'Welease Wosetta!'

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
kiwi
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by kiwi » Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:41 pm

bdw000 wrote:
kiwi wrote:
... no other possibillity is there? 8-)
I am not claiming personal knowledge here, but dishonesty on the part of any "space agency" is ALWAYS a "possibility."
Yes that is the "invisible" elephant swinging in the breeze of course .. makes it a win win? :twisted:

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by viscount aero » Sat Nov 22, 2014 1:53 am

kiwi wrote:
WIthout the 1 gram of Philae being anchored down to
Yes ... so MUST be "wedged" in tight ... no other possibillity is there? 8-)
Unless a sheet of paper is enough leverage weight to have a drill bit pierce a surface--and then break--including any other instrument lowered onto the surface--then no: there is no other possibility.

How can 1 gram of pressure break anything?

For this case, in my opinion, any deployed instrument making surface contact will have acted as a catapult, raising Philae off the surface no matter what they did. I feel this is fair game to assume. The condition is so extreme for the lander, 1/100,000th g, that there is no other way to see this.

But how do instruments designed for space travel and geologic experiments break under the weight of a business card or sheet of paper? How could have any of the deployed things penetrated anything if Philae was never secured to the surface?

User avatar
Metryq
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by Metryq » Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:25 am

viscount aero wrote:
kiwi wrote:
WIthout the 1 gram of Philae being anchored down to
Yes ... so MUST be "wedged" in tight ... no other possibillity is there? 8-)
Philae spot-welded itself to the surface with a zap? What kind of thruster was used to hold the probe down while the anchors tried to work? A chemical thruster, or an electric engine?

I've also heard of something called contact welding—when metal outgasses in a vacuum so that simple contact is enough to weld it to another piece of metal. Somehow I doubt that could have happened. Most likely Philae's bounce across the landscape wedged an extremity into a rough edge. (The sort of chance occurrence that never would have happened if the designers were trying to do it.)

Maybe Philae landed on an outcrop of lodestone?

Or maybe 67P has a much higher gravity, and electric repulsion was mucking up the figures.
How could have any of the deployed things penetrated anything if Philae was never secured to the surface?
Laser drills? Let me guess, Philae doesn't have any lasers, let alone the power for anything above a laser pointer. Although I imagine Rosetta might have a laser spectrometer to detect all the ice.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by viscount aero » Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:46 am

Metryq wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
kiwi wrote:
WIthout the 1 gram of Philae being anchored down to
Yes ... so MUST be "wedged" in tight ... no other possibillity is there? 8-)
Philae spot-welded itself to the surface with a zap? What kind of thruster was used to hold the probe down while the anchors tried to work? A chemical thruster, or an electric engine?

I've also heard of something called contact welding—when metal outgasses in a vacuum so that simple contact is enough to weld it to another piece of metal. Somehow I doubt that could have happened. Most likely Philae's bounce across the landscape wedged an extremity into a rough edge. (The sort of chance occurrence that never would have happened if the designers were trying to do it.)

Maybe Philae landed on an outcrop of lodestone?

Or maybe 67P has a much higher gravity, and electric repulsion was mucking up the figures.
How could have any of the deployed things penetrated anything if Philae was never secured to the surface?
Laser drills? Let me guess, Philae doesn't have any lasers, let alone the power for anything above a laser pointer. Although I imagine Rosetta might have a laser spectrometer to detect all the ice.
Of course you're kidding mostly :D The hold-down thruster didn't work on Philae. Nothing did in that regard.

Maustin
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:06 pm

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by Maustin » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:27 pm

viscount aero wrote:
Dotini wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
dodeca wrote:Because Philae was not anchored to the comet surface, it is also possible that, if the drill touched a particularly hard surface material, it moved the lander instead of drilling into the surface.
That is correct, particularly since Philae weighs only 1 gram on the comet. Without any anchoring or downward pressure to secure tools as they are deployed then the tools cannot function. Gravity is needed. In this virtual non-existence of gravity then any surface becomes "hard." So what does "hard" mean? :?:
If I weighed only one gram and hammered on a bowl of Jell-O, I might achieve lift-off from my chair.

So I too question how effectively MUPUS was able operate without Philae being normal to a surface and being tethered down tight with the ice screws at the 3 feet. We know at least one foot was dangling in the air. Or is it conceivable the structure of the craft was wedged into the rock like a climber's jam nut?
Yes so any reports of a "hard" or "soft" surface with the lander weighing only 1 gram will be nearly meaningless. Without being secured to the surface of the comet then any instruments deployed will act as catapults. The lander then cannot really do anything. That it became stuck in a crevice is actually a good thing except that it's in the dark (provided the "stuck" actually secured it to the surface--a blessing). If only it got stuck in the sunlight it could have probably drilled and hammered and sniffed all year. But the 'what ifs' are useless. It is what it is.
This is one of the most profound and insightful strings of recent comments. How can you tell how hard something is if applying more than 1g of pressure lifts you up off the surface? Apologies if this has already been posted somewhere, but the Rosetta engineer team appeared on Reddit the other day to answer questions to the public:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2 ... d_science/
Some good stuff, some lame. Near the end of the comments, one scientist says that a brick dropped from a height of 5 feet on 67P would take about three minutes to fall to the surface. Really helps to put this whole 'low gravity environment' in an accessible perspective.

User avatar
Metryq
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by Metryq » Sun Nov 23, 2014 5:29 pm

Dotini wrote:If I weighed only one gram and hammered on a bowl of Jell-O, I might achieve lift-off from my chair.
Granted, hammering the Jell-O might well send you off into space. But remember that while weighing only a gram, you (or a lander) would mass far more than a gram. The surface tension of a gelatin dessert should be enough to launch a piece of paper, but something massing more than a sheet of paper might penetrate the surface (depending on the area of the contact point).

This is not to say that Philae's tools should be effective. Just trying to keep the weight/mass thing in perspective.

And now Dotini has initiated the "dirty Jell-O" model for comets.

kiwi
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by kiwi » Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:09 pm

With two scenario's to be considered

1 The thing is wedged in tight

2 She sit's on the surface under her own "weight"

The querys will take on different legitimacy depending under which condition it is being considered .... there is the 3rd optoin that they are not being straight with their data but best ignored as it becomes pointless to proceed from that angle, although it may well be true to some degree.

Here again though its obvious that the further you attempt to investigate under the "accepted" law's of Physics it is not long before total confusion reigns, for me its another indicator that once all the hubris is peeled away there are NO reliable and fully known "fundamentals" supporting it. We are doomed to chase our tails forever until the whole shebang is shaken like a dirty rug and we start again from scratch :idea: :ugeek:

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by viscount aero » Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:31 pm

Metryq wrote:
Dotini wrote:If I weighed only one gram and hammered on a bowl of Jell-O, I might achieve lift-off from my chair.
Granted, hammering the Jell-O might well send you off into space. But remember that while weighing only a gram, you (or a lander) would mass far more than a gram. The surface tension of a gelatin dessert should be enough to launch a piece of paper, but something massing more than a sheet of paper might penetrate the surface (depending on the area of the contact point).

This is not to say that Philae's tools should be effective. Just trying to keep the weight/mass thing in perspective.

And now Dotini has initiated the "dirty Jell-O" model for comets.
Even with more mass than a sheet of paper, Philae's 1 g weight is not enough to leverage against the drill bit for a penetration in my opinion. I cannot actually know this unless I were to demonstrate it in a lab, but that is my opinion :mrgreen:

Why I say this is because Philae has no velocity or momentum (or leverage pressure) behind it. For example, all objects in space weigh nothing, from a feather to a ball of lead. But if you were in the path of a 50,000 km/hr projectile in space, weighing nothing, and it hit you, it would destroy your body. Whereas Philae's momentum relative to the comet is 0. And its weight is near 0.

User avatar
Metryq
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by Metryq » Mon Nov 24, 2014 3:04 am

viscount aero wrote:Even with more mass than a sheet of paper, Philae's 1 g weight is not enough to leverage against the drill bit for a penetration in my opinion.
Agreed. If Philae massed as little as a sheet of paper, the drill wouldn't stand a chance of even scratching the surface of 67P. Since it does mass more than that, it might have the inertia to scuff the surface, but not enough for the drill to bite in.

Not to change the subject, but too bad Philae doesn't have "gecko feet":

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/bizar ... ve-gravity

(You'll have to copy-and-paste the URL; the quotes in that address are keeping the BBcode from working properly.)

I find it amusing that the rotation of 1950 DA isn't enough to suggest to astronomers that the body must be a solid mass. Instead, they stick (pardon the pun) with the notion that it's a loose pile of rubble—because the nebular hypothesis says it must be—and take off on wild goose chases for exotic reasons why it stays together. More funding is needed to study the problem.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by viscount aero » Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:48 am

Metryq wrote:
viscount aero wrote:Even with more mass than a sheet of paper, Philae's 1 g weight is not enough to leverage against the drill bit for a penetration in my opinion.
Agreed. If Philae massed as little as a sheet of paper, the drill wouldn't stand a chance of even scratching the surface of 67P. Since it does mass more than that, it might have the inertia to scuff the surface, but not enough for the drill to bite in.
I don't quite follow your syntax but I understand what you're saying. Suffice it to say, there isn't enough gravity (weight) on either the comet or the lander for them to practically interact. Mass doesn't change but the gravity (weight) does. In space there is no weight until objects locally interact within the critical distances of each's gravity envelope. In this case with 67P and Philae, it is almost as if there were zero gravity between the two objects. In this condition there is virtually no leveraging ability for work to occur.

This is a large reason why I don't understand how a drill could "break" when it was subjected to virtually zero friction or work. And why did some of the major external systems fail? It seems too many of them failed to be written off as mere coincidence.
Metryq wrote:Not to change the subject, but too bad Philae doesn't have "gecko feet":

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/bizar ... ve-gravity

(You'll have to copy-and-paste the URL; the quotes in that address are keeping the BBcode from working properly.)

I find it amusing that the rotation of 1950 DA isn't enough to suggest to astronomers that the body must be a solid mass. Instead, they stick (pardon the pun) with the notion that it's a loose pile of rubble—because the nebular hypothesis says it must be—and take off on wild goose chases for exotic reasons why it stays together. More funding is needed to study the problem.
Great post; I'm glad you changed the subject--sort of. This is an example of a theory being categorically falsified, ergo, that "asteroids are known to be rubble piles loosely held together by gravity." Who ever thought of that theory and why did it become so popular? All asteroids are absolutely rubble piles? I never believed it and do not believe it. And this fast-rotating one falsifies it.

Moreover, it is laughable that they are implying "Van der Waals" forces" as holding the asteroid together. Read about it and see how preposterous it is when applied to asteroids :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force

Mind you it is the only one of its kind, evidently, that they have thus far detected. But space is giant and rocks are very small ;)

kiwi
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by kiwi » Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:36 pm


User avatar
Metryq
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by Metryq » Tue Nov 25, 2014 3:07 am

viscount aero wrote:But space is giant and rocks are very small ;)
Forgive me, but every time I hear "small rocks" I can't help but think of that scene in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL about the witch.

BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!

Feels like professional astronomy these days. (Okay, so now we've worked our way from LIFE OF BRIAN to HOLY GRAIL. I guess that makes Philae the five ounce bird.)

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by viscount aero » Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:51 am

Metryq wrote:
viscount aero wrote:But space is giant and rocks are very small ;)
Forgive me, but every time I hear "small rocks" I can't help but think of that scene in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL about the witch.

BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!

Feels like professional astronomy these days. (Okay, so now we've worked our way from LIFE OF BRIAN to HOLY GRAIL. I guess that makes Philae the five ounce bird.)
Good one :D

Frantic
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49 am

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by Frantic » Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:25 am

viscount aero wrote:
Metryq wrote:
viscount aero wrote:But space is giant and rocks are very small ;)
Forgive me, but every time I hear "small rocks" I can't help but think of that scene in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL about the witch.

BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!

Feels like professional astronomy these days. (Okay, so now we've worked our way from LIFE OF BRIAN to HOLY GRAIL. I guess that makes Philae the five ounce bird.)
Good one :D
The mission has become a bit hilarious. :lol:

Since the beginning of Rosetta's arrival I have been picturing in my head the scenes from The Princess Bride. Viscelli saying inconceivable. There is some project manager getting results from his subordinates and after every report he says, "In-Con-Ceivable!"

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: 'Welease Wosetta!'

Unread post by viscount aero » Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:53 am

Frantic wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Metryq wrote:
viscount aero wrote:But space is giant and rocks are very small ;)
Forgive me, but every time I hear "small rocks" I can't help but think of that scene in MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL about the witch.

BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!

Feels like professional astronomy these days. (Okay, so now we've worked our way from LIFE OF BRIAN to HOLY GRAIL. I guess that makes Philae the five ounce bird.)
Good one :D
The mission has become a bit hilarious. :lol:

Since the beginning of Rosetta's arrival I have been picturing in my head the scenes from The Princess Bride. Viscelli saying inconceivable. There is some project manager getting results from his subordinates and after every report he says, "In-Con-Ceivable!"
Yes.

It underscores no matter what or how many probes they send out they already know what they're going to conclude no matter what data is gathered. It is as if going to the celestial body doesn't matter.

Rosetta is a prime example, just as I predicted: no matter what they see or gather, the sublimating icy dirtball theory will be confirmed more than ever. That is exactly what happened.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests