4 ms·
Sure, but for what purpose? The mission was done, nothing to see here anymore. So the ESA would have traded the (very small, but not zero) risk of radioactive
by ralfd 10y ago
Sure, but for what purpose? The mission was done, nothing to see here anymore.
So the ESA would have traded the (very small, but not zero) risk of radioactive contamination from a launch failure for not enough additional research gain.
- lmm 10y agoAIUI the lander (Philae) is believed to have failed because it landed in a valley where its solar panels couldn't collect enough energy. Had the lander used an RTG it would likely have worked, returning valuable science data.
- mikeash 10y agoIt also would have been a lot heavier. There is certainly an excessive fear of nuclear stuff that pushes for space missions to use solar when RTGs would be more suitable (Juno may be an example of this) but this does not seem to be one of those cases.