The word "lost" is a little bit confusing in this context. It successfully landed and operated several days, but it's location was only approximated.

We've seen landers in recent years that crashed unintentionally in precise known locations. Does this mean that they were not lost?

▲

bloak 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, the word "lost" is ambiguous, but I didn't even notice the ambiguity until you pointed it out. I think the presence of the word "found" in the same sentence lead me to assume the "unknown location" sense rather than the "destroyed" sense.

▲

clort 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes. Generally, if you know where it is, it is not lost. If you don't then it is.

But, it also depends if you want to know where it is. If you don't know where something is and don't want to, its not lost its discarded.

	▲	ultratalk 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Another usage of the word "lost" is to indicate when the spacecraft has become dysfunctional. Although, that one is the verb form, not the adjective.

▲

newsclues 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Lost can be not knowing where something is or to no longer have it.

	▲	ggm 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"Lost at sea" and "lost with all hands" exemplifying a ship sinking, precision to place is neither denied nor supplied. It's a net loss to the fleet, the shareholders and the insurer. And of course wives and children.