Rosetta / Philae Lander

As many probably know, the Rosetta explorer spacecraft is about to launch a lander to the surface of the comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko on 12th Nov 2014.

I will make some predictions regarding the outcome of this attempt. A comet carries an enormous negative electrical charge.

Because the Rosetta has been in orbit for some time, it may have equalized charge with the comet, however it is also quite possible that the comet will be far more electrically negative than the lander.

As the lander approaches, dust gas and plasma are likely to move out from the comet and create an electrical connection to the lander. This dust and so on is likely to interfere with the optical systems on the lander, covering lenses with dust. If the lander has not equalized charge with the comet, and if this plasma and dust is thick enough, an electrical discharge may occur and strike the lander.

If the lander is already equalized electrically with the comet after its time in orbit, then the two objects will both be highly negatively charged. This will create a 'mysterious anti-gravitational force' as the lander approaches the comet.

Of course, its not a mystery, its the electrostatic force, this may interfere with the landers ability to approach the comet as desired. If the lander does not carry any means of thrust, this repulsive force may prevent it from getting close enough to use its harpoons. The other effect is that charge may move around on the lander, and the area that is most conductive will become electrically positive, which may cause an unexpected change in orientation of the vehicle - ie. the lander might suddenly flip over.

In any event, the landing is likely to be more difficult than expected, and may end with a bright flash (of electrical discharge) and a loss of signal.

originally posted by: Amagnon
As many probably know, the Rosetta explorer spacecraft is about to launch a lander to the surface of the comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko on 12th Nov 2014.

I will make some predictions regarding the outcome of this attempt. A comet carries an enormous negative electrical charge.

Because the Rosetta has been in orbit for some time, it may have equalized charge with the comet, however it is also quite possible that the comet will be far more electrically negative than the lander.

So they may have the same charge or a different charge.

As the lander approaches, dust gas and plasma are likely to move out from the comet and create an electrical connection to the lander. This dust and so on is likely to interfere with the optical systems on the lander, covering lenses with dust.

An electrical connection may or may not happen.

If the lander has not equalized charge with the comet, and if this plasma and dust is thick enough, an electrical discharge may occur and strike the lander.

A discharge may occur .. or may not.

If the lander is already equalized electrically with the comet after its time in orbit, then the two objects will both be highly negatively charged. This will create a 'mysterious anti-gravitational force' as the lander approaches the comet.

There may be a mysterious force.

Of course, its not a mystery, its the electrostatic force, this may interfere with the landers ability to approach the comet as desired. If the lander does not carry any means of thrust, this repulsive force may prevent it from getting close enough to use its harpoons.

The lander may get there, or may not.

The other effect is that charge may move around on the lander, and the area that is most conductive will become electrically positive, which may cause an unexpected change in orientation of the vehicle - ie. the lander might suddenly flip over.

The lander may become acrobatic.

In any event, the landing is likely to be more difficult than expected, and may end with a bright flash (of electrical discharge) and a loss of signal.

So it may explode, or not.

Let me compile a list of your prediction.
1. They will possibly have the same charge, or they may not.
2. There may be an electrical connection, there may not be.
3. An electrical discharge may occur, or may not.
4. There may be anti-gravitational forces at work, or there may not be.
5. The lander may land fine, or may not land.
6. The lander may flip, or may not flip.
7. There may be a bright flash and loss of signal, or there may not be.

Well, you really went out on a limb there! You risk taker you.

originally posted by: Amagnon
I will make some predictions regarding the outcome of this attempt. A comet carries an enormous negative electrical charge.

In your opinion, however in modern science we've moved beyond the need to make only basic visual observations and form conclusions from such limited information. Amongst it's various instruments Rosetta carries the Rosetta Plasma Consortium which would be able to detect and accurately measure this type of environment - if it were true.

Because the Rosetta has been in orbit for some time, it may have equalized charge with the comet, however it is also quite possible that the comet will be far more electrically negative than the lander.

Based on the assumption that you are correct, why are you not able to calculate the outcome with at least a relatively high degree of certainty? Or is this back down to how the Electric Universe 'doesn't do math' - and therefore any prediction beyond random statements?
This statement reminds me of a common one the police in the UK say when someone is murdered about the suspect "It could either be someone they knew, or someone they didn't" - really? Genius!

As the lander approaches, dust gas and plasma are likely to move out from the comet and create an electrical connection to the lander. This dust and so on is likely to interfere with the optical systems on the lander, covering lenses with dust. If the lander has not equalized charge with the comet, and if this plasma and dust is thick enough, an electrical discharge may occur and strike the lander.

Where was the electrical discharge which would presumably have destroyed the spacecraft or disabled it when Deep Impact collided with Comet 9P/Tempel?

I don't see it? The feed cuts as you would expect when it hits and is destroyed. No flash from an arc, no electrical discharge.. No corrupt data.. No cutting feed... Nothing.. And the spacecraft didn't spend any time near the comet in advance so no time for anything to 'equalise'. I would have expected quite a show, no?

If the lander is already equalized electrically with the comet after its time in orbit, then the two objects will both be highly negatively charged. This will create a 'mysterious anti-gravitational force' as the lander approaches the comet.

Of course, its not a mystery, its the electrostatic force, this may interfere with the landers ability to approach the comet as desired. If the lander does not carry any means of thrust, this repulsive force may prevent it from getting close enough to use its harpoons. The other effect is that charge may move around on the lander, and the area that is most conductive will become electrically positive, which may cause an unexpected change in orientation of the vehicle - ie. the lander might suddenly flip over.

The lander has has a cold gas thruster and flywheel as part of it's active descent system. (PDF Link).

When sufficient information on the target has been collected and analyzed, a scenario will be worked out,
based on a separation from the main spacecraft in orbit (it is desirable to perform this at low altitudes, i.e. 1 to
2 km), lander attitude stabilization with an internal flywheel, the optional use of a one axis cold gas system
(propelling the lander “downwards”) and allowing sufficient time to perform system relevant tasks (e.g.
unfolding of the landing gear) as well as the collection of science data.

A typical descent will take 30 min to 2 hours. Mission analysis shall provide a solution where the Lander z-axis as well as the impact velocity vector are both vertical to the comet surface at the landing site.
However, local slopes up to 30° can be tolerated by the landing system (although the robustness of the landing
depends on the impact velocity).
At touch-down, the cold gas system will provide downward-thrust and the anchoring harpoons will be
fired. The harpoons, on a tether, shall provide good fixation to ground for a wide range of surface
parameters for the rest of the mission [19].
Additional anchoring will be provided by ice-screws implemented in the feet of the Lander.

I recommend reading up about the mission, it will help you with some of your answers.

In any event, the landing is likely to be more difficult than expected, and may end with a bright flash (of electrical discharge) and a loss of signal.

This part, i.e. the landing, of the larger mission only had roughly a 70-75% chance of success when the shape of the comet was thought to be rounded.
There's no point making a risk analysis now because it's going to try regardless, but it's pretty obvious that the chances of success are reduced. If there's a loss of signal it's because it sadly failed which would hardly be unexpected!

All this EU guesswork based on ancient ideas, lab experiments and visual observations are really cute but don't really have a place in 21st century science.
Why is it that people who subscribe to EU ideas assume that electrical environments can be modelled in a lab that are representative on a cosmic scale?
Why do you ignore the fact that our observations go far beyond simple visual observations and extend into our ability to measure many different parameters to a high degree of accuracy?
Are you going to claim data is being altered or covered up when the data from the RPC and other instruments doesn't support your ideas?

The whole point of the mission is to learn new things, if we had all the answers then it would be a waste of time and money. But EU proponents keep banging on about things which have no proof beyond conjecture, there's a reason why even on the TB website they have a section specially to defend the fact that the EU doesn't do math. It means that you can get out of providing provable/disprovable models and conveniently ignore all data from numerous instruments we now have placed around our solar system on various spacecraft - unless someone mistakenly thinks that something supports their idea of course.

As I said before in another thread, you can play in your lab all day long and make observations to form rudimentary predictions. Meanwhile we're using numerous spacecraft with numerous instruments distributed throughout the solar system as our lab - making real observations of real events and real astronomical bodies in our lab - the Solar System.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Talk about stacking the deck in your favour, if it had been December I am sure Santa would have got a mention as well!

funny that standard maths based on (gravity-based) celestial mechanics got the probe there in the first place....I just find it weird that so many space probes arrive exactly where they are intended to arrive based on celestial mechanics. Nobody is denying the fact that there are plasma fields, etc, in outer space. Rosetta even has an instrument measuring the solar-wind interaction, i.e. a plasma meter, but the EU guys are taking this to the extreme.

originally posted by: Amagnon
A comet carries an enormous negative electrical charge.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Is there any scientific data that supports this? Wouldn't Rosetta's instruments detect the flow of charge due to this charge inequality?

The rest of your post isn't really a prediction, it's just a bunch of "may or may not".

That said, dusty airless bodies in the Solar System (for example, the Moon, or Hyperion) can carry some electrostatic charge and it can create an interaction with orbiting or landing craft. But that is part of the mainstream study, not something that proves the EU and disproves the mainstream.

Amagnon, I am going to make a prediction as well...

You may or may never work at NASA or ESA

Although judging by your lack of knowledge of science, i'm going to say never. As someone else mentioned in this thread..the clever people at the ESA got this ship bang on target after 10 years of huge looping space travel. What exactly is it you think you know that they don't?

But i did at least get a good laugh out loud moment at OccamsRazor04's breakdown of your "predictions". I hope you emailed someone at the ESA with those..THEY NEED TO KNOW THE RISKS!

My prediction (and my hope) is that Philae will land safely and it will be another triumphant moment for man.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You incorrectly assume that I have something to do with EU theory, I do not, I have an independent theory called Fractal Plasma Theory.

The comet is charged.

If I had the information on the construction and geometry of the lander, the charge of the comet, the charge on the lander, the density, abundance and composition of the plasma around the comet, the abundance of dust and its grain size then I could calculate the effects.

Any physicist could do the same, it is not some 'magical' thing I am proposing, simply that the comet is charged, and there seems to be no mention of how this is being managed by the lander team.

If this charge is unexpected, then there will be unexpected results.

a reply to: Amagnon

And what leads you to believe it is highly negatively charged? I did not assume anything, I simply showed how everything you said made you right no matter what happened. Every single outcome led to your statement being right, and zero outcomes could invalidate your statements.

It's like saying the store may be on the left up ahead .. or may be on the right.

I understand over half of this! Thanks ATS.

I am smrt.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Without all the data, you cannot predict precise results. You say the mission has a 70% chance of success, I am also saying there is a chance that the lander will not be completely electrically equalized before its approach.

I simply don't know whether the craft has had sufficient contact with material around the comet to allow electrical neutrality - if so, then it will be repelled by the comet, if not it will be pulled in and its orientation will be at the mercy of its geometry, and it will neutralize rapidly. Without knowing the plasma density and charge difference, how could anyone calculate whether there is enough potential to create an arc?

These statements do not make me correct under all circumstances, if the craft is equalized; event 1, if it isn't; event 2. Seems fairly clear.

a reply to: Amagnon


The comet is particularly influenced by the Higgs Field....I don't know if the craft has managed to equalise with this Higgs field differential or not, but if not, then its mass will be incorrect and it will bounce straight off the comet. There is about a 45% chance that the Higgs Bosons will align on both and the landing will be a success.

I can make things up too! It's fun!

originally posted by: Amagnon
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Without all the data, you cannot predict precise results. You say the mission has a 70% chance of success, I am also saying there is a chance that the lander will not be completely electrically equalized before its approach.

I simply don't know whether the craft has had sufficient contact with material around the comet to allow electrical neutrality - if so, then it will be repelled by the comet, if not it will be pulled in and its orientation will be at the mercy of its geometry, and it will neutralize rapidly. Without knowing the plasma density and charge difference, how could anyone calculate whether there is enough potential to create an arc?

These statements do not make me correct under all circumstances, if the craft is equalized; event 1, if it isn't; event 2. Seems fairly clear.

So event 1 or 2 will happen. If event 1 happens .. you are right. If event 2 happens, you are right. You are right under every possible scenario.

What data are you using to determine how negatively charged the comet is?

The fact the comet is a charged body undergoing an electrical discharge is no longer debatable.

The latest images show dozens upon dozens of plasma discharges on to the comet.

The bases of the discharges are wider and brighter than the length of the plasma stream. There are no observable vents. There is no observable surface ice.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

That's the end of this discussion. There is no more debate.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
That's the end of this discussion. There is no more debate.

You would like to believe that, wouldn't you? Scientific scrutiny makes the EU (and related "theories") supporters uncomfortable.

Still waiting for the OP's evidence that the comet carries a charge. And since you decided to chime in with your "undebatable" facts, where is the scientific evidence that the comet is a charged body undergoing an electrical discharge? How do we know that the jets seen in images are plasma discharges and not sublimating gasses? How do you calculate the length of the "plasma stream", given the limitations in camera exposure?

Some of the vents have been pointed out in a video presentation about Philae's landing.

No surface ice is in agreements with the mainstream model which accepts that the nucleus surface becomes depleted of volatiles and darkened through interaction with solar wind: www2.ess.ucla.edu...

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The fact the comet is a charged body undergoing an electrical discharge is no longer debatable.

The latest images show dozens upon dozens of plasma discharges on to the comet.

The bases of the discharges are wider and brighter than the length of the plasma stream. There are no observable vents. There is no observable surface ice.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

That's the end of this discussion. There is no more debate.

That image is so overexposed you can't see exactly how it's venting or from where can you

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

The behavior of the "jets" is completely at odds with the behavior of a neutral gas in a vacuum.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Sounds like the reply of a 3 year old.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
I've asked about the "mystery" of the collimated jets from comets at the "Comet Watch" Facebook group. Here's the reply from Charles Bell, with relevant parts emphasised by me:

The term "collimated jet" is not the same as a dust tail or an ion tail. The reference to the term or phrase "collimated jet" that I am familiar with refers to activity near the surface of a comet nucleus seen only close up in space craft images, eg. Deep Impact images of comet 9P/Tempel, Rosetta images of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, the "B" jet imaged on comet 19P/Borrelly by Deep Space 1. These did not exceed 100 km.

Gas is produced by sublimation of ices which entrain dust via hydrodynamic drag forces and after reaching surface expands freely in the vacuum of space. Gas dynamics is described by kinetic theory of gases in a physics or thermodynamics text. A surface crevice or small opening is thought to produce collimation of the gas leaving the surface.

A comet with a well developed gas coma typically extends much further than dust coma since dust particles are affected by solar radiation pressure. Neutral gas expands and is affected to a lesser extent by solar radiation than dust particles, i.e, hydrogen, CN, C2 comae show some asymmetry.
.
Ionized gas follows interplanetary magnetic field lines spiraling along them according to Lorentz force qE + qv x B described in every basic physics text for charges in electric or magnetic fields.

Reference to collimated jets: Comets II, chapter "In Situ Observations of Cometary Nuclei" by H. U. Keller, D. Britt, B. J. Buratti, and Nick. Thomas.

Googling "comet collimated jets" gives a range of scientific papers, so why not have a look at them too? Here's what one of them says:

The observed jets can be produced by acceleration of evolved gas from a subsurface cavity through a narrow orifice to the surface. As long as the cavity is larger than the orifice, the pressure in the cavity will be greater than the ambient pressure in the coma and the flow from the geyser will be supersonic. The gas flow becomes collimated as the sound speed is approached and dust entrainment in the gas flow creates the observed jets. Outside the cavity, the expanding gas loses its collimated character, but the density drops rapidly decoupling the dust and gas, allowing the dust to continue in a collimated beam.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

If YOU weren't such a child you would have understood the point just to make it clearer for you

It's so overexposed you can't see exactly how it's venting or from where can you.

Important point in bold to help it get through!