Talk:Philae (spacecraft)

Image

Is there some reason the image on this page can't be used based on this copyright notice? Sundayclose (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

ESA images are copyrighted unless specifically released. Unfortunately CIVA images have not been. The only images that have been blanket-released under Creative Commons licensing are the Rosetta Navcam images. The key to that copyright notice page is that it does not allow for free commercial re-use; only fair use would be an option. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Did it land?

What is the difference between "landing" and "crashing" and why is this considered a "landing"? Ron Schnell 16:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A crash tends to imply a mission-ending event. While Philae came down in a sub-optimal manner, it came down upright and intact, and performed useful science, so I would not classify it as crashing. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Philae on its side as images by the orbiting Rosetta

@Aviators99 and Huntster: Additional information in this 2016 ESA announcement where the lander was spotted lying on its side on the comet (image added to article). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Evolution and evolvability, I do love that image, though i wish ESA had given more information on its angle and other orientation details. I suspect Philae is angled quite a bit relative to the comet's surface, considering http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/11/Comet_panoramic_lander_orientation, but that's just my thought backed up by nothing, heh. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

So, are we still calling this a "landing"? Ron Schnell —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

International contributions?

Since ESA is a collaboration of individual countries, aren't the contributions by its member countries.Instead of saying International contributions, wouldn't an apt title be Contributions by member countries. Daiyusha (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Non notable related stub over at Agilkia

I recently found Agilkia as it was tagged for being orphaned. I discovered an IP edited it from a redirect and it was never really taken care of. I believe it should be "merged" into here and turned into a disambiguation page or redirect.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Dwarf Kirlston, I've simply restored the original redirect. Agilkia as a site on the comet is completely non-notable compared to the actual Agilkia on Earth, so I see nothing controversial about making this situation as simple as possible. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Huntster!--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 23:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

non optimal landing

It was NOT intended to bounce. It "bounced" twice, and probably hit something in between bounces! It finally came to rest 28 minutes after it first touched down and was perhaps (why isn't this mentioned? they finally DID locate it (2 yrs later)) half a km from the target site. Note that they did not know where it was (i.e. it was lost). The harpoons didn't deploy. The thruster didn't fire. The lander was supposed to come down in enough sunlight to keep the battery charged and it ended up with about 1.5 hrs of sunlight of a possible 12.4 hr. It was supposed to come down vertically oriented and it did not. All told, the failures seem to out number the successes. My suggestion is to include this sentence in the lead: "The lander came to rest on the comet's surface, but it wasn't a successful landing." "sub-optimal" or "non-optimal" are euphemisms for a bad landing. It would also be useful -in the lead- to mention which instruments actually got the amount of data expected (I'd guess 0/10) and how much data was received over-all compared to how much was planned. 98.17.180.195 (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)