• ryan213
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    Lol why is this getting down voted?

    • shackled@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It’s a terrible headline that completely downplays a successful mission. Instead of focusing on the fact that they achieved a landing accuracy of 55m where previous missions measured in kilometres they went for a cheap joke. This is in spite of having a thruster fail that resulted in the lander tipping over but still able to deploy is rover. The same article from a better website would have probably faired better.

      • TheLight@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s also worth noting it was always supposed to land with the solar panels on its side, the issue is that they ended up pointing west (in the shade, not producing power) instead of to the east (towards the sun).

        The fact that it still handled the asymmetrical thrust after the nozzle broke off one of its two engines to make it down in one piece, and only the orientation happened to be wrong, is still a great achievement.

        If the hardware survives the chill (heaters not running from lack of power) it might still resume its mission when the sun changes position in the sky and the panels start getting light.

      • ryan213
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        Oh, OK. I thought people didn’t like that it’s an actual tech post. Yeah, article title could’ve been better.