How did we land Rosetta on the Philae comet?
Discussion
Are you saying you find it unbelievable in a tinfoil-hat, "the moon landings were faked" way ?
Otherwise, it's just Newtonian physics, pretty much, but I guess they needed a decent amount of computing power to work out the trajectory needed to get the required accelerations from gravity slingshots, and end up in the right place after 10 years.
Otherwise, it's just Newtonian physics, pretty much, but I guess they needed a decent amount of computing power to work out the trajectory needed to get the required accelerations from gravity slingshots, and end up in the right place after 10 years.
outnumbered said:
Are you saying you find it unbelievable in a tinfoil-hat, "the moon landings were faked" way ?
Otherwise, it's just Newtonian physics, pretty much, but I guess they needed a decent amount of computing power to work out the trajectory needed to get the required accelerations from gravity slingshots, and end up in the right place after 10 years.
I just find it hard to believe that we could safely approach an object moving at 40,000 mph when you consider an escape velocity of 25,000 mph, with these kind of speed differentials I can't see how this is even remotely possible as the margin for error would be enormous.Otherwise, it's just Newtonian physics, pretty much, but I guess they needed a decent amount of computing power to work out the trajectory needed to get the required accelerations from gravity slingshots, and end up in the right place after 10 years.
htrowsoc said:
Mr E said:
Very really, by slowing other orbital bodies down (infinitesimally)
How do you go about slowing down another orbital body? Not sure if serious..Using gravity assist wouldn't slow down another orbital body. Gravity assist is the process of using another orbital body's gravitational pull (such as Jupiter) to achieve a higher velocity in space.
So could the ESA achieve an exact speed based on the trajectory towards the orbital body which was used for gravitational assist?
So could the ESA achieve an exact speed based on the trajectory towards the orbital body which was used for gravitational assist?
I think it's nothing more than a room full of very, very, very clever people who understand how objects move in space and how to speed up/slow down accordingly. They programe the go button when they need to and program the stop button when they need to - simple as that.
If we all understood it, we'd all be rocket scientists and would be earning a fortune
If we all understood it, we'd all be rocket scientists and would be earning a fortune
htrowsoc said:
outnumbered said:
Are you saying you find it unbelievable in a tinfoil-hat, "the moon landings were faked" way ?
Otherwise, it's just Newtonian physics, pretty much, but I guess they needed a decent amount of computing power to work out the trajectory needed to get the required accelerations from gravity slingshots, and end up in the right place after 10 years.
I just find it hard to believe that we could safely approach an object moving at 40,000 mph when you consider an escape velocity of 25,000 mph, with these kind of speed differentials I can't see how this is even remotely possible as the margin for error would be enormous.Otherwise, it's just Newtonian physics, pretty much, but I guess they needed a decent amount of computing power to work out the trajectory needed to get the required accelerations from gravity slingshots, and end up in the right place after 10 years.
htrowsoc said:
Using gravity assist wouldn't slow down another orbital body. Gravity assist is the process of using another orbital body's gravitational pull (such as Jupiter) to achieve a higher velocity in space.
So could the ESA achieve an exact speed based on the trajectory towards the orbital body which was used for gravitational assist?
By definition gravity assist must affect the larger body in the same way as the smaller, it's just very small and no-one notices.So could the ESA achieve an exact speed based on the trajectory towards the orbital body which was used for gravitational assist?
Without getting technical, 'cos I couldn't even begin, they used gravity from other forces/sources in the solar system to speed up Rosetta enough that it eventually caught up with the place in space where it was calculated to be going to
Ten years later
simples
I think they have done an amazing job, hope little 'wotsit' gets a few volts charged up occasionally just so it can peep up, "hi folks I'm still sat 'ere".
Ten years later
simples
I think they have done an amazing job, hope little 'wotsit' gets a few volts charged up occasionally just so it can peep up, "hi folks I'm still sat 'ere".
htrowsoc said:
I just find it hard to believe that we could safely approach an object moving at 40,000 mph when you consider an escape velocity of 25,000 mph, with these kind of speed differentials I can't see how this is even remotely possible as the margin for error would be enormous.
It's not as if we fired Rosetta at 25,000mph straight at a comet passing by at 40,000mph in some kind of deep space clay pigeon shoot!In all seriousness, look up a game called Kerbal Space Program. Download it and play it, or just watch some YouTube videos - it'll teach you how we managed to do it.
Computers are helpful in working out the calculations as they speed up the process by a lot - but it can be done without the need of computers. There are lots of ways of doing complex calculations without a total reliability on computers.
As has been mentioned, gravity assist is a handy way of gaining more speed for a space probe and altering its direction so that it can rendezvous with another body. The technique has been used many, many times to allow probes to get to parts of the solar system that otherwise would have needed very, very powerful (and expensive) rockets.
There are couple of errors in the title as well -
Rosetta is the name of the main space probe, which is in orbit around the comet.
Philae is the name of the lander.
The comet is actually called comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. The names are those of its two discoverers. Comets are always called after the names of the people who discover them.
As has been mentioned, gravity assist is a handy way of gaining more speed for a space probe and altering its direction so that it can rendezvous with another body. The technique has been used many, many times to allow probes to get to parts of the solar system that otherwise would have needed very, very powerful (and expensive) rockets.
There are couple of errors in the title as well -
Rosetta is the name of the main space probe, which is in orbit around the comet.
Philae is the name of the lander.
The comet is actually called comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. The names are those of its two discoverers. Comets are always called after the names of the people who discover them.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 16th November 09:11
Max_Torque said:
That's really cool. htrowsoc said:
I'm no scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but do show a keen interest.
Clearly not keen enough to get the name of the comet or the lander correct, or indeed simply go to the ESA Rosetta mission page and read about it there! Apologies if that sounds insulting, but come on, all the information you could ever want (including the answer to your question) is right there :-http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Ro...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff