RTG's generate thousands of watts and this is what spacecraft needbeyond Mars with meaningful probes

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 9:20:42 AM UTC-7, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 3:41:45 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 3:57:01 AM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 10:00:26 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 5:57:21 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Image of one:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...easurement.jpg

What if it explodes after launch, in earths atmosphere and falls back on to a major city?
Deja vu, Chernobyl 2?

RTGs are relatively safe to launch. But they are heavy as a
consequence of that, and they are more expensive to launch because of
extra precautions that need to be taken.

How safe, when the launch rocket blows?
They're not 100%!

People who want 100% safety should move to Europe where "concerned" bureaucrats have killed all innovation with their overly-paranoid safety fears.

Would you say that European cars are some of the best ever designed? How about machine tools? Can you tell me of the leading machine tool companies if any of them are US or Canadian?

Many US companies moved overseas , cost is too high to manufacture here, specially lower cost or manually intensive items. US keeps mfg. that needs high capital investment. Even cars, labeled made in the USA, only require 70% of the parts to be US made.
Last 30 years, I only owned Japanese or German cars. At present, I have a BMW 525 and VW EuroVan!

On Sunday, 24 July 2016 05:52:04 UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Sunday, 24 July 2016 10:41:45 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

People who want 100% safety should move to Europe where "concerned" bureaucrats have killed all innovation with their overly-paranoid safety fears..

Objection! Unsubstantiated speculation, M'Lud.

European safety regulations allow them to ban things or restrict their use despite no proof being offered they are actually harmful. Just suspecting a substance "might" be harmful is enough to receive a ban in Europe whereas in most countries, you actually have to show a causal link between a product and an effect.
Everything is impacted from downturns in crop production to the cost of complex equipment produced in Europe.

On Sunday, 24 July 2016 12:20:42 UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 3:41:45 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 3:57:01 AM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 10:00:26 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 5:57:21 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Image of one:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...easurement.jpg

What if it explodes after launch, in earths atmosphere and falls back on to a major city?
Deja vu, Chernobyl 2?

RTGs are relatively safe to launch. But they are heavy as a
consequence of that, and they are more expensive to launch because of
extra precautions that need to be taken.

How safe, when the launch rocket blows?
They're not 100%!

People who want 100% safety should move to Europe where "concerned" bureaucrats have killed all innovation with their overly-paranoid safety fears.

Would you say that European cars are some of the best ever designed? How about machine tools? Can you tell me of the leading machine tool companies if any of them are US or Canadian?

Worst reliability cars in the world: (One Mercedes is in the top-10 best)
http://www.reliabilityindex.com/

Position Make/Model
Reliability Rating
1 BMW M5 751.00
2 Nissan GT-R 629.00
3 Bentley Continental GT 526.00
4 Mercedes-Benz GL 522.00
5 Citroen C6 519.00
6 Mercedes-Benz R-Class 490.00
7 Audi Q7 463.00
8 BMW M3 429.00
9 BMW 7 Series 422.00
10 Mercedes-Benz M-Class 411.00

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 24 July 2016 12:20:42 UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 3:41:45 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 3:57:01 AM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 10:00:26 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 5:57:21 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Image of one:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...easurement.jpg

What if it explodes after launch, in earths atmosphere and falls back on to a major city?
Deja vu, Chernobyl 2?

RTGs are relatively safe to launch. But they are heavy as a
consequence of that, and they are more expensive to launch because of
extra precautions that need to be taken.

How safe, when the launch rocket blows?
They're not 100%!

People who want 100% safety should move to Europe where "concerned" bureaucrats have killed all innovation with their overly-paranoid safety fears.

Would you say that European cars are some of the best ever designed? How about machine tools? Can you tell me of the leading machine tool companies if any of them are US or Canadian?

Worst reliability cars in the world: (One Mercedes is in the top-10 best)
http://www.reliabilityindex.com/

Position Make/Model
Reliability Rating
1 BMW M5 751.00
2 Nissan GT-R 629.00
3 Bentley Continental GT 526.00
4 Mercedes-Benz GL 522.00
5 Citroen C6 519.00
6 Mercedes-Benz R-Class 490.00
7 Audi Q7 463.00
8 BMW M3 429.00
9 BMW 7 Series 422.00
10 Mercedes-Benz M-Class 411.00

LOL! I've never seen BMW's and Mercedes broken down on the side of the highway?
Now, Audi is a different animal, basically made by VW!

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 10:43:44 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 24 July 2016 12:20:42 UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 3:41:45 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 3:57:01 AM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 10:00:26 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 5:57:21 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Image of one:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...easurement.jpg

What if it explodes after launch, in earths atmosphere and falls back on to a major city?
Deja vu, Chernobyl 2?

RTGs are relatively safe to launch. But they are heavy as a
consequence of that, and they are more expensive to launch because of
extra precautions that need to be taken.

How safe, when the launch rocket blows?
They're not 100%!

People who want 100% safety should move to Europe where "concerned" bureaucrats have killed all innovation with their overly-paranoid safety fears.

Would you say that European cars are some of the best ever designed? How about machine tools? Can you tell me of the leading machine tool companies if any of them are US or Canadian?

Worst reliability cars in the world: (One Mercedes is in the top-10 best)
http://www.reliabilityindex.com/

Position Make/Model
Reliability Rating
1 BMW M5 751.00
2 Nissan GT-R 629.00
3 Bentley Continental GT 526.00
4 Mercedes-Benz GL 522.00
5 Citroen C6 519.00
6 Mercedes-Benz R-Class 490.00
7 Audi Q7 463.00
8 BMW M3 429.00
9 BMW 7 Series 422.00
10 Mercedes-Benz M-Class 411.00

Than, I've seen a car repair video on YT, where the Ford truck had a problem, turned out the plastic intake manifold, I repeat - Plastic intake manifold - had some valves stuck and needed to be replaced. LOL!

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 10:41:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 July 2016 05:52:04 UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Sunday, 24 July 2016 10:41:45 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

People who want 100% safety should move to Europe where "concerned" bureaucrats have killed all innovation with their overly-paranoid safety fears.

Objection! Unsubstantiated speculation, M'Lud.

European safety regulations allow them to ban things or restrict their use despite no proof being offered they are actually harmful. Just suspecting a substance "might" be harmful is enough to receive a ban in Europe whereas in most countries, you actually have to show a causal link between a product and an effect.

Sounds like good policy as a rule. They still weigh costs and
benefits.

On Sunday, 24 July 2016 15:07:15 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 10:41:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 July 2016 05:52:04 UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Sunday, 24 July 2016 10:41:45 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

People who want 100% safety should move to Europe where "concerned" bureaucrats have killed all innovation with their overly-paranoid safety fears.

Objection! Unsubstantiated speculation, M'Lud.

European safety regulations allow them to ban things or restrict their use despite no proof being offered they are actually harmful. Just suspecting a substance "might" be harmful is enough to receive a ban in Europe whereas in most countries, you actually have to show a causal link between a product and an effect.

Sounds like good policy as a rule. They still weigh costs and
benefits.

How is this any different than a religious society worried that advancement will send everyone to Hell?

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 5:34:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 24 July 2016 15:07:15 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 10:41:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 July 2016 05:52:04 UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Sunday, 24 July 2016 10:41:45 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

People who want 100% safety should move to Europe where "concerned" bureaucrats have killed all innovation with their overly-paranoid safety fears.

Objection! Unsubstantiated speculation, M'Lud.

European safety regulations allow them to ban things or restrict their use despite no proof being offered they are actually harmful. Just suspecting a substance "might" be harmful is enough to receive a ban in Europe whereas in most countries, you actually have to show a causal link between a product and an effect.

Sounds like good policy as a rule. They still weigh costs and
benefits.

How is this any different than a religious society worried that advancement will send everyone to Hell?

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?
Mark 8:36

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 17:34:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 July 2016 15:07:15 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 10:41:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 July 2016 05:52:04 UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Sunday, 24 July 2016 10:41:45 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

People who want 100% safety should move to Europe where "concerned" bureaucrats have killed all innovation with their overly-paranoid safety fears.

Objection! Unsubstantiated speculation, M'Lud.

European safety regulations allow them to ban things or restrict their use despite no proof being offered they are actually harmful. Just suspecting a substance "might" be harmful is enough to receive a ban in Europe whereas in most countries, you actually have to show a causal link between a product and an effect.

Sounds like good policy as a rule. They still weigh costs and
benefits.

How is this any different than a religious society worried that advancement will send everyone to Hell?

Because the policy process is rational. They don't just go around
banning things. There has to be evidence of potential harm. Then they
weigh that potential harm against the benefits. And if the risk is too
high, they're willing to ban or restrict. That is just good sense. A
burden of proving harm is not.

On Monday, 25 July 2016 03:53:59 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 17:34:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 July 2016 15:07:15 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 10:41:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 24 July 2016 05:52:04 UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Sunday, 24 July 2016 10:41:45 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

People who want 100% safety should move to Europe where "concerned" bureaucrats have killed all innovation with their overly-paranoid safety fears.

Objection! Unsubstantiated speculation, M'Lud.

European safety regulations allow them to ban things or restrict their use despite no proof being offered they are actually harmful. Just suspecting a substance "might" be harmful is enough to receive a ban in Europe whereas in most countries, you actually have to show a causal link between a product and an effect.

Sounds like good policy as a rule. They still weigh costs and
benefits.

How is this any different than a religious society worried that advancement will send everyone to Hell?

Because the policy process is rational. They don't just go around
banning things. There has to be evidence of potential harm. Then they
weigh that potential harm against the benefits. And if the risk is too
high, they're willing to ban or restrict. That is just good sense. A
burden of proving harm is not.

What he said.

Harm is often hidden by huge legal and lobbying budgets spread over decades..

Provided the banning process can be bogged down by the ambulance chasers and lobbyists the bottom line remains healthy.

By the time the substance is finally banned it has been milked of all its easy profits.

It is as near to business corruption as you are ever likely to find.

Millions die but [big] business goes on forever.