Well since there is still a spacestation orbiting the globe you can send a
shipment of just the fuel in packages (I assume quite a few could be
launched for the weight of 1 space probe) that will withstand re-entry to
the station and then load these batteries as needed into probes and launch
them from there. Most of the weight of a launch vehicle is just to get the
payload out of earths gravity, very little is needed once your in deep space
to achieve a nice cruising speed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "J.C. Wren" <jcwren(a)jcwren.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Voyager watts
Vaguely true. They're concerned about a pad
explosion or unexpected
reentry
that could result in plutonium being scattered around
the countryside.
Plutonium is an extremely toxic metal. 1 microgram will kill you damn
quick.
Plus it's readily absorbed by tissue, which means
everywhere you have a Pu
speck, you're irradiating tissue with ionizing radiation in a few
centimeter
radius. Not good for a long term outlook.
Incidently, the tree huggers worries on this matter are not completely
unfounded. Because of launch weight issues, the shielding material is not
really designed to survive reentry.
--John
On Monday 12 May 2003 14:20 pm, chris wrote:
> From what I remember, those probes (and most (all?) other deep space
> probes, I
>
> >think), use a radioisotope decay generator for power. This is a
> >sub-critical-mass nuclear power plant; it uses the heat produced by a
> >near-critical lump of plutonium to generate electricity, rather then
using
> >fission to produce heat to produce
electricity.
>
> So is this the power supply all those whiney people were bitching about
> NASA trying to put into a Mars probe? They were all afraid the probe
> would explode during launch and be ground zero of a nuclear blast (or
> some other most likely vagely based on reality doomsday outcome
activists
> are notorious for).
>
> -chris
> <http://www.mythtech.net>