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>