Talk:Rosetta (spacecraft)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NavCam?[edit]

The ESA website talks about a NavCam (like here), but finding any information on it is easier said than done (but I found this). Some details about it should be added to the article, methinks. A mention under the instrument list does not seem out of place, even if its main purpose is not science. --Njardarlogar (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice list of specifications about the NavCam. Does it matter that it comes from NASA instead of ESA? I suppose since NASA has the information, it must have been shared with them voluntarily by ESA. If that aspect isn't an issue, then I wouldn't be against a mention of it. I don't think, however, that putting it in the instruments section would be reasonable. The transponders on Rosetta could also be considered to be instruments under your definition, but they are listed separately. Perhaps a separate section entirely for cameras would be in order? How many non-scientific cameras does Rosetta have? Regardless, good on you for catching this. - Scrat9518 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I read a little of the available publications on several instruments and I am still not sure if the star traker and the NavCam are the same instrument with a switch of the the optical bench. Has anybody a clue about this? It was built by Officine Galileo Bibcode2000ESASP.425..279B.--Stone (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This NavCam is a star tracker for navigation. It is a standard equipment for any space probe. I don't think it is notable, unless you want to list all the non-scientific systems or non scientific payload in the probe. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Currently, at least, the NavCam is taking daily pictures of the comet. These pictures have scientific value on their own (AFAIK, some of the best pictures currently available to the general public, herein most/all scientists not part of the project, are NavCam ones), although they do indeed provide a lower surface resolution than OSIRIS and are thus likely to be redundant scientifically in the longer run (unless they happen to capture an event of a short duration that therefore does not appear on OSIRIS pictures). --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to mention it in the article, but based on the definition of the word instrument (or here), I don't think it should simply be listed with those mechanisms that are designed specifically for science. Having said that, I believe that we have at least three options:
  • We could make an entirely new section.
  • We could put it under a new section in "Instruments", provided that it is made clear that the NavCam is either not used entirely for science and/or was not designed with science in mind.
  • We could mention it under "Construction and Design".
I tend to like the last option the best, while the second also seems reasonable to me. Thoughts?
- Scrat9518 (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what about the NAVCAM? (as some sources have it, even though it's clearly not an acronym...) I've been following the Rosetta blog and I noticed that its resolution is roughly the same as the OSIRIS wide angle camera. Which led me to wonder: what's the point of having a separate camera for navigation?
Anyway, I came here hoping to learn more, to find the NAVCAM isn't even mentioned. Nor does ESA seem to give any information about it, despite all those pictures they've released. It certainly isn't among the list of "instruments". And I was none the wiser having followed the links given above (by the way, I took the liberty of editing a URL in Njardarlogar's original comment, since the page has moved). The manufacturer's paper seems to be saying the NAVCAM and star tracker are two separate instruments that happen to be mostly the same except for the optics, but the PDS specification talks about the NavCam being two identical (redundant) cameras that can do both imaging and tracking... Who do we believe?
Well, I did some digging around, and found some ESA documentation that does actually mention the NavCam:

  • PDS Rosetta Orbiter Catalog. This seems to clear up the confusion a bit: it says there are two each of the NAVCAM and star tracker (see the section on AOCMS). So there are two identical NAVCAMs, and they're not the same thing as the star trackers. It also says that the NAVCAM was used for pointing during asteroid flyby - I suppose that could well be the main reason for the thing's existence, with all the pretty pictures being just an added bonus... And it describes it as a "sensor" rather than an "instrument", for what it's worth.
  • NAVCAM Instrument Catalog is another version of the PDS data. Not a mirror, as there are discrepancies between the two. Though I'm not sure if that matters as far as this article is concerned...
  • ROSETTA-NAVCAM to Planetary Science Archive Interface Control Document. This is probably the most useful source, since it contains most of the same information as the others, and more besides. Oh, it says the NavCam is an "instrument".
  • The above document references the User's Manual and the Design Description, which might be useful to have, but goes on to say they're "not publicly available". Oh well.

Anything suitable for inclusion there? 2.99.205.189 (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Rosetta landing[edit]

On the main page, the Rosetta landing was described as a "crash-landing" but this article describes it as a slow landing, specifically "The orbiter descended more slowly than Philae did." where Philae's landing was already a "soft landing". http://www.nature.com/news/comet-crash-a-guide-to-rosetta-s-big-finale-1.20682 notes "Rather than disintegrate on impact, the orbiter will perform a gentle crash-landing, striking the comet at a slow walking speed (around 1 metre per second) at 10:40 utc. But because Rosetta is not designed to land, even this could cause its 32-metre-wide solar-panel wings to snap, and the craft to tumble and bounce." Is "crash-landing" the best phrasing? cmɢʟeeτaʟκ 13:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because it was not designed to land, it has no landing gear, and some damage was anticipated on contact with subsequent loss of control. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I would just call it "landing". It probably got damaged, but we have no way of checking its current status and no way to communicate with it, so it does not really matter. --mfb (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Media coverage and Vangelis[edit]

Vangelis released studio album Rosetta which is related to the ESA mission. Think it is relevant information, but didn't know where to edit it in the article so decided for the sub-section "Media coverage". However, as the sub-section is short and the sentence, after an edit, "On 23 September 2016, Vangelis released the studio album Rosetta in honour of the mission" is a bit out of scope, decided to edit information about the final official Livestream event "Rosetta Grand Finale" and hour-long video "Rosetta's final hour" in which was used album's music, thus making the sub-section more cohesive. However, in the reference there is no mention of Vangelis, but in the final video cue to "01:02:19" and "01:013:35" for the relevant bits.--Crovata (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the time frame to the Livestream citation. Huntster (t @ c) 05:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)