Because its the latest cause celebre' for leftists.
Now see, THIS, gentlemen, is how to sling bullshit. Please make a note of it.
In this case I would say it was pretty sure that's what happened, but only because it was already alone.
I would expect life would flourish where the exploitable energy exists, and be more diverse where there is more of it.
And the blackjack
What the heck are you talking about? It was an orbiter mission, still in operation, with a 60-hour lander mission, that happened mostly as intended.
Computer guys have a very dangerous tendency to think that because they can fix Mom's computer, and people are always asking for their help, that they are somehow much sharper than the regular person. All it really means is that they have some specific information that others lack. This leads to the absolutely sickening arrogance you see exhibited here all the time,
No, it has nothing to do with that. The Nuclear Test Ban treaty prohibits nuclear bomb tests, it doesn't care about radioactive materials directly.
Maybe. The problem is that it will have been cold soaked for 7 or so months down to maybe -250 to -350f. I doubt that it was qualified to that, probably more like --100f at the most (least?). The kind of cold we are talking about can destroy just about any electronics.
I get the mission design, and I think most people here get the idea, too. But ESA seems to have missed the boat on the PR and public affairs front.
The demise of the lander after a complete primary mission is being portrayed as a huge failure. As near as I can tell, it did exactly what it was supposed to do for about as long as it was supposed to. Anything beyond that was "if possible".
Additionally, the mission is being shown as a "lander mission" instead of an orbiter with a small lander tacked on. Rosetta is still doing the mission as intended, and most of the objectives are being met very nicely. I see all sorts of comments in the press (and particularly in the European media and media comments section) as another Beagle "cock-up".
I think it's a very nicely done mission that is working very well. It's a shame that it is not coming across like that.
No, the parent post was talking about a radioisotope thermal generator that works by using the decay heat to drive a thermocouple and generate electricity.
That would likely not have been a good idea for this tiny lander, because the RTG and the safety devices that would be required by the anti-nucular idiots would have made it unfeasible.
It would have been an absolutely ideal application for a RHU - radioisotope heater unit, that doesn't bother generating electricity - you just attach it to the part you want to keep warm. The problem here is not so much electricity, it's the electricity required to keep it warm enough to survive.
If you heat it directly, it may still go on and off from inadequate power, but it won't die the first time it cools off too much. When it has enough power to run the instruments and charge the battery, then you can get data, and it stays alive the rest of the time. You can get the data later, if necessary - it's not likely to be going anywhere, at least not on purpose.
Nice parenting skills. What the hell is a 5-year-old doing screwing around with computer code or "skills"? Give him a damn baseball or something.
That's possible, but the real issue is that the electronics are likely to be damaged by extremely cold temperatures.
True, but of course the reason there is no interest is that it is not liable to be economically viable. The existing high-speed rail in the US is largely in the Northeast corridor because it can make money there. The proposed California high-speed rail (currently only planned to run between about Taft and Pixley) is a make-work project that has no potential for ever recouping the cost. That's the case for the vast majority of the US, there wouldn't be enough traffic and passengers to make it return the cost of building it and the astronomical cost of maintaining thousands of miles of high-speed rail.
Im sorry, I have to disagree. Sure, many of them will starve to death, but at least they won't have their precious bodily fluids polluted with whatever bad thing GM seeds supposedly might produce, or not.
I base this opinion on solid scientific information gleaned from extensive late-night conspiracy radio shows. Besides, Monsanto!
Good tip! If only there was someplace to go, maybe on the intarwebs, that would just tell me what I should hate without the trouble of thinking for myself. At least until I develop the proper reflexive hatred for myself.