Talk:Philae (spacecraft)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Konferences about PHILAE

First Post-Launch PHILAE Experimenters Workshop 4 - 6 April 2005 Teistungen - Germany

2nd Philae Science Team Meeting 3 -6 September 2006 Helsinki - Finland

--Stone 12:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Images?

An image of the lander was removed. Replace it someone. An image of the lander was removed. Why?
--Planetary 06:40, 2 September 2006 & 01:03, 12 February 2007‎(UTC)^{Doc'd colleagues uns'd self-rev'n--Jerzy•t 08:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)}

This is a "lifesize" model of Philae. But there is absolutely nothing in the image to give a hint as to its size. From looking at the image, Philae could be any size from a shoebox, to a full-size automobile. No way to tell. Nick Beeson (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Everyone in the ESA live feed says /fi:li:/, not /faili:/. Greek Φιλαί is also in no way pronounced with /ai/. Is there any reliable source for such pronounciation?

• I only got the feed to work beiefly, but the only pronunciation I heard was /'fi:leɪ/. I didn't hear /faili:/ or /fi:li:/ at all. 98.124.30.189 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Me again. /'fi:leɪ/ is attested at 0:07 in this ESA video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvkPFXdpOQQ I've changed the article and used this video as a source. 98.124.30.189 (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• from the reference link to a CNN video, from what I'm hearing, the news reporter didn't say /'fi:leɪ/; it was more like /fi:li:/

Traditional English pronunciation is /ˈfaɪli:/ (/i:/ as in happy) [1]. Junip (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fly wheel

Currently says Germany and UK supplied the single Fly Wheel, does anybody know which country/company/organisation really supplied the flywheel?

Touch down time

The article says that the probe touched down at 16:08 UTC, but as that news was reported as early as 16:10 UTC (by the BBC, which actually says "about 1605 GMT"), that surely means that we received its touch down signal around that time -- it would have landed ~28 minutes earlier, based on the distance from 67P to Earth. Can we get some information on this?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the media being stupid. The signal got to Earth around 1605 UTC, lander actually touched down something around 1525, give or take. Oddly, I'm having a lot of problems with finding even estimated times right now...literally every news source, plus NASA and ESA, are only giving the ~1600 time. Oi. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, at this rate, we may have a Landing 1 time, Landing 2 time, etc. Lots of conflicting information coming out of ESA as to Philae's status. Off topic, I vastly prefer NASA handles media relations on their missions. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Emily's blog shows 15:35, and she's usually reliable: [2]. -84user (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Below images would seem to indicate that the final landing occurred some time after 11/12/2014 15:43, as that is when it "bounced". Shouldn't Wikipedia change the landing time?- Robinlrandall http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta Of course 15:35 may be the time of the first bounce, but final landing should be near 3rd bounce 1km away. List that time as well. Also, if Philae is in the photo I trust that is close to when the shot was taken (not 28 minutes later.) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2834382/It-s-time-risks-coming-end-Rosetta-probe-deploy-drill-ditch-attempt-comet-samples-clock-ticks-fading-battery-power.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.92.176 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that when the photo was taken? Which is not the same as when the landing occurred. —EncMstr (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sky & Telescope has a good article with times, backed with a Twitter post on the Philae account. I'll be editing the article this evening and will work the times in somewhere somehow. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Congrats

The 10 year wait aside, the final 20-odd minutes' wait for the first data to arrive must have been nerve-wracking. DonL (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the comet

In relation to the earth right now? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If you click the "Ephemeris" link here you can generate a list of positions for the comet. Today it is listed as RA 19 15 45.50 and DEC -28 15 38.8, which is somewhere in Sagittarius. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2014

Please change (just grammar and broken links fixes) the Philae_(spacecraft)#International_contributions section for Spain. to:

Spain

The Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, and the Spanish National Research Council Madrid, have contributed to the Mission of designing and manufacturing ship medium-gain antenna system, thermal control antennas and the Osiris camera, while its Center in Tres Cantos (Madrid) has developed and manufactured the Star Tracker and the navigation camera control units. The GMV Spanish division has been responsible for the maintenance of the calculation tools to calculate the criteria of lighting and visibility necessary to decide the point of landing on the comet, as well as the possible trajectories of decline of the Philae module. SENER, a Spanish Aeronautics and Engineering Company was responsible for the supply of two deployable masts, 15 shades of active thermal control and electronic control of all the Giada instrument unit, as well as optical displays of attenuation of incident radiation on two navigation cameras and the two trackers of stars, and the driver of the filter wheel of cameras NAC and WAC of the Osiris instrument (the instrument onboard Rosetta ship to photographed the Comet), among other components. Crisa group, has also provided the electronic unit from the star browser and navigation camera; Division of the Elecnor group Deimos Space, which has defined the path to reach the destination. Other important Spanish companies or educational institutions that have been contributed are as follows: INTA, Airbus Defence and Space Spanish division, and the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

112.198.82.217 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  [Refs provided by 112.198...:]^{Slight clarifying rev'n--Jerzy•t 08:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)}

 Done: [3]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sense of scale for photo

For the image with the caption "Photograph of comet 67P [...]", it would be great if we could find out and add some rough measurements about the area featured in the photo. I was originally thinking it was a small area and the largest rocks were smaller than a shoe, but if the image was taken from 10km away it seems more likely it's a large area and the rocks are the size of a car or bigger. Is this information available anywhere? Some guy (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

Please add for the United Kingdoms contribution: e2v, based in Chelmsford, which designed and supplied the Civa camera system that will take pictures of the comet’s surface, as well as the Rolis system which will film during the descent and take images of the sites sampled by Philae’s instruments. The company also built three other camera systems on the main spacecraft, one that produced all the pictures shown so far, and others used for navigation and helping map the landing spot

source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/11221945/UK-space-industry-behind-Rosetta-comet-mission.html Alaskanthumper (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Philae's force of attraction to the comet

I'm not sure if the following constitutes original research, but if not it might be of interest to others to know the attraction the comet has for Philae. The local acceleration of gravity was quoted in the comet article to be 1/10000 that of the earth's.

The force of attraction of the comet for Philae is calculated from the local acceleration of gravity g_l at the comet's surface (one-ten-thousandth that of on earth, g_l = 0.000981 m/s²) and the Philae's total mass (97.9 kg) to be:

F = M · g_l = 0.000981 · 97.9 = 0.096 N or 0.044 lbf

Zedshort (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"1/10000 that of the earth's". And to at least approximately 3 decimal places according to the calculation! Really? AlexFekken (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source. Also says that Philae actually bounced a whole kilometer away from the comet over the course of 2 hours! It's second bounce lasted 17 minutes before it finally landed for real. Fnordware (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Without the harpoons, the lander could tumble around the comet, whose gravity is only 1/60,000th as strong as that on Earth."[4] Bus stop (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

From Stefan Ulamec (Lander Manager, DLR) at 15:20 we have some data from where to aproximate the value of g in the comet:

A)1st touchdown speed at 1m/s

B)1st bounce speed v0=0.38m/s

C)1st bounce max height (v=0)-->y=1000m

D)1st bounce aprox. distance x≈1000m

E)2nd touchdown time aprox. t=6660s (1h 51min)

F)2nd bounce speed v0=0.03m/s

G)3rd final touchdown time aprox. t=(6660+420)s

By applying v(t)=-g·t+v0 ---> if v(t)=0 ---> t=v0/g and y(t)=((-g·(t^2))/2) + v0·t + y0 and trying several values for g until y=1000m you get ---> g=7.18E-5 // t(y max)=5290 // y(max)=1005m // y(end 1st bounce)=+938m. But something tells me that some data must be wrong, or gravity is very variable.Iagocasabiell (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Google doodle

Instead of just stating there is a google doodle for today, can the image itself or a thumbnail be added? https://www.google.ca/logos/doodles/2014/philae-robotic-lander-lands-on-comet-67pchuryumovgerasimenko-5668009628663808-hp.gif Stéphane Charette (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, as the image itself is not freely licensed and there is no way to justify fair use for it. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I question whether this "google doodle" should be mentioned at all. The "doodle" is a marketing tool of a private company.--345Kai (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a symbol of popular culture. It's relevant. [5] [6] sudopeople 21:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless a reliable third party has published a notable story on the Google doodle, it's irrelevant as far as this encyclopedia is concerned. Google doodles are not "a symbol of popular culture". nagualdesign 22:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You must not have seen the two news articles I referenced. Or they're not reliable or notable enough for you. In that case, here's a few more. Maybe you can point out to us how they're not relevant or notable.[7][8][9][10][11][12] sudopeople 23:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Since when did Wikipedia become a marketing tool for Google? Just because they link Wikipedia does not mean that they should receive preferential treatment. I hope there is no one here pushing the Google doodles that would have a conflict of interest by representing a multi-billion dollar company. Lets stick to technical aspects and not mere internet sound bites. 208.54.40.201 (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

Addendum of Belgian contribution to the mission (Adding following text to section 3 of the article):

Belgium

The Belgian Institute for Space and Aeronomy (BIRA) cooperated with different partners to build one of the sensors (DFMS) of the Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis (ROSINA) instrument.

Oli4vd (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done: [13]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

Please change: (SSTL) constructed the momentum wheel for the lander. to: (SSTL) constructed the Reaction wheel for the lander. Reason: This better describes the part and adds its article link. 46.227.54.120 (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done: [14]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Detaching of the lander

There is a line which says " On 12 November 2014, Philae remained attached to the Rosetta spacecraft after rendezvousing with comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko." Was Philae not detached after the rendezvous that day? Obviously not. This sentence needs clarification. It contradicts with the others.The Average Wikipedian (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on CIVA vs ÇIVA

It's not clear whether it should be CIVA or ÇIVA. I had changed it to C, based on the fact it's an acronym for Comet (nucleus) Infrared and Visible Analyser (per http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentDisplay.do?id=2004-006C-01 [link corrected 2014-11-14]). Others quite properly believe it to be Ç based on the listing at http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/CIVA and changed it back.

It's not clear to me the the soft Ç would stand for, and the acronym is given at NASA. The principal researchers are French, perhaps it's just a typo? (French is comète with hard C.) The Hindu god Shiva is sometimes spelled Çiva in French.

As the NASA document is more recent (dated today) than the ESA one (dated February), is longer and gives an explanation, may I suggest we change it to CIVA ?

82.69.229.22 (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I was about to ask why the acronym ÇIVA contains a c-cedilla. If nobody can provide a justification, please remove it. 71.219.205.43 (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely not a typo, given it was very consistently used by ESA and project scientists at the beginning of the project. Over time, people just started to use a regular "C", for simplicity's sake I assume. I've found no evidence that it is an acronym of anything, so perhaps it was simply the stylistic choice of the experiment's scientists. Regardless, ÇIVA appears to be the official rendering, so I don't see why we should change it. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for broken link, corrected above to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentDisplay.do?id=2004-006C-01 where the name is given and explained as an acronym "Comet nucleus Infrared and Visible Analyzer (CIVA)". Accepted that it's certainly not a typo in Wikipedia.

Space-X who made it refer to it with C at http://www.space-x.ch/?page_id=216 and Jean-Pierre Bibring its principal investigator presents a CNRS video in French, the titles show CIVA, and he pronounces it approximately "cheeva" http://www.insu.cnrs.fr/node/5069 [link added]. Many of the other words are spelled in correctly accented French. The paper in Science Reviews with Bibring as first author (DOI: 10.1007/s11214-006-9135-5 preview available http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11214-006-9135-5#page-1 ) begins "CIVA Comet Infrared and Visible Analyser ...", bold in original, accents present on other words. I suggest that's sufficiently reliable source for the acronym and non-cedilla C. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There certainly are both C and Ç in both primary and secondary references (Biele, J. and Ulamec, S. (2008), Space Science Rev. 138, 275-289), though as far as I can tell a) all current documents show C, b) there are more C than Ç, c) Bibring et all (given above) uses C ... proposed wording is to use CIVA throughout, and added "(sometimes given as ÇIVA)" in the instruments section. How does that seem? 82.69.229.22 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

After three days without comment, I made this edit to the article, references included for both usages. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This decision to erase the c-cedilla is somewhat troubling. It's an ESA project on an ESA space craft, named by an ESA group. They consistently use a cedilla, and there's no indication anywhere that they didn't mean to. That NASA do not is irrelevant, and going with NASA over ESA seems annoyingly US-centric. It's true that comète has no cedilla, but maybe a scientist wanted to name that instrument array after his cat, who knows. All that matters is what ESA call the ESA project on an ESA space craft, and that's ÇIVA not CIVA. 80.229.18.128 (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you're troubled by this. Agreed that NASA usage is more-or-less irrelevant, and what counts is what ESA, and to a degree, credible secondary sources, do: ESA's usage is mixed but seems more often C (recent 2007) while only occasionally Ç here. ESA's social media uses C on flickr and twitter. Principal investigator Jean-Paul Bibring's paper uses C in Space Science journal; CNES (who made the cameras) uses C link; Le Monde uses CIVA and occasionally Civa. My change was certainly not based on US- or Anglo-centrism, it was based on what I could reference, including in French where of course the writers would have Ç on their keyboards. I hope that agree these references are adequate. 82.69.229.22 (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Media Briefing 13 November 2014

Short transcription of the press conference found at Livestream.

Stated facts:

• The lander most likely did not come to a final stop on site J (aka Agilkia), but on the opposite side of site B, precise location is speculation at the moment.
• It is currently unknown why the harpoons did not fire
• The coils for rewinding the harpoon cable did activate
• Experiments will be performed from least to most risky
• Magnetic field readings & thermography have been acquired
• Images of comet surface have been acquired. (Can be found on Rosetta blog)
• Probably landed at the foot of a "cliff", leading to more shadow.
• 2 lander bounces confirmed through magnetic field readings, landing gear readings and rotation of the lander (not possible when on surface).
• 1st bounce approx 110 minutes
• One of the feet not in contact with surface (confirmed?)
• 1st radar analysis has been performed, used (among other means) to determine where lander probably is.
• 1km of distance over surface covered because of bounce.
• Still not anchored
• AOS = timeframe with sattelite link
• No damage to scientific instruments found so far.
• Less solar power than expected. Only ±90 minutes per rotation of the comet, not the expected 6-7 hours.
• A lot of particles around and on comet. Dust is mobilised on the surfaced through some means, possibly sublimation and other causes
• Initial point of contact was almost dead center on site J.

Parts will be added to article when I have more time, or when someone beats me to it.

DCLukas (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mission Duration

The sidebar is inconsistent with itself in terms of mission duration. One lie says: "Mission duration 1–6 weeks (planned)". But, under "Start of mission" we have "Launch date 2 March 2004, 07:17 UTC", implying that the "mission" is actually 10 years long and counting. If it were up to me, I would opt for the latter definition of "mission". We wouldn't exclude the travel to and from the Moon from the mission duration of Apollo 11. In any case, we have to choose one or the other.Originalname37 (Talk?) 21:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. One way that Philae differs from the Apollo 11 mission though is that Apollo was the spacecraft and Eagle was the lander. So, you'd be better off comparing Apollo 11 to Rosetta's mission. Anyway, I think it's somewhat reasonable to remove the duration for now since it's ongoing. sudopeople 21:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:XKCD and WP:IPC as it applies here

From WP:IPC:

When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:
Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference?
Did any real-world event occur because of the cultural element covered by the reference?
If you cannot answer "yes" to at least one of these, you are just adding trivia. Get all three, and you are adding genuinely encyclopedic content.

I don't see how the recent XKCD comic meets any of the above conditions. Unlike most XKCD cartoons, Google Doodles often receive press coverage of the reference. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: You're right. Thanks. There's a bit of vandalism here at the moment I'm trying to suss out and I reacted to your edit hastily. sudopeople 21:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I like XKCD, but get tired of people trying to add a mention to Wikipedia for nearly every comic he publishes. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You should start every edit with "I like XKCD but..." - I instinctively trust XKCD readers more than normal humans. Hahaha ;) Thanks for the edit and conversation. sudopeople 23:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

xkcd was mentioned on air on TRMS. Google shows other sources too. ([15][16][17][18]) --Jeremyb (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Add videos of ESA scientist's reactions

I would suggest to pick some of the recap videos of ESA's Youtube channel with the reactions to the key moment of the mission (both for Philae and Rosetta): the wakeup in January 2014, the arrival at the comet on 6th August, and the most exciting moments on landing day, as confirmation of separation from Rosetta, and touchdown signal (even though we later learnt that while scientists thought to be on the surface Philae was actually dangerously floating in open space after rebouncing). I think they are indeed remarkable documents which make possible to relive the key moments of an important milestone in space exploration. Shony87 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

How do the scientists' reaction videos contribute in any way to the readers' understanding of the articles? That's nothing more than fluff. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about interviews or similar videos, I'm talking about the live videos of the key moments of the mission. Those are, in my opinion, historical documents of what really happened in that precise moment, separation of the spacecraft, touchdown. It's like the radio recordings of speakers talking about first Moon landing. The difference is that nowadays we have live video streaming in the main control room, so we are able to collect in an encyclopedia actual videos of what happened 12th November 2014. I personally think that would be a huge added value to an encyclopedia. Moreover, I think this is the first historical space mission which had such an extensive tv (or live web streaming) coverage, giving common people the possibility to follow it in realtime. Therefore, I think it shouldn't be considered fluff for an encyclopedia to give the possibility to common people to re-live the key moments of the mission.

I'm not allowed to post the link, but you can search Youtube for the video "Philae landing: touchdown highlights" of European Space Agency Shony87 (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

International contributions

No mention of Canada?

http://www.cp24.com/news/two-canadian-firms-play-key-roles-in-comet-landing-1.2099251

96.51.198.182 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, neither company actually contributed to the spacecraft itself, though certainly to the overall mission. SED Systems provided ground stations, while ADGA-RHEA Group provided software that appears to have been used to test and develop flight software. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Conspiracy Theories

Interesting coverage in The Guardian and Metro.--Nowa (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• “Philae comet lander alien ‘cover-up’ conspiracy theories emerge” The Guardian
• “Is there an alien base inside Rosetta’s comet? Five reasons rock is not what it seems” Metro

This is sensationalist clickbait and flat out nonsense. These "theories" pop up every time and add nothing to the discussion. DCLukas (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Why won't this go away? In the last 24 hours, two editors have insisted on keeping an ongoing conspiracy theory/hoax conversation here. They include a 172.56.*.* troll and User:Nowa. One of them has been blocked for it. sudopeople 19:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Just revert it and move on. Conspiracy wackos and internet trolls are like cockroaches. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If you react blindly to something, you miss a lot. My point of positing the links was to show you that the subject of “conspiracy theories” is getting RS coverage and hence is legitimate for discussion on a talk page. I don't care if we include it or not, but I have no patience with wikibullies that try to shut new posters down just because they are offended by what he/she said. If someone is trolling, just don't respond. They will go away.--Nowa (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT the National Enquirer nor Buzzfeed, and we aren't wikibullies for NOT wanting Wikipedia to become such low-quality either. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Then don't refer to other editors as “cockroaches”. If multiple RS covers a topic, read the RS and then make an informed decision as to whether or not it belongs in the article.--Nowa (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, using the term cochroach is inappropriate. The fact remains, however, that conspiracy theory nonsense does not belong in the article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary backing, and these sources don't cut it. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree.--Nowa (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"...just don't respond. They will go away." - I'm still waiting. sudopeople 23:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Caption

"Photograph of comet 67P taken by Philae approximately 10 km from the surface on 9 November 2014. This image represents an area 857x857 meters."
The image has been taken with Rosettas Navcam and not by Philaes CIVA or ROLIS cams. See
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.147.79 (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2014

I've removed it. Not particularly relevant to the landing, anyway. --Njardarlogar (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2014

Please change: Philae is tracked and operated from the European Space Operations Centre (ESOC) at Darmstadt, Germany.[12] to: Philae is operated by the DLR Lander Control Centre (LCC) in Cologne, Germany. The commands issued by the LCC are sent to Philae via the European Space Operations Centre (ESOC) in Darmstadt operating the Rosetta orbiter. Steers b (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Stickee (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Requesting for more Technical Details

Please add more technical details for Philae, such as Processor, Memory, Electrical Storage, Solar Cell Size, ... Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a couple of lines about the batteries and solar panels. -84user (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Add the bouncing part to the Landing section

The part that the lander bounced two times should be added to the "Landing" section instead of "Operations on Surface". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohebbasharat (talk • contribs) 09:57, 16 November 2014‎

Twitter account of Philae

Should the twitter account of "philae" (and also rosetta) be added along with the website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohebbasharat (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 November 2014‎

It has been added to "Social media coverage" on the Rosetta mission page. DCLukas (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I added info about the Twitter account used by the lander's handlers. Frmorrison (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reawaking of probe

I posted some new information that quoted the project director, was well sourced, and created a new subsection for future reawakening. It seems there are 2 editors (I am suspicious about it being 2) who are hell bent on deleting it with no justifiable excuse. If they wanted to modify or add more that would be fine but deleting is unproductive. I am done dealing with them but someone who cares about the article could review my edit and add as you see fit. Thanks 208.54.40.201 (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Philae's final moments of battery power

This is a very good account by a planetary scientist of the final "death watch" of the Philae lander. Seems to me it would be a good source for improving the article. Now Philae down to sleep, by Emily Lakdawalla, who was present at the ESA control room. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Subtitle error on video

At 8:58, speaker talk about CNES CNES, but it is written NASA in subtitles! Don't know how to fix that ...

It seems like a minor error, and the video is not hosted on this page. I would not worry about it. Frmorrison (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Material from Rosetta article

Sticking this here from the Rosetta article (diff), as it has no application over there. Will try to integrate this material when I have time. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The Philae lander is equipped with the SD2 (Sample Drilling and Distribution) system, which has the job of collecting soil samples and transferring them to the probe where a range of devices will conduct in-situ analyses. SD2 - which was designed by Tecnospazio SpA (now Selex ES S.p.A.), in collaboration and with financing from the Italian Space Agency and under the scientific supervision of the Principal Investigator, Professor Amalia Ercoli-Finzi (Polytechnic University of Milan) and built and tested by Tecnomare S.p.A. (a company wholly owned by Eni S.p.A. ) – includes a miniaturised drilling and sampling tool. SD2 has the job of collecting soil samples and transferring them to the probe where a range of devices will conduct in-situ analyses. Based on the requirements of scientists, the team headed by Tecnospazio SpA, with Eni/Tecnomare as the main partner, developed the tool for the collection of samples from the surface of the comet (“driller/sampler” and “volume checker”), as well as overseeing the engineering, construction, testing and preparation for integration with the lander, i.e. the probe module that landed on the comet. The driller/sampler is a mechanically complex miniaturised tool that can drill to a depth of 230 mm and collect soil samples from the bottom. The device, that is made of steel and titanium, holds and releases material by means of an internal coaxial mechanism. Samples are stored in an electromechanical volume checker that measures the quantity and the material is then placed in the various analysers using a carousel mechanism. The drilling capacity adapts to the wide range of conditions and resistance of the surface of the comet, that can have a consistency similar to pack ice, limiting the force of the drilling mechanism to avoid compromising the anchoring system.

"Controlled touchdown"?

The lead section currently states, On 12 November 2014, the lander achieved the first-ever controlled touchdown on a comet nucleus (emphasis mine). Would "soft landing" be more appropriate? All we're really saying is that it wasn't an EOL-type crash-landing or an impactor, but the touchdown itself was not 'controlled' by any definition, was it? nagualdesign 04:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that better wording can be found, and "soft landing" is probably better. "Controlled touchdown" is accurate in a broad sense in that the flywheel did provide some control in its orientation during descent. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wording changed on both the Rosetta and Philae articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Touchdown velocity

Perhaps I am being dense, but it seems odd to me that Philae, falling from orbit, should arrive with a velocity greater than the comet's escape velocity. Chrisbaarry (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. The original reference was self published. I found a RS reference that indicated that the escape velocity was about 1 m/s, or about equal to the landing velocity.--Nowa (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Nowa for changing that source. It is the correct change to make, but the data may not actually be correct. That article is operating on assumptions made in January 2014, when data on the comet was largely still unknown, and an estimated mass of 3.14 x 10^12 was used to make calculations. In August 2014, with Rosetta in orbit, the estimated mass was updated to 1.0 X 10^13, and I've yet to see an updated escape velocity to match. So, 1.0 m/s is good for now, but please keep an eye out for better figures. I wish ESA would release a detailed breakdown on 67P's stats. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You know, that's a good point. I doubt ESA will publish an "escape velocity" since the comet has a significant dumbbell shape. If I recall my freshman physics correctly, the escape velocity will depend upon where you are on the comet surface relative to the center of mass.--Nowa (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, there is a very cool sequence of photos showing the rotating comet nucleus here. Since it is an ESA publication, is it available for Wikipedia?--Nowa (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That's correct regarding the escape velocity depending on center of mass, but ESA has shone a willingness to use generalisations for the sake of public interest. As for the image, it is available at File:NavCam Comet 67P animation 20140806.gif, but due to the size of the file the animation cannot be shown in thumbnail form. I have no way of modifying it to work, but I'll see if I can find a Commons editor who will. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nowa, check out File:NavCam Comet 67P animation 20140806 (cropped).gif, provided by a kindly editor at Commons with GIF-fu. Hope you find a good use for it. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. I added it to 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko--Nowa (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is the lander?

Couldn't we at least get a shot of the 6 football fields of area where they feel Philae ended up? I think that would be appropriate for all the huppla. Robin Randall 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.92.176 (talk)

They've been trying to locate Philae since it landed, but it is a very small machine in a very large rubble field, and cloaked in darkness for the time being. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement on label used in infobox

Before I consider to ask User:Huntster to follow me to the WP:DRN, I'd like to hear a second opinion from somebody else about a label used in the infobox he and I disagree upon. To hear somebody else's point of view might be very helpful, since I never engage in edit-wars and I do not intend to change that. Thank you.

• Detail: the infobox shows the label "67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko lander", while I think it should display "Descent on 67P of lander". To me, the label 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko lander is a misnomer, because the entire article is about the lander (i.e. Lander=Philae), and may mislead or confuse the average reader. Also, Descent on 67P of lander seems to fit the other labels, such as End of mission, Instruments, Spacecraft properties, or Start of mission, especially since the label is used for "Landing date" and "Landing site". In addition it makes sense to abbreviate the comet's name in the label.

Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with a better label due to the restrictions given by the template. What do you think? Cheers, -- Rfassbind -talk 18:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Going straight to WP:DRN would have been highly inappropriate anyway, considering no attempt at discussion was ever made before now. You were bold in your change, I reverted the change as I felt it was not appropriate, now you should try to find consensus if you want that change to be reinstated. I see no issue with the original wording; the infobox has been set up in a specific way so that it has a consistent display across all the articles it is used in. There is no reason to kludge in excess wording. I have no objection if you want to abbreviate the comet to "67P" in the box...if you want to make that particular change, you have my support. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well nobody seems to care. I see that you now started to undo several other edits of mine. The way you visulally experience a wikipedia article is obviously not the way I do, and I presume this includes most other visitors. You have spent a lot of time in refining this and other similar articles and you certainly did well. I guess it must be quite difficult for you to imagine how such an article presents itself to a general reader on his or her first visit. If my experience on the presentational side of websites is contrary to your understanding, then I won't start arguing with you. So let's just agree to disagree and see how things will evolve, OK? Cheers -- Rfassbind -talk 02:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Photos transmitted from Philae

ESA published some photos (or composite) takes by Philae. Someone can updates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.117.104 (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Photographs taken by Philae are not freely licensed, unlike Rosetta's Navcam images, so we cannot use them. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there an image especially appropriate for the article? Like this "lander candidate"? We could ask permission: ESA images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval to: spaceinimages@esa.int--Nowa (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1