Rosetta Target Double Comet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28923010 Possible Landing sites selected.

its a pity the neck region is a no go area as that would have offered data of its earlier life and peculiar formation.  its exciting that they've quickly narrowed down some landing site options.  Which one looks favourite?

Tej as the article said it would not offer the best option for the probes batteries being charged.  But it could have been the after effects of a collision so not as important as you might think.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29036303 latest update.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29044139   Fantastic photo

Your link is broken again, Brian

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29044139

I think I know what is happening although I dont know why but there are special characters (%C2%A0)  being appended to your links hence why the hyperlinking is not working.

Anyhow thats one helluva selfie pic, indeed!  There is an artistic photographic director on the team!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29203284 Let's hope this link works.

"The 10-billion-tonne target: 67P is roughly 4km wide with a bulk density of about 450kg per cubic metre - similar to many types of wood"

Hang on - you mean this thing would float??? (Assuming, of course, you could gently lower it into an ocean somewhere without creating too big a splash.....)

So they chose the Engineer's choice as Chris Lintott had put it in yesterday's Sky at night, the scientist's choice would have wanted the site where both sides of the comet could be analysed.  Still exciting though but I notice they want us to think of it as a bonus, as if that would give them leeway to allowing them to fail...ha, not an option, they better land on that duck!  No, I know they will give it their best effort, of course 🙂

Hang on – you mean this thing would float???

Pretty sure that all comets have a density of less than water so, yes, technically, they would all float (as would Saturn, of course!).

We just need an Ocean big enough to float Saturn in.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2014/sep/15/rosetta-philae-lander-comet-tail article by Stuart Clark

Initially, the European Space Agency thought that its chances of successfully landing on Rosetta’s target comet were about 70-75%. Now chances are lower – maybe much lower – but the agency won’t give a figure because it doesn’t have time to re-run the risk assessment exercise.

Bit depressing that... I thought they had a better chance at that landing location... obviously not.

We just need an Ocean big enough to float Saturn in.

Ah - I read an interesting discussion about this somewhere. The problem is, if you had a planet big enough to have an ocean on which you could 'float' Saturn, the gravitational pull would destroy Saturn.

This isn't the article I saw originally - but this one has equations. Mike? http://www.wired.com/2013/07/no-saturn-wouldnt-float-in-water/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29380448 .