‘Like Froth on a Cappuccino’: Spacecraft’s Chaotic Landing Reveals Comet’s Softness

Detective work reconstructs the final movements of the European Space Agency’s Philae probe

Philae lander

Artist’s impression of the Philae lander on the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The chaotic crash-landing of a robotic spacecraft called Philae has yielded serendipitous insights into the softness of comets.

In 2014, the pioneering European Space Agency (ESA) lander touched down on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, after a ten-year journey aboard its mothership, Rosetta. But rather than fix itself to the surface, Philae bounced twice and ended up on its side under a shady overhang, cutting its mission short.

After a meticulous search, an ESA team has now discovered the previously unknown site of Philae’s second touchdown—and with it an imprint that the craft left in comet ice that is billions of years old.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The imprint has allowed the researchers to measure the strength of ice beneath the comet’s surface—and they discovered that it is exceptionally soft. “It’s softer than the lightest snow, the froth on your cappuccino or even the bubbles in your bubble bath,” says Laurence O’Rourke, an ESA scientist at the European Space Astronomy Centre in Madrid, who led a search to locate the wayward lander, which was found in 2016.

This is “a wonderful piece of detective work”, says Jessica Sunshine, who studies comets at the University of Maryland in College Park, and was not involved in the work. The study is important, she says, because some previous data from Philae had suggested that 67P’s surface could be very hard—which might hinder future attempts to retrieve samples of comet ice. The latest result provides evidence that the ice is weak and compressible. “I’m very excited to have proof that we can get back out there and get a sample of 4.5-billion-year-old ice,” says Sunshine. The findings were published in Nature on 28 October.

ESA scientists knew that Philae bounced on landing and clipped a cliff edge. It then tumbled towards a mystery location, before coming to rest. The landing would not have been violent: in the comet’s low gravity, the 100-kilogram probe would have weighed one gram and taken 10 seconds to drift one metre, says O’Rourke.

To hunt for the second touchdown site, O’Rourke’s team analysed images around the lander taken by Rosetta. After spotting telltale signs of bright, artificially cut ice around 30 metres away from the probe’s resting place, the researchers used images taken from all angles to build a 3D model of the area, which they nicknamed skull-top ridge because of the boulders’ shape. The team compared the landscape before and after Philae’s passage and analysed internal data from the probe to reconstruct the craft’s likely trajectory through the ridge.

They think that Philae touched the surface at four points over two minutes: it slid down a slope, cartwheeled through a crevice and hit a boulder, then bounced on its head before departing for its resting place. The third impact was the most revealing. The top of the craft made a 25-centimetre-deep imprint in boulder ice. By comparing this depth with the time taken to make the imprint—which it gleaned from how long Philae’s magnetic sensor was displaced—the researchers calculated the material’s compressive strength to be just 12 pascals. That’s softer than freshly fallen snow, they say.

Although Philae’s tilted final position meant the drill on its underside never reached the comet’s surface, the instrument’s housing, a tower on the craft’s surface, ended up penetrating the ice far enough to make some similar measurements. “We’ve been able to probe the interior of the comet and understand what it’s made of, all because of Philae’s movements, rather than a dedicated instrument on board,” says O’Rourke. “This is the icing on the cake.”

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on October 28 2020.

Elizabeth Gibney is a senior physics reporter for Nature magazine.

More by Elizabeth Gibney

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe