploring the oceans too.
  And yes, it has. Biochemistry was researched enormously, leading to improvements in medicine delivery, bacteria research, and our understanding of fitness, nutrition and diet. The psychological experiments they performed are very well regarded. Physics - that list must be nearly endless, but: materials, communication, anything we now transmit or monitor using satellites, any nano-scale or quantum advances we've made that rely on the confirmation of theories by astronomy, solar energy. Engineering - materials again, plasma physics that has funnelled into energy production, fuel technology, basic understanding of forces influencing almost all areas of engineering.
  Not to mention the fact that most scientific research brings low-level improvements to techniques and theories that can be shared across the sciences.
  There's just no way an informed (and non-trolling) person can seriously claim that mankind's fascination with space hasn't had any beneficial effects. And as many people have pointed out, the budget for it is almost insignificant. It's just not something you should be angry about.
40. Re:And how does this help the people? by Mal-2 · 2016-02-13 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  I won't argue, you obviously can crunch the numbers (and I cannot, I just have to look them up), but 50 years may be good enough. It won't exactly be a fun trip, but it may be a survivable one. As for fuel sources, I was imagining we'd just flat-out steal asteroids whole and make them both hull and fuel.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
41. Re: And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 22:32 · Score: 0
  
  plus the early discoveries in astronomy – such as the earth going around the sun – helping to put checks on the power and abuses of the church.
42. Re:And how does this help the people? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-15 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  well last time they tried pork barreling the space program dozens people died (i.e. booster being built and ferried by train was the reason they needed o-rings every section, as they needed to be shipped in pieces as they needed to fit into trains, but hey it brought work to utah!) so they decided it wasn't a profitable target and let it die.
  the military projects, otoh.....
  http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/general/ethics/boosters.html
Again, PR failure but engineering success by Brett+Buck · 2016-02-12 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

As far as I can tell, the lander worked exactly as intended for as long as intended. It's the extended mission that had issues, and that was always an "if possible"/"best effort" prospect .People are continuing to think that this mission was "troubled" and had a lot of problems but was just good, and they got a second shot - which was a very long shot.
I am no apologist for the ESA (far from it) but this was a very nice, well-executed program and they shouldn't and the world shouldn't getting a negative impression about it.
1. Re:Again, PR failure but engineering success by Dins · 2016-02-12 06:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If I recall, when the lander hit the comet it was supposed to fire spikes or other anchors into the comet to hold in down, but one or more of them didn't fire and so the lander bounced around a lot and ended up under a shaded cliff. Yes, the whole program was great and can very well be considered successful, but it didn't work exactly as intended.
2. Re:Again, PR failure but engineering success by Joce640k · 2016-02-12 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  It can be considered very successful, period. No qualifiers needed.
  
  --
  No sig today...
3. Re:Again, PR failure but engineering success by trout007 · 2016-02-12 12:50 · Score: 2
  
  What? It was almost a complete failure. It didn't land how or where it was supposed to. It couldn't drill or sample like it was supposed to. Nothing worked except the camera and that didn't work for long because they landed in a place where the batteries ran out.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
4. Re:Again, PR failure but engineering success by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  It was designed to accomplish all of its primary goals on battery power alone, which is a big factor in why they didn't want to complicate the mission with something like an RTG, while solar cells are simpler to add on in the hopes of getting an extended mission. Of the 10 instruments on board, 9 worked and collected useful data, with the drill being the one exception. Several of the instruments were of limited repeated use or would be unable to be powered under solar power even in ideal conditions. The only long term instruments would have been basically plasma monitoring equipment.
5. Re:Again, PR failure but engineering success by Hognoxious · 2016-02-12 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  The orbiter (Rosetta) worked fine. The lander, not so much. Though it wasn't the total washout that the herp-derp-yerp crowd are claiming.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
6. Re:Again, PR failure but engineering success by trout007 · 2016-02-13 01:29 · Score: 2
  
  The whole reason for a lander was to drill, capture, bake, and sample the surface. How do I know? I'm working on a nearly identical mission for NASA that will go to permanently shadowed craters on the poles. Because it's a cheaper mission the success criteria is very limited. We must land and take data. But the whole reason we are going is to drill, capture, bake, and sample. That is the only way to really know what is there. If we fail that everyone on the mission will feel we failed. But as long as we land and get some data from the instruments the PR will be spun that we succeeded.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
7. Re:Again, PR failure but engineering success by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  And yet design papers, conference talks, and other publications before the thing actually landed, emphasize that the top priority was determining the structure and distribution of the nucleus, i.e. CONSERT, MUPUS and SESAME. The second priority was chemical composition, which is where the drill comes in, but also includes CIVA, Ptolemy and APXS, which did get data, and COSAC got a bunch of data other than soil composition which was only part of its purpose.
  Regardless of where you work or what the priorities are, you said "Nothing worked except the camera" which is not even an exaggeration, but flat out wrong.
8. Re:Again, PR failure but engineering success by toddestan · 2016-02-13 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  It was designed to accomplish all of its primary goals on battery power alone, which is a big factor in why they didn't want to complicate the mission with something like an RTG, while solar cells are simpler to add on in the hopes of getting an extended mission. Of the 10 instruments on board, 9 worked and collected useful data, with the drill being the one exception. Several of the instruments were of limited repeated use or would be unable to be powered under solar power even in ideal conditions. The only long term instruments would have been basically plasma monitoring equipment.
  That's what people don't get. The lander was basically designed as if it wouldn't have reliable solar power. If it did, then there was an extended mission where it could continue to collect additional data. Really, the biggest failure was the landing system which was supposed to anchor it down. If that had worked, it wouldn't have bounced all over the place and it likely would have had enough light for the solar panels to work. It's also likely that they would have been able to use the drill. But even with the way it ended up, it was still able to perform most of it's primary mission.
9. Re:Again, PR failure but engineering success by trout007 · 2016-02-19 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  You proved my point. On missions like this publicly you set the requirements low in case you fail. You say the priority is the easy things. But the real reason to make a lander that could anchor was to drill and sample. If your priorities were the other things you could have made the whole thing more robust and capable.
  If the project I'm working on flies and gets to the moon but can't drill we all feel like we wasted a decade. Sure the PR will play it down but taking a couple of remote sensor readings is not why we are going.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
But don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 06:49 · Score: 0

The free market will totally send an automatic 3D printed mining operation any time now!
Planet X: 1, Earth: 0 by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2016-02-12 06:54 · Score: 1

If it's the newly discovered tenth planet that's been nudging comets our way for all these years, I'd score it Planet X: 1, Earth: 0.
1. Re:Planet X: 1, Earth: 0 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  There is no tenth planet, there isn't even a ninth planet. There are several major objects farther away than Pluto and some are larger but none are planets.
Backasswards by spaceman375 · 2016-02-12 07:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

The comet is moving AWAY from the sun, not towards it. Summary and article are written by people who regurgitate more than remember.

--
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
1. Re:Backasswards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  "as it races toward the sun
  Maybe it turned back!
It's because of that guy's shirt by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 07:37 · Score: -1

The misogynistic portrayals of womyn as sexual objects on his shirt triggered rape panic in the lander and caused it to shut down
maybe next time? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 07:38 · Score: 1

this round we lost it, but is it possible that the module on the comet will wake up next time it cames back to sun?
wiki says the orbit is 6.5 years, that's quite short time
Marginal by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 07:59 · Score: 0

I don't think ESA did a very good job characterizing the low gravity landing environment before landing. The comet was very rugged of course, but to have the lander careening off into a shadowed cliff is not a good result. Compare that to the deliberate, years long process of the NASA Eros spacecraft orbiting and then gently landing on an asteroid.
1. Re:Marginal by GuB-42 · 2016-02-12 10:19 · Score: 2
  
  The problem wasn't because they somehow didn't expect the low gravity environment, it was that the parts designed to deal with it failed.
  The nitrogen thruster designed to push the lander down failed, something they knew beforehand, even though the reason is unknown. The harpoons designed to hold it in place also failed : reportedly the nitrocellulose propellant failed to ignite properly in a vacuum.
  What they didn't expect that could have affected the lander's ability to stay in place is that the surface was harder than expected. This was one of the major discoveries made using Philae.
"successfully landed" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 08:08 · Score: 1

Successfully landed, as opposed to ricocheting off, clattering into a hole upside down and failing to achieve most of the science. Every statement I've seen since has been studiously decorated with "successful".
1. Re:"successfully landed" by GuB-42 · 2016-02-12 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Successfully landed not once but three times!
2. Re:"successfully landed" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 19:59 · Score: 0
  
  The project had a specific list of goals of different priorities set out before it was even built, as those goals factored heavily into the scope and design of the lander. The vast majority of those goals were met... so why shouldn't it be marked as successful, especially when the expectation was that not all goals would likely be achieved in the first place?
Where's your crew? by Latent+Heat · 2016-02-13 01:11 · Score: 1

On the third planet . . .
. . . there is no third planet . . .