"Rosetta" risking astro science missions to be "politically-correct."

Rosetta is powered by solar panels. Because of this, it had to be put into hibernation for 3 YEARS because of lack of available power. Restart worked, but it just as easily might not have. If it had been powered by an RTG, this would not have been needed.

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

Although I'm inclined to be sympathetic to the viewpoint you're expressing on this issue, I'd need to look carefully into it before jumping to a conclusion.

An RTG is, of necessity, heavy; solar panels are lighter.

Also, this isn't just about political correctness; there is a valid safety issue, because rockets do blow up on the launch pad from time to time.

After all, if hundreds of lives are at risk, then the rocket would have to be even safer than one that was man-rated, a standard required when only the life of an astronaut is at risk.

Of course, that could have been dealt with by the suitable choice of a launch site.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

Although I'm inclined to be sympathetic to the viewpoint you're expressing
on this issue, I'd need to look carefully into it before jumping to a
conclusion.

An RTG is, of necessity, heavy; solar panels are lighter.

Also, this isn't just about political correctness; there is a valid safety
issue, because rockets do blow up on the launch pad from time to time.

After all, if hundreds of lives are at risk, then the rocket would have to
be even safer than one that was man-rated, a standard required when only the
life of an astronaut is at risk.

Of course, that could have been dealt with by the suitable choice of a
launch site.

John Savard
============================================
Rosetta was not needed until it reached its destination, so why not put it
to sleep?
What made me laugh was the graphics the Beeb used. It showed Rosetta going
into
orbit around the comet before landing and the newsreader referred to a
"speeding"
comet as if there was anything in the solar system that was at rest.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:02:37 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
Although I'm inclined to be sympathetic to the viewpoint you're expressing on this issue, I'd need to look carefully into it before jumping to a conclusion.

An RTG is, of necessity, heavy; solar panels are lighter.

Also, this isn't just about political correctness; there is a valid safety issue, because rockets do blow up on the launch pad from time to time.

After all, if hundreds of lives are at risk, then the rocket would have to be even safer than one that was man-rated, a standard required when only the life of an astronaut is at risk.

There have been several accidents involving RTGs already, including the one installed on the Apollo 13 Lunar Module, which re-entered the Earth's atmosphere at 25,000 MPH. There have been no known leakages from US RTGs.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 20:23:05 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Rosetta is powered by solar panels. Because of this, it had to be put into hibernation for 3 YEARS because of lack of available power. Restart worked, but it just as easily might not have. If it had been powered by an RTG, this would not have been needed.

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

RTG's are expensive, heavy, and poor choices for certain power usage
profiles. The choice of power source is complex, and depends on many
factors. That's how engineering works in general. You come across as
foolish voicing these dogmatic opinions when you have no idea at all
about the actual design process that was followed.