|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Solar power hobbles another spacecraft? (The comet lander crippled)
So the probe will only last for a couple days now, because it landed such that the crappy solar panels only get 90mins of sun per day, not enough to keep it alive. Imagine if they'd used an RTG instead. Then, they it might last for YEARS, much like the magnificent Cassini spacecraft at Saturn. I know Plutonium and other transuranics are expensive, and how the radical leftist environmental SCUM would like to eliminate them, but the fact is, there is NO alternative in a power-starved, freezing environment lacking much sunlight.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Solar power hobbles another spacecraft? (The comet lander crippled)
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:33:40 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
So the probe will only last for a couple days now, because it landed such that the crappy solar panels only get 90mins of sun per day, not enough to keep it alive. Imagine if they'd used an RTG instead. Then, they it might last for YEARS, much like the magnificent Cassini spacecraft at Saturn. I know Plutonium and other transuranics are expensive, and how the radical leftist environmental SCUM would like to eliminate them, but the fact is, there is NO alternative in a power-starved, freezing environment lacking much sunlight. Pu-238 is in short supply... there might not be any point in wasting it on a comet mission until all of the bugs are worked out of such missions. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Solar power hobbles another spacecraft? (The comet lander crippled)
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:33:38 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: So the probe will only last for a couple days now, because it landed such that the crappy solar panels only get 90mins of sun per day, not enough to keep it alive. Imagine if they'd used an RTG instead. Then, they it might last for YEARS, much like the magnificent Cassini spacecraft at Saturn. I know Plutonium and other transuranics are expensive, and how the radical leftist environmental SCUM would like to eliminate them, but the fact is, there is NO alternative in a power-starved, freezing environment lacking much sunlight. Practically nobody is opposed to using RTGs. But that doesn't make them the technology of choice for every application. That would have been a poor engineering decision in this case. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Solar power hobbles another spacecraft? (The comet lander crippled)
On Friday, November 14, 2014 11:34:27 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:33:38 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: So the probe will only last for a couple days now, because it landed such that the crappy solar panels only get 90mins of sun per day, not enough to keep it alive. Imagine if they'd used an RTG instead. Then, they it might last for YEARS, much like the magnificent Cassini spacecraft at Saturn. I know Plutonium and other transuranics are expensive, and how the radical leftist environmental SCUM would like to eliminate them, but the fact is, there is NO alternative in a power-starved, freezing environment lacking much sunlight. Practically nobody is opposed to using RTGs. But that doesn't make them the technology of choice for every application. That would have been a poor engineering decision in this case. Why? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Solar power hobbles another spacecraft? (The comet lander crippled)
On Friday, November 14, 2014 5:21:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:33:40 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote: So the probe will only last for a couple days now, because it landed such that the crappy solar panels only get 90mins of sun per day, not enough to keep it alive. Imagine if they'd used an RTG instead. Then, they it might last for YEARS, much like the magnificent Cassini spacecraft at Saturn. I know Plutonium and other transuranics are expensive, and how the radical leftist environmental SCUM would like to eliminate them, but the fact is, there is NO alternative in a power-starved, freezing environment lacking much sunlight. Pu-238 is in short supply... there might not be any point in wasting it on a comet mission until all of the bugs are worked out of such missions. You can use other isotopes. Strontium, Polonium, Americium. The Russians used $10M worth or Polonium to kill that dissident, they could have spared some. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Solar power hobbles another spacecraft? (The comet lander crippled)
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:16:56 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: Practically nobody is opposed to using RTGs. But that doesn't make them the technology of choice for every application. That would have been a poor engineering decision in this case. Why? Because of mass constraints. Because of budget constraints. Because of risk versus benefit analysis. These things are real. Every design is a balance of engineering decisions. Believe it or not, the scientists and engineers who design these missions know what they're doing. Where is your source of information to second guess them? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Solar power hobbles another spacecraft? (The comet lander crippled)
On Friday, November 14, 2014 7:25:54 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:16:56 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: Practically nobody is opposed to using RTGs. But that doesn't make them the technology of choice for every application. That would have been a poor engineering decision in this case. Why? Because of mass constraints. Because of budget constraints. Because of risk versus benefit analysis. These things are real. Every design is a balance of engineering decisions. Believe it or not, the scientists and engineers who design these missions know what they're doing. Where is your source of information to second guess them? Risk? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Solar power hobbles another spacecraft? (The comet lander crippled)
On Friday, November 14, 2014 7:18:21 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
You can use other isotopes. Strontium, Polonium, Americium. The Russians used $10M worth or Polonium to kill that dissident, they could have spared some. OK then, what would a Po RTG look like for a 10-year mission? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Solar power hobbles another spacecraft? (The comet lander crippled)
On Friday, November 14, 2014 7:25:54 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Believe it or not, the scientists and engineers who design these missions know what they're doing. We can tell: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...nder-hop-comet |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Solar power hobbles another spacecraft? (The comet lander crippled)
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:41:30 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: Risk? Sure. Because of the unknowns in this situation, there was a very high risk of failure of the Philae component regardless of how much money was thrown at it. That's why the primary science goals were all built around the Rosetta spacecraft, and that's where most of the budget was allocated. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Comet lander (delayed) TV coverage in UK? | N_Cook | UK Astronomy | 13 | November 14th 14 02:03 PM |
Rosetta, what a waste! (Solar power = hobble the spacecraft) | Rich[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | September 4th 11 06:33 PM |
Why nuclear power is better = solar power stinks | Rich[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 29 | November 18th 08 04:55 AM |
now (with new data and images) my Altair lunar lander article isa true and detailed analysis of this spacecraft | gaetanomarano | Policy | 9 | March 11th 08 02:39 PM |
The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft is expected to discover its 1,000TH comet this summer | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | July 7th 05 04:14 AM |