> Starbinder Wrote:
> > Hi Carol,
> > Been following the Rosetta Mission for 15
> > now. I've watched the conference you linked. At
> > 1:06:00 Jean-Pierre Bibring is speaking. He
> > reprimands a collegue for making a cartoon of
> > skier on Hapi Valley saying that it was the
> > thing to do. He goes on to say that there is no
> > surface ice anywhere on the comet and even in
> > crevasses where they have looked deep.
> > Ever wonder why we aren't getting any OSIRIS
> > images??
> What ARE you talking about? What part of
> urface]this link from Rosetta[/url] didn't you
> Do I have to isolate the mentions of surface ice
> for you? Start with these.
> [quote]Using the high-resolution science camera on
> board ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft, scientists have
> identified more than a hundred patches of water
> ice a few metres in size on the surface of Comet
> [quote]A new study just published in the journal
> Astronomy & Astrophysics focuses on an analysis of
> bright patches of exposed ice on the comet’s
> Based on observations of the gas emerging from
> comets, they are known to be rich in ices. As they
> move closer to the Sun along their orbits, their
> surfaces are warmed and the ices sublimate into
> gas, which streams away from the nucleus, dragging
> along dust particles embedded in the ice to form
> the coma and tail.[/quote]
> [quote]Now, using images taken with Rosetta’s
> OSIRIS narrow-angle camera last September,
> scientists have identified 120 regions on the
> surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko that
> are up to ten times brighter than the average
> surface brightness.[/quote]
> [quote]“Water ice is the most plausible
> explanation for the occurrence and properties of
> these features,” says Antoine Pommerol of the
> University of Bern and lead author of the study.
> “At the time of our observations, the comet was
> far enough from the Sun such that the rate at
> which water ice would sublimate would have been
> less than 1 mm per hour of incident solar energy.
> By contrast, if carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide
> ice had been exposed, it would have rapidly
> sublimated when illuminated by the same amount of
> sunlight. Thus we would not expect to see that
> type of ice stable on the surface at this
> Are these scientists lying about the evidence
> before their eyes?
> As for Osiris images, I have no idea what you're
> talking about. There are plenty on the Rosetta
As I understand it most if not all of those reports or papers were from September 2014. Bibring updates the overall mission in June by saying that even the lightest spots (blue) are actually very dark, from memory I think he says 3 times darker than the darkest of the moon. Very low albedo. I suspect there is some very creative dynamic image stretching going on at ESA. Not only in trying to produce ice where there is none but just this week with super-illuminated imagery to bring out jets.
FYI they are not releasing OSIRIS images as they promised they would. There is an orgy of NAVCAM though.
Give Bibring a listen.