'Welease Wosetta!'

[FS3]

Insofar as this:
"As the mechanical properties of the material are not known, it is difficult to predict the final depth of the anchor with any great certainty, but it may well be greater than that reached by any other of the lander's instruments. The instrumented anchor will be part of the MUPUS experiment, selected to form part of the Rosetta Lander payload. We report on results of laboratory simulations of anchor penetration performed at the Institut für Weltraumforschung, Graz, and compare these with models of projectile penetration. The value of the results expected from the penetrometry experiment in the context of an improved understanding of cometary processes is discussed."

What were the results discussed?

If you read the summary from 2014 at Determining the penetration resistance of a cometary surface by using data from the Philae anchoring harpoon it gives you some clues:

...the spacecraft will be anchored to the surface by a harpoon-type device. In addition to the anchoring function the projectile shot into the surface contains two sensors, which will be used to obtain information on the thermo-physical properties of the cometary ice: a shock accelerometer and a temperature sensor. The former will record the deceleration history of the anchoring projectile during the penetration phase. From these data information on mechanical strength of the near surface cometary material and its variation with depth can be retrieved...

In fact it was never put into question that ice wouldn't be found there! Hypothized in mythical caverns under the "fluffy" surface. The anchor has been tested up to 14MPa, with an initial velocity of 90m/sec. They "tested" it in that before mentioned lightweight aerated concrete (YTONG) where they achieved a penetration depth of about 6 - 7 cms.

Any harder material would be a problem, Huston! But as that water is constantly ouflowing, outgassing, ot-whatsoever - there must be ice under the surface! After all we can see it all the time, can't we?

It's simple! After one skilled seller of snake-oil (camouflaging as a "scientist") arrives at a certain position in the academic food chain (often close to brotherly, political echolons) all those little weasels dependent on his oppinion will be competing with each other in the usual rectal race for his attention.

After all, what's one Billion if you can have months or even years of fun for it?


FS3

[viscount aero]

Insofar as this:
"As the mechanical properties of the material are not known, it is difficult to predict the final depth of the anchor with any great certainty, but it may well be greater than that reached by any other of the lander's instruments. The instrumented anchor will be part of the MUPUS experiment, selected to form part of the Rosetta Lander payload. We report on results of laboratory simulations of anchor penetration performed at the Institut für Weltraumforschung, Graz, and compare these with models of projectile penetration. The value of the results expected from the penetrometry experiment in the context of an improved understanding of cometary processes is discussed."

What were the results discussed?

If you read the summary from 2014 at Determining the penetration resistance of a cometary surface by using data from the Philae anchoring harpoon it gives you some clues:

...the spacecraft will be anchored to the surface by a harpoon-type device. In addition to the anchoring function the projectile shot into the surface contains two sensors, which will be used to obtain information on the thermo-physical properties of the cometary ice: a shock accelerometer and a temperature sensor. The former will record the deceleration history of the anchoring projectile during the penetration phase. From these data information on mechanical strength of the near surface cometary material and its variation with depth can be retrieved...

In fact it was never put into question that ice wouldn't be found there! Hypothized in mythical caverns under the "fluffy" surface. The anchor has been tested up to 14MPa, with an initial velocity of 90m/sec. They "tested" it in that before mentioned lightweight aerated concrete (YTONG) where they achieved a penetration depth of about 6 - 7 cms.

Any harder material would be a problem, Huston! But as that water is constantly ouflowing, outgassing, ot-whatsoever - there must be ice under the surface! After all we can see it all the time, can't we?

It's simple! After one skilled seller of snake-oil (camouflaging as a "scientist") arrives at a certain position in the academic food chain (often close to brotherly, political echolons) all those little weasels dependent on his oppinion will be competing with each other in the usual rectal race for his attention.

After all, what's one Billion if you can have months or even years of fun for it?


FS3

Yes they presumed, in absolute terms, that they would be anchoring to ice. That was never questioned and the harpoon was designed for it. Yet 7 cms? That is barely 2 1/2 inches deep! When you anchor a tent into the ground when camping you must go at least 6 to 8 inches. So I don't understand their rationale whatsoever especially since escape velocity is below human walking speed. If they were to bump or bounce off the surface with the harpoon then the lander could possibly drift out into space. How would anchoring something that shallow be adequate under any circumstances? What if they only hit powder that extends down for several inches, talcum-like dirt that has no anchoring traits like on the Moon?

They could have designed a lander with a rocket engine whose skyward-directed thrust could burn for several minutes, or even hours, holding the lander to the surface while a long anchoring drill bit drilled into the cometary body for several feet. This way the lander would never drift off the surface due to minor bumps or unforeseen variables.

Despite their myopia I hope the lander is successful. The data will be highly valuable.

[4realScience]

As I still puzzle over the apparent density, it being 1/10th of ice, I consider EU electrical effect.

As I understand EU theory the 67P has a negative charge with respect to the sun because it spends most of its elapsed time in its orbit far from the sun out where the equilibrium charge level is more negative. So there is a possibility the Rosetta probe will be at a more positive potential than the 67P when they meet. It is also possible Rosetta will be at the same negative potential as 67P when they meet because it has been such a long time approaching it and may have discharged/charged to come to 67P's same equilibrium point.

Either way I see no EU effect that could distort Rosetta's recent empirical measurement of 67Ps gravity that would make 67P denser than it appears. The only possible electrical effect I can see would be a net attractive force increase between the two (unlike charges attract) which would cause our density calculation to be heavier than normal.

Still, just look at the surface of the thing. It looks like an electrically machined rock. How can this all be?

[seasmith]

~

4realScience » 7:44 pm wrote:


Everyone's used a microwave oven, yes?
that cookie has been baked dry

[viscount aero]

I think they are wrong in their density estimates. However, take a look at pumice, its density, and under the fiery and hydrated conditions it is formed. And, voila, you have 67P:

http://rashidfaridi.com/2012/02/10/pumi ... othy-lava/

excerpt:
"Pumice is an igneous rocks which formed when lava cooled quickly above ground. Little pockets of air can be seen in the rock . This rock is so light, that many pumice rocks actually float in water. Pumice is actually a kind of glass unike other rocks which are mixture of minerals. Because this rock is so light, it is used quite often as a decorative landscape stone.

By origin, Pumice is a is a solidified frothy lava typically created when super-heated, highly pressurized rock is violently ejected from a volcano. It is formed when lava and water are mixed. This unusual formation is due to the simultaneous actions of rapid cooling and rapid release of pressure. This release of pressure creates bubbles by lowering the solubility of gases (including water and CO2) dissolved in the lava, causing the gases to rapidly exsolve (like the bubbles of CO2 that appear when a carbonated drink is opened). The simultaneous cooling and pressure release freezes the bubbles in the matrix."

[viscount aero]

Now compare it to Comet Wild 2, ie, Stardust. Look at how closely it resembles pumice. Also, remember, Stardust found the particles to have been formed in the presence of:

• extremely high temperatures, molten
• infused with water, ie, hydrated silica

This virtually parallels the formation of pumice. Moreover, why ESA scientists have claimed to be "baffled" over the appearance of 67P is quite unbelievable to me when comets have characteristically been pockmarked and non-smooth at virtually every encounter with one.

[GaryN]

Pumice is still 641 kg/m3, so if gravity really is a Universal constant, and the electric fields are insufficient to mess with their orbital results, then 67P has to be exceedingly porous. Not necessarily silica, but that would be my first suspect, as if it was being 'baked' then the oxygen given off, mixing with the solar wind could create the 'water' that they detect, couldn't it?

[viscount aero]

Pumice is still 641 kg/m3, so if gravity really is a Universal constant, and the electric fields are insufficient to mess with their orbital results, then 67P has to be exceedingly porous. Not necessarily silica, but that would be my first suspect, as if it was being 'baked' then the oxygen given off, mixing with the solar wind could create the 'water' that they detect, couldn't it?

"Pumice is still 641 kg/m3"... what is ice and water again? Someone said, I think, 67P is currently weighing in at 1/10 the density of water That alone, if correct, would automatically make the comet incapable of being full of ice or water.

Insofar as the water detected, it is either:

• OH- (hydroxyl) synthesized outside of the comet via the electrochemical interaction with the solar wind
• liberated OH-/H20 from the rock
• H20 synthesized outside of the comet via the electrochemical interaction with the solar wind

Again, at 1/10 water density, the comet cannot possibly hold any water as the icy snowball theory predicates. If that reading is actually true then their comet snowball theory is D.O.A. without even having to twist their arm into considering plasma physics

[Rossim]

I thought that if asteroids and comets were nearly inseparable, and asteroids are heavy, then shouldn't comets be heavy? Are the dense meteorites found on earth different from asteroids? Imagine if the calculated mass due to its gravitational influence on Rosetta changed over time as the comet got closer to the sun

It pisses me off to think of the thousands of high-res images and incredible amounts of data collected and all we get is one camera-phone picture every other day. The last osiris images made available were from about 260km and now we're five times closer.

[FS3]

"Pumice is still 641 kg/m3"... what is ice and water again? Someone said, I think, 67P is currently weighing in at 1/10 the density of water That alone, if correct, would automatically make the comet incapable of being full of ice or water.

Pumice would be my best guess too. It shows a hardness of 5 -similar to Apatite.

Anyway, it seems that the mainstream-attitude of comets being dirty snowballs, respectively according to the the latest spin "snowy dirtballs" can't be upheld anymore, as even mainstream academia is drawing back slowly by slowly stating that these assumptions only have been "made up" by the media. Although, at requesting further their ongoing mumbling produces no concrete answers - as they are still baffled by that "outgassing", so further indoctrinated by some ice has to be somwhere inside the comet.

It looks more like a kinda strategic retreat where they try to avoid admitting that they were wrong all the way.

If I would have been involved in the mission planning I would have recommended to release at least 3 mini satellites in the vicinity of the target, constantly circling the comet and measuring the E-fields along with evaluating the charge carriers by a Langmuire probe in realtime.

But who am I to decide...

FS3

[viscount aero]

"Pumice is still 641 kg/m3"... what is ice and water again? Someone said, I think, 67P is currently weighing in at 1/10 the density of water That alone, if correct, would automatically make the comet incapable of being full of ice or water.

Pumice would be my best guess too. It shows a hardness of 5 -similar to Apatite.

Anyway, it seems that the mainstream-attitude of comets being dirty snowballs, respectively according to the the latest spin "snowy dirtballs" can't be upheld anymore, as even mainstream academia is drawing back slowly by slowly stating that these assumptions only have been "made up" by the media. Although, at requesting further their ongoing mumbling produces no concrete answers - as they are still baffled by that "outgassing", so further indoctrinated by some ice has to be somwhere inside the comet.

It looks more like a kinda strategic retreat where they try to avoid admitting that they were wrong all the way.

If I would have been involved in the mission planning I would have recommended to release at least 3 mini satellites in the vicinity of the target, constantly circling the comet and measuring the E-fields along with evaluating the charge carriers by a Langmuire probe in realtime.

But who am I to decide...

FS3

Great ideas. Great insights.

But you know this is coming: They are going to invoke dark matter into the comet!!!!

[Frantic]

Was just staring at this image and thinking. So Alien looking. Just Random thoughts coming up, be warned, can't hurt to bump the thread :



It is amazing to see what people think, reading posts on Rosetta images. Statements like, "obviously a lot of tectonics going on there." another is confident it is merger as the neck is free of impacts, another asks to be told which way is up or down, another claims the comet must have gone through hundreds of millions of orbit cycles, another explains how the snow ice and dusty metals and heavy metals equal 1/10th density of water, and so on, another is in awe of the accomplishment of getting to the comet and taking the photos, not even considering or comprehending what this knowledge really means.

I realize I cannot see from their perspective, then I look again through the lens of gravity. I am searching for a center of mass, trying to understand up and down. The neck was not hit with impacts, it must be new, it formed when the two bodies merged. Yet each body shares the same appearance of composition age and craters. And I really am at a loss to explain from gravity, except as an idea that it was an expulsion from a normal object and it hardened into that shape and went adrift in space. I don't see snowball there.

The likely hood that there was a merger is very low, odds that the then merged bridge would remain solid also low, odds that given the number of impacts on two lobes that none would hit the neck, also low. I would think there scenario is the least likely possible.

I think that this object was once a rounder object, but a powerful force some how pulled the crust and exposed the core of the body, which is the smooth neck area. At the same time most of the craters may have formed from electrical discharge, the likely force that ripped the crust apart, since the neck area is smooth and is surrounded on all sides by craters, I think it was a one time event that caused the shape and the craters, I don't think this was gradual. And I don't think a bombardment of any kind besides electrical could cause both the shape, smooth neck, and craters.

Actually it was more likely a rare event called micro dark matter storms in which microscopic black holes can bombard an object for a random indefinite amount of time. And also, you can determine the age of the comet from the gamma ray echoes left behind from the dark matter storm. And also I speculate the origin of these storms may be dark radiation from decaying dark matter halos surrounding galaxies. If only I had a dark radiation detector I could prove it all to you. Oh well.

[Steve Smith]

The BBC is playing it safe:

"Ice screws on each of the lander's three feet, plus two harpoons, ought to provide some means of securing the craft to a surface with very little gravity - but not if that surface is too fluffy. [how ironic]

"It may well be that no amount of orbital scanning can precisely identify the surface. In other words, the only moment we'll know if it is safe to land is when the lander actually touches down and survives. Or dies."

I'm sure their report is a reflection of ESA's confidence.

[viscount aero]

Was just staring at this image and thinking. So Alien looking. Just Random thoughts coming up, be warned, can't hurt to bump the thread :



It is amazing to see what people think, reading posts on Rosetta images. Statements like, "obviously a lot of tectonics going on there." another is confident it is merger as the neck is free of impacts, another asks to be told which way is up or down, another claims the comet must have gone through hundreds of millions of orbit cycles, another explains how the snow ice and dusty metals and heavy metals equal 1/10th density of water, and so on, another is in awe of the accomplishment of getting to the comet and taking the photos, not even considering or comprehending what this knowledge really means.

I realize I cannot see from their perspective, then I look again through the lens of gravity. I am searching for a center of mass, trying to understand up and down. The neck was not hit with impacts, it must be new, it formed when the two bodies merged. Yet each body shares the same appearance of composition age and craters. And I really am at a loss to explain from gravity, except as an idea that it was an expulsion from a normal object and it hardened into that shape and went adrift in space. I don't see snowball there.

The likely hood that there was a merger is very low, odds that the then merged bridge would remain solid also low, odds that given the number of impacts on two lobes that none would hit the neck, also low. I would think there scenario is the least likely possible.

I think that this object was once a rounder object, but a powerful force some how pulled the crust and exposed the core of the body, which is the smooth neck area. At the same time most of the craters may have formed from electrical discharge, the likely force that ripped the crust apart, since the neck area is smooth and is surrounded on all sides by craters, I think it was a one time event that caused the shape and the craters, I don't think this was gradual. And I don't think a bombardment of any kind besides electrical could cause both the shape, smooth neck, and craters.

Actually it was more likely a rare event called micro dark matter storms in which microscopic black holes can bombard an object for a random indefinite amount of time. And also, you can determine the age of the comet from the gamma ray echoes left behind from the dark matter storm. And also I speculate the origin of these storms may be dark radiation from decaying dark matter halos surrounding galaxies. If only I had a dark radiation detector I could prove it all to you. Oh well.

I take it you're being sarcastic?

[viscount aero]

The BBC is playing it safe:

"Ice screws on each of the lander's three feet, plus two harpoons, ought to provide some means of securing the craft to a surface with very little gravity - but not if that surface is too fluffy. [how ironic]

"It may well be that no amount of orbital scanning can precisely identify the surface. In other words, the only moment we'll know if it is safe to land is when the lander actually touches down and survives. Or dies."

I'm sure their report is a reflection of ESA's confidence.

See--the doubts are now slowly surfacing.

Again, going back to Tempel 1/Deep Impact/Stardust--the cometary body was not even ice. The impactor revealed dry subsurface conditions. And it didn't look smooth. It was never going to be an icy frozen chunk where Mount Everest-like climbing gear would be of any use. To continue alleging in press releases that the comet is an icy world is silly, stupid, and not scientific.

To add insult to the highly specious scenario of their theory for comet formation and composition, once they discovered that Stardust found molten heat conditions in the crystalline structures, the comet scientists then insisted--ad hoc--that the comets were formed by the Sun--and then they ALL miraculously became "ejected" to the "Oort Cloud"

Yet no causal mechanism is ever given for such a far-fetched claim.

Why were the planets, then, not all ejected to the Oort Cloud, too? Why isn't the entire solar system in the Oort Cloud? Why only comets? How can a comet exhibit a history of being molten but then reside in the light-year distant Oort Cloud?