Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rosetta's crazy insertion maneuvers to get into orbit about comet 67P (animation)
Imgur ^

Posted on 08/08/2014 11:46:03 AM PDT by LibWhacker



TOPICS: Astronomy; Science
KEYWORDS: churyumovgerasimenko; comet; comet67p; cometprobe; comets; insertion; orbit; philae; rosetta
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 08/08/2014 11:46:03 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

looks like a wee cup will help if you’re the one who has to steer this thing


2 posted on 08/08/2014 11:50:29 AM PDT by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Some engineer had too much time and red bull on his hands.


3 posted on 08/08/2014 11:53:51 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me that the spacecraft will not be in a “gravitational” orbit at all. It will have to continuously expend fuel to remain in a circular orbit. Weak gravity and all that.


4 posted on 08/08/2014 12:02:19 PM PDT by InterceptPoint (Remember Mississippi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

I don’t believe you are wrong. An object that small can’t exert much more gravitational pull than the Empire State Building.


5 posted on 08/08/2014 12:05:14 PM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

and yet... i am drawn to it.


6 posted on 08/08/2014 12:08:08 PM PDT by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Makes me dizzy just looking at the video.


7 posted on 08/08/2014 12:08:30 PM PDT by tennmountainman (True conservatives don't like being rained on by their own party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

bttt


8 posted on 08/08/2014 12:08:43 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

The challenge is to orbit a body with a weak gravitational pull. Lots of corrections. But it will eventually enter an orbit.


9 posted on 08/08/2014 12:11:03 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude; cogitator; neverdem; Nachum; SunkenCiv

And yet, the “academic community” so desperate to argue against using a nuke warhead to blow apart an incoming comet/meteorite that would otherwise hit the earth, the “easy” part is matching orbits to the inbound comet and actually driving a “tether” into the surface of the rocks.....


10 posted on 08/08/2014 12:30:37 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kidd
"The challenge is to orbit a body with a weak gravitational pull. Lots of corrections. But it will eventually enter an orbit."

The non-spherical shape, and tumbling of comet 67P will impact Rosetta's orbit and will need to constantly be addressed, or the orbit will change shape. The effect could be to change the shape and of the orbit to one which impacts the comet, or the path could be changes to one which causes Rosetta to leave 67P's gravity.

11 posted on 08/08/2014 12:37:30 PM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r

and yet... i am drawn to it.

LOL!


12 posted on 08/08/2014 12:45:12 PM PDT by Cyman (We have to pass it to see what's in it= definition of stool sample)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Why does it have to orbit the comet, instead of just pulling up along side of it and ‘cometing’ parallel with it?


13 posted on 08/08/2014 12:54:18 PM PDT by CivilWarBrewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

ph


14 posted on 08/08/2014 1:06:57 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing

They would crash into one another because gravity would pull them together.


15 posted on 08/08/2014 1:09:36 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Comet weighs way more. It’s 2 to 3 miles across.


16 posted on 08/08/2014 1:22:24 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing
Newton's Cannon - orbit explanation

Newton's explanation of orbits: A cannon firing at different speeds. Shots A and B will fall to Earth, C will enter a circular orbit, D results in an elliptical orbit, and E is fired beyond "escape velocity".

Here's the idea: If two gravitating objects aren't going fast enough with respect to one another, they'll collide (as the cannon ball does at point A and point B). Attain some minimal orbiting velocity, and they'll go into orbit around one another, but just barely (C). Push the velocity higher, and the orbit will be higher (D). Push it too far and they'll break their gravitational bonds and go their merry ways (E).

17 posted on 08/08/2014 1:34:20 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Still almost no gravity.


18 posted on 08/08/2014 2:54:04 PM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

More than enough. Especially since Rosetta’s orbital speed is no faster than a man walks. Plenty of time even for weak gravity to do its thing.


19 posted on 08/08/2014 3:36:41 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
There is plenty of gravity for these two objects to orbit one another. Remember, any two objects with mass attract each other gravitationally no matter how small they are and no matter how far apart they are (ignore quantum theory; these things aren't quanta). So, in principle, any two objects can be made to orbit one another. Of course, there are other considerations: Are we in a perfect vacuum? No. Are there other objects around? Yes. Etc. But here, there are no major obstacles to putting Rosetta in orbit around 67P.
20 posted on 08/08/2014 3:47:57 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson