Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Long-Lost Comet Lander Philae Found (seeker.com)

Posted by msmash on from the better-later-than-ever dept.

astroengine writes: With only a month before its mission ends, the European Space Agency's Rosetta mission swooped low over Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko to see the stranded Philae lander jammed in a crack. After months of searching for the lander, which made its dramatic touchdown on Nov. 14, 2014, mission scientists had a good idea as to the region the robot was in, but this is the first photographic proof of the lander, on its side, stuck in the craggy location called Abydos. "This wonderful news means that we now have the missing 'ground-truth' information needed to put Philae's three days of science into proper context, now that we know where that ground actually is!" said Rosetta project scientist Matt Taylor in a statement.

70 comments

  1. Praise be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    to Allah.

  2. Jammed in a crack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    My penis was jammed in your ass crack!

  3. Phallus found! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Propz to GNAA

  4. Nice landing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    not
    Someone needs to be fired.

    1. Re:Nice landing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one area where using an advanced AI for the landing, when they are perfected, could have saved the mission and salvaged a big part of the science the mission was supposed to do.

    2. Re:Nice landing! by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Exactly how would that have helped? The lander didn't stick when it landed, and bounced into a chasm. It was in shade, and couldn't use solar power to operate. It also couldn't point its antennae to communicate. How would an AI help at all?

    3. Re:Nice landing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You wouldn't understand. The AI would be more advanced than us, and would come up with a solution that's beyond our ability to understand.

      Captcha: overshot

    4. Re: Nice landing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could it have salved the science when it already accomplished the vast majority of its science goals? Other than long term plasma and temperature measurements that needed solar power, everything else was designed to be done on battery power. Many of the experiments were limited number of use or couldn't have been powered by the solar panels even in ideal conditions.

  5. More public sector nanny-state crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    If it had been a free-market AMERICAN satellite instead of a politically-correct EU one it'd be upright and still working.

    They probably contracted out the orientation mechanism to blacks or lesbians.
    --
    roman_mir

    1. Re:More public sector nanny-state crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      If it had been a free-market AMERICAN satellite instead of a politically-correct EU one it'd be upright and still working.

      They probably contracted out the orientation mechanism to blacks or lesbians.
      --
      roman_mir

      Maybe lesbians. Black kids that study in school get beat up by other black kids for acting white so there's no blacks to take that kind of contract. There's no street cred in space. They rather shoot other blacks and spend time in prison 'cuz that be so gangsta, yo. Because black lives matter.

      If it's lesbians it's a bunch of bull-dykes who are likely obese. Those are women who take science seriously. Especially the postmenopausal ones, just like in politics. The lipstick-lesbos are too busy capitalizing on their looks, while they can, before they join the first group of lesbos and the cycle repeats itself.

    2. Re:More public sector nanny-state crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right. They could have also 3D printed a new lander using in-situ comet resources, instead of using LUDDITE factory-made components launched by a LUDDITE rocket.

      3D printers launched by EM drives are the future!

    3. Re:More public sector nanny-state crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free market American would mean it's Chinese then. Just sayin'.

    4. Re:More public sector nanny-state crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You are right. They could have also 3D printed a new lander using in-situ comet resources, instead of using LUDDITE factory-made components launched by a LUDDITE rocket.

      3D printers launched by EM drives are the future!

      Too bad 110010001000 is not here to be a dick about your comments..

      His herpes is acting up today.

    5. Re:More public sector nanny-state crap by 110010001000 · · Score: -1, Troll

      Awww poor wittle space nutter. I hurt his feelings because I told him he isn't going to go to Mars and is going to have to live on Earth with us "common people".

    6. Re:More public sector nanny-state crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Awww poor wittle space nutter. I hurt his feelings because I told him he isn't going to go to Mars and is going to have to live on Earth with us "common people".

      So I take it the outbreak is calming down? The Valtrex is working then?

    7. Re: More public sector nanny-state crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice priorities. Instead or arguing against any comments with actual substance that can be shown to be misguided or flat out wrong, you only reply to the stupid, empty comments that don't need replies. That is a classic sign of a troll more interest in mud wrestling than the cause they pretend to be taking the high road with.

    8. Re: More public sector nanny-state crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice priorities. Instead or arguing against any comments with actual substance that can be shown to be misguided or flat out wrong, you only reply to the stupid, empty comments that don't need replies. That is a classic sign of a troll more interest in mud wrestling than the cause they pretend to be taking the high road with.

      Yes the Valtrex worked, though it appears that it is doing nothing for his confidence or his syphillis. He even forgot to log into his 110010001000 account to post his poor excuse for a rebuttal.. LFMAO!

  6. Too bad it didn't have a RTG by Kobun · · Score: -1

    After everything went so right, it sucks that the majority of the science it could do was lost due to the solar panels being pointed the wrong way. A quick wiki search confirms that a RTG would have had more than enough output to do the job.

    1. Re:Too bad it didn't have a RTG by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2

      And quadrupled the weight.

    2. Re:Too bad it didn't have a RTG by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      The lander had batteries sized to provide enough power for the primary science objectives. What was lost was maybe 20% of the planned objectives, not "the majority".

      An RTG would have been cool, but it'd have doubled the cost of the mission.

    3. Re: Too bad it didn't have a RTG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RTG are not allowed in ESA missions.

    4. Re:Too bad it didn't have a RTG by Kobun · · Score: 1

      I'm not automatically discounting what you say, but do you have a citation? I went looking (for a while, at that) for weights on a likely RTG vs. batteries and solar panels. The best I came up with was fuel mass for the Cassini mission - 4.8 kg producing 110 watts. http://www.world-nuclear.org/i... - (and Plutonium 238 needs the least amount of shielding for any RTG fuel). Can you provide information on the weight of the solar and battery components?

    5. Re:Too bad it didn't have a RTG by Kobun · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I was thinking of what it "could do" and not just the mission objectives. When I wrote it, I the Opportunity probe in mind, which far exceeded its mission objectives. On Mars, solar panels make pretty good sense. Would a RTG have made better sense here? As a poster below notes, they simply aren't considered in ESA missions.

    6. Re:Too bad it didn't have a RTG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one you list was used on the some Mars missions, not Cassini. Cassini used three GPHS-RTG generators, each with 8 kg of plutonium. But that is just the fuel mass, not counting the oxygen, and in your case, the 4.8 kg is just the plutonium oxide mass. The total mass of three GPHS-RTG was more than 150 kg, and produced 600+ W by the end of the mission.

      For comparison Juno has ~340 kg of solar panels total, for about 450 W of power. Although it is not quite the minimal mass due to the solar panels being used mechanically to help stabilize the spin of the satellite.

      RTGs don't get used due to a limited budget of Pu238, which is pretty much independent of the dollar budget of NASA at this point, and also nearly unavailable to the ESA. If solar panels can be made to work, then you use them because that Pu238 can be save for the missions where solar panels are not an option.

    7. Re:Too bad it didn't have a RTG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire power system of the Philae lander was about 12 kg, including two batteries, the solar panels, and associated electronics. The peak power of the solar panels was designed to be ~32 W, but some of the instruments could peak at more than this. So either an RTG would have to be sized larger, or you would still need a battery as a buffer. Even if you could scale down linearly with size (which is hard to do with something like an RTG), you would need ~0.25 kg/W, so 8 kg, plus a battery still and some mass of electronics. That would be cutting it close.

      The bigger issue would be how much value would this add? Some of the instruments were one time deals, taking measurements directly below the lander. Others, like the drill, had a finite number of uses as the ovens were one time use. You would have to basically completely redesign the mission, and need more science payload to take advantage of that RTG, which would add considerably more to the mass budget than any inefficiencies of a small RTG.

    8. Re: Too bad it didn't have a RTG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly were you hoping it could do? Most of the instruments couldn't have run longer or would not be able to provide anything new even if there was power? The difference between a rover and a lander, is the lander can only measure the composition of the rock it sits on so many times. After that, it is just a weather station.

    9. Re:Too bad it didn't have a RTG by toddestan · · Score: 1

      And if the landing had gone as planned, the lander would have had plenty of sunlight to work with. And in that situation I'm sure the same people who are now complaining about the lack of an RTG would instead be bitching about the lander carrying a heavy, expensive, and unnecessary RTG that could have been used for something else. Besides, if the lander did put down in the intended location, its likely fate would have been to be cooked to death by the Sun after a few months. A RTD that producing several hundred watts of heat that cannot be shut off would have just hastened its demise.

  7. Fantastic news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fantastic news! Hopefully the next lander will solve the problems that Philae had and work on a new way of landing on space rocks.

  8. too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad mission control could not admit their failure, I would have. Sure they gathered some data, but it was an overall and overwhelming fail, and it was so lame how they downplayed it. Not being able to admit flaws and failures points to a very weak character.

    1. Re:too bad by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not being able to admit flaws and failures points to a very weak character.

      Is that why you didn't log in?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      So you tell yourself you are "worth more" just because you bothered to? After all you did succeed where I failed without really trying or caring LOL

      My condolences.

    3. Re:too bad by hackertourist · · Score: 4, Informative

      If there was a failure, it wasn't a failure of mission control. Nothing they could have done would have changed the outcome.

      The landing had a combination of problems. Harpoons and thrusters not firing (design flaws), and the landing zone having different geology than had been assumed (nobody had landed on a comet before, so no definitive data to go by).

      Despite the problems, the mission gathered most of the data they wanted. Not an overwhelming fail by any stretch of the imagination.

    4. Re: too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can read the mission objectives they had written before the mission was actually launched and see that they achieved nearly all of them. Unless they have a time machine, there is no failure cover-up and your the one trying to spin things to suit your agenda.

    5. Re:too bad by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that, Armchair Rocket Scientist. Now please tell us all about how Elon Musk is an overrated hack, and why the EMDrive is being suppressed by a conspiracy.

    6. Re:too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're Europeans. Europeans never admit failure because that would tarnish their reputation as Aryan ubermensch destined to rule over the world because, you know, yoorop.

    7. Re:too bad by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      EMDrive is real, because it is proven by NASA scientists. NASA! Scientists! NASA!

    8. Re:too bad by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      EMDrive is real, because it is proven by NASA scientists. NASA! Scientists! NASA!

      The thing that really gets me is it's the same people who are guilelessly credulous about the EMDrive and lecture everybody else about having a Proper Scientific Attitude who are also global warming deniers.

    9. Re:too bad by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      So you tell yourself you are "worth more" just because you bothered to? After all you did succeed where I failed without really trying or caring LOL

      I'd tell you that I "won" by the "rules" that you set forth, I guess. What do I win? I can make a smug face while I park ass, I guess. I don't consider it a massive accomplishment. On the other hand, I think what Slashdot needs most is humor, and I deliver that when possible.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's difficult to conceive how anyone could describe a mission which produced even just the picture linked in the story as a failure. It boggles the mind that they managed to capture a high-res close up image of a comet!

    11. Re:too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harpoons and thrusters not firing (design flaws).

      Design flaws AND testing fail. That aspect of the mission was a complete failure. The unexpected geology would not have mattered if any of these two worked.

    12. Re:too bad by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Granted for the thrusters, but the problems with the harpoons didn't surface until the conclusion of a 9-year-long test of the flight spare in a vacuum. Should they have postponed the launch by 9 years?

  9. Two words: by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Rescue mission!

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Two words: by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Rescue mission!

      I somehow feel quite certain it would be cheaper to just build a half-dozen copies of Philae and launch those.

  10. Overall a disappointing mission by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't like to talk bad about the labors of perhaps good engineers, but it did seem there were some issues with the design of this mission. Granted, landing on a comet is a delicate process, however it lacks the extra difficulties that planetary landings have, especially when you have to speed through atmosphere and apart from having to break you have to make sure your instruments are protected from the ordeal. So the fact that (without having the craft go through such an ordeal as atmospheric breaking etc) both methods that Philae had available for a good landing, the gas thruster and the grappling hook, were DOA is pretty bad compared to the performance of other crafts. And forget about the grappling hooks which are unusual, how do you screw up a simple thruster, something that has been implemented in various forms thousands of times for various satellites.
    Sure, there was some interesting science gained, but that was not thanks to the part of the team responsible for the landing...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you ever actually worked on a project like that? You don't get an unlimited engineering, time or weight budget. You sometimes have to make guesses and assumptions. Sometimes those don't entirely work out. You almost never get to make it as robust as you would like.

      Not to mention that no one had ever done this before. You know, 'boldly go where no one has gone before' type thing.

      Reality is a bitch at times.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Armchair Rocket Scientist #2:

      I don't like to talk bad about the labors of perhaps good engineers

      Then don't.

      And forget about the grappling hooks which are unusual, how do you screw up a simple thruster

      Um, the lander bounced. It wasn't a thruster failure. Yeah, landing on Mars is a bitch, but I think you are vastly underestimating the challenges involved in landing on something which for all intents and purposes has no gravity at all. Especially when, you know, nobody's ever done it before.

    3. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by XXongo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't like to talk bad about the labors of perhaps good engineers, but it did seem there were some issues with the design of this mission.

      Landing on a comet had never been done before, and the engineers didn't even know what the surface looked like, much less that it had this amazing double shape and rugate surface.

      There are two approaches to doing something that's never been done before: (1) Try something and see what the problems are, (2) Think out every possible trouble area that might manifest, and make sure that you can deal with that. Approach 2 sounds much better, but when you take that approach, the vast majority of problems you're designing to deal with are ones that don't actually occur, and as a result the engineering cost is much, much higher.

      They designed a lander that would operate on batteries in the worst case, and would stick to the surface with their harpoon and operate on solar arrays in the best case. They got the worst case-- and, because they designed it to operate even in the worst case of landing in an adverse location at a bad orientation, they got data.

      They did good. And they got good engineering information to use on later missions.

    4. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a thruster failure.

      Correcting myself before somebody else does. There was, in fact, a thruster failure, but they knew about it before landing and gave the lander a go anyway.

    5. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, two essential devices failed to deploy. There was not even an attempt. If the harpoons hadn't caught or the thruster fired but some unforeseeable even took them off course, then it would have been a good attempt at something never tried before.

    6. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      The heart of the mission was being able to keep station with a comet as it approached perihelion and then moved outward again. This gave us our first close-up view of exactly what happens to a comet as it approaches the sun. The lander mission was gravy.

      The one big disappointment of the mission was the attack at the first press conference by the most virulent alien lifeform in our solar system, social justice warriors. This is not how we do science, people.

    7. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The failing thruster was supposed to fire at the instant of touchdown vectoring straight downward, holding Philae to the surface while it anchored itself.

    8. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't understand why I can't say that part of the project was botched. I have actually worked on projects that required the finished product to "work 100%" when put in production (not "in space" the closest I have reached is satellite communication software) and it was not a matter of "unlimited engineering, time or weight budget", it was mostly a matter of solid design and especially testing. In this particular case, it seems that they either did not fully vacuum-test their harpoon firing, or the test was not right and they actually found this would be a problem while the probe was in space, from other people tests if I understand correctly! http://archive.wired.com/wired... (see comments section). They thought they had found a solution, bit it either did not work, or there was an additional problem with the wiring.
      Also a gas thruster is sort of a simple device, I think you just have to make sure it doesn't leak. But it failed as well. That's 2/2 control systems gone...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    9. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      They didn't have to "break", but they did. Success!

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    10. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I missing something? By what metric did they "do good" engineering wise. Their lander impacted the surface just shy of escape velocity (38 cm/s vs. 44 cm/s) and yet somehow it wasn't a significant enough impact to activate the harpoons. The other option, a nitrogen thruster, was acting up even before the asteroid encounter (either completely dead or a sensor failure, probably the former). If the harpoons had been unable to get a good grip on the surface or the thruster didn't have enough fuel to hold the craft down for enough time you might have a point. Those could easily be unforeseeable issues when encountering an unknown body. But both systems failing to even activate/function shows some pretty serious design flaws. If you had a brand new off road vehicle and took it to an environment that it wasn't suited for (say a dune buggy on a rock climbing course) it could be forgiven for breaking down when you attempted to navigate the course, however if its starter fried even before you got it off the trailer and when trying to push start it the transmission ate its own gears one would be hard pressed to say that it was engineered well.

    11. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by Solandri · · Score: 2

      I thought the mission performed poorly too, but your criticism is off-base. The surface gravity of the comet was several hundred thousand times less than Earth gravity. It wasn't like landing on Mars. It was like docking with the International Space Station, except without a docking adapter. Landing on a planet is relatively easy in contrast because you've got a huge margin of error by which you can over-thrust and still land successfully. e.g. On Earth, basically everything between 0 and 1g upward thrust will still slow you down, yet will not compromise your landing (cause you to lift back up) after you touch down.

      When docking in zero-g or near-zero-g, you need to match velocities precisely - the margin of error is almost nil. That's why they went with the harpoon system - because docking is a damned difficult thing to do even when you have a docking adapter and a computer and human pilot right there giving real-time thrust correction inputs.

      I expected more from the mission only because the Japanese pulled off an even tougher "landing" (the asteroid was about 1/300th the mass of the comet). That spacecraft however was designed as touch-and-go, rather than permanently landing ("attaching" is probably a better word at these low surface gravities).

    12. Re: Overall a disappointing mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lookup "first" landing missions to everywhere (moon, mars) and you will find a plethora of spontaneous disassemblies.

      This thing landed on a fucking comet, after bouncing around and produced useable data despite RTGs not being available due to fucking politics. I call resounding success.

      We are in the age when we can see on twitter close-up images of pluto and comets mere hours after they arrived on earth and we still bitch around.

    13. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, Hayabusa actually _lost_ MINERVA, the lander that was supposed to stay with the asteroid.

    14. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know what you are talking about. They did not design the lander to operate on batteries. ANY system relying on a variable power source like solar power has batteries, so they had to have them anyway and they had to be charged, you do realize for example that even solar panels can't give you power unless you already have power to boot at least the power inverter?
      So, the fact that it had a battery is not a design success. On the contrary, I'd say the fact that it was only good for 60 hours was a design fail - it does not seem they believed there was a chance they would not have the panels working, so this is not a pre-designed "worst case".

    15. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did not design the lander to operate on batteries. ANY system relying on a variable power source like solar power has batteries,...

      So why did they include two batteries, one of which was a ~1 kWhr nonrechargable battery? The rechargeable battery for use with the solar panel was only 100 Whr . That is a lot of mass budget to dedicate to one time use battery power for a system where the primary power source is solar...

      Instead of divining the intentions of the designers solely from your understanding of how solar power works, you can read the actual design and mission documents that describe exactly what the intentions are. Many of the instruments had very limited use, such as those that measure directly under the probe and things like the drill which had a small number of one time use ovens to work with. The only long term instruments would have been for measuring temperature and the solar wind.

      it does not seem they believed there was a chance they would not have the panels working,

      But they had a power and energy budget worked out for the primary battery without solar ahead of time...

    16. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by whodunit · · Score: 1

      The engineers that made it would not disagree with you. The lander's design was constrained by many factors but the biggest was simply a lack of information - nobody has landed on a comet before. Recall that they thought the Lunar regolith might swallow a spacecraft whole, like quicksand, before the first soft-lander probes were sent to test the theory. That's why the comet lander had that harpoon system nobody was sure would work, or how - it was a best guess based on available data. The thrusters didn't fail - with such incredibly weak gravity, failure of the harpoons to anchor the probe on the rock was going to lead to crazy high bounces no matter what, even with a very gentle touchdown.

      Every envelope pushing mission encounters these things. Sometimes they're positive, like the wind-clearing events on mars keeping Opportunity's solar panels clean and the rover operating for 49 times longer than planned. In that case, the scientists learn. Or the spacecraft systems fail, and the science returned, however valuble and novel, pales in comparison to the technical telemetry which will enable future landers to land better and transmit longer. In that case the engineers learn. Thus it has always been, and shall always be.

    17. Re:Overall a disappointing mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thrusters didn't fail

      Yeah, right, read up on the mission. The thruster that was supposed to keep it from bouncing off had failed and that was known at least a day before, it was in the news. Then the harpoon failed to launch as well. Obviously something went wrong in the design & testing of these components. Since for space missions you want a very high reliability for each component and so design and testing is focused on that, a double failure is unlikely unless mistakes are made.

    18. Re: Overall a disappointing mission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were definitely some engineering failures. But the mission as a whole is not judged by the success of control systems, but how much of the science objectives were achieved. The number of people trying to call the mission as a whole a failure makes it easy to hypercorrect legitimate complaints about nonessential failures.

  11. Clean it up! by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

    So how many intergalactic littering laws have we just broken?

  12. Sorry by PPH · · Score: 1

    Couldn't get this out of my mind.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  13. The presser was different this time by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Matt Taylor wore a three-piece suit, and PBS totebags were distributed to all.

  14. The real question by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: -1

    I notice this article leaves out the most important part of comet exploration: What kind of shirt was the spokesman wearing when he made the announcement? The article is silent on this topic, when we know from experience that this issue trumps anything, up to and including humanity landing on a comet.

    If you can force a rocket scientist, celebrating the accomplishment of a lifetime, to cry and grovel and beg forgiveness on international TV for wearing a shirt, you are not unempowered.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  15. Abydos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only a matter of time before Apophis comes staffs blazing to reclaim Abydos.

    2029 to be exact. Reality is a bitch, you snake.

  16. Summary fail by silentcoder · · Score: 2

    It completely fails to mention the IMPORTANT thing: what shirt was he wearing at the announcement ?

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    1. Re:Summary fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was SJW friendly and approved.

  17. Stuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stuck into a little crack or chasm, you say? Kind of like the probe was a little retracted inside the darkness?

    May I suggest a rename of the probe from Philae to Phimosis?