5 ms·

No it's not. An RTG is simply not feasible for the short-lived, low-mass probe in question. Philae is 100kg total and will burn up in a few months when the come

No it's not. An RTG is simply not feasible for the short-lived, low-mass probe in question. Philae is 100kg total and will burn up in a few months when the comet comes near the sun, it would be a giant waste of resources to equip it with an RTG that could yield power for decades. See http://nucleardiner.com/2014/11/15/wasnt-philae-given-rtg http://nucleardiner.com/2014/11/15/wasnt-philae-given-rtg

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Its 100kg because its designed without an RTG. Obviously the design would have changed to accommodate it and we wouldn't be sitting here wondering if it has enough juice to work, thus pissing away a significant part of that $1.6b budget.
- reo9Sahx 11y ago
  Note that Philae has already performed most of the experiments that were planned in the first two days it was operational and that all data from those experiments has been received. Philae never was a failure, that it now wakes up again is an additional bonus. Also consider that an additional O(100kg) for an RTG significantly alters your energy requirements to get into orbit (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation)
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    TFA: “The power from the solar arrays is not sufficient, on its own, to drill and analyse cometary samples, for example.” Its clear that power is an issue and an RTG would have solved it. These don't sound like "bonuses" to me.
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      Later in the article: "And eventually, Philae will hopefully get sufficient power in its battery to drill into the comet and analyse its make-up." Although claiming it was never a failure is pretty laughable.
- simonh 11y ago
  But if you increase the mass of the probe, you increase the cost of the whole mission. Bear in mind increasing the mass of the power system emans the lander needs more powerful thrusters, more fuel, stronger landing gear, etc. That's the tyranny of the rocket equation. This could increase the cost of the mission by hundreds of millions of dollars, which means you'd lose the potentially hundreds of million of dollars worth of other science projects that money has been available for. Whenever somebody suggests a solution to the problem that involved 'just' spending more money that's a red light, right there.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

Its 100kg because its designed without an RTG. Obviously the design would have changed to accommodate it and we wouldn't be sitting here wondering if it has enough juice to work, thus pissing away a significant part of that $1.6b budget.

reo9Sahx 11y ago
Note that Philae has already performed most of the experiments that were planned in the first two days it was operational and that all data from those experiments has been received. Philae never was a failure, that it now wakes up again is an additional bonus. Also consider that an additional O(100kg) for an RTG significantly alters your energy requirements to get into orbit (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation)
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  TFA: “The power from the solar arrays is not sufficient, on its own, to drill and analyse cometary samples, for example.” Its clear that power is an issue and an RTG would have solved it. These don't sound like "bonuses" to me.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    Later in the article: "And eventually, Philae will hopefully get sufficient power in its battery to drill into the comet and analyse its make-up." Although claiming it was never a failure is pretty laughable.
simonh 11y ago
But if you increase the mass of the probe, you increase the cost of the whole mission. Bear in mind increasing the mass of the power system emans the lander needs more powerful thrusters, more fuel, stronger landing gear, etc. That's the tyranny of the rocket equation. This could increase the cost of the mission by hundreds of millions of dollars, which means you'd lose the potentially hundreds of million of dollars worth of other science projects that money has been available for. Whenever somebody suggests a solution to the problem that involved 'just' spending more money that's a red light, right there.