Our lander’s asleep
As late as 12 November, the ESA's own FAQ [1] was stating that Philae's <i>minimum</i> mission target was one week of surface operation (powered entirely by primary batteries), with even more operational time powered by back-up batteries (themselves recharged by solar) - resulting in an expected surface operation period measured in months.<p>They airbrushed the FAQ on 12 November to remove mention of the minimum one week mission target, and inserted among other things '2.5 days'. [2] A diff of the two versions would probably be interesting.<p>Now with the lander mission prematurely ended an associated scientist is tweeting a very rosy summary [3]:<p>"What a perfect ending. All the science completed, data received. Primary mission successful. Well done everybody."<p>How can a week of carefully-planned scientific activities be 'completed' in only 2.5 days? It seems implausible.<p>How did the primary and secondary batteries not power the lander for the calculated one week+ of operation?<p>Why aren't they open about what clearly seems to be a major failure with the scientific mission?<p>It seems a case of intense bureaucratic / political pressure to change targets after they aren't met, and the fact scientists are participating in this is pretty disappointing.<p>[1] <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140805030451/http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Frequently_asked_questions" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20140805030451/http://www.esa.in...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Frequently_asked_questions" rel="nofollow">http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Freq...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://twitter.com/rocketeddy/status/533421309553016832" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/rocketeddy/status/533421309553016832</a>