I found a report that stated the gravity acceleration of 67P is only 1.5mm/sec^2. ESA publicly stated it "bounced 1km out into space and then 1km over," but that may be a wild, gassed guesstimate. . . or it was calculated from their knowing the approach velocity, the elasticity of the landing legs, mass of the lander and exactly what happened. I want to know why it bounced only once, since, according to reports the landing system—harpoon, thruster, ice screws, etc,—did not work at all.
I am pretty sure that it was in today’s press briefing that they spoke about the second bounce. I think they said the first bounced lasted 3hrs and the second bounce lasted 7mins. Just from memory, without double-checking.
Yeah, the landing was a complete fiasco, in terms of the objectives. They are playing rhetorical games saying that it "landed twice' etc. all this is due to the forgiveness of the low-g environment. It seems to me that they did not gain any of the scientific objectives of the lander, which on that account would have to be judged a complete failure. Well, it was fun.
The comet has no ice and a pretty powerful argument for an orbitally induced charge accumulation, yet electrical potential differentials are not even addressed by the space scientists. Nevertheless, a big charge differential could easily have smacked the lander a mile away. And notice those lander feet, while having acknowledged purposes, also look like pretty good insulator technologies.
Is such a simple, obvious concept. For these scientists to refuse to acknowledge it while publicly drawing attention to it is really irritating.