[OllytheBrit]

I wish 'they' would find the building blocks of life, the universe and everything and then call it a day! How much more of this undiluted drivel do they expect us to believe! But I guess since their long-term employment prospects depends upon not finding them, it might take some time? The Today interviewee boffin just described the comet as 'Shaped like a rubber duck - the sort of yellow duck you have in the bath.' (ffs! ) She obviously thinks she's talking to children; even Naughtie was momentarily discombobulated by that. Here's the link if anyone wants more laughs:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireSt ... t-26851110

[Typhoon]

Live landing in the next 10 minutes!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science- ... t-29985988

[OllytheBrit]

Live landing in the next 10 minutes!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science- ... t-29985988

Still if the BBC 'the world's radio station' is impressed I suppose I should be too.

[Angelamerkel]

That should have been "live bouncing off the comet a few times".

[OllytheBrit]

That should have been "live bouncing off the comet a few times".

It can only have bounced once because by the time it came back down 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko ( ) would have been a zillion miles away* (or 'kilometres' as the right-on BBC would say? )

* Comets travel between 26 miles per second and 298 miles per second.

[Typhoon]

That should have been "live bouncing off the comet a few times".

Yeah looks like they fluffed it, if only the landing engine had worked. They are going to make a last ditch attempt to get some data before the batteries die. Oh well at least we still have Rosetta.

The Philae lander has attempted to drill into the surface of Comet 67P, amid fears that its battery may die within hours.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30055383

* Comets travel between 26 miles per second and 298 miles per second.

Its OK because the probe is traveling the same speed as the comet, the problem is that there very little holding the lander to the surface (gravity or otherwise) so it will slowly float away at some point.

[Potemkin]

There is gravitational force holding the lander onto the comet, but it's extremely weak, as you can imagine (hence the big 'bounce' when it first tried to land).

And Olly clearly knows nothing about Newton's laws of motion.

[Angelamerkel]

Comets travel between 26 miles per second and 298 miles per second.

Bouncing landers travel at the same speed. Think about it.

[Typhoon]

There is gravitational force holding the lander onto the comet, but it's extremely weak, as you can imagine (hence the big 'bounce' when it first tried to land).

Oops yep I did not write that properly!

Several hundred thousands times weaker than Earth's according to the ESA.

[Potemkin]

Oops yep I did not write that properly!

Several hundred thousands times weaker than Earth's according to the ESA.

Indeed. Which is why they had intended to anchor the lander to the comet using harpoon-type thingies. Which, of course, didn't work....

[Angelamerkel]

They should have checked the spear performance using water ice mixed with sand at the estimated temperature 5 cm under the surface. I didn't think those harpoons would do much unless they were fired with a 9 mm caliber cartridge.

[OllytheBrit]

Its OK because the probe is traveling the same speed as the comet, the problem is that there very little holding the lander to the surface (gravity or otherwise) so it will slowly float away at some point.

Jesus he really does believe all this shit! So what method of propulsion is used to have enabled it to track 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko ( ) and which distance must amount to a least 10 thousand squillion miles/kilometres* ( )? And how is it 'steered' to have been following the comet for the past 10 bloody years?? Take a look at my second signature and ask yourself if you're one of the gullible ones.

* That's for the BBC.

[OllytheBrit]

There is gravitational force holding the lander onto the comet, but it's extremely weak, as you can imagine (hence the big 'bounce' when it first tried to land).

And Olly clearly knows nothing about Newton's laws of motion.

I always knew that these charlatans would one day go way OTT with their hype and make such a ridiculous assertion that even you, Pot () would put your credulity on hold, and begin to question it all. But nope, you really believe it 'bounced'. Wake up and smell it, mate, then you'll become 'one of us'.

Oops yep I did not write that properly!

Several hundred thousands times weaker than Earth's according to the ESA.

Oh surely they could have come up with a bigger number than that? I mean, the bigger the number, the more it impresses the believers.

They should have checked the spear performance using water ice mixed with sand at the estimated temperature 5 cm under the surface. I didn't think those harpoons would do much unless they were fired with a 9 mm caliber cartridge.

Now that would've been a good idea! Then we might have found out how comets 'kicked-started life on earth as comets bombarded the earth 60 million years ag . . . 'kick-started life on earth'! ffs

NB John Humphrys (Today) has just said, with some scepticism unless I'm much mistaken, that the thingummybob 'has gone into standby mode - will we ever hear from it again?' Yes, I wonder if we will?

[Typhoon]

I always thought the rocket and space harpoon was a bit Heath Robinson, looks like it finally ran out of power.

Philae comet lander sends more data before losing power

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30058176

Jesus he really does believe all this shit!

Sure why not but then I suppose working with things like this everyday (though on a very different scale) has raised the bar for me, so landing on a comet does not stretch credibility at all (not to diminish the achievement of the ESA). The Mr. Fusion thread we had recently was far more dubious.

So what method of propulsion is used to have enabled it to track 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko ( ) and which distance must amount to a least 10 thousand squillion miles/kilometres* ( )? And how is it 'steered' to have been following the comet for the past 10 bloody years??

Gravity boosts, radio and propellent combined with some sound theory, decent telescopes and some very well executed math and there you go comet ahoy!

Don't worry so much about big (or in this case very small) numbers. Although yes articles can be very annoying with inappropriate comparisons, how many whales would equal the mass of 67P for example or that the probe traveled the equivalent of 67 zillion times the distance from London to Edinburgh, that's science journalism for you. The justification 'kicked-started life on earth' is also not a problem of the science but a problem of outreach and its portrayal in the media. I am sure the ESA has prepared a more sensible document on the missions objectives if you wanted to read about them?