Rosetta - Post Separation Ops at Comet 67P C-G, November 14, 2014 - |
Rosetta - Post Separation Ops at Comet 67P C-G, November 14, 2014 - |
Nov 14 2014, 05:17 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2090 Joined: 13-February 10 From: Ontario Member No.: 5221 |
I think I heard it mentioned during the press conference today, (I can't find it now), about Rosetta itself possibly landing eventually, similar to what NEAR did at the end of the main mission at Eros? Since it's not like there's anywhere else to go with the remaining delta-v left by the end of 2015, and sunlight levels and activity starting to drop after perihelion, and the low gravity makes the difference between orbiting and 'landing' trivial. The whole thing would weigh a kilo or two, right?
Obviously there's a few more pressing concerns right now, but it's something to eventually think about. |
|
|
Jan 22 2015, 07:59 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 423 Joined: 13-November 14 From: Norway Member No.: 7310 |
As per the scientific results thread, 14 newly released OSIRIS images can be found here. Per Jonathan Amos, the dinosaur eggs mentioned at AGU are here referred to as 'goosebumps' (pic 13).
EDIT 2x: Some more context in this blog post. Here is OSIRIS at full resolution from 8 km - almost like standing on the surface! -------------------- |
|
|
Jan 23 2015, 11:05 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 1-August 14 Member No.: 7227 |
As per the scientific results thread, 14 newly released OSIRIS images can be found here. A bit more comfortable page: http://lc84.altervista.org/rosetta/immagini.html QUOTE Some of the pictures have resolutions and uncompressed sizes that simply won't work in a browser These images are weird: at "full resolution" a single pixel is actually made of several pixels, hence it's a zoomed image! What is the sense in doing this?!? |
|
|
Jan 23 2015, 09:13 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
These images are weird: at "full resolution" a single pixel is actually made of several pixels, hence it's a zoomed image! What is the sense in doing this?!? Since the images were prepared for a magazine publication, it may be a defensive mechanism against the photo editor complaining about there not being enough pixels in an image. When I prepare my own pictures for magazine articles I've gotten so tired of arguing about how you really can print, say, a NavCam image at larger than 3.3 inches wide (1024 pix x 300dpi) that now I just upsample most images in Photoshop so that they have enough pixels that they could be printed at 11 inches high at 300 dpi. That being said, 13333 pixels is a wee bit of overkill. -------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th June 2024 - 04:44 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |