[masklinn]

> Unless other parts of the comet is more flat

It's pretty hard to see the details of a cometary surface from earth. And there isn't much you could do with no gravity and an all-rubble surface either way.

> It included bolting itself to the surface, if I remember correctly, but it seems almost impossible to fixate three legs with almost no gravity on that surface.

Philae had a harpoon for anchoring itself to the surface (with a thruster on the other side to compensate). The harpoon failed to fire. The legs were not intended for fixation, only to dampen the landing.

[gokhan]

Maybe they should put it into a very very close orbit and wait for the micro gravity doing it's work. Maybe large harpoons tangling on sticks every side. It's easy for me to talk at this point, but it's their job to expect that surface. I don't think other comets passing closer by have better surfaces.

I'm following this mission almost from the beginning, amazed by the success despite Philae's short lived life on comet, and think the science aspect of it all is unbelievably great. But that landing moment made all the difference, and it failed to fix it on the surface, hence the criticism.

Would we consider Curiosity mission success if landing put it upside down?