"...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?
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.
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.
> 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.
Getting the most out of its life. Doing more science per time remaining. It reads fine to me.
I guess in a way less overall consumption might prolong life? (heat, wear on the electronics ...)