Left-wing envirokooks better not oppose this

Solar power SUCKS. Nuclear plutonium batteries in space probes are 1000x
better.

CNN:

The Nasa landers did plenty of science but did not see much of the planet
Continue reading the main story
Related stories

* Nasa Mars lander 'broken by ice'
* Nasa rides 'bucking bronco' to Mars
* Red Planet 'may not be lifeless'

Nuclear decay-driven machines could gather gases from the atmosphere of
Mars, giving future robotic missions leaps of a kilometre, researchers
say.

A design concept in Proceedings of the Royal Society A outlines an
approach to compress CO2 and liquefy it.

The liquid would then be heated much as in a standard rocket, expanding
violently into a gas to propel exploratory craft great distances.

The authors suggest this is a better strategy to see more of the Red
Planet.

While the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity provided far more data than
was initially planned, as vehicles that are powered by the sun and get
around on wheels, they are limited in their overall range of exploration.

For example, the Opportunity rover, which has been on the Martian surface
for nearly seven years, passed the 25-kilometre mark this week.

As a result, researchers have been looking into means of getting farther
with future robotic missions to Mars. Ideas including landers with wings
or lighter-than-atmosphere balloons have been proposed, or even
"inflatable tumbleweeds" that are blown across the landscape.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

Because you're collecting your propellant from the Martian atmosphere
you're not limited by having to take propellant out from Earth”

End Quote Hugo Williams University of Leicester

However, Hugo Williams and his colleagues at the University of Leicester
- working on the propulsion ideas for a lander project including the
aerospace giant Astrium - argue that a lander that can gather up its own
fuel is best.

At the heart of the idea is a radioisotope-based generator - a few-
kilogram piece of radioactive material that heats up as it regularly
spits out tiny subatomic particles.

"Nuclear batteries" employing the same principle have been in use in
long-term space missions since the Pioneer craft of the early 1970s.

In the proposed hopper design, heat from the decay is gathered and used
to run a compressor, collected the CO2-rich Martian atmosphere into a
tank and compressing it until it turns into a liquid.

Some of the heat is channeled to another block of material that is used
as a storage heater. When a boost is needed the liquid is allowed to
contact the block, quickly turning back into a gas and heating up.

When passed through a standard rocket nozzle, the expanding CO2 gas
provides thrust that can launch a lander and provide a soft landing when
it "hops" to its new locale.

"The advantage is that the radioisotope source is long-lived and not
dependent on solar energy," Dr Williams explained to BBC News.

"You can operate for a long time, and in areas of Mars where the amount
of sunlight is relatively small. Because you're collecting your
propellant from the Martian atmosphere you're not limited by having to
take propellant out from Earth."

The concept design would require a week to gather sufficient propellant
for a hop of about a kilometre, but eventual designs will accommodate the
needs of exploratory missions, pausing less or more time at each landing
site.

Rich wrote

Solar power SUCKS


But thankfully no one cares what I think anyway because I'm a toothless
old fool on welfare who has nothing to do all day but troll Usenet because
I have no money.


Did I add that I'm not fooling anyone by shifting nyms. I'm the same old
vile rightist kiddie diddler who is banned from entering the USA for his
felony convictions.

I'm just a crazy old nut case who is expresssing my frustration because
I'm just not intelligent or educated enough to understand the world around
me. The best job I ever had was pushing broom.


I'm an unemployable racist Canadain serial liar who makes **** up.


I'm a shiftless, unemployed, high school drop out junkie without a penny
to my name who spouts **** all day because I have no friends and nothing
else to do all day. All I wanna be is a Republican living in the USA,
but like the rest up here like me, I don't have the skills or the brains
to contribute to Canadian society, so why would US immigration want a
loser in life like me moving south?

Signed,

Richard Anderson,
Welfare Recipient
unemployed Canadian junkie, pathological liar and all around mental case.
Toronto, Ontario

aka: Get Lost, Kenniwick, Liberals are vermin, $24 Trillion, Realist,
Climate, Pogrom, "GW = B.S.", "... .- - .- -." Rastus, and a dozen other
stupid nyms I use because I'm lazy, on welfare and have nothing else to do
with my time all day and all night.



IP Address: 24.235.118.74


NetName: PRECISION-SALES
NetHandle: NET-24-235-118-72-1
Parent: NET-24-235-96-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
RegDate: 2009-06-23
Updated: 2009-06-23
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-24-235-118-72-1

CustName: PRECISION SALES NEWKIRK
Address: 20 VALLEYWOOD DR
City: MARKHAM
StateProv: ON
PostalCode: L3R-6G1
Country: CA
RegDate: 2009-06-23
Updated: 2009-06-23
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/customer/C02262535

OrgTechHandle: IPMAN-ARIN
OrgTechName: IP MANAGE
OrgTechPhone: +1-416-935-4729
OrgTechEmail: [Email Removed]
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/IPMAN-ARIN

OrgAbuseHandle: RHI9-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Rogers High-Speed Internet
OrgAbusePhone: +1-416-935-4729

You think hiding your I.D. and attempting to re-direc the response will
save you from them, John Ross Lambourn, retired, senile government leech
employee, living in Brampton, Ontario Canada?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Ross-..._fb_noscript=1

"Rich" wrote in message
...
| Solar power SUCKS.

Wind BLOWS.
"Rich" is a FART.


--
*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 19/08/10. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.

I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file ****wits like you.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and **** off.

On Nov 18, 12:37*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:59:48 -0600, Rich wrote:
Solar power SUCKS. *Nuclear plutonium batteries in space probes are 1000x
better. *

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.

On Nov 18, 12:28*pm, wrote:
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.

Buddy can you spare a gigabecquerel or two of of Caesium 137 for an
old veteran fallen on hard radiation times?

I served at Windscale and Chernobyl, you know. Drank the milk and ate
the glowing green sheep, I did, boyo.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Sir! You're a gent! :-)

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.

John Savard

On Nov 18, 10:50*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:28:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:
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.

I didn't say the engineers weren't aware of the potential dangers, nor
that they in any way had bad designs. I was only pointing out that
gadflies can actually provide some service in bringing these kinds of
things to the public eye

Innumeracy is still the affliction of the mentally weak. The
inability to appreciate the odds of an accident are so low they aren't
worth worrying about. Nitwits insist we go through terahertz airport
scanners and get patted down, all on the off chance that 1 in 350
MILLION might die in a terrorist act. If dying from any cause truly
worries anyone, then get the F--- out of your CARS because you have a
FAR higher chance of injury or death from that.

On Nov 18, 7:09*pm, wrote:

Innumeracy is still the affliction of the mentally weak. *The
inability to appreciate the odds of an accident are so low they aren't
worth worrying about. *Nitwits insist we go through terahertz airport
scanners and get patted down, all on the off chance that 1 in 350
MILLION might die in a terrorist act. *If dying from any cause truly
worries anyone, then get the F--- out of your CARS because you have a
FAR higher chance of injury or death from that.

How true!

Why aren't the managements of car companies in Guantanamo? Why not
the management of Coca Cola? Or MacLardys? Tobacco? Investment
bankers? Arms manufacturers? Sugar refiners? Cake makers? Ladder
makers? Electricity suppliers? Tree fellers? Drug companies kill
vastly more innocent civilians than 9/11. They all get off scot free
except those nasty oil-funder-mentals! Talk about damp squibs! Anyone
would think there was an alternative reality at work here.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html

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?