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

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.

wrote:
On Sunday, December 7, 2014 11:43:48 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
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.

There is a shortage of suitable RTGs for space missions, so those are
likely to be reserved for those missions that absolutely require them.
That is not to say that a mission that doesn't strictly require them
cannot benefit from RTGs Perhaps a better mission could have been planned
if RTGs had been available.

As I have suggested elsewhere in this forum, the missions that ESA has
done reflect the lack of availability of RTGs; its missions have been for
the inner-solar-system. Had Europe produced Pu-238, then ESA would have had more options.

The USA and USSR/Russia devoted resources to Pu-238 production and
perhaps assumed some risk in doing so. Europe did not.

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?

They might have been very lucky and it would be refreshing to see the ESA
acknowledge that possibility.

There appears to be some spin going on here... the harpoons failed.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/F-...s28071401.html

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 12:59:19 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 5:09:38 AM UTC-6, wsne... 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.

0bama said:

"If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

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.

So what?

Roads (and other infrastructure) in the US are generally built by private companies granted government contracts, which are paid for with taxes collected from ...(drum roll please)....private businesses and individuals!

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 Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:09:46 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/F-...nium-in-space-
missions28071401.html

Heavier and needs too much shielding.

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 8:34:25 PM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:

[deleted due to extremely tedious and condescending nature of content]

We all heard what Zero said in 2012, "you didn't build that," and most feel that it is consistent with his nauseating campaign talk of "spread the wealth around" back in 2008.

The fact is that we get to use infrastructure in more or less direct proportion to what we each spend to support it through taxes and fees. A business owner gets to use it because he paid for it, not because YOU paid for it.

As for the Olympics example used by Romney, he was simply giving credit to those who -volunteered- to help the athletes in various ways. Your analogy was extremely poor (as usual.)