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

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 Tuesday, December 9, 2014 9:45:04 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 02:31:12 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 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.

So this almost $2 billion dollar project (just barely) accomplished minimum goals.

On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:56:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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

So this almost $2 billion dollar project (just barely) accomplished minimum goals.

Not at all. Philae was not a $2 billion dollar project. Philae was
like a single instrument on Rosetta. Rosetta has exceeded its goals,
and the Philae probe exceeded its minimum goals (indeed, had Philae
failed completely Rosetta would still be considered highly successful,
as Philae's success was not seen as a requirement).

Not that it matters. If you achieve the minimum goals, the mission is
a success.

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:14:51 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 15:56:05 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

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

So this almost $2 billion dollar project (just barely) accomplished minimum goals.

Not at all. Philae was not a $2 billion dollar project.

Rosetta $1.8 billion dollar including Philae... close enough. The lander was the hype. Comet rendezvous and orbit... not so much.

But hey, maybe if the thing hasn't frozen solid in a few months...

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 5:34:54 PM UTC-8, wrote:

Rosetta $1.8 billion dollar including Philae... close enough. The lander was the hype. Comet rendezvous and orbit... not so much.

But hey, maybe if the thing hasn't frozen solid in a few months...

It seems to me that it is more likely to die of overheating rather than freezing...

\Paul A

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:55:56 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 5:34:54 PM UTC-8, wrote:

Rosetta $1.8 billion dollar including Philae... close enough. The lander was the hype. Comet rendezvous and orbit... not so much.

But hey, maybe if the thing hasn't frozen solid in a few months...

It seems to me that it is more likely to die of overheating rather than freezing...

If it's in a shadow it will tend to freeze.

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 6:18:22 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:55:56 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 5:34:54 PM UTC-8, wrote:

Rosetta $1.8 billion dollar including Philae... close enough. The lander was the hype. Comet rendezvous and orbit... not so much.

But hey, maybe if the thing hasn't frozen solid in a few months...

It seems to me that it is more likely to die of overheating rather than freezing...

If it's in a shadow it will tend to freeze.

It is in a shadow part of the time. The rotation period is about 12 hours, and right now it is getting about 1.5 hours of sunlight per day. As this comet approaches the Sun those number will change, with more and more sunlight per day. It was always thought that the lander would meet its demise due to overheating, which is probably still the case.