Philae phones home for the eight time (Update)

An image taken by Rosetta's Philae on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko shows part of the lander, in a photo released by the Europ
An image taken by Rosetta's Philae on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko shows part of the lander, in a photo released by the European Space Agency (ESA) on November 13, 2014

Europe's robot lab Philae, zipping towards the Sun on a comet, has called home for the eighth time since waking up from hibernation last month, French space agency CNES said Friday.

After a 15-day silence, Philae had a 20-minute conversation with ground control via its mother ship Rosetta, in orbit around comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, it said in a statement.

This was "very encouraging news for the remainder of the Philae mission," the agency said.

There had been no news from the washing machine-sized robot lab since June 24, a disquieting break for mission controllers.

Philae first woke up on June 13 after seven months in on the 's surface.

The tiny lander touched down on November 12 last year after a 10-year journey piggybacking on Rosetta.

The landing was bumpy—the tiny lab bounced several times on the craggy surface before ending up in deep shade, deprived of sunlight to replenish its battery.

Philae had enough onboard power to send home from about 60 hours of tests conducted with eight of its 10 instruments, before going into standby mode on November 15.

But the lander's power pack is being recharged as 67P streaks toward the Sun at about 31 kilometres (19 miles) per second.

Thursday's eighth contact was the longest yet, with an uninterrupted stretch of 12 minutes, said the CNES, which allowed the downloading of critical data obtained from Philae's prodding and probing of its alien world.

"The link was by far the best yet, with very few interruptions," said the statement.

"It bodes well for the future because such a good connection would allow the teams to take control of Philae and give it commands"—possibly to shift position or start its drill for a sub-surface examination.

Philae is equipped with ten instruments, with which its creators hope to learn more about the properties of comets and their possible role in bringing life to Earth.

Comets are frozen balls of dust, ice and gas left over from the Solar System's formation some 4.6 billion years ago.

Some experts believe that comets smashed into our infant planet, providing it with precious water and the chemical building blocks for life.

Comet 67P is approaching perihelion—its closest point to the Sun at about 185 million km (115 million miles)—on August 13, and are excited about getting a first-hand view of the dramatic change it will go through as it sheds more and more material.

Explore further

Comet probe Philae dials home, 'doing very well' (Update)

© 2015 AFP

Citation: Philae phones home for the eight time (Update) (2015, July 10) retrieved 19 April 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 10, 2015
"Measurements carried out before Philae‍‍ '​‍s batteries failed indicate that the dust layer could be as much as 20 cm (7.9 in) thick. Beneath that is hard ice, or a mixture of ice and dust. Porosity appears to increase toward the center of the comet.[45]"

Sounds like a dirty snowball to me.

Jul 11, 2015
The dirty snowball model relies on indirect observations of hidden subsurface ice which is impossible to falsify. The comet was originally predicted to be covered in ice and snow, hence, ice-screws on Philae. Then it was said that the vacuum could not allow any surface ice to exist. Sure. Now Rosetta has observed bright spots which may be ice on "boulders" on the surface. No ice before... now all of a sudden there's some ice on the surface with warmer temperatures and it's ok? Predictions have no value with the dirty snowball model because the foundation of it being an icy body is somehow considered a fact merely due to the presence of hydroxyl and water vapor in the coma. If any other mechanism can produce hydroxyl and water vapor then the necessity of an icy body would cease to exist.

Now give me my 1 star from the non-thinkers who forgot that science should be testing the null hypothesis instead of blindly forcing observations to fit prior models (see: researcher's bias).

Jul 11, 2015
Surely the comet rotates so that the lander would be in the sun some of the time?
It must be plain rotten luck to land in permanent semi-shadow.
The strength of the sunlight received must be increasing.

Jul 11, 2015

You sure like making sh*t up, a common trait of EU nutters. Water ice spectra have been observed on comets for decades but no where will you find a reputable source that claimed p67 or any other comet would "be covered in ice and snow".


Jul 11, 2015

"The dirty snowball model relies on indirect observations of hidden subsurface ice which is *impossible* to falsify*"

And easy to prove. See the Tempel 1 data, and what emerged from the comet when they smashed an impactor into it. H2O. Not OH or Si. H2O. http://www.leif.o...ets.pdf. And there has been far too much H2O observed in those comae for it to be produced by the solar wind. Hale-Bopp, for instance, 300 000 litres per second. And it has been observed very close to the nucleus on 67P (0-500m)
Conversely, there is not one single piece of evidence to back up EU nutty claims of electric comets. Including the total lack of electric activity. And, of course, there is the density.
So perhaps the EU mob can start by telling us where their "evidence" is, instead of continually using their lack of knowledge of comets to criticise *real* science.

Jul 11, 2015
Obviously, it found an alien Spouse/Master!
Only when it gets bored with the new one...or find a way somehow to sneak out!
Well, having Best of Both the Worlds.
Very Cunning Philae, Damn you!

Jul 11, 2015

Ignore anything you've ever heard from any EU supporter on any electric model of anything space-related. I mentioned none of it, so it has no place in anything you say. This argument is not if option A is better than option B, it's option A or not A. That is what science tests... err... should be testing.

The hypothesis is that the comet is an icy body which sublimates to produce jets and OH/H2O in the coma. The null hypothesis, which is what the scientists should be testing, is that a comet is not an icy body sublimating. Likewise, an associated p-value does not accept or reject the hypothesis, it tells you the probability of which rejecting the null hypothesis is a mistake.

Science is centered around the NULL hypothesis, this reduces bias. For some reason, space-science has ignored this philosophy and allowed faith in the current dogma to filter all future observations.

Jul 11, 2015
Sorry mate, you're an idiot. Which part of smashing an impactor into a comet and seeing H2O released isn't good enough for you? How low does ones IQ have to go before one believes in Wals bulshit? Thick or what?

Jul 11, 2015
By the way, perhaps the EU eejits would like to tell us what the SWIFT telescope saw? Come on Thornhill, you fraudulent burke. Give us a clue. At least let everyone know why no-one takes your nonsense seriously.
As I've said; zero evidence, lots of hot air. Lets see some evidence. Otherwise, as usual, you are talking crap. Where's the evidence?

Jul 11, 2015
You want a "null hypothesis"? How about the fact that there has been found H2O in the comae of numerous comets. How about that there has been found surface H2O on Tempel 1. How about there has been found H2O beneath the surface of Tempel 1? How about that there has never been any electrical woo observed on any comet, any time, ever? How about that the density of every comet ever measured doesn't work out with Uncle Wals bollocks?
How about YOU actually give us a fairy tale that we can actually see?
You are talking crap, and you know it.

Jul 12, 2015
Water in the coma is not being debated by anyone. The EU idea is that water is produced in the coma; hydroxyl first and then water. Therefore, any miniscule amounts of water ice found on the surface was actually deposited there.

Concerning Deep Impact and Tempel 1:

"Taken together, these observations suggest that the exposed water ice regions are not primary [for example, forming mantles around silicates, as proposed by the aggregated interstellar material model]. It is also possible that the water ice has recondensed from recent activity."

Also, you guys have your facts way off:

"No increase in the water vapor emission resulting from the impact on 4 July was detected by SWAS, either as a short-lived outburst in intensity due to vaporized water ice in the ejected material or as a permanently increased water vapor production rate from a newly formed active area. In fact, the velocity-integrated line intensity averaged before and after impact is virtually identical"

Jul 12, 2015
You really are thick aren't you? How much of an increase in the solar wind would you need to create that much OH? And then to turn it into H and O and H2O? Don't be stupid. Your grasp of science is obviously not very good, so please don't carry on making an absolute pillock of yourself. Might need to take some basic courses in chemistry and astrophysics if you want to be taken seriously. Just a thought.

Jul 12, 2015
You may also want to read "Swift ultraviolet photometry of the Deep Impact encounter with Comet 9P/Tempel 1". Behind a paywall, but hey, that's not a problem for real scientists, eh?
Particularly the bit about which your lord and master Thornhill lies on the thundercrap website.
i.e. the bit in the abstract that that says "There is no evidence for a prompt flash at the time of impact."
Like I said, this is a faith based delusion with zero evidence to back it up. That is why real science ignores it. And rightly so.
If you have any evidence, other than the rantings of the crankster, fraudster and general eejit that is Wal Thornhill, please let us know. Because evidence from that quarter has been unsurprisingly missing up to this point.

Jul 12, 2015
You may also want to ask yourself "where did the water come from?" You don't get that from smacking an impactor into rock. More faith based delusion. Read the paper properly. If you are not capable of understanding it, then get someone who is to explain it to you.
You seriously do not understand science, do you?

Jul 14, 2015
Jonesdave, you offer zero support to anything you say and instead rebuttal with clueless questions and insults. You said water was released from the deep impact mission. That is WRONG. I posted the quote from the primary source proving your statement is WRONG. Don't make up claims that I'm supposed to follow from other people. Address me. You were WRONG in believing the impact produced an increase in water vapor. Now try to focus and give me an intelligent response.

Jul 14, 2015
Have a read:

Seriously mate, you are thick, or simply wedded to this nonsense Read the papers properly. Get a science degree Do something. You're quoting stuff that disproves your own hypothesis. Dim or what?.

Jul 14, 2015
"Our analysis of ejecta from spatially and temporally resolved
IR spectra of the DI impact ejecta reveal an internal stratigraphy
at the impact site of evolved materials transitioning to unaltered components at a depth of ∼1 m. This depth is consistent
with the seasonal solar radiation gradient inferred from measurements of the surface temperature of Tempel 1. At greater
depths, which are thermally isolated from the surface, we find
water ice well separated from refractory materials. Furthermore
down to 10 to 20 m, these pristine materials consist of very finegrained ice particles that are free of any impurities. Our results........

Jul 14, 2015
..................on the internal composition and structure represent only one
site on a single comet, yet they serve as our only observational
constraints on the internal stratigraphy of comets, the formational structure of volatiles, and models thereof. Generalization of these results remains the task of future exploration."

Perhaps you'd like to present the sum total of electric comet nonsense (i.e. nothing) so that we can "assess" it. As in BS.
Let's see some evidence. Seen it on the surface, seen it below the surface, seen it in the coma. What more do you pillocks need?

2.7 microns. What is that? Come on. Tell us.

Jul 15, 2015
"NO INCREASE in the water vapor emission resulting from the impact on 4 July was detected by SWAS, either as a short-lived outburst in intensity due to vaporized water ice in the ejected material or as a permanently increased water vapor production rate from a newly formed active area. In fact, the velocity-integrated line intensity averaged before and after impact is virtually IDENTICAL"

You have to use facts man, not assumptions. I'm not saying the EU model is correct, I'm saying the dirty-snowball model is most likely wrong. The impact did not increase water vapor concentration after blowing a hole through the "sub-surface ice layers." Only dust increased, no water increased.

No theory disputes the presence of minuscule amounts of water ice on the surface. I dispute the assumption that a vast amount of hidden volatiles are required to produce what is observed. Your lack of a coherent statement and reliance on insults only supports my position.

Jul 15, 2015

"Photographs of 67P show a structure of steep cliffs, ravines and jagged formations—not dissimilar in appearance to hard, rocky formations seen on Earth. But the comet is fluffy, porous and only half as dense as water."

"This comet would float on a lake," said Holger Sierks, lead author of one of the studies and scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany."

Do you have a problem with this too?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more