IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Michael Meyer, about Phoenix and MSL
punkboi
post Jun 23 2007, 07:15 PM
Post #31


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 540
Joined: 25-October 05
From: California
Member No.: 535



QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 23 2006, 02:43 AM) *
MSL will still have a battery, as all other RTG powered spacecraft have - to allow for peak power useage over and above the RTG output.

Doug


New Horizons doesn't have a battery...which is why I think it actually has to dissipate the excess RTG power that it doesn't need to run its systems and instruments

QUOTE (mchan @ Jun 23 2007, 01:16 AM)
SOne can count on the hardcore anti-nuke folks to be at the MSL launch.


Which is pretty funny...considering that all the recent RTG flights have provided some kind of significant discovery during their missions. Not to state the obvious:

Galileo (A possible ocean on Europa)
Cassini (Possible water activity on Enceladus, and maybe Dione)
New Horizons (the first flight to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt)

Not to jinx anything, but if these anti-nuke folks want to stop looking like a bunch of schmucks with lots of free times on their hands, try waiting for something to go wrong on the next RTG launch...and then protest the RTG launch that comes after that one. They'll look less foolish. smile.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Jun 23 2007, 08:12 PM
Post #32


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Well, the good thing, as Ed observed, is that UMSF RTGs are obviously drifting off the radar screens of these groups: the sky hasn't fallen, nor does such an event seem likely based on past performance. The entire issue is no longer a plausible casus bellum for them, and therefore also no longer a focus item except in token terms; good news.

Let's keep it that way...low visibilty has many advantages! wink.gif


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
David
post Jun 24 2007, 12:47 AM
Post #33


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 809
Joined: 11-March 04
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (nprev @ Jun 23 2007, 08:12 PM) *
The entire issue is no longer a plausible casus bellum for them


That seems very likely, but you've just hazarded the fury (ira) of the North American League of Latinists by incorrectly using the term casus belli, and their is not a power to be scorned (non contemnendum). biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Jun 24 2007, 08:16 PM
Post #34


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



QUOTE (nprev @ Jun 23 2007, 03:12 PM) *
Well, the good thing, as Ed observed, is that UMSF RTGs are obviously drifting off the radar screens of these groups: the sky hasn't fallen, nor does such an event seem likely based on past performance. The entire issue is no longer a plausible casus bellum for them, and therefore also no longer a focus item except in token terms; good news.

Let's keep it that way...low visibilty has many advantages! wink.gif

You really think UMSF use of RTGs, et al, has been successful and uneventful enough to push them off the anti-nuke crowd's radars? I will remind you that, in their last gasp at trying to look important to themselves, these same people INSISTED that Cassini be crashed in Saturn upon arrival instead of placed into orbit, since (they insisted) anything else meant that Cassini would eventually return to near-Earth space and pose a COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE RISK of a collision.

I'm not kidding.

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mchan
post Jun 25 2007, 05:35 AM
Post #35


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 599
Joined: 26-August 05
Member No.: 476



Something I had always wondered about regarding use of RTG on Earth flyby. If I recall correctly, the Europa Orbiter that was cancelled (c. 2001?) had to deal with tight launch mass contraints because it could not use an Earth flyby gravity assist. The EGE proposals in more recent OPAG studies have reverted to allowing an Earth flyby gravity assist.

Was there an edict from NASA HQ on no Earth flyby's for the earlier Europa Orbiter, and, if so, has this been rescinded so proposals like EGE are feasible from a launch mass constraint perspective? Furthermore, if there had been such an edict, how did it come into being, and how did it get rescinded?

(Mod: How about moving all RTG posts to a separate thread?)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th March 2024 - 02:54 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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.