It's a little bit nitpicky, but I really wish technical people wouldn't generalize incorrectly:

"...maximizing the life of the MMRTG for more science and exploration down the road"

Will the MMRTG's plutonium decay more slowly if more electricity is used? No. So where's the value in generalizing poorly?

▲

zokier 8 days ago | parent | next [-]

More generous reading of the entire sentence would be that the usable life of the mmrtg is increased by improving the energy efficiency of the rover. The mmrtg power output is constantly decreasing, and so it is reasonable to say that the mmrtg reaches end of life when the power output is not enough to operate the rover. So that cutoff point depends on the power demands of the rover.

	▲	Intralexical 8 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah. There's nothing wrong with that statement. Reducing the minimum power required will obviously prolong the life of a system that has a monotonically decaying power supply. The problem with being nitpicky is that fixating on isolated/arbitrary details often just means missing the bigger picture in a way that's even more incorrect. Good for "gotchas", but not intellectually productive.

▲

hnuser123456 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, sloppy writing. They're maximizing how quickly they can complete tasks by multi-tasking and enter sleep mode sooner, reducing recharge time and reducing the amount of energy wasted on systems that are in active standby. They rediscovered race to idle.

	▲	imoverclocked 8 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think "rediscovered" is a bit dismissive. Upgrading software on a computer whose capabilities are akin to the state-of-the-art in the late 1990s and is 12-13 light minutes away is non-trivial. Also, no pressure because losing contact means the end of a whole team. I'm pretty sure they know a lot of things they could do but don't because the risk/reward ratio is too high... all without "rediscovering" it.

▲

colechristensen 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>I really wish technical people wouldn't generalize incorrectly

I really wish technical people from other fields wouldn't come in and nitpick so much when the meaning is obvious.

>Will the MMRTG's plutonium decay more slowly if more electricity is used?

Nobody would think this is what they meant.

▲

paulmooreparks 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

From the article:

> Providing ample power for the rovers’ many science instruments, MMRTGs are known for their longevity (the twin Voyager spacecraft have relied on RTGs since 1977). But as the plutonium decays over time, it takes longer to recharge Curiosity’s batteries, leaving less energy for science each day.

▲

protocolture 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>maximizing the life

Getting the most out of its life. Doing more science per time remaining. It reads fine to me.

	▲	8 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

Bluestein 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good point-

I guess in a way less overall consumption might prolong life? (heat, wear on the electronics ...)

▲

justinrubek 8 days ago | parent [-]

It could be that it prolongs the useful life by reducing the power needs such that it can be used for longer

	▲	Bluestein 8 days ago \| parent [-]
		This - we want the poor lonely thing to make it at least until we get there ourselves :)

▲

8 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]