Pluto probe New Horizons still going after 8 years, unlike ESO cometprobe. Guess why?

http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/rtg.html

On Sunday, December 7, 2014 7:31:08 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/rtg.html

Well, it could be because it has not tried to land on anything, it has just been cruising along unimpeded, while sleeping most of the way. Of course, it does have nuclear power, but then, it is way beyond the orbit of Jupiter, which pretty much dictates such a power source.

It sure looks now that the ESO lander accomplished every experiment that it was scheduled to perform, and has returned results. They were just lucky, right?

\Paul A

Because it was well engineered. Like the Mars rovers. Like Rosetta and
Philae. Like dozens of other research probes that are doing their job
as planned.

It must really pain somebody such as yourself, who has never produced
anything of value, to see the successes of others.

Not sure why Agent shows this as a response to Palsing. It was posted
to the OP.

On Monday, December 8, 2014 11:00:05 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Not sure why Agent shows this as a response to Palsing. It was posted
to the OP.

Nobody actually cares, peterson.

On Monday, December 8, 2014 10:10:58 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Because it was well engineered. Like the Mars rovers. Like Rosetta and
Philae. Like dozens of other research probes that are doing their job
as planned.

Philae landed then failed. Because it was solar powered and landed in shadow.

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 1:38:52 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Monday, December 8, 2014 10:10:58 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Because it was well engineered. Like the Mars rovers. Like Rosetta and
Philae. Like dozens of other research probes that are doing their job
as planned.

Philae landed then failed. Because it was solar powered and landed in shadow.

If the batteries were really sufficient to accomplish the mission "goals" then why the solar panels?

On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 02:31:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:

If the batteries were really sufficient to accomplish the mission "goals" then why the solar panels?

Because goals are defined to cover a range. There are minimum goals,
and there are extended goals.

On Monday, December 8, 2014 10:10:58 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Because it was well engineered. Like the Mars rovers. Like Rosetta and
Philae. Like dozens of other research probes that are doing their job
as planned.

It must really pain somebody such as yourself, who has never produced
anything of value, to see the successes of others.

But as 0bama was rumored to have said "you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Of course, he said that of *businesses*, not govt-funded space probe engineering teams. A double standard might be in effect.

WRT the science of the mission from:

http://www.universetoday.com/116208/...comet-landing/

'The same press release also defended ESA's decision not to release information from the navigation cameras more freely - which they do have control over. Citing overlap, they indicated that they want to "avoid undermining the priority of the OSIRIS team."'

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 5:09:38 AM UTC-6, wrote:
But as 0bama was rumored to have said "you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Of course, he said that of *businesses*,

Actually he said that of infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, etc.) that businesses use. The government is responsible for building and maintaining the common structure of our nation that we all rely on, and of course we pay for it thru our taxes. That is the price for civilization. Otherwise we could be Somalia, the paradise of no taxation.