The European Space Agency says harpoons designed to anchor the Philae
probe failed to deploy during its landing on the comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko on Wednesday
Deborah Netburn
7 comments:
Mason
said...
This is very interesting. I wonder why they installed the "jumping" feature, If it would be to risky to use. Perhaps it has been proved less useful over the last years. I think that this is a triumph, but one fault that space programs have, is speed. If the speed of the rocket is too slow, and you are landing ten years after launch, then the technology used on the later parts of the mission will be outdated.
Personally, I think that it is amazing that it is possible to have a spacecraft land on a comet in the first place, but I also agree with Mason. The jumping feature is very risky, and they could risk the entire mission while trying to use it. Another thing that I'm surprised about is that they have all of the amazing new technology to be able to land on a comet, but they can't figure out where it is. Sometimes I'm surprised at things like that. Overall, I do think that this is a very interesting article.
I thought that the story was very cool. I am surprised that the scientist didn't think of a "come back to base" button or something similar to that so if this does happen the bot could come back to base. To conclude I thought that the article was amazing and I loved reading it.
I agree with Jenna. They should have some way to bring it back, without seeing it. I know the one reason I might not do it would be because if it got wedged under something that it could break the bot and lose millions of dollars. Also time is a very big factor in this. They took their building this thing, and making sure that they could land it, so they don't want to break that. But, I also found it strange that on the first bounce the robot bounced for several hours. I will take a guess and say that they are lucky that the robot landed without having serious damage done to it. I also wondering if the reason that the robot had the bouncing feature on it was so that it would not break. They must have been thinking that they robot bouncing/floating in space was better than it rocking into the comet. I also just want to say, that people who think NASA has a conspiracy theory about the first moon landing are wrong for one reason. If we faked the moon landing, we would have had to have faked every other space exploration thing we ever did, and I think that would be going a little overboard.
This is really cool. I wonder how and why the people who make the machine installed the jumping feature on Philae. Maybe it was used to get a better view of the comet. Is it the surface of the comet that caused it to jump or Philae itself. I still feel like it would run out of energy really quickly and the jumping feature would have no benefits at all.
I think that this article is really interesting. I also agree with Mason. Why would they install the jumping feature if when the one time they needed it, they didn't want to use it because it would be too risky. This article is proof that even though landing on comets and planets have become less risky and more likely to land in the designated area, it is still not guaranteed. Also, I agree with Kendall. The bot was very likely to land safely after the first bounce that lasted for so long. Next time, a bot landing on a comet might not be so lucky. Also, I disagree with Kendall and Jenna when they say that there should be a button or something that can make the bot go back to base. This type of bot is supposed to stay on the comet for the rest of its robot life. If you deploy a button that makes it go back to base without knowing where the bot is, the bot is very likely to crash into some unknown obstacle and be unusable.
I thought that this article was very interesting. It's already pretty amazing that you can even land a lander on a comet, but it is amazing that you can make the spacecraft "hop." It is the first time a spacecraft has purposely landed on a comet and now we can examine the surface of comets. Like the article mentioned, there were some failures, but there were many more achievements.
7 comments:
This is very interesting. I wonder why they installed the "jumping" feature, If it would be to risky to use. Perhaps it has been proved less useful over the last years. I think that this is a triumph, but one fault that space programs have, is speed. If the speed of the rocket is too slow, and you are landing ten years after launch, then the technology used on the later parts of the mission will be outdated.
Personally, I think that it is amazing that it is possible to have a spacecraft land on a comet in the first place, but I also agree with Mason. The jumping feature is very risky, and they could risk the entire mission while trying to use it. Another thing that I'm surprised about is that they have all of the amazing new technology to be able to land on a comet, but they can't figure out where it is. Sometimes I'm surprised at things like that. Overall, I do think that this is a very interesting article.
I thought that the story was very cool. I am surprised that the scientist didn't think of a "come back to base" button or something similar to that so if this does happen the bot could come back to base. To conclude I thought that the article was amazing and I loved reading it.
I agree with Jenna. They should have some way to bring it back, without seeing it. I know the one reason I might not do it would be because if it got wedged under something that it could break the bot and lose millions of dollars. Also time is a very big factor in this. They took their building this thing, and making sure that they could land it, so they don't want to break that. But, I also found it strange that on the first bounce the robot bounced for several hours. I will take a guess and say that they are lucky that the robot landed without having serious damage done to it. I also wondering if the reason that the robot had the bouncing feature on it was so that it would not break. They must have been thinking that they robot bouncing/floating in space was better than it rocking into the comet. I also just want to say, that people who think NASA has a conspiracy theory about the first moon landing are wrong for one reason. If we faked the moon landing, we would have had to have faked every other space exploration thing we ever did, and I think that would be going a little overboard.
This is really cool. I wonder how and why the people who make the machine installed the jumping feature on Philae. Maybe it was used to get a better view of the comet. Is it the surface of the comet that caused it to jump or Philae itself. I still feel like it would run out of energy really quickly and the jumping feature would have no benefits at all.
I think that this article is really interesting. I also agree with Mason. Why would they install the jumping feature if when the one time they needed it, they didn't want to use it because it would be too risky. This article is proof that even though landing on comets and planets have become less risky and more likely to land in the designated area, it is still not guaranteed. Also, I agree with Kendall. The bot was very likely to land safely after the first bounce that lasted for so long. Next time, a bot landing on a comet might not be so lucky. Also, I disagree with Kendall and Jenna when they say that there should be a button or something that can make the bot go back to base. This type of bot is supposed to stay on the comet for the rest of its robot life. If you deploy a button that makes it go back to base without knowing where the bot is, the bot is very likely to crash into some unknown obstacle and be unusable.
I thought that this article was very interesting. It's already pretty amazing that you can even land a lander on a comet, but it is amazing that you can make the spacecraft "hop." It is the first time a spacecraft has purposely landed on a comet and now we can examine the surface of comets. Like the article mentioned, there were some failures, but there were many more achievements.
Post a Comment