Solar power hobbles another spacecraft? (The comet lander crippled)

On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 04:27:44 -0800 (PST), wrote:

would have meant no mission at all.

Which of course is almost what they got.

Ridiculous. The mission would have been 90% successful even with no
lander at all.

In addition to your lack of understanding how engineering works, we'll
also add your lack of knowledge about the Rosetta mission.

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 9:28:14 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 04:27:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

would have meant no mission at all.

Which of course is almost what they got.

Ridiculous. The mission would have been 90% successful even with no
lander at all.

Yes, but we were talking about the LANDER, dude.

In addition to your lack of understanding how engineering works, we'll
also add your lack of knowledge about the Rosetta mission.

I know about the Rosetta missions. But again, we were discussing the LANDER, not the Rosetta orbiter.

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 04:37:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I know about the Rosetta missions. But again, we were discussing the LANDER, not the Rosetta orbiter.

The lander was successful, as well.

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 9:24:10 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 04:37:16 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

I know about the Rosetta missions. But again, we were discussing the LANDER, not the Rosetta orbiter.

The lander was successful, as well.

If a plane bounced off on a runway and ended up on its nose we would call that a crash, not a landing.

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 06:41:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:

If a plane bounced off on a runway and ended up on its nose we would call that a crash, not a landing.

This wasn't a plane. It ended up on the surface, undamaged, and able
to utilize all its instruments. It collected a wealth of data. That's
a success by any reasonable definition.

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 10:48:21 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 06:41:10 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

If a plane bounced off on a runway and ended up on its nose we would call that a crash, not a landing.

This wasn't a plane. It ended up on the surface, undamaged, and able
to utilize all its instruments. It collected a wealth of data. That's
a success by any reasonable definition.

However, it did have solar panels, now in shadow, from which one might infer that the mission was meant to last longer than two days. Otherwise, the craft would have been given just batteries, no panels. Success? Maybe not.

On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 05:55:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:

However, it did have solar panels, now in shadow, from which one might infer that the mission was meant to last longer than two days. Otherwise, the craft would have been given just batteries, no panels. Success? Maybe not.

Given the unknowns, the mission plan didn't predict better than a 50%
chance of getting any data at all. So yes, success.