Those Awful Solar Panels

A ship had a successful mission...

http://www.rsc.org/eic/2016/07/mass-...ical-chemistry

despite the fact that its use of solar panels ended up depriving it of as much
electrical power as expected.

John Savard

On Monday, 1 August 2016 15:20:38 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
A ship had a successful mission...

http://www.rsc.org/eic/2016/07/mass-...ical-chemistry

despite the fact that its use of solar panels ended up depriving it of as much
electrical power as expected.

John Savard

And what a success it was!!

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/phila...-chance-failed

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:23:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, 1 August 2016 15:20:38 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
A ship had a successful mission...

http://www.rsc.org/eic/2016/07/mass-...ical-chemistry

despite the fact that its use of solar panels ended up depriving it of as much
electrical power as expected.

John Savard

And what a success it was!!

Indeed, it was. The entire mission.

On Monday, 1 August 2016 17:21:09 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:23:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, 1 August 2016 15:20:38 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
A ship had a successful mission...

http://www.rsc.org/eic/2016/07/mass-...ical-chemistry

despite the fact that its use of solar panels ended up depriving it of as much
electrical power as expected.

John Savard

And what a success it was!!

Indeed, it was. The entire mission.

You must have missed the FAILED part of the story.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 17:26:09 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, 1 August 2016 17:21:09 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:23:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, 1 August 2016 15:20:38 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
A ship had a successful mission...

http://www.rsc.org/eic/2016/07/mass-...ical-chemistry

despite the fact that its use of solar panels ended up depriving it of as much
electrical power as expected.

John Savard

And what a success it was!!

Indeed, it was. The entire mission.

You must have missed the FAILED part of the story.

Nope. All missions have elements that exceed expectations, and
elements that don't. Philae's primary failure was its inability to
anchor itself- a problem caused by lack of knowledge about the surface
it would be landing on. Even so, it produced useful science. And this
from a mission specification that did not require it to work at all,
being just an inexpensive and minor accessory to the primary mission.

It does not surprise me that you choose to see failure in a success.
You've always been a glass-half-empty kind of person.

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:18:42 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 17:26:09 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, 1 August 2016 17:21:09 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 13:23:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, 1 August 2016 15:20:38 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
A ship had a successful mission...

http://www.rsc.org/eic/2016/07/mass-...ical-chemistry

despite the fact that its use of solar panels ended up depriving it of as much
electrical power as expected.

John Savard

And what a success it was!!

Indeed, it was. The entire mission.

You must have missed the FAILED part of the story.

Nope. All missions have elements that exceed expectations, and
elements that don't. Philae's primary failure was its inability to
anchor itself- a problem caused by lack of knowledge about the surface
it would be landing on. Even so, it produced useful science. And this
from a mission specification that did not require it to work at all,
being just an inexpensive and minor accessory to the primary mission.

It does not surprise me that you choose to see failure in a success.
You've always been a glass-half-empty kind of person.

Richard Anderson used to be a quite knowledgeable amateur who had access to a lot of astronomy equipment, courtesy of Kahn Scope Centre in Toronto. His was a voice of reason for many years, correctly pointing out fundamental errors that amateurs from time to time fall into. I have seen him at several star parties in Canada when he was a laid back, almost shy individual who nevertheless had valuable knowledge about telescopes. How he morphed into a hate-filled right winger is a total mystery.

He may fancy himself to be a conservative, but that description does not fit in the least. He was apparently influenced by the great con-men of AM radio, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and other shysters. These are pretend conservatives who are great at whipping up the masses into a frothing frenzy of hate and loathing that I have not seen since the McCarthy era. These guys have made a fortune at it, so I can understand why they do it, but I don't understand why people actually follow or believe the tripe they spew every day. It is the worst form of sewage to infect the mind of the people of this country.

A real conservative is kind and caring, takes personal responsibility, is careful with money, their word is their bond, and they never ever stiff anyone. In fact a conservative goes out of his way to provide the other party with more value than is warranted. They pay their way thru life. Unfortunately AM talk radio has spawned the phenomenon that is Trump, a person that does neither of the above, but always angles for advantage for himself, even if he has to stiff the other players.