Comment Re:Not nuclear fear (Score 3) 419
RTFA.
I did. I was not impressed.
We have NO idea whether anything "interesting" was happening during that time.
Well, like what, for example? What were you expecting to happen?
Your definition of "success" is "Well, it works now, because we got half-lucky on the landing."
My definition of success in this case is collecting the data which were used to cost-justify the mission. Do you have a better definition of "success"?
For whatever reason, you choose to disregard the fact that using an RTG would have eliminated that risk altogether, *and* it would have eliminated that seven month blackout period.
Because the mission will be successful according to my definition of "success" (see above). You seem to have a "cost is no object" mindset. Since the ESA does not have any of its own RTG technology it would have to buy it from the Russians or Americans, and then build in the necessary safeguards required by the mission profile's three near-Earth fly-bys. Since solar panels are cheap, simplify the mission, and the ESA has access to high-efficiency solar technology that can do the job, it makes sense to use them.
Your definition considers total mission failure, from a less lucky missed landing, an acceptable risk.
Of course it's an acceptable risk. If total mission failure were not an acceptable risk, then the mission would be too expensive to conduct.