Rosetta

What's amazing about this probe and the lander philae was that physical observations from robert hooke in the 17th cent' were used to within 20 metres of the comet, the computers then then took over. Hooke is often forgotten due to Newton obsession with removing him from history due to a few arguements and heat leters and he almost succeeded, burn't as much of his records and science material as he could get his hands on in the Royal Society.

I thought it was 2 Churyumov and Gerasimenko that discovered this comet It's Newton's laws you are referring too that got us within 20m of the correct spot.

Newton sounds a nasty bit of work when you read into him - he also had a run in with Leibnitz over calculus and sent many to their deaths when he worked in the mint.

I know of Robert Hooke but I must look into him more. Astronomy is another hobby of mine.

Just Hookes physical recorded observations of the comet got within 20 metres. Which is astonishing really.

Comets are named after there discoverers. This comet was discovered in 1969.

Newton's Laws would make predictions on this comet, not Hooke's observations.

I'm not sure I understand your point? Have you a source?

GlentoranMark said:

Comets are named after there discoverers. This comet was discovered in 1969.

Newton's Laws would make predictions on this comet, not Hooke's observations.

I'm not sure I understand your point? Have you a source?

Click to expand...

They didn't have a starting point to predict where the comet would be, except Hookes observations over a period of time, so they entered (he didn't discover just wrote its position and movement) his measurements were entered to predict its position to be intercepted, as the comet came closer and its path could be observed and calculated, hookes figures were 20metres out from the computers for the lander philae.

Where is the source for your information?

This comet is much too faint to be seen in Hooke's time, there were no telescopes big enough or good enough to resolve this object let alone track it.

Comets are spurious beasts, they give off dust and gasses in different directions that throw it's course off over many miles in just a few years. There's also an effect called the Yarkovsky Effect that will change it's direction subtly due to sunlight. There's no way Hooke could have predicted it's position to 20 metres in the 17th century.

I think your getting mixed up with Newton's Laws.

Quote from Wiki on the Yarkvosky Effect: The effect was first measured in 1991–2003 on the asteroid 6489 Golevka. The asteroid drifted 15 km from its predicted position over twelve years (the orbit was established with great precision by a series of radar observations in 1991, 1995 and 1999) from the Arecibo radio telescope.[3]

Tau said:

They didn't have a starting point to predict where the comet would be, except Hookes observations over a period of time, so they entered (he didn't discover just wrote its position and movement) his measurements were entered to predict its position to be intercepted, as the comet came closer and its path could be observed and calculated, hookes figures were 20metres out from the computers for the lander philae.

Click to expand...

GlentoranMark said:

Where is the source for your information?

This comet is much too faint to be seen in Hooke's time, there were no telescopes big enough or good enough to resolve this object let alone track it.

Comets are spurious beasts, they give off dust and gasses in different directions that throw it's course off over many miles in just a few years. There's also an effect called the Yarkovsky Effect that will change it's direction subtly due to sunlight. There's no way Hooke could have predicted it's position to 20 metres in the 17th century.

I think your getting mixed up with Newton's Laws.

Quote from Wiki on the Yarkvosky Effect: The effect was first measured in 1991�"2003 on the asteroid 6489 Golevka. The asteroid drifted 15 km from its predicted position over twelve years (the orbit was established with great precision by a series of radar observations in 1991, 1995 and 1999) from the Arecibo radio telescope.[3]

Click to expand...

It was on the program when the philae probe was about to land and they interviewed the lead for the rosetta program and he said the only data set for a predicted course they had was Hookes observations at the start of the program which they used until they could get modern data. I know all what you say, but that's the truth, it's why I remeber it, they were just as shocked that he had observed so accurately. It was pre at least 3 major volcanic eruptions and industrial revolution so sky's may have been clearer.

Tau said:

It was on the program when the philae probe was about to land and they interviewed the lead for the rosetta program and he said the only data set for a predicted course they had was Hookes observations at the start of the program which they used until they could get modern data. I know all what you say, but that's the truth, it's why I remeber it, they were just as shocked that he had observed so accurately. It was pre at least 3 major volcanic eruptions and industrial revolution so sky's may have been clearer.

Click to expand...

I think you heard or misunderstood the program wrong or are getting the facts mixed up with something else.

If you could point me to an article or the program you watched then I'll gladly watch or read it as Astronomy is a hobby of mine.

They probably got withing 20m of where they wanted to land as they photographed that comet over 10,000 times and could pinpoint where they wanted to land. Newton physics would have some bearing on the results, I'm wondering did it bounce like the Philae Lander did?

It was on BBC, it was pre-recorded rather than live and the issue was brought up by the interviewer. Might have been Dara O'Brien might might not. Write to them to get answer, my mother has contacts in NASA and CERN but not sure on the guy who was interviewed and his name. I had this problem with my wife after I mentioned that an equinox program was made about her. She had sent questions to a professor at cambridge when she was 7 or 8 about gravity from a how and why book and he had been driven mad by her (I still am) and created a filling cabinet and section in the undergrad course by her name. He had died last gasp answer her question, on which the program was made. I searched for the program could I find it no, thought maybe it was horizon, anyway a few years later a women came to her and mentioned she was a lecturer at cambridge physics which lead to her mentioning about her letters to said professor, at which point OMG said women you are her... rest is history never doubted after. Still cant find program made about her!

I'm glad that's cleared things up

Well, this is one of the most baffling things I have read oin a long while.