Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Rosetta’s OSIRIS narrow-angle camera. Image: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA
Show Hide image

Rosetta becomes the first spacecraft to ever go into orbit around a comet

After a ten year chase, Rosetta became the first ever spacecraft to intercept and go into orbit around a comet - and over the next 18 months will begin searching for clues left over from the earliest moments of our Solar System.

Yesterday, after ten years of chasing, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosetta spacecraft became the first ever to intercept and go into orbit around a comet. Now scientists can begin the next step in one of the most exciting investigations into how the Solar System formed that we’ve seen so far.

ESA scientists brought Rosetta to within 100km of the comet – a 3km by 5km rock called 67P Churyumov-Gerasimenko – and established a stable orbit by slowing it down with its thrusters. Perhaps surprisingly, while it’s taken ten years to get there, 67P was only discovered 50 years ago, but while not as famous a comet as Halley it’s just as scientifically interesting. Comets are considered to be primitive building blocks of the Solar System, and relics of the formation of the planets, while some even believe that they provided Earth with both water and other key ingredients too which were necessary for igniting the evolution of life. 

67P was first discovered in 1969 by Soviet astronomers Ivanovych Churyumov and Svetlana Ivanova Gerasimenko. The hope is that Rosetta will unlock the secrets of this early history – which is why it was named after the Rosetta Stone, the discovery of which in 1799 provided the key to translating Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and Demotic script into Ancient Greek (and thus any other language). It was launched from Europe’s spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, in March 2004, into a long journey of loops around the Sun as it aimed to get onto the same trajectory as 67P.

Rosetta has trekked over 6bn km, passing by Earth three times, Mars once, and soaring past two asteroids, using the gravitational pull of those objects to change velocity and catch up with 67P. The riskiest part of this was when it was put into hibernation mode for 31 months to conserve power as its orbit brought it out to a distance roughly equal to the orbit of Jupiter and then back in again – where it was successfully awakened in January of this year, for the final part of the voyage.

Since May, Rosetta has performed a series of ten rendezvous manoeuvres to gradually fine-tune the spacecraft’s speed and trajectory to match those of the comet, which travels through space at speeds of up to 135,000km/h. Despite the unprecedented complexity of the mission, Rosetta’s smooth arrival was confirmed yesterday morning.

Here’s a video from the ESA showing Rosetta’s near-decade-long journey, and here’s how it’s going to orbit around 67P closer and closer:

The spacecraft now has quite the adventure to come, edging closer to the comet over the next six weeks in two triangular-shaped trajectories, first from a distance of 100km and then at 50km. Depending on the activity of the comet, it will further attempt a near-circular orbit from a distance of 30km, simultaneously scrutinising the comet’s surface for a suitable landing site for its small lander probe - Philae, named after an obelisk that was also used to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs in the 19th century.

Philae will, sometime in November, detach from the main body of the spacecraft and anchor itself to the surface of the comet with a high-powered harpoon. Meanwhile, Rosetta will spend the next 18 months analysing the comet from every angle, retrieving crucial data enabling scientists to investigate how planets were created. The spacecraft will also accompany the comet around the Sun as it moves back out towards the orbit of Jupiter.

The mission has some similarities with Japan’s 2005 Hayabusa mission, which rendezvoused with and landed on an asteroid named Itokawa. It was meant to scoop up material from the asteroid’s surface, and return it to Earth for study – those samples arrived in 2010, but we know that its capture mechanism malfunctioned. To this day, there is some uncertainty as to whether the capsule managed to successfully collect the asteroid rock fragments.

The Rosetta mission is significantly more complex, too – while both Itokawa and 67P have miniscule gravitational pull, the former’s orbit around the Sun is relatively simple, and Hayabusa simply chased Itokawa closely around the Sun in the same orbit. Rosetta will, by reducing its speed to less than a metre per second, genuinely orbit 67P. As the comet moves towards the Sun and heats up, there are also likely to be gas and dust particles shed off into space to form its tail – and initial photographs sent to us by Rosetta, the clearest ever of a comet, do show some emissions already.

Yesterday, the elated ESA science and mission control experts celebrated the long awaited arrival, jokingly describing it as being similar to arriving at “Scientific Disneyland”. The arrival was streamed live on the ESA’s website, and Rosetta is already sending back incredible high-resolution images of the surface of 67P. So far, it looks a lot rockier and more solid than expected – less like a “dirty snowball”, and more like an asteroid.

Around the internet, there was excitement at the arrival of Rosetta. The hashtag #RosettaAreWeThereYet flooded Twitter, as people from all over the world eagerly awaited the news, like impatient school kids – even the Philae lander’s own Twitter account got involved:

But it didn’t stop there - after Rosetta finally reached its destination, even former Star Trek captain William Shatner joined the fun by engaging in playful chitchat, checking on operations with the Nasa and ESA Twitter account.

Although we know what the comet looks like from the outside, we don’t know what it looks like from the inside, and that’s what Rosetta and Philae will be uncovering over the next few months - as long as they have enough power from the craft’s huge solar panels, that is, as unlike most probes that venture out past the orbit of Mars, it has no onboard nuclear generator.

As one mission controller explained, Rosetta is going to finally “unlock the treasure chest of our own history”.

Flickr: M.o.B 68 / New Statesman
Show Hide image

“I begged him to come home”: Breaking the taboo around texting the dead

Many people text dead loved ones to cope with their grief – but trouble arises when they get an unexpected reply. 

A month after Haley Silvestri’s dad died from a heart attack, she texted him begging him to come home. In the middle of the night Silvestri’s 14-year-old sister had found their father, with his lips and mouth blue, lying on the kitchen floor. “There was nothing there anymore, just a dead body,” Silvestri says. “My father had his first heart attack months before and seemed to be doing OK. Then, this happened.”

In the very first episode of CSI Miami’s seventh season, the protagonist – Horatio Caine – fakes his death. For the first 15 minutes of the episode, the viewer believes the character is truly dead, as the camera lingers on Horatio’s body face down on the tarmac.

Silvestri and her father used to enjoy watching the show together. After he had passed and she realised she would never see her “best friend” again, she picked up her phone. “I texted my dad begging him to come home,” she says. “I begged my dad to please be ‘pulling a Horatio’.”

"My heart was broken and I was bawling as I texted her over and over" 

In texting her father after he had died, Silvestri is by no means unusual. No official figures exist for the number of people who use technology to message their deceased loved ones, but Sara Lindsay, a professional counsellor, clinical supervisor, and trainer, says it is “more common than we think”.

“I see it as a modern and contemporary part of the grieving process,” she says. “I think in a way it's very similar to visiting a graveside, in that the bereaved are reaching out, particularly in the early days, because it takes a long time for people to process the reality that this person has now gone.”

Karlie Jensen, 18, texted her friend immediately after she found out she had died in a car accident. “I texted her as soon as I woke up to the news from my mom that she had passed. My heart was broken and I was bawling as I texted her over and over waiting for a text saying it wasn't her, that my mom didn't know all the facts, and maybe she was just hurt.” Jensen also called her friend and begged her to respond. “I did it because I couldn't let go and couldn't accept she was gone from my life forever,” she says. Karlie continued to text her friend while also calling her voicemail in order to hear the sound of her speaking again. 

Karlie (right) and her friend

After her first text to her deceased father, Silversti also began texting him once a week. She fell into depression, and on her worst days messaged the number. “I think it helped initially because it felt like I was personally writing a note to him, that I knew he only was gonna see,” she says. “I did it because it was my attempt at pretending he was still here and could text me back.”

Lindsay, who has over a decade’s experience of bereavement counselling, emphasises that this behaviour is in no way unhealthy. “I think on the whole it's a very healthy part of grieving, particularly in the first year where the bereaved faces agonising days without their loved ones,” she says. “There is just so much loss and change in their life that’s out of their control, I see this aspect of texting as a small way of being able to reach out and alleviate that pain. That person is suddenly now not there but how they feel about that person hasn't changed.”

"I was going through my phone and I saw his number – I wanted to delete it, but I hesitated I thought maybe I could send a text"

Despite being normal, however, using technology to talk to the dead is a behaviour we rarely – if ever – hear anything about. If the words “texting the dead” make it into the media, they are usually followed by a far more sensationalist “and then they text back!!!!”. Yet although messaging the deceased is popularly seen as the stuff of horror movies and trashy headlines, in reality it is simply a new, modern way to grieve.

Via Mirror.co.uk

“The first time I texted him I was on my bus on the way to school,” says now-20-year-old Dylan Campbell about his cousin Josh, who passed away from leukaemia. “I didn't have many friends so I had no one to talk to. I was going through my phone and I saw his number – I wanted to delete it, but I hesitated I thought maybe I could send a text and someone would reply or I would get something out of it.”

Campbell continued to send his cousin texts for a few weeks, “kind of like a diary”. He says he did so because he regretted not seeing Josh more up until his death, and “had a lot of things to say” that he’d never had the chance to. Linsday says texting in this way is a very healthy way of completing unfinished business. “There might have been something they've never said to their loved one that they want to be able to say and texting is a very normal place to do that.”

"Begging for a dead person to reply to you hurts since you won't ever get what you want in return"

Nonetheless, Lindsay notes that texting the dead can become unhealthy if grief becomes “stuck”, and the texting replaces normal communication or becomes a long term compulsion. Unlike Silvestri and Campbell, Jensen continued to text her friend in the hopes she would text back. She admits now that she was in denial about her death. “Begging for a dead person to reply to you hurts since you won't ever get what you want in return” she says. “I don't know if it helped trying to contact her or hurt worse because I knew I'd never get a reply. I wanted a reply.”

Quite frequently, however, this reply does come. After a few months – but sometimes in as little as 30 days – phone companies will reallocate a deceased person’s phone number. If someone is texting this number to “talk” to their dead loved one, this can be difficult for everyone involved.

“This story doesn't have a happy ending,” says Campbell. “After a few months someone from that number called me and yelled at me to stop bothering them – it was really heart breaking.” When Silvestri texted her father to wish him a happy birthday (“Saying I hoped he was having a great party up in heaven”) someone replied telling her to never text the number again. “I was pissed off,” she says. “Just block my number if it was that serious. This was a form of therapy I needed and it got taken away because someone couldn’t understand my hurt.”

Indeed, behind the sensationalist tabloid headlines of "texting back" is a more mundane - and cruel - reality of pranksters pretending to be the dead relatives come back to life.

"Visiting a grave is a clear recognition that the person visited does not exist in the normal day-to-day state of life, whereas texting allows for a suspension of that reality"

Silvestri, Jensen, and Campbell have never spoken to anyone else about the fact they texted their dead loved ones. Lindsay says that a fear of seeming “mad” combined with cultural phenomena – like the British stiff upper lip – might make people reluctant to speak about it. There is also a stigma around the way much of our modern technology is used in daily life, let alone in death.

This stigma often arises because of the newness of technology, but Christopher Moreman, a philosophy professor and expert on death and dying, emphasises that texting the dead is simply a modern iteration of many historical grieving practices – such as writing letters to the dead or talking to them at their graves. “I don't think the process of grieving is much changed, even if new modes of grieving come about due to new technologies,” he says. In fact, if anything, the differences between old and new ways of grieving can be positive.

“One important difference is in the sense of proximity,” explains Moreman. “I can text a loved one from anywhere in the world, but I can only visit their grave in one specific location. In another way, texting has the same structure whether I am texting someone who is alive or dead, so a sense of proximity also exists in the experience itself.

“Visiting a grave is a clear recognition that the person visited does not exist in the normal day-to-day state of life, whereas texting allows for a suspension of that reality. Some people may complain that new technologies allow us to ignore the reality of death, but there isn't any evidence that one way of grieving is more or less healthy than another.”

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496