My Assistant
Batteries, What if they're "broken" |
Sep 7 2005, 01:48 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 290 Joined: 26-March 04 From: Edam, The Netherlands Member No.: 65 |
I was wondering: since (especially Spirit) dust accumulation isn't a big concern anymore nowadays, we come to the next vulnerable part of the rovers, being their batteries (which has been discussed some months ago in another thread).
I read that it could take a 1000 load-reload cycles before their capacity declines. Now, suppose that the batteries are history by sol 1000 and they don't have any capacity left: then what ? Would the rover be dead ? Or would it boot up at sunrise again every morning and be able to do any science or driving solely on the array output ? And could this mean that not even the batteries are a possible fatal malfunction (and thus, the rovers could still continue to stay in touch) ? In that case, this mission could continue well beyond any expectation we all have. A potential fatal breakdown of a cricial (not redundant) part could take many years litterally. Especially thinking about the semiconductors that are so tough, cabling that has been made for the environment up there, everything prooved to be so sustaining, that it gets quite hard to think of anything that ends it right away. They work, they prooved to work for muuuuuuch longer than expected and there's no RTG that can run out of energy. I want MSL to have arrays. And i want it to land in a windy place. |
|
|
|
Marcel Batteries Sep 7 2005, 01:48 PM
chuckyvt I'm pretty sure I remember reading somewhere a... Sep 7 2005, 02:12 PM
tty QUOTE (chuckyvt @ Sep 7 2005, 04:12 PM)I... Sep 7 2005, 04:59 PM
RNeuhaus A new technology, nanotubes carbon will improve th... Sep 7 2005, 03:13 PM
djellison BUT....
it required lots of surface area, doesnt ... Sep 7 2005, 03:58 PM
RNeuhaus QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 7 2005, 10:58 AM)BUT..... Sep 7 2005, 05:07 PM
Richard Trigaux QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 7 2005, 03:58 PM)BUT..... Sep 8 2005, 06:44 AM
djellison QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Sep 8 2005, 06:44 AM... Sep 8 2005, 07:58 AM
abalone QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Sep 8 2005, 05:44 PM... Sep 8 2005, 10:02 AM

Richard Trigaux QUOTE (abalone @ Sep 8 2005, 10:02 AM)RTGs em... Sep 8 2005, 09:10 PM

abalone QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Sep 9 2005, 08:10 AM... Sep 8 2005, 10:57 PM

SFJCody QUOTE (abalone @ Sep 8 2005, 10:57 PM)This is... Sep 8 2005, 11:12 PM
abalone QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Sep 8 2005, 05:44 PM... Sep 8 2005, 11:33 AM
abalone QUOTE (Marcel @ Sep 8 2005, 12:48 AM)I read t... Sep 8 2005, 09:55 AM
edstrick The plutonium is primarily an alpha emitter, but t... Sep 8 2005, 10:14 AM
abalone QUOTE (edstrick @ Sep 8 2005, 09:14 PM)The pl... Sep 8 2005, 10:34 AM
Marcel Funny it came to the RTG discussion again. I did n... Sep 8 2005, 11:39 AM
djellison Well - look at Voyager. 25 years + with an RTG.
... Sep 8 2005, 12:29 PM
Marcel I guess you're right about that. Don't kno... Sep 8 2005, 01:21 PM![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 17th December 2024 - 06:34 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. |
|