If I may add my own thoughts, that region looks strikingly similar to the one imaged by Philae after the landing. I think this could be it, what do you guys think?

Seems fairly possible to me considering that if the imaged object is Philae, it appears to be mostly on its side.

Also,

Wow, I honestly, had no idea Philae was that large. Its always difficult to get an idea of how large some of these spacecraft are unless someone is standing next to it.

Nice to see this tentative sighting. Considering the CIVA imagery and this terrain, I wonder if Perihelion Cliff is the "birdfoot" we identified earlier, or the smaller closer cliff we can see in the new OSIRIS images?

It's not clear we can include your first pro. If you align and flip between the October and December 12th images, it looks like the bright spot was mostly in shadow in the October image:
Click to view attachment
The shadow moves into the October image from the right, and appears to be due to a large blocky cliff/overhang in the upper right of the images. So it's not clear that the bright spot wasn't there in October. Of course that doesn't mean it's not the lander, but it does weaken the argument somewhat.

The two December images can be combined into a stereo view which shows nicely the boulders around the candidate spot. Cross-eyed:
Click to view attachment
And anaglyph:
Click to view attachment

Here's a version of the stereogram fredk posted, swapped for parallel/divergent viewing (the way "Magic Eye" is viewed).
Click to view attachment

I did this analysis few months earlier and results was the same.
Here is link to my reply in this thread and here is image:

Fred, I got a little curious after your post and I'm going to have to agree.

Below is an animation of the October 22 and December 12 images morphing.


While there are artifacts present in this morph as most similar animations, I intentionally avoided the one possibly exposed corner of the potential lander.
Click to view attachment

Yet it still synced really well with the exposed corner from October.

I don't think this is it.

Thanks for the morph, ZLD. But again, even if that location was in shadow in the October image, that doesn't mean it's not the lander. The location could have been in shadow and the lander not there in October. We still have the other evidence.

Have people looked at whether what we know about the Perihelion cliff location relative to the sun from CIVA agrees with the direction to the cliff identified by machi (which causes the October shadow)?

Very interesting that they derived topography / solar illumination profile from the solar panel data.
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2015/06...35_20141213.jpg

Can Perihelion Cliff really be that far away machi? You can see light reflecting onto the cliff from Philae in the CIVA image, so I'd assume it would have to be just next to the lander, not tens of meters away.

Off-hand I think it appears consistent, as I've been showing Perihelion Cliff off to the N and NE and lower horizons to the south. It's pretty striking to see the (scary looking) morph suggesting a U shaped trough from NNW to SSE, if we make a crude assumption that north is up. These stereo views should allow more extensive 3D reconstruction of the view from Philae, similar to what we've already seen from ESA.

I don't see problem with this. FOV of CIVA cameras is consistent with my interpretation (FOVs of the CIVA cameras are shown approximately in my interpretation). Reflection from the Philae's panels is some ~10 meters away. Nothing impossible I think.
Of course maybe it's not correct place but my bets still are that this is Perihelion cliff.

Indeed this seems all consistent with Perihelion Cliff extending up to about 60 degrees above the local horizon. Reflection from the panels can extend farther away if it is collimated. The distance to Perihelion Cliff looks (as mentioned) on the order of 10 meters, with a height of 20 meters.

This is a screencap of one of the slides they showed at the EGU2015 press conference they held. If we accept that this model is correct then they also put the cliff very close to the lander (leg 1 should be the one pointing towards Perihelion Cliff).

After checking out the larger OSIRIS image that they released earlier I do notice that I probably overstated the distance to your suggested Perihelion Cliff though, 10 meters seems like a good guess. Seems I didn't remember what scale it was at that well.

I've split the wake up posts into a new thread:

Philae Wakes Up!

It's hard to see exactly where the base of the cliff is from these images, but I think it's got to be much closer than 10 metres. Looking at my animation above or ZLD's morph I think the base could be as close as 2.5 metres. On this image I've put the lander approximately to scale (based on the stated 20x20 metre fov), and indicated with an arrow a possible distance to the base:
Click to view attachment
I've made no effort to get the orientation of the lander right. A 10 metre distance from the lander would be the right edge of the frame.

I don't remember having seing bounce marks so clearly. From Dr Chris Tibbs tweet: https://twitter.com/chris_tibbs/status/611077375187677184

I was thinking the same thing during that press conference. I remember being able to see the marks, but not like that. That may be OSIRIS imagery not released at the time.

Well, you see, they can't risk that someone's not going to take that one image and run to Science, Nature, and Icarus with a paper describing the geomorphology of the comet.
/sarcasm

Some interesting images from today's press conference.

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

I don't know if the various graphs and the schedule diagrams were readable in ESA's feed. in case anyone is interested, I have taken readable images of all (or most) of them...

The 3rd of 4throck's images posted above has some unreadably small text towards the top. Generally I'm wondering what is the basis for the terrain model in that image, and in 4throck's first image above. Are these just reconstructions based on the civa/rolis images (and hence based entirely on guesswork outside their frames), or are they actual DTM's based on stereo imagery of the candidate lander site announced last week? It wasn't clear to me from the press conference.

That 3rd image looks like a Celestia screenshot. The text is small but the menus seems the same.
I'm unsure about that 3D model. Perhaps it's just the general landing area with the lander out of scale.


The surface model on image 1 seems to have a compatible resolution with last week candidate site images.
And a good match with the actual surface images :-)

there was text on both upper left and upper right corners, but it's not very readable in my pics either. maybe you can try some sharpening....

Indeed seems like Celestia. Here's how that program looks:
Click to view attachment

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&id=36143

File Navigation Time Display Book
Philae_Eme2000Axes
Distance: 698.15 m
Radius: 30.000 m
Apparent diameter: 4°43'21.1"
Phase angle: 11.5°


http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&id=36144

Thu 13 Nov 2014 07:4
Time stopped


EDIT: Changed "30,000 m" to "30.000 m" (those may actually be ","s if they use them as the decimal separator, as many countries do; I interpreted them as "."s because that's what I'm used to). I have no idea what the object was, but I checked what apparent diameter you get for a 30 m radius sphere from 698.15 m above its surface and it's 4° 43' 21.1568", which is consistent with the numbers I interpreted from the images. I didn't use any software to improve the image; I just read it as best I could and the numbers seem consistent.

I have put all my pics of the Rosetta press conf here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/9228922@N03/s...157654438789969

Updated highres CIVA images published here:
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/07

I'm seeing stuff from ROLIS, CONSERT, MUPUS, and CIVA. Based on the kind of stuff that just got suddenly published on that site, and the quality of it, I'm guessing ESA recently received their first block of 67P science data from some of the instrument teams.

Papers are starting to be published on the Rosetta/Philae science at 67P and the Rosetta outreach team is good about sharing new publications.

--Bill

So I started working on an animation of the Philae landing images and something is really strange. Going by the capture times posted in the official animation and on the individual images, and using those times for the durations of each sequence tweening, it seemed to speed up and slow down.

So I started figuring up the velocities in each image and they are all over the place. From what I've read, the thruster on board never fired right?

Below is a list of the velocities figured between each image

1 - 15:32:59 @ 67.4m
---- 0.95m/s
2 - 15:33:09 @ 57.9m
---- 0.90m/s
3 - 15:33:19 @ 48.5m
---- 1.10m/s
4 - 15:33:28 @ 38.6m
---- 0.97m/s
5 - 15:33:38 @ 28.9m
---- 1.10m/s
6 - 15:33:48 @ 18.8m
---- 0.98m/s
7 - 15:33:58 @ 9.0m

What exactly is going on here? Its apparent in the animation I'm working on that something is not quite right.

Do we now have the CIVA image times available? This might help with navigating the panorama.

Looks like they are posted for the descent images but not for the panorama, at least on the link posted by 4throck.

Nothing strange. The times are quoted to the second, not tenth or hundredth of a second. That means we must consider them as central values with uncertainties (or rounding errors) of +/- 0.5 second or even larger (if there are significant timing errors). There also should be uncertainties on the distances. Incorporate those uncertainties into the velocity calculations (ie, work out the corresponding velocity uncertainties) and they should all be consistent.

The times may only have been quoted to a second but can't we presume that Philae took images at constant intervals of (59 ±0.5)/6 seconds ≈ 9.8 ± 0.1 sec. Probably there's a more precise value in the spacecraft docs.

Look at the supplement to the recent Science article on the Philae landing(s). They made a 'subtracted' image by using an image just prior to touchdown and another just after touchdown. This looks a lot like that image. See figures S13, S14, and S15 from the supplement.

Links, a little more discussion & excerpts from the Supplement here--the supplement includes a lot of info about Philae post-impact.

I assume you are going by the 'range' listed on each photo, and the time listed, in order to determine the velocity?

One issue is, what do they mean by 'range' and how was it calculated? Is it distance from the landing site, distance above the terrain, or something else? How was it determined and calculated?

Until we know the answers to those questions, we're really just guessing. But if (for example) it is distance above the terrain (as calculated using a terrain model of 67P, probably) that could explain the variations--it's going over some surface irregularities, which affect the range distance.

As I'm sure you know, over the time period under consideration--about 1 minute--to a first approximation Philae's velocity will be constant at somewhere just over 1 m/s. To a second approximation, it will be very, very slightly increasing at a constant rate, due to the Comet's gravity. (There are 3rd & 4th & 5th approximations that the physics folks can argue about, but for the purpose of making an animation over a one minute period, you probably only need the 1st approximation.)

Also, have a look at the Supplement to the recently released Science article about Philae's landing(s). The Supplement has some data about various photos taken before/after the first impact, that might be helpful for you.

They have the CIVA 7 image at http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.as.../#gallery/21184 now, which I don't recall seeing before. The CIVA 6 image they have is also rotated 90 degrees clockwise compared to what was released after the landing.

Emily Lakdwalla also tweeted that Philae has been found (https://twitter.com/elakdawalla/status/664550877408174080), so I'm assuming http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.as.../#gallery/19679 is the location that they have in mind then, although that's just speculation from my part.

Both 6 and 7 had been previously released, but these versions are the cleanest I've seen.

Here's the anaglyph:
Click to view attachment
And cross-eyed:
Click to view attachment

Right you are, I missed that. I see now that they were released during a Rosetta blog post all the way back in July, I had simply overlooked the anaglyph they had that time. Still a bit curious as to why they aren't the full 1024x1024.

I was just wondering if all the Philae surface images have been released?

The Escort Phase 1 block of science data was due in to ESA, from all instrument teams, by the 10th of September (65 days ago). ESA has said in the past that they try to get the data into the PSA about a week after they receive them. So far, only Escort Phase 1 data from MIDAS and RPC-ICA (and NAVCAM) have shown up in the PSA. I don't know if ESA is doing something with the other data before publishing it, or if all of the other instruments teams haven't delivered their data to ESA, two months after it was due, but I continue to expect we'll see it any day now. I'm not sure if some version of all of its images have been released yet, but either way, we won't have to work with 8-bit jpegs anymore soon enough.

I can't find anything more online about that recent announcement, but I too would guess the announcement is that that previously suspected location has been confirmed. This article published in Universe Today in June 2015 has some more information about the suspected location and some before/after images of it.

Philae has been found!

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Sc...ta/Philae_found

Well, it is very clear that this is indeed Philae. We can now compare some of its surroundings as they now appear to what they looked like in the CIVA pan. It looks like a lot of nice details show up here in that underlying sheet-like surface, that showed up in such great detail in the CIVA pan, at any rate. There may be some good ability to compare/contrast and look for changes.

One thing -- from the obvious orientation of the two visible legs, it looks like there should be a leg pointing almost directly at the observer's position. I don't see any signs of it, and yet I thought all three legs were seen in the CIVA pan. The one I can't see here would be the one that looked like it was pointing out at the sky, with no surface around it.

Do y'all think it's just that the one leg is hard to see because we're looking right down its length end-on? Or am I mistaken about the CIVA pan, and maybe Philae lost one of her legs in her final sequence of collisions?

-the other Doug

So it's really the Perihelion cliff!
And Philae was so small in previous images because we saw only one of the legs.

There wasn't a leg pointing out toward the direction of the sky. There was a leg pointing at the ground (which is "behind" the lander in the OSIRIS image), a leg against one cliff/local horizon, and a leg against another cliff/local horizon. The missing leg in the OSIRIS image is behind the lander.

I've made a quick context image for the lander's position.

I confirm, the legs are rotated 15-20 degrees to the observer .... probably a result of the commands sent to try to get a better orientation.
this will make it a little more difficult to draw a precise map of the areas immediately close to philae

A purely subjective point. I've seen quite a few people make a comment along the lines of "proof we ever existed." It's interesting that this particular image has evoked that kind of reaction. I guess it is unique in a way. It's not like the LRO images of the Luna/Surveyor landers or even Apollo descent stages, where you see them clearly on the surface and know they have been busy with their instruments and devices out, collecting data and returning it to Earth.

I guess this image is different in a way. A lander in a crevice in a sort of dark half-cave, on its side, propped up against a slab of ice. It does seem to have a more lonely "abandoned" feel to it that you don't get from images of other imaged landers (even those imaged from close-up like the Lunokhod or MER bases).

This would be true of the other craft we have images of.... long done with their missions. But their is something about that little leg strung up straight up to our point of view.
Imagine the engineers who designed that. The technicians who crafted it.
Lonely little craft in it's final harbor.
Tears that we found you.

Good night.