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

Image of one:

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

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?

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 17:57:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Very few missions (none to date) have a need for thousands of watts.
Indeed, modern designs mean that most spacecraft need less and less
power to accomplish more science.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 19:04:21 -0700 (PDT), StarDust
wrote:

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.

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%!

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.

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.

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.


Strange that people moving from the US to Europe comment on how children
and young people have a freedom they don't have in the overprotective USA!

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 00:56:59 -0700 (PDT), 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%!

Nothing is 100% safe. But RTGs are designed to survive the rocket
exploding or disintegrating, and have done so in the past. Re-entry
from low orbit is likely to break them up. Launches with RTGs are over
the ocean, as well, so they're unlikely to end up in populated areas.
The total amount of radioactive material is pretty small, so a high
altitude breakup won't really pose much hazard.

Both the design of rocket-launched RTGs and the various launch and
orbital failures have been analyzed in great detail. Realistically,
the risk to anybody is extremely low.

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?