We know that there is about a 100 volt differential for every three feet of altitude, but we can't figure yet how to tap into that potential. . . nor how to find much amperage there. . . but the force is there.
Well if there’s a dangerous charge differential, maybe it would be safest not to let the lander touch for more than a moment, rather than use a thruster to force it down and it can get seriously fried.
Oh look, the landing thruster did not come online before separation, and now they have to depend upon the ice screws alone to hold the lander to the surface. Well that might be a... lucky break, shall we say? Now they can check the scale of any discharge with a brief touchdown, and then if it looks safe, maybe the thruster can... somehow... be brought online for a second try if necessary...
LOL...
I am watching live on the ESA site. Captain Kirk just checked in via Twitter.
Well I guess my bouncing theory wasn’t necessary, the lander planted on the comet first try. Although in my defense, they are trying to “determine” if the landing thruster fired anyway, so even the mission scientists are wondering how it stayed down. Of course, this could be the first part of spinning the fact they did some electrical charge tests on the way down and wanted the bounce possibility available to get the lander away if needed.
No matter what, that comet has got to have a huge charge buildup and those electronics are vulnerable.
Question: cab a charge differential be dissipated by a couple of months of orbiting first, as was done? Or by taking such a long and tortuous route to get there in the first place? I just don’t believe space scientists don’t take this problem into account, no matter what they admit publicly.