A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft Is Proposed for Voyage to Jupiter Moons



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 18th 03, 12:50 AM
Tony Sivori
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft Is Proposed for Voyage to Jupiter Moons

And are you ready for this - it would be called the JIMO! :-)

The craft would be a radical departure in that it will be equipped with a
nuclear reactor, instead of nuclear batteries. Power output would be about
1000 times higher than the nuclear battery method.

This opens exciting new possibilities for both power hungry sensors like
ground penetrating radar, and the unprecedented possibility of orbiting
one moon and then moving to another of Jupiter's moons at will (orbital
mechanics permitting, of course). The reactor will power an ion drive that
would be about 10 times more powerful than Deep Space One's drive.

Full article at NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/sc...UPI.html?8hpib

--
Tony Sivori

  #2  
Old December 18th 03, 04:41 AM
LooseChanj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft Is Proposed for Voyage to Jupiter Moons

On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:50:33 -0800 (PST), Tony Sivori
made the sensational claim that:
And are you ready for this - it would be called the JIMO! :-)


Ok, we know. We've known for ages. We've associated this acronym with a
regular poster to this group for ages. We're gonna end up jinxing the mission.
:-P
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

  #3  
Old December 18th 03, 06:25 AM
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft Is Proposed for Voyage to Jupiter Moons

And are you ready for this - it would be called the JIMO! :-)

The key thing here is "$8 billion".

Compare with the RTG powered missions at
http://centauri.larc.nasa.gov/newfrontiers/ for $700 million a pop.

Other links on JIMO:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGON3J5RN1.DTL
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/jimo/

  #4  
Old December 19th 03, 02:04 PM
Tony Sivori
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft Is Proposed for Voyage to Jupiter Moons

Jim Kingdon wrote:

And are you ready for this - it would be called the JIMO! :-)


The key thing here is "$8 billion".


Hey, that's quite a bargain compared to $87 Billion (for starters) to pull
a deposed despot out of a hole in the ground.


Compare with the RTG powered missions at
http://centauri.larc.nasa.gov/newfrontiers/ for $700 million a pop.

Other links on JIMO:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGON3J5RN1.DTL
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/jimo/


Thanks for the links.

--
Tony Sivori

  #5  
Old December 19th 03, 03:39 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft Is Proposed for Voyage to Jupiter Moons

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:04:39 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Tony Sivori made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Jim Kingdon wrote:

And are you ready for this - it would be called the JIMO! :-)


The key thing here is "$8 billion".


Hey, that's quite a bargain compared to $87 Billion (for starters) to pull
a deposed despot out of a hole in the ground.


We're getting much more than that for the money.

  #6  
Old December 19th 03, 08:29 PM
LooseChanj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft Is Proposed for Voyage to Jupiter Moons

On or about Fri, 19 Dec 2003 06:39:19 -0800 (PST), Rand Simberg made the sensational claim that:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:04:39 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Tony Sivori made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
Hey, that's quite a bargain compared to $87 Billion (for starters) to pull
a deposed despot out of a hole in the ground.


We're getting much more than that for the money.


Like what? And don't even think about saying anything along the lines of
"a safer world".
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

  #7  
Old December 24th 03, 06:46 PM
Remy Villeneuve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft Is Proposed for Voyage toJupiter Moons

LooseChanj wrote in message . com...
On or about Fri, 19 Dec 2003 06:39:19 -0800 (PST), Rand Simberg made the sensational claim that:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:04:39 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Tony Sivori made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
Hey, that's quite a bargain compared to $87 Billion (for starters) to pull
a deposed despot out of a hole in the ground.


We're getting much more than that for the money.


Like what? And don't even think about saying anything along the lines of
"a safer world".


Quality programming on CNN ??

  #9  
Old December 28th 03, 04:36 PM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft Is Proposed for Voyage to Jupiter Moons

Tony Rusi wrote:


We were thinking about a new anti-war bumper sticker: "Saddam is
boring! Change the Channel!"


Yeah, that sounds about right. The anti-war/pro-Saddam crowd never
really wanted to focus any attention on him...


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

  #10  
Old March 4th 04, 07:23 PM
sharpthoughts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft Is Proposed for Voyage to Jupiter Moons

Whatever We're getting for the money, $8 billion is more than half the
annual NASA budget. The armed forces have a few more pennies than that to
play with. BTW if we do build a nuclear reactor powered Jupiter boat,
should we be using MPD rather ion drives? They're supposed to be much more
efficient at higher powers than ion, and they could scoop hydrogen from
Jupiter to refuel.
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:04:39 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Tony Sivori made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Jim Kingdon wrote:

And are you ready for this - it would be called the JIMO! :-)

The key thing here is "$8 billion".


Hey, that's quite a bargain compared to $87 Billion (for starters) to

pull
a deposed despot out of a hole in the ground.


We're getting much more than that for the money.


 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:13 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.