Calling Pluto a dwarf planet was not a bright idea. It seemed that it was a ploy to make news by the astronomers. To me any object that is apparently or approximately spherical (like earth) and orbits a star, is a planet. If Pluto is to be called a dwarf planet then compared to the outer gas giants all the inner planets should also be called dwarves. So, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and Pluto are the dwarf planets in the Solar system - according to this (il)logic. I recommend that this prefix be removed from the name of Pluto.
well, flying to such a rare opportunity alignment path that doesn't repeat itself very often, a case for two space vehicles with different instruments, I would have been happy spending tax dollars to do so. Who knows what is over there.
ta152h0 wrote:
well, flying to such a rare opportunity alignment path that doesn't repeat itself very often,
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
[c]Wolf Kotenberg needs to calm down![/c]
A Jupiter boost opportunity comes along about every 12 years.
NH actually missed the best shot two Jupiter orbits ago: Pluto perihelion 4,437,000,000 km / 29.657 AU (1989 Sep 05)
(And back then it would have been an actual planetary mission.)
ta152h0 wrote:
I would have been happy spending tax dollars to do so. Who knows what is over there.
The U.S. & Europe have had a high probability of getting the first shot to work.
NH will soon know what is "over there." (It just takes a little faith.)
ta152h0 wrote:well, flying to such a rare opportunity alignment path that doesn't repeat itself very often, a case for two space vehicles with different instruments, I would have been happy spending tax dollars to do so. Who knows what is over there.
Well, yes. But while we're at it, why not three vehicles with even more instruments? Or four?
Resources are limited. The mission was only possible at all because it was relatively inexpensive. Anything more would have pushed it into a different funding class, and we'd likely have ended up with no vehicles.