5 ms·

Either I am failing to grasp what you are saying or you are completely naive about the humongous risk involved in cutting edge science of any kind. This ain't

by shiven 12y ago

Either I am failing to grasp what you are saying or you are completely naive about the humongous risk involved in cutting edge science of any kind. This ain't some piddly kickstarter trinket. And exactly what was promised that you didn't get your money's worth for? Speaking as a researcher in the biological sciences, funded by public tax-payer sources only (don't forget, I also pay taxes), the risk of failure is absolutely astronomical with every project I have ever undertaken. The fact that those projects have succeeded the way they did, is, at least in my mind, phenomenal. Even then, none of these projects, or any projects of any other scientist in my field, have ever achieved all their stated goals. If this rankles you, move to a place without public funding of science and bet your money on trinkets put up on kickstarter. Or if they are not trinkets, but are true attempts at solving hard problems(curing HIV/cancer, landing on a comet), I hereby guarantee that none of them will succeed 100% of their stated targets.

johnchristopher 12y ago
> This ain't some piddly kickstarter trinket. And exactly what was promised that you didn't get your money's worth for? Parent never stated he wanted his money's worth. He points out some obvious history rewriting which highly harm Science's image (IMNSHO). In no way does that diminishes this mission's outcome, results, feats and the admiration it rightly deserves. I don't understand the hostility here for a valid question about something that has nothing to do (obligatory political rewriting, maybe ?) with what was achieved. > I hereby guarantee that none of them will succeed 100% of their stated targets. But you don't lower your expectations after the facts and state "look, we did it as we told we were going to do it".
- nolok 12y ago
  This is because parent and you are confusing a FAQ meant as a "what is the project going to do in its current state" for the general public with the blueprint and historic objectives and logs of the mission. The mission's goals changed a hundred time since the project conception in the eighties, each of those version is archived, but it makes sense that the "space tourism" text meant to explain to everyday Joe what the mission is doing / has done reflects the up to date status.
  - johnchristopher 12y ago
    If you deny there can be some confusion brought for by the fact the FAQ is a live document but nowhere on the web page is it stated then I don't see ground for discussing the matter at hand.
    - arrrg 12y ago
      What? It’s the fucking web. Of course it’s a live document! If it wouldn’t be that would be a colossal failure. It also doesn’t tell you anything about the actual goals of this mission that would be relevant for future missions. What’s with the conspiracy brigade being out in full force?
      - nolok 12y ago
        Reading his other comments on this thread, he's obviously a troll and/or someone who needs to criticize this mission or ESA. He is not having an actual debate, only repeating his points ignoring any answering element he gets.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        johnchristopher 12y ago
        > Reading his other comments on this thread, he's obviously a troll and/or someone who needs to criticize this mission or ESA. He is not having an actual debate, only repeating his points ignoring any answering element he gets. 1. I do not need to criticize this mission or ESA and I'd like you to quote any sentences that makes you think so (and yes I believe a FAQ page being live updated should state it is being updated as the situation evolves becaues if not it brings confusion). 2. I answer with honesty to every replies directly made to me. Feel free to point out anything you believe I willfully ignored. 3. Regarding the elements I got: I mostly saw a (rather stupid IMO) point about how a webpage is live tech. so its content is updated (are we really missing the difference between editorial content and packets on a network ?) and another about how I would be expecting blueprints and the smallest technical details from a webpage presenting itself as a FAQ. I find these ridiculous and quite condescending. FWIW, I have been following the Rosetta mission for the past 6 years, had a nice chat a the Paris Air Show with some ESA members even though there never were any lectures about for the past 10 years there, and for the life of me I don't understand how you could believe I would troll about it. Or any other topic for that matter. I'm off.
hueving 12y ago
If a project fails to meet its goals, do you go back after the fact and change the goals or do you admit that you didn't meet them?
- uxp 12y ago
  Lets go back and look at the history of human knowledge about comets for a moment. 1) The composition of comets were largely unknown until ~1950 when Fred Whipple hypothesized that they were largely icy objects instead of rocky objects, which was only confirmed in 1986 when Vega 1 and 2 flew by Halley's comet. 2) This idea was flipped in 2001 when Deep Space 1 took photos of the comet Borrelly, which showed a hot and dark surface. 3) The Stardust mission in 2004 discovered that the dust of a comet was actually a crystalline structure, created by very high temperatures. 4) The Deep Impact probe in 2005 was the first physical contact humans had with a comet's surface, which resulted in us combining the two previous hypotheses into an object filled with an icy dust mixture protected by a hard and hot dirt shell. 5) Finally this year we landed Philae onto a comet's surface by launching a probe in 2004, a mission that started as far back as 1992. This means that we were planning on landing an object onto the surface of a comet long before we knew what in the hell a comet really was. To say that we failed to meet the goal of a one week operational timeframe on the surface disregards the entirety of knowledge learned during the operation of the mission in which we were conducting. Just after Rosetta launched we figured out that the surface of a comet was probably more ice than rock, and had to conduct retroactive experiments in order to determine whether or not the harpoons of which had already been engineered, designed, manufactured and launched into space (which failed to work, so the result is somewhat moot anyways) would in fact be capable of holding the lander on the surface of the comet. The main goal of this mission was to learn more about comets, not spend a defined time on the surface like a game of "King of the Mountain" at some elementary school playground. The mission was successful. We obtained data about the surface of comets and discoveries and observations resulting from the collection of this data will continue to happen over many years to come. Would have it been better if we were able to keep a probe operational on the surface of the comet for years instead of weeks, or weeks instead of days? Yes. But the goal was to learn shit, not get in a pissing contest with a nonexistent alternative lifeform that has already landed an object on a comet and kept it alive longer than us.

by shiven 12y ago

johnchristopher 12y ago

> This ain't some piddly kickstarter trinket. And exactly what was promised that you didn't get your money's worth for? Parent never stated he wanted his money's worth. He points out some obvious history rewriting which highly harm Science's image (IMNSHO). In no way does that diminishes this mission's outcome, results, feats and the admiration it rightly deserves. I don't understand the hostility here for a valid question about something that has nothing to do (obligatory political rewriting, maybe ?) with what was achieved. > I hereby guarantee that none of them will succeed 100% of their stated targets. But you don't lower your expectations after the facts and state "look, we did it as we told we were going to do it".

nolok 12y ago
This is because parent and you are confusing a FAQ meant as a "what is the project going to do in its current state" for the general public with the blueprint and historic objectives and logs of the mission. The mission's goals changed a hundred time since the project conception in the eighties, each of those version is archived, but it makes sense that the "space tourism" text meant to explain to everyday Joe what the mission is doing / has done reflects the up to date status.
- johnchristopher 12y ago
  If you deny there can be some confusion brought for by the fact the FAQ is a live document but nowhere on the web page is it stated then I don't see ground for discussing the matter at hand.
  - arrrg 12y ago
    What? It’s the fucking web. Of course it’s a live document! If it wouldn’t be that would be a colossal failure. It also doesn’t tell you anything about the actual goals of this mission that would be relevant for future missions. What’s with the conspiracy brigade being out in full force?
    - nolok 12y ago
      Reading his other comments on this thread, he's obviously a troll and/or someone who needs to criticize this mission or ESA. He is not having an actual debate, only repeating his points ignoring any answering element he gets.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - johnchristopher 12y ago
        > Reading his other comments on this thread, he's obviously a troll and/or someone who needs to criticize this mission or ESA. He is not having an actual debate, only repeating his points ignoring any answering element he gets. 1. I do not need to criticize this mission or ESA and I'd like you to quote any sentences that makes you think so (and yes I believe a FAQ page being live updated should state it is being updated as the situation evolves becaues if not it brings confusion). 2. I answer with honesty to every replies directly made to me. Feel free to point out anything you believe I willfully ignored. 3. Regarding the elements I got: I mostly saw a (rather stupid IMO) point about how a webpage is live tech. so its content is updated (are we really missing the difference between editorial content and packets on a network ?) and another about how I would be expecting blueprints and the smallest technical details from a webpage presenting itself as a FAQ. I find these ridiculous and quite condescending. FWIW, I have been following the Rosetta mission for the past 6 years, had a nice chat a the Paris Air Show with some ESA members even though there never were any lectures about for the past 10 years there, and for the life of me I don't understand how you could believe I would troll about it. Or any other topic for that matter. I'm off.

hueving 12y ago

If a project fails to meet its goals, do you go back after the fact and change the goals or do you admit that you didn't meet them?

uxp 12y ago
Lets go back and look at the history of human knowledge about comets for a moment. 1) The composition of comets were largely unknown until ~1950 when Fred Whipple hypothesized that they were largely icy objects instead of rocky objects, which was only confirmed in 1986 when Vega 1 and 2 flew by Halley's comet. 2) This idea was flipped in 2001 when Deep Space 1 took photos of the comet Borrelly, which showed a hot and dark surface. 3) The Stardust mission in 2004 discovered that the dust of a comet was actually a crystalline structure, created by very high temperatures. 4) The Deep Impact probe in 2005 was the first physical contact humans had with a comet's surface, which resulted in us combining the two previous hypotheses into an object filled with an icy dust mixture protected by a hard and hot dirt shell. 5) Finally this year we landed Philae onto a comet's surface by launching a probe in 2004, a mission that started as far back as 1992. This means that we were planning on landing an object onto the surface of a comet long before we knew what in the hell a comet really was. To say that we failed to meet the goal of a one week operational timeframe on the surface disregards the entirety of knowledge learned during the operation of the mission in which we were conducting. Just after Rosetta launched we figured out that the surface of a comet was probably more ice than rock, and had to conduct retroactive experiments in order to determine whether or not the harpoons of which had already been engineered, designed, manufactured and launched into space (which failed to work, so the result is somewhat moot anyways) would in fact be capable of holding the lander on the surface of the comet. The main goal of this mission was to learn more about comets, not spend a defined time on the surface like a game of "King of the Mountain" at some elementary school playground. The mission was successful. We obtained data about the surface of comets and discoveries and observations resulting from the collection of this data will continue to happen over many years to come. Would have it been better if we were able to keep a probe operational on the surface of the comet for years instead of weeks, or weeks instead of days? Yes. But the goal was to learn shit, not get in a pissing contest with a nonexistent alternative lifeform that has already landed an object on a comet and kept it alive longer than us.