Starbinder Wrote:

> Hi Carol,
>
> Been following the Rosetta Mission for 15 months
> 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 the
> skier on Hapi Valley saying that it was the wrong
> thing to do. He goes on to say that there is no
> surface ice anywhere on the comet and even in the
> crevasses where they have looked deep.
>
> Ever wonder why we aren't getting any OSIRIS
> images??
>


What ARE you talking about? What part of this link from Rosetta didn't you read?

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 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

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 surface.

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

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

“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 time.”

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 blog.

Carol