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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.