Cometwatch 21 September

Today’s CometWatch entry was taken by Rosetta’s NAVCAM on 21 September 2015, about 330 km from the nucleus of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

Single frame enhanced NAVCAM image of Comet 67P/C-G taken on 21 September 2015. Credits: ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0

Single frame enhanced NAVCAM image of Comet 67P/C-G taken on 21 September 2015. Credits: ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0

The scale is 28.1 m/pixel and the image measures 28.8 km across. The contrast was increased to enhance the comet’s activity; the original image is provided below.

The comet is oriented with the small lobe to the left and the large lobe to the right. Jets of gas and dust are seen all around the sunlit portion of the nucleus and are particularly clear around the central neck region with the ejected material seen extending towards the edge of the image frame.

This week Rosetta embarked on a new trajectory that will take it 1500 km away from the comet nucleus by 30 September in order to study the broader scale of the coma and to investigate the comet’s plasma environment. It will return to closer distances in mid-October.

The original 1024 x 1024 pixel image from today’s entry is provided below:




  • logan says:

    Seems most of the water is still going out from the neck. Does it look more carved? 🙂

  • Manuel Alvarez says:

    A very important experiment
    So far Rosetta has been very close to 67P / Ch-G and it has been posible to learn about the INSIDE atmosphere of the comet.
    The New measurements of the LARGE COMA Will give a moré detailed picture of the comet

  • Andreas says:

    How fast does the comet decrease in size?

  • Amitava Dasgupta says:

    Looks like a Dinosaur now.

  • Please,
    Find on my website an engraving dedicated to rosetta mission: The approach to the comet and final touchdown of Philae onto the comet.
    Hope you’ll appreciate it.
    Giovanni Slaviero

  • logan says:

    Insist, seems that there is “cooking”, beyond sunburn.

  • logan says:

    Remember_ those Dutch wooden shoes? Any soul who could be interested in this ‘Escher-esque’ variation of the binary model [‘the third object’], just go to library 63 and look for perspectives remembering those ones.

    As Matteo says, stopping here, need to keep not too much attached to any model at this moment.

  • logan says:

    A remaining idea from some days ago, don’t want it to remain in limbo:

    Hidden deep in the neck is the
    parabolic line of the [low speed]
    original impact on the regolith’s third body.


    Most of material above it belong to the binary.

    Famous ‘crack in the neck’ is at the apex
    of this parabolic line. Suggesting that material above it
    is a lot more fragile.


  • logan says:

    As for putting fractal-ism arguments also to rest for a while, Dr. Krauss article feels refreshing to me. An skeptic, by the way 🙂

    The parts I get to understand … 🙂

    • logan says:

      “…But Feynman was ultimately disappointed with what he had accomplished—something that is clear from his 1965 Nobel lecture…”

    • logan says:

      “…The problem was not with the theory, but with trying to push the theory beyond the scales where it provides the correct description of nature.”. Extreme extrapolation…

    • logan says:

      “While we don’t know the answers to that question, we should, at the very least, be skeptical.” 😉

      Being skeptical is humbly accepting that what you know is related only to what you know.

    • logan says:

      “…But if we expect our theories to be complete, that means that before we can have a theory of anything, we would first have to have a theory of everything”.

      Seems Dr. Krauss has met the ‘mono’ bug.

  • logan says:

    “….It is a feature of our epistemology…”. Human epistemology would add. Proper of our interests, and limitations.

    [That’s part of founded worries with AI. Once ‘ignited’ neural AI is ineluctably going to develop privative interests. But we need AI, an have to solve, or at least control this issue].

  • logan says:

    And as for closing this Feynman issue too:

    “At least as likely is the possibility that nature, as Feynman once speculated, could be like an onion…”

    There are ‘issues’ with onions on Science 😉

Comments are closed.