A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Solar power hobbles another spacecraft? (The comet lander crippled)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 14th 14, 04:33 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default 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  
Old November 14th 14, 11:21 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default 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  
Old November 14th 14, 05:34 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old November 15th 14, 01:16 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default 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  
Old November 15th 14, 01:18 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default 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  
Old November 15th 14, 01:25 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old November 15th 14, 07:41 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 553
Default 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  
Old November 15th 14, 11:59 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default 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  
Old November 15th 14, 12:01 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default 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  
Old November 15th 14, 04:20 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Comet lander (delayed) TV coverage in UK? N_Cook UK Astronomy 13 November 14th 14 03:03 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 05:55 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 03:39 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.