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

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.

wrote:
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.

But the article explains the shortage of plutonium 238

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:27:25 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
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.

But the article explains the shortage of plutonium 238

The shortage of Pu-238 is a known issue. Its unavailability to the ESA is reflected in the ESA's shortage of outer planetary missions.

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:46:47 AM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Same goes for the "47%" statement made by presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he would not be leaving out almost half the nation once elected. Everyone pounced on the 47% as if it was
some kind of declaration that he would discard the needs of the poorest of the
nation. In fact, a large proportion of those 47% that pay no federal taxes are
over 65 and tend to vote Republican. He was of course referring primarily to a
strategy of capturing the vote of the remaining 53% in a presidential contest,
rather than what he would do as president.

Romney was simply alluding to the possibility that the US might be in danger of becoming a nation of men, rather than the nation of laws that the Founding Fathers created.

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:46:47 AM UTC-5, Uncarollo2 wrote:

As far as spreading the wealth around, yes, that would be nauseating for some
people.

And quite pleasing, initially, to others. Be careful what you wish for.

After all, why not try to capture it all by any means legal even if not
ethical. The world is like a Monopoly game, right, where the end result is one
winner and bankruptcy for the other players. Who needs a functioning society. We can always wall ourselves off from the dreck.

Strawman arguments all.