3 ms·

> Actually it has landed on one lateral side, not upside down. The description "lateral side" only makes sense if the engines are the "bottom" of the craft. Th

• adrian_b 3y ago
  During landing, before contact, the engines were the bottom of the craft. However the side with engines was not intended to be the bottom of the craft after landing. Another side has legs and it was intended to become the bottom side after landing, by a quarter turn rotation from the flight orientation. That went wrong by making an extra quarter turn rotation. I have used "lateral side" as corresponding to the intended orientation after landing, not corresponding to the orientation during flight. The engine side was intended to be a lateral side after landing, but instead of that it has become the upper side. What counts is that the lander has made only a quarter turn of additional rotation compared to the original plan, not an additional half turn, as implied by "landing upside down".
• numpad0 3y ago
  The scientists and engineers at JAXA ISAS branch came up with a novel landing scheme that uses cylindrical body as part of the landing leg structure, by strategically tripping over and settle sideways. This method saves significant amount of weight according to them. In that sense, the probe on its head up in the sand is only sideways, not upside down. In the sense that the probe is oriented the way it supposed to while on the rocket(it's sitting on the edge of PAF attachment plane and two forward legs), it's right side up. Nevertheless, IMO, "upside down" is a close-enough description of the situation.