17 augustus 2017

An update of the Rosetta and Philae mission to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

This series of images of Comet 67P/Churyumov</p srcset=

Matt Taylor Over Matt Taylor

Dr. Matt Taylor (ESA/ESTeC) studeerde natuurkunde aan de universiteit van Liverpool. Hij promoveerde bij het Imperial College in Londen en deed voornamelijk onderzoek op het gebied van in-situ metingen aan plasma’s in de ruimte. Hij werkte onder andere in Europa en de USA aan de ESA Cluster en als projectwetenschapper aan het Double Star project – een samenwerking tussen ESA en China. In 2013 werd hij benoemd als projectwetenschapper bij de Rosetta-missie. Als zodanig is hij betrokken bij de wetenschappelijke verrichtingen van zowel de Rosetta sonde als de Philae lander, die beiden onderzoek doen aan de komeet 67P/Churyumov-gerasimenko. Hij werkt voornamelijk bij ESTeC in Noordwijk.


  1. Matt, congratulations with the award you won. Great performance! Oh and thanx for the update on 67P, Rosetta and Philae. Work keeps going on, at least till september 2016, so we hope to see your next updates on the comet and the research of it. 🙂
    Oh by the way, speaking of Brian May (in the video and also in your blog): we are trying to get him to the Netherlands for having a lecture on astronomy. Are you joining us in our efforts?

  2. Jan Brandt zegt:

    Hear f…ing hear!!!!!

  3. Wow Matt, the award it’s a beauty. Usually awards look pretty awfull.
    Btw what’s wrong with the microphone…or was it the speakers?

  4. Hoe komt een engelsman op deze site terecht?

  5. Jan Heuser zegt:

    “de-orbit Rosetta and crash land on the comet!”

    Why do they want to have it crashed to the comet and not leave it to orbit? Is there a scientific purpose for that?

  6. Jan Heuser zegt:

    The music of your introduction on the video: Rainbow? (love it)

  7. Matt Taylor zegt:

    I know Brian is very busy, maybe next year will be less busy. I am interested in having him visit.
    The sound in the video is not so good , but it was when i was there 🙂
    As for the end of mission, the discussion was balancing science output. We could have put the spacecraft in hibernation, but that would have been a longer hibernation than before (as the spacecraft is now on the same trajectory as the comet) and so colder. We have a limited amount of fuel and the instruments were only designed to run for the nominal mission, as they wear out or have consumables. The same goes for the spacecraft. We are confident that they will run ok for the extension, but another hibernation and exit would have stretched this capability, so we would have had a depleted instrument payload and operable platform for sure. For example ,with minimal fuel , the capability of the spacecraft to manoeuvre would have been MUCH reduced. SO, instead, we use the spacecraft and its fuel while we have the maximum capability on the spacecraft and instruments AND we get as close as we can to the surface of the comet, enabling measurements that would no be possible if we were not to crash the spacecraft into the comet.

Laat wat van je horen