4 ms·

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

• 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.