3 ms·

Of course you adjust your targets. But it doesn't imply you must rewrite your expectations to fit with reality after the facts as if those expectations never fl

Of course you adjust your targets. But it doesn't imply you must rewrite your expectations to fit with reality after the facts as if those expectations never fluctuated. You actually lose data points by doing so.

acqq 12y ago
Data points? The poster justsee actually complains about the FAQ page which didn't even have to be precise in the first place and doesn't have to be now. It's a web site directed to the uninformed public. Honestly, who do you expect to use the FAQ page for anything serious? Among other questions on that page are "Why is it so important to study comets?" "What is the difference between asteroids and comets?" You don't bother public with engineering stuff like "we have 1000 Wh power budget from the primary batteries, which will last depending on what happens when, and the different devices have different energy needs and we aren't actually sure what can happen but we prepare for as much as possible with the hope of at least something giving us some good results." They just switch off. We at least know where justsee switched off in being interested in the details: the expression "during a week" he understood as somebody promised him "exactly at least a week of entertaining news from the lander."
- johnchristopher 12y ago
  > It's a web site directed to the uninformed public. The `uninformed public` deserves to be better considered, thank you. It's not about the quality of explanation or the depth of the technical details in the FAQ but about the way it gives the feeling facts are being rewritten to fit reality (if there are no mention on the page it is being edited to accommodate for mission updates then it's completely understandable people would frown over number shuffling). Did you count the words on that FAQ ? Any `uninformed` person who would read that FAQ would have questions about why the wording change over time. Because it's a FAQ, not a live update. > Honestly, who do you expect to use the FAQ page for anything serious? Really ?
  - skywhopper 12y ago
    The FAQ is rewritten as the facts change. They wanted a week, but the landing didn't go well, so they figured out they could get 2.5 days, and they changed the FAQ. It's not complicated. It's not a conspiracy. No one is being cheated.
    - johnchristopher 12y ago
      Sigh... > [..] if there are no mention on the page it is being edited to accommodate for mission updates then it's completely understandable people would frown over number shuffling [..] Did I say I feel cheated ? No. Did I say there was a conspiracy ? No. The web page has all the qualities of a static web page (no `live update`, no `last modified` label, etc.) and it's on the ESA website which gives it some kind of an official vibe. Yet, they are updating it to reflect mission objective changes (which is totally fine as far as I am concerned, by the way) which lead to confusion and questions such as "Did they just changed their stated goals to accommodate for the fact Philae is going to operate for a short time than planned or expected ?". Add to that some Internet tweets about how "it smoothly perfectly gone well and all the data we wanted are there" and someone goes back to the FAQ and spot changes (1 week turn into 2.5 days). Allow me to take you for an idiot as well: It's not complicated. to understand that web page is a bit misleading. It doesn't relay the information that the mission parameters and objectives changed (and of course I know they changed, were likeley to, etc.). If you go back to that document in 20 years you'd have no idea there was some problems with the landing.

acqq 12y ago

Data points? The poster justsee actually complains about the FAQ page which didn't even have to be precise in the first place and doesn't have to be now. It's a web site directed to the uninformed public. Honestly, who do you expect to use the FAQ page for anything serious? Among other questions on that page are "Why is it so important to study comets?" "What is the difference between asteroids and comets?" You don't bother public with engineering stuff like "we have 1000 Wh power budget from the primary batteries, which will last depending on what happens when, and the different devices have different energy needs and we aren't actually sure what can happen but we prepare for as much as possible with the hope of at least something giving us some good results." They just switch off. We at least know where justsee switched off in being interested in the details: the expression "during a week" he understood as somebody promised him "exactly at least a week of entertaining news from the lander."

johnchristopher 12y ago
> It's a web site directed to the uninformed public. The `uninformed public` deserves to be better considered, thank you. It's not about the quality of explanation or the depth of the technical details in the FAQ but about the way it gives the feeling facts are being rewritten to fit reality (if there are no mention on the page it is being edited to accommodate for mission updates then it's completely understandable people would frown over number shuffling). Did you count the words on that FAQ ? Any `uninformed` person who would read that FAQ would have questions about why the wording change over time. Because it's a FAQ, not a live update. > Honestly, who do you expect to use the FAQ page for anything serious? Really ?
- skywhopper 12y ago
  The FAQ is rewritten as the facts change. They wanted a week, but the landing didn't go well, so they figured out they could get 2.5 days, and they changed the FAQ. It's not complicated. It's not a conspiracy. No one is being cheated.
  - johnchristopher 12y ago
    Sigh... > [..] if there are no mention on the page it is being edited to accommodate for mission updates then it's completely understandable people would frown over number shuffling [..] Did I say I feel cheated ? No. Did I say there was a conspiracy ? No. The web page has all the qualities of a static web page (no `live update`, no `last modified` label, etc.) and it's on the ESA website which gives it some kind of an official vibe. Yet, they are updating it to reflect mission objective changes (which is totally fine as far as I am concerned, by the way) which lead to confusion and questions such as "Did they just changed their stated goals to accommodate for the fact Philae is going to operate for a short time than planned or expected ?". Add to that some Internet tweets about how "it smoothly perfectly gone well and all the data we wanted are there" and someone goes back to the FAQ and spot changes (1 week turn into 2.5 days). Allow me to take you for an idiot as well: It's not complicated. to understand that web page is a bit misleading. It doesn't relay the information that the mission parameters and objectives changed (and of course I know they changed, were likeley to, etc.). If you go back to that document in 20 years you'd have no idea there was some problems with the landing.