New Horizons = SUCCESS! Philae = semi-flop. Know why? PLUTONIUM!!!!

Nothing but nothing matches an RTG power source. Not solar, not chemical. And nothing ever WILL match it.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:38:53 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Nothing but nothing matches an RTG power source. Not solar, not chemical. And nothing ever WILL match it.

Of course, Philae (which is hardly a flop) would never have flown with
a RTG generator.

On Friday, 17 July 2015 00:48:40 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:38:53 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Nothing but nothing matches an RTG power source. Not solar, not chemical. And nothing ever WILL match it.

Of course, Philae (which is hardly a flop) would never have flown with
a RTG generator.

Why? It wouldn't need a big one and Rosetta would have been a lot less expensive (maybe offsetting the cost of the RTG) had it not had to carry the largest solar panels outside of the ISS.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:47:07 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 17 July 2015 00:48:40 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:38:53 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Nothing but nothing matches an RTG power source. Not solar, not chemical. And nothing ever WILL match it.

Of course, Philae (which is hardly a flop) would never have flown with
a RTG generator.

Why? It wouldn't need a big one and Rosetta would have been a lot less expensive (maybe offsetting the cost of the RTG) had it not had to carry the largest solar panels outside of the ISS.

It would have been silly for Rosetta to use an RTG, because it is
operating in a part of the Solar System where solar energy is
abundant, and that's a lot less expensive to implement. That means
more money for other parts of the mission.

It would have been poor engineering to use an RTG for Philae, given
the size, weight, and power constraints, as well as being outside of
budget. Philae was entirely secondary to the Rosetta mission. It
wasn't even always part of the mission plan.