New Horizons Arrives At Ksc |
New Horizons Arrives At Ksc |
Sep 26 2005, 09:56 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 13-March 05 Member No.: 191 |
NASA Press Release
APL press release Space.com Article Coming up... October: communications checks November: hydrazine loading and Atlas V countdown rehearsal December: integration with Atlas V January: LAUNCH! No pictures on the KSC webcams yet. But still pictures here. Is that the flight RTG attached to the spacecraft? Or just a dummy? |
|
|
Sep 28 2005, 03:33 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1636 Joined: 9-May 05 From: Lima, Peru Member No.: 385 |
I will put anything nuclear information from NH spacecraft here to clear any doubts and any missleading about the nuclear worries:
Designed for Safety More than 40 years have been invested in the engineering, analysis and testing of RTGs. As described below, safety features of an RTG include the use of a specific type of fuel material, a modular design and construction and the use of multiple physical barriers. The plutonium dioxide fuel contained in RTGs is a specially formulated fire-resistant ceramic that is manufactured as pellets to reduce the possibility of fuel dispersion in a launch or reentry accident. This ceramic form resists dissolution in water and reacts little with other chemicals. If fractured, the ceramic tends to break into relatively large particles and chunks that pose fewer hazards than small, microscopic particles. Multiple layers of protective materials, including iridium capsules and high-strength graphite blocks, protect and contain the fuel and reduce the chance of release of the plutonium dioxide. Iridium, a strong, ductile, corrosion-resistant metal with a very high melting temperature, encases each fuel pellet. Impact shells made of lightweight and highly heat-resistant graphite provide additional protection. Each RTG contains 18 heat source modules with four plutonium dioxide pellets in each module. There are two plutonium dioxide pellets in each graphite impact shell, and two graphite impact shells go into each heat source module. The figure below shows part of a heat source stack within the RTG. Risk Assessment and Launch Approval Any mission that plans to use an RTG as a power source undergoes a safety analysis carried out by the Department of Energy (DoE). The safety analysis report provides a comprehensive assessment of the potential consequences of a broad range of possible launch accidents. In addition to the DOE review, an ad hoc Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel (INSRP), which is supported by experts from government, industry and academia, is established as part of a Presidential nuclear safety launch approval process to evaluate the safety analysis report prepared by DOE. Based upon the INSRP evaluation and recommendations by DOE and other Federal agencies, NASA may then submit a request for nuclear safety launch approval to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The OSTP Director (i.e., the President’s science adviser) may make the nuclear safety launch decision or refer the matter to the President. In either case, the launch cannot proceed until nuclear safety launch approval has been granted. RTGs can provide continuous power in regions of space where the use of solar power is not feasible. Over the past 40 years, RTGs have been used safely and reliably on 25 missions, including six Apollo flights to the moon, two Pioneer spacecraft to Jupiter and Saturn, two Mars Viking landers, two Voyager missions to the outer planets, the Galileo mission to Jupiter, the Ulysses mission to the Sun’s poles, and the Cassini- Huygens mission to Saturn. Long reliability. Rodolfo |
|
|
Guest_Richard Trigaux_* |
Sep 28 2005, 05:38 PM
Post
#3
|
Guests |
QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Sep 28 2005, 03:33 PM) The plutonium dioxide fuel contained in RTGs is a specially formulated fire-resistant ceramic that is manufactured as pellets to reduce the possibility of fuel dispersion in a launch or reentry accident. This ceramic form resists dissolution in water and reacts little with other chemicals. If fractured, the ceramic tends to break into relatively large particles and chunks that pose fewer hazards than small, microscopic particles. Multiple layers of protective materials, including iridium capsules and high-strength graphite blocks, protect and contain the fuel and reduce the chance of release of the plutonium dioxide. Iridium, a strong, ductile, corrosion-resistant metal with a very high melting temperature, encases each fuel pellet. Impact shells made of lightweight and highly heat-resistant graphite provide additional protection. Thanks RNeuhaus for your informations. So it seems that the maximum possible precautions were taken: -plutonium ceramics cannot disperse in dust., even when broken or exposed to fire -iridium-graphite casing can withstand the heat of any rocket explosion. (Irridium 2454°C graphite more than 3000°C) -iridium casing will not rust if fallen in a ocean or place difficult to reach such as a rain-foret. The policy being, of course, in such a case where a very large risk is involved, to envision the worse case as BEING TO HAPPEN and avoid any nasty effect even in this case. So I suppose that the worse possible accident was envisioned. The worse case here is a re-entry at more than 11km/s, from a trajectory error in a gravitationnal assistance manoeuver using Earth. In this case the atmospheric braking flame is theoretically hot enough to melt irridium and the ceramics, which would form droplets and eventually dust. But I hope the guies are not dumb and they envisioned this case, where anyway the flame is only during a given time, so that it has other things to grind before reaching the plutonium. Anyway if a RTG was to fall on the ground, it would be a maximum alert for the local police to avoid ignorant or malevolent people to take away the parts. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 1st November 2024 - 12:34 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |