back to article Philae warms up nicely, sends home second burst of data

The European Space Agency (ESA) says the Philae lander, Earth's unofficial ambassador to Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, has sent a second burst of data back home. Philae contacted its hominid masters over the weekend, a much hoped-for event after the craft fell into a shady spot on the comet and depleted its batteries. The …

  1. JonW

    Over engineered?

    Awesome engineering achievement and not knocking it, but Philae, Opportunity etc all go way beyond their design life. I understand that these things take years of planning and getting them off this rock in the first place is not cheap, but as SpaceX et al lower the launch costs, there must start to be a case to go for more, simpler, cheaper probes with a faster launch rate.

    Just sayin'

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Over engineered?

      While I see your point, you're not accounting for travel time. It's taken 10 years to get there, if it had been a failure, it'd be at least another 10 years to try again and that's assuming the comet is still on a path we can "easily" reach.

      My understanding is with a lot of space missions, like the Voyager probes, we're very dependent on fluking the alignment of other cosmic objects to slingshot off to get to our destinations.

    2. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Over engineered?

      Actually, no. It is very hard work to engineer it to the precise tolerances needed for that exact 1,000,000 to one chance

      1. Neil Barnes Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Over engineered?

        " that exact 1,000,000 to one chance "

        To be fair, they do pop up nine times out of ten.

        1. DuncanL

          Re: To be fair, they do pop up nine times out of ten.

          Particularly when you're aiming for the voonerables.

    3. imanidiot Silver badge

      Re: Over engineered?

      Not OVER engineered. Just engineered well.

      Philae fulfilled her primary objectives (get to the comet, touch down, deplete batteries while gathering as much data as possible.) That is what it is engineered for. That engineering then allows her to continue operating for longer than just the primary objectives and fulfill later research as well.

      Just like opportunity and curiosity are doing and spirit did. That doesn't mean they are over engineered. Every mission like this has primary objectives (we'll do this first), then secondary, tertiary, quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, nonary objectives after that. The hardware is designed to be absolutely sure it'll fulfill the primary objectives, very likely the secondary, probably the tertiary, maybe the quaternary, perhaps the quinary, etc.

      1. AbelSoul
        Trollface

        Re: quaternary, quinary, senary....

        septenary, octonary, nonary...

        Ooh, I feel a song coming on....

        1. Peter Simpson 1
          Happy

          Re: quaternary, quinary, senary....

          NO! NO! NO!

          There'll be no singing!

          Get back to work!

    4. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: Over engineered?

      Lower launch costs are still *way* more expensive than building the probe - and the groundstation and the people required to run the probe...

      Launch times are normally decided by solar system geometry, rather than anything so prosaic as a "when it's ready" judgment.

      Travel times aren't measured in hours, they're measured in years... So when is your "backup" going to arrive? A few hundred years for the geometry to work again, then add on a few more for travel...

    5. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Over engineered?

      What on earth do you mean by "over engineered"?

      Space is dangerous and getting things anywhere particular is difficult. If you want an example of something cheap, cheerful and also a complete failure then look no further than the Beagle 2.

      1. Steve Cooper

        Re: Over engineered?

        Turns out the Beagle 2 was not a *complete* failure as we've now seen pictures of it where we can see that the probe landed successfully, but failed to unfold itself properly on the Martian surface. Two, maybe 3 petals unfolded, unfortunately they all had to open to perform any communications.

    6. A Non e-mouse Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: Over engineered?

      These probes are millions of miles away from the nearest human, take enormous resources to get them to their destinations, survive harsh take-offs, flights & landings going to the unknown. (and cost an awful lot of money)

      Do you want to be the engineer that says "The mission failed because we saved a few pence and discounted some unlikely possibilities"?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Over engineered?

        "The mission failed because we saved a few pence and discounted some unlikely possibilities"

        I wonder how long ago someone coined the proverb about "not spoiling a ship for a ha'porth of tar".

        A web reference says that for "ship" should be read "sheep".

        http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/don%27t-spoil-the-ship-for-a-ha%27p%27orth-of-tar

        1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

          Re: Over engineered?

          See also "For want of a nail"

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail

        2. madick

          Re: Over engineered?

          A web reference says that for "ship" should be read "sheep".

          Thanks - interesting. I'd always assumed that this proverb referred to ship's caulking, but this reference gives a reasonably complete history.

          http://findwords.info/term/halfpennyworth

          It appears that misunderstanding arose sometime in the 19th century - Hazlitt (1869) mentions both "ship" and "sheep".

    7. JonW

      Re: Over engineered?

      Interesting replies - thought it was going to stimulate some debate; didn't expect to be down voted to oblivion though :)

      1. TitterYeNot

        Re: Over engineered?

        "Interesting replies - thought it was going to stimulate some debate; didn't expect to be down voted to oblivion though :)"

        Your comment wasn't actually a particularly stupid one, as NASA itself tried something similar during the "faster, better, cheaper" years under Daniel Goldin.

        Unfortunately, this approach contributed to the failure of several high-profile Mars missions - hard earned experience has taught us that there's no such thing as over engineering space flight when you're pushing the envelope.

        1. Pete4000uk

          Re: Over engineered?

          Don't forget Spirit and Oppertunity, a six month mission half of which is still going

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Over engineered?

      Lol, what ever you do in life there's always someone criticising you or trying to look smart by saying "yes, but..."

    9. BristolBachelor Gold badge

      Re: Over engineered?

      I'm not going to dig out the specs, but they will say something like "Must have a reliability better than 0.9 for the primary mission phase 1, and better than 0.85 for extended mission phase 2". The primary mission will include 1 year on ground testing, launch, 10 years in space with nasty radiation and horrible temperature changes, separation from Rosetta, landing, and then 60 hours operation on the surface". Extended mission phase 2 probably is something like 1-2 months, but with higher temperatures, and after doing some stressful things.

      Now, if the reliability is 0.9, including the 10 years travel time, tell me what is the probability that it suddenly dies in the next 7 months?

    10. Sirius Lee

      Re: Over engineered?

      I've given you a vote. I agree with your point that may be several less completely engineered projects may have more value than one. Take the case of Philae: if there had been a couple of stand-ins making their way to the comet at the same time, there would be redundancy in case the first mission was not successful. So instead of waiting breathlessly for the lander to power up from a few hours of sunlight, there might have been subsequent landing that learned from the first. Sure, the next landing may also learn from the Philae experience but that will be many years in the future.

      But it's interesting that you are comprehensively down voted. This probably reveals how hard it is for people to be even open minded about different ways of doing things.

      We're seeing a change to the over engineered mindset in satellites. Sure, there are cases when a big, powerful satellite is the best option, but some times 'good enough' is what it needed. This mind set appears to be leading to the emergence of cube sats (as reported here www.theregister.co.uk/cubesats_to_go_interplanetary_with_tiny_ion_drives).

  2. Mystic Megabyte
    Happy

    Bounce

    If there is ever another mission like this maybe deploying multiple landers would be advantageous.

    Small cube sat. type devices mounted in spherical cages would be able to bounce around when landing. Hopefully one or more will end up in a good location and then swivel in it's cage for optimal operation.

    In the meantime, congratulations to the Philae team.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Bounce

      Why spherical? Considering the extremely low gravity on a comet, the shape isn't really important but the one thing you don't want is something that can bounce well and thus escape the comet's gravity. Finding out why the various attempts to mitigate bouncing failed is more important.

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Bounce

        the one thing you don't want is something that can bounce

        We need comet velcro...

        1. TRT Silver badge

          Re: Bounce

          Two of them. With a bloody big net slung between them. Or three of them joined by a rope like a great big bolas.

          1. Sgt_Oddball

            Re: Bounce

            Though European, natch.

        2. Hollerith 1

          Re: Bounce

          Put jam on the bottom

          1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

            Re: Bounce

            Oh come on, this is a technical site. We all know Murphy's law means it will land jam side up!

          2. TRT Silver badge

            Re: Bounce - Put jam on the bottom

            No, sticky though it is, I think that jam would boil off in vacuum of space. You'd need an oil based substance... like a layer of soft cheese, perhaps.

            Philaedelphia.

      2. Sir Sham Cad

        Re: Bounce @Charlie Clark

        The main strategy to mitigate bouncing was the harpoon system that was going to be fired into the comet. Due to the lack of gravity and Newton's pesky Third Law, Philae had a thruster designed to combat the push-back effect of the harpoon hitting the comet's surface. That thruster failed so no harpoon anchor could be deployed.

        Another reason why the downvote-bait first comment about overengineering is complete bollocks.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: Bounce @Charlie Clark

          @Sir Sham Cad

          Thanks for the update. I hadn't heard about the thruster problem. So now we know that Philae was actually under engineered and the next one will need a backup solution in case of the same problem…

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bounce

      The problem with multiple cube-sat type probes is that they wouldn't be able to carry capable scientific instruments. Whilst as lay people we all appreciate the fascinating pictures, the scientific results are after all actually the main purpose of the probe.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This:

    "To recap for those who like their stories in TL;DR mode: humanity sent a probe that travelled hundreds of millions of kilometres and caught up with a comet and successfully dropped a lander onto the comet's surface. That lander worked as planned, was built so well it survived seven months of who knows what and now seems ready to send home more data. But the train or bus that brings you to work today will probably run late and we're making a mess of a zillion other things. ®"

    Yeah because no fucking politicians were involved in its design or building.

    1. Someonehasusedthathandle

      Re: This:

      But will now doubt take some of the credit and talk about how proud "we are" that the probe is now working.

      Spin doctor anonymous attendance is at an all time high these days

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This:

      Remember: people voted for those politicians, despite seeing them on television. You're shooting the messenger, and the message is that most people are stupid. Intelligent people, on the other hand, prefer to do things like design, build and operate space probes rather than try to get elected and sort out the country. Because that way they get to work with other intelligent people, and not worry about being elected by the thick.

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: This:

        Yes, people voted for them, but you also have to remember that our political systems are set up in such a way that it is often a binary vote between a bad choice or a worse one, and votes for anyone else don't count.

        We then have a hierarchical structure within government which further distorts the wishes of the people into being the opinions and say-so of whoever happens to be on top of the pile. They are usually motivated by public opinion, as they wish to stay in that position. In the UK at least, we used to have a meaningful cabinet until that was destroyed by the cult of personality that was a certain Mrs T.

        It's a better system than many others, but I'm not sure it's the best we could have, and I don't think the 'you voted for them' argument carries very much water.

  4. Breen Whitman

    Feminists will also be warming up to hobble this symbol of the patriarchy and its attempt to threaten and stifle women.

    1. Tim Roberts 1

      @ Breen

      Are you talking about "Philae warms up nicely" or "sends a second burst of data". Or perhaps both?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Feminists will also be warming

      There ought to be a prize for dragging the most irrelevant remark into a discussion thread about space probes, just so that this post could win it.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You should have watched newsnight a couple of days ago as coverage of Philae involved a feminist lambasting the project (and is excellent cartoon explanation series) for portraying Philae, which apparently does all the science, as being male while the female Rossetta is merely there in a support role.

      1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

        Reverse argument

        "Philae, which apparently does all the science, as being male while the female Rossetta is merely there in a support role."

        How about men working their tits off, doing all the hard work, while women stand in safe distance, giving them orders?

      2. TitterYeNot
        Coat

        "a feminist lambasting the project for portraying Philae, which apparently does all the science, as being male while the female Rossetta is merely there in a support role."

        Well of course, it makes perfect sense, you don't see Philae sitting on that comet crying and falling in love all the time do you?

        OK, OK, I'm going - mine's the one with the #distractinglysexy hashtag in the pocket...

      3. imanidiot Silver badge

        You could also explain it as philae getting intimate with a comet and then immediatly falling into a coma for 7 months...

        Also, I would put forward that Rosetta is doing a bus ton of science itself. It's not there JUST for support.

  5. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
    Pint

    Great news again

    A tip of the hat (the Tilley today) and a raising of the glass to the engineers once again

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "...temperature is now a positively balmy –5°C, up from –35°C..."

    Reminds me of a long weekend in June I spent at skegness a few years ago.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is bracing" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, though.

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Devil

      As I understand it 67P is incredibly cold, dull, dark, has almost no atmosphere, and has been trailing the stench of bad eggs through the solar system. It's completely unlike anywhere we've studied before, oh Skegness you say, oh sorry carry on then.

      Why did we waste all that money on a rocket and a ten year journey again...?

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Why did we waste all that money on a rocket and a ten year journey again...?

        Because it's important to know if Skegness is unique in the universe.

  7. Tom 7

    It does seem as if its a bit of a hole

    as the comms seem to be the problems not the power.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: It does seem as if its a bit of a hole

      It was known back in November that it had landed in some kind of ravine. This was bad both for power and communications: little light gets in and the antennae are limited in where the can point. The current problem seems to be that the probe's radio beam seems to different than expected, so Rosetta has to adjust its orbit for a more effective fly-through. Given that the probe woke up because its getting warmer and is on a ball of ice and dust, it's hardly surprising that its position has shifted slightly as the environment around it warms up.

      1. MacroRodent

        Re: It does seem as if its a bit of a hole

        Given that the probe woke up because its getting warmer and is on a ball of ice and dust, it's hardly surprising that its position has shifted slightly as the environment around it warms up.

        I wonder if there is any serious risk of some kind of geyser becoming active under Philae, and literally blowing it back to space? I don't suppose it has been attached in any way to the comet now. I believe the original plan involved screws that drill into the comet, but they did not work.

    2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

      Re: It does seem as if its a bit of a hole @Tom

      I've not studied this much more than the articles in the press, but communications will be a problem for Philae. It's on a lump of who-knows-what (that's what it's there to find out), with very little gravity, spinning or maybe tumbling through space in a chaotic way (as the comet warms up, volatile chemicals will almost certainly boil off, causing changes in attitude), with very limited power available for a strong transmission or steerable communication dishes.

      There's no way that it can communicate with earth directly. It will be talking through Rosetta, which itself is in orbit around the comet (not sure how this is possible without a significant gravity field). It will communicate with Rosetta when it can, and Rosetta will talk to Earth when it can.

      As the saying goes, it's complicated.

      1. Tom 7

        Re: It does seem as if its a bit of a hole @Peter

        There was a third transmission received - it does look like access is a bit more restricted than one would want. Rosetta's orbit is being moved to see it they can improve things. I have my fingers crossed but not too tightly.

      2. Professor Clifton Shallot

        Re: It does seem as if its a bit of a hole @Tom

        "Rosetta, ...is in orbit around the comet (not sure how this is possible without a significant gravity field

        Apparently the initial orbit was powered (and triangular) then they moved Rosetta close enough that the limited gravity of the comet was able to smooth that out to a self-sustaining ellipse.

        Apparently that was pretty straighforward compared with landing Philae.

        No idea if that makes sense - I take all this boffinry on faith.

  8. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Alister
      Alert

      Re: ...lander is getting three hours of sunlight a day.

      Isn't that more than the recommended daily exposure without protection? Philae should be wearing sunblock.

    2. Irongut

      Re: ...lander is getting three hours of sunlight a day.

      I was going to suggest Aberdeen. Three hours of sunlight sounds like a Scottish summer to me.

  9. 0laf

    Do they know what way up it is yet?

    Was there not a supposition that the poor wee bugger was lying on its side.

    Does it have the capability of righting itself?

    Irrespective, massive kudos and many pints to and epic piece of boffiny.

  10. Cuddles

    @John Robson

    "Lower launch costs are still *way* more expensive than building the probe - and the groundstation and the people required to run the probe..."

    It's actually pretty much the opposite. The Mars Science Laboratory (including the Curiosity rover), for example, has cost around $2.5 billion so far, with more to come if it doesn't die soon. It was launched on an Atlas V which would have cost $150-200 million. Lower launch costs would mean it might have cost $2.4 billion instead. Similarly, the Rosetta mission has cost around $1.8 billion, with launch costs again on the order of $100 million. Lower launch costs would be great for regular launches into Earth orbit, but they're pretty much irrelevant when it comes to interplanetary exploration.

    @MacroRodent

    "I wonder if there is any serious risk of some kind of geyser becoming active under Philae, and literally blowing it back to space?"

    That's actually one likely benefit of it's current position, since less sunlight means less chance of things happening due to the ice heating up nearby. The same factors that give it problems with power mean it's probably in one of the safest spots it could be.

  11. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    Perhaps Philae's secret experiment package 14 will prove once and for all whether the Clangers are real, or if "the Clangers" are simply a disease resulting in a nasty itch ...

    1. Astarte

      Clangers to the rescue

      @Andy The Hat

      They are real! Perhaps, after the Clangers struggled and failed to move Philae into the light, they gathered around in a semicircle with their polished dustbin lids to reflect sunlight to warm her up. Right now, the Soup Dragon is preparing a fortifying feast for our Philae (and what a wonderful filly she is; congratulations to her breeders, trainers and jockeys). Keep up Rosetta.

      The music trees have now started sending their music to Rosetta and the Iron Chicken is waiting in the background for a feast if everything fails.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like