failed-phd-candidate wrote:There is nothing of science or space exploration to be gleaned from landing a robotic craft on a lonely comet core. The Deep Impact excursion with comet 9P Tempel was an exercise in celestial navigation and robotics - nothing of scientific worth was extracted from impacting a comet with a bulkhead. What was most distressing was the manner in mission control operators cheered and carried on like kids on supposedly a job well done. Ofcourse you land robots on celestial icebergs; ofcourse you can play bulls-eye with asteroids.. but this is not space exploration.
And. it is obvious by now that rocketry is not a viable means for space exploration.
Expending the Earth's precious resources on merry-go-round missions is neither prudent nor profitable in terms of current environmental trends. If a space probe cannot be retrieved the mission should not be carried out.
When a viable space exploration mechanism is achieved the first thing which must be done is collect the space junk orbiting the Earth and retrieve the space probes which have been abandoned to space.
As that must have been a fine piece of universal negativism, I'll conjoin the "candidate's" offering with the guy above him with the whale ..
Nitpicker's whale, rather than named Moby Dick, had a truer, inner identity and that was Transparency.
ESA's Rosetta mission scientists, engineers, have solved the vexing problem of orbiting an irregular object under way in space of low mass that the engineers developing the Sprint AERCam claim to not have done. We can call Rosetta's success Reflections On Distance/Space Within That Most Nettlesome of Tendencies: 20/20 Hindsight (Time).
The comet could float in a large enough body of water, and Sprint AERCam probably shared a similar mass relation to the Shuttle.
Congratulations Rosetta engineers for a fine performance to-date. Impressive.
Now, where did that orbiting AERCam go to?