No it won’t, it will have melted 3 years before it gets there. 'first-ever images of Sun’s elusive poles (‘elusive’ WTF?). I don’t think so - NASA must think we were all born yesterday . . . but then, there are signs, even here on PB, that some of us might have been, but no names, no packdrill who they are of course.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00365-1
(is there no end to this nonsense?)
This must be a new version of the old joke about the Polish expedition to the sun, the plan is to go at night.
Makes sense though - it’s always a bit cooler at night?
Mercury, so close to the sun, is covered with ice. So the temp there isn’t necessarily high.
What, you’ve been there? How TF can a planet close to the sun be cold ffs!! Get a bloody grip Didge? 
Mercury is not covered with ice, stop lying.
There is some ice in deep crevasses near the poles where sunlight never reaches, that’s it.
The hottest surface temps on Mercury are only about 400c /750F which is nowhere near hot enough to melt the satellite.
FFS forget Mercury - the OP asserts that the ‘probe’ ( ) will melt long before it gets anywhere near the sun - which is what the topic is all about??
It isn’t supposed to get any closer than Mercury is to the sun.
Read your own cited article.
Read the headline? It doesn’t mention Mercury.
“Article” not “Headline”.
On 9 February, the €500-million (US$550-million) Solar Orbiter spacecraft will launch from Cape Canaveral in Florida. Equipped with ten instruments, it will journey to Mercury’s orbit in the first stage of a mission that could last ten years.
Obviously you didn’t read the article you cited.
No I didn’t because I don’t waste my time reading drivel dreamed up by PR wonks at the space agencies. The project is apropos the sun, and Mercury doesn’t get a mention in the headline - nor in the BBC reportage of the nonsense for that matter . . . although the BBC is instrumental in dumbing down as well as NASA, and that’s what this space fake news is all about. One day you’ll wake up and smell it. I mean ‘Solar Orbiter’. the clue’s in the name?
It’s the article you cited.
All you’re showing here is that your knowledge is and always will be limited by the fact you’re too lazy to read past a headline and incapable of grasping anything that isn’t in large block letters.
Whatever the excuse, Mercury is frozen. Period.
https://www.space.com/18695-water-ice-mercury-explained-infographic.html
You’re lying, period.
The only ice is at the poles in deep crevices and craters where the sun never reaches according to your own cited article as well as every other article written by any credible source.
https://www.space.com/27450-messenger-mercury-water-ice-photos.html
Oh yeah? Have you been to Malaysia?
Is there permanent ice in the valleys where the sun never shines?
Malaysia is not at either of the poles, it’s in the tropics and gets sunshine 365 days a year.
Haha, North Pole or South Pole gets sunshine six months in a year and yet it’s damned cold.
Mercury is sooooooooooooooooo close to the sun and yet it’s that cold. Use your head for a change.
Mercury has no seasonal tilt and no atmosphere.3
https://www.windows2universe.org/mercury/mercury_polar_regions.html
You’re just babbling like a fool again.