On Nov 18, 10:12*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Nov 18, 4:28*am, wrote:





On Nov 18, 12:37*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
That is a lousy generalization. Which is best depends entirely on the
specific mission goals. Many spacecraft use these sorts of nuclear power
generators. They are regularly opposed by a very small contingent of
extremists, who are not characteristic of most people who are concerned
about environmental responsibility. AFAIK, these folks have never
derailed or even stalled a mission. They may even provide a service, by
providing some pressure that ensures these things really are designed to
survive a launch failure.

LOL.

There were several accidents involving nuclear-equipped spacecraft
with what seem to have been, in retrospect, benign outcomes WRT
nuclear contamination. *These occurred before the Cassini and New
Horizons protests. The engineers were well aware of potential dangers
and designed accordingly, without input from the protesters.

LOL? I don't see the contradiction between what you posted and what he
posted. Both of you seem to agree that the protesters are mistaken,
and what each of you has said appears to be reasonable and factual.


Read the section called Safety / Radioactive Contamination:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiois... contamination

The Apollo 13 LEM reentered the atmosphere at 25,000 MPH. The RTG that
was part of the ALSEP survived reentry and is intact on the sea
floor. This happened years before it became fashionable for eco-
freaks to protest the launching of RTGs, so it is utter nonsense to
suggest that these protests inspired good design.

Does that clear it up for you?