The need to power a probe beyond Mars logically means using RTGs or radio(active) thermal generators. But, for some reason, they elect not to use them on some probes and use solar panels. Problem is, you need to hibernate probes during the journey toareas like Jupiter because even the largest solar panels won't provide enough power. With the Rosetta comet probe, emerging from hibernation worked, but the risk is very high it will fail. So probes in the future destined for past-Mars destinations
The need to power a probe beyond Mars logically means using RTGs or radio(active) thermal generators. But, for some reason, they elect not to use them on some probes and use solar panels. Problem is, you need to hibernate probes during the journey toareas like Jupiter because even the largest solar panels won't provide enough power. With the Rosetta comet probe, emerging from hibernation worked, but the risk is very high it will fail. So probes in the future destined for past-Mars destinations
On 8/4/23 2:14 AM, RichA wrote:areas like Jupiter because even the largest solar panels won't provide enough power. With the Rosetta comet probe, emerging from hibernation worked, but the risk is very high it will fail. So probes in the future destined for past-Mars destinations
The need to power a probe beyond Mars logically means using RTGs or radio(active) thermal generators. But, for some reason, they elect not to use them on some probes and use solar panels. Problem is, you need to hibernate probes during the journey to
Is this something you're conjuring up, or is it the consensus of the
actual scientists dealing with this subject?
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 23:14:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>areas like Jupiter because even the largest solar panels won't provide enough power. With the Rosetta comet probe, emerging from hibernation worked, but the risk is very high it will fail. So probes in the future destined for past-Mars destinations
wrote:
The need to power a probe beyond Mars logically means using RTGs or radio(active) thermal generators. But, for some reason, they elect not to use them on some probes and use solar panels. Problem is, you need to hibernate probes during the journey to
Each mission uses the power source that makes the best engineering
sense. But as you do not understand engineering (or good sense), this concept is beyond you.
On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 10:20:11 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:areas like Jupiter because even the largest solar panels won't provide enough power. With the Rosetta comet probe, emerging from hibernation worked, but the risk is very high it will fail. So probes in the future destined for past-Mars destinations
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 23:14:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The need to power a probe beyond Mars logically means using RTGs or radio(active) thermal generators. But, for some reason, they elect not to use them on some probes and use solar panels. Problem is, you need to hibernate probes during the journey to
Each mission uses the power source that makes the best engineering
sense. But as you do not understand engineering (or good sense), this
concept is beyond you.
That's like saying making cancer patients wait for isotopes because of a shortage is a sound engineering decision. It is RIFE with politics and economics having NOTHING to do with engineering.
The need to power a probe beyond Mars logically means
using RTGs or radio(active) thermal generators.
Where RTGs are the best choice,
they are consistently used.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 7:28:03?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Where RTGs are the best choice,
they are consistently used.
While I do agree that RichA takes a position that is too extreme, I don't >entirely share your optimism.
I think that it is entirely possible that due to public anti-nuclear hysteria, >instead of decisions being made in accordance with the best engineering >practice, there is a degree of bias against RTGs and nuclear propulsion that >is leading them to be used only where there is no other choice - basically, >in desperation, as a last resort.
Mars has dust storms that can obstruct solar panels, although there may be >other ways to deal with that than the use of RTGs. And in general, using >solar panels instead of RTGs a bit more often is not a big deal - and, of >course, given that rockets do sometimes blow up on the pad, and having >radioactive material scattered far and wide is indeed a very bad thing, a
bit of apparently excessive caution is not really a problem.
What _is_ a problem, though, is that the stigma under which nuclear power
has been has stunted the development of nuclear propulsion technolgies
like NERVA. This _is_ seriously interfering with our ability to explore space.
John Savard
With the development of increasingly efficient ion propulsion systems,
it is unclear whether nuclear thermal propulsion has much use (and it
comes with very high costs). For manned flight to other planets, yes.
But that's a waste of money in the first place, and hopefully isn't something that we'll engage in to any significant degree.
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 8:25:23 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
With the development of increasingly efficient ion propulsion systems,
it is unclear whether nuclear thermal propulsion has much use (and it
comes with very high costs). For manned flight to other planets, yes.
But that's a waste of money in the first place, and hopefully isn't
something that we'll engage in to any significant degree.
I can agree that the space program should emphasize science, which can
be done cheaper with instrumented probes.
However, I still hope that eventually our capabilities in space advance, to the
point where manned flight to the outer planets eventually becomes routine.
Hell will freeze over before manned missions to the outer planets ever become routine.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:27:02?AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:
Hell will freeze over before manned missions to the outer planets ever
become routine.
I don't know about _that_, but indeed the Earth will become cooler before >manned missions to the outer planets become routine. We will have to solve >our energy problems, and, in doing so, also solve the problem of global >warming.
It would definitely take "new physics" to travel to other solar systems at >speeds faster than light, as so often takes place in science fiction. But to >make travel to the outer planets routine? All that's needed is a massive >increase in real per capita wealth, resulting from human civilization advancing
a fraction of a step up the Kardashev ladder.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 02:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:14:02?AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
The need to power a probe beyond Mars logically means
using RTGs or radio(active) thermal generators.
Risk involves unpredictable factors.
The inverse-square law is well-understood. Hence, sending a probe
to Pluto powered by huge solar panels may be inappropriate due to
being inefficient, but it doesn't need to imply an increased risk that
the probe will fail to function correctly.
John Savard
Unlike most 'internet astronomers' I was raised from eight years old
with a telescope. I actually observed the sky and celestial objects
regularly for the past forty years. I memorized all the tables of
celestial distances and planetary and star compositions. It wasn't
until later in life I actually started to do the math around those
figures to find out they are fictitious.
According to the inverse square law of light all the other planets and
stars would be completely invisible with the distances given by NASA.
It would also mean that to even see Mars, disregarding the inverse
square law, Mars would have to be glowing bright enough to burn out
your eye sockets from orbit for any visible amount of its light to reach >earth at an average of 140 million miles distance. For Mars to reflect
that much sunlight the earth would have to be a ball of superheated
magma with no atmosphere from all the solar energy reaching it. The
moon would also glow red hot even on its dark side.
It would also mean that Alpha Centauri at more than 4 light years
(24.7 trillion miles) away, would need to be more than a
million times brighter than the sun to see its light, if the inverse
square law weren't applicable. But because of the inverse square law,
even at a million times the brightness of the sun, Rigil would be
totally invisible both to the human eye and to telescopes, if the
distances provided by NASA were true, which they aren't. The distances >provided by NASA are false. Alpha Centauri is roughly 3,700 miles above
the surface of the earth, and its rapidly changing shape and plasma
discharge rings can be seen clearly with a 90-power telescope through a
clear sky.
This means that space believers are rubes who can't do simple maths.
The physicists who sell you this fake astronomy bullshit are so beholden
to the grift for their careers they will never expose it.
But you will cling to your fairy tales rather than admit that simple
math exposes the charade known as the 'space program'.
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 21:30:14 -0500, NASA Liars <nasa@liar.s> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 02:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:14:02?AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
The need to power a probe beyond Mars logically means
using RTGs or radio(active) thermal generators.
Risk involves unpredictable factors.
The inverse-square law is well-understood. Hence, sending a probe
to Pluto powered by huge solar panels may be inappropriate due to
being inefficient, but it doesn't need to imply an increased risk that
the probe will fail to function correctly.
John Savard
Unlike most 'internet astronomers' I was raised from eight years old
with a telescope. I actually observed the sky and celestial objects
regularly for the past forty years. I memorized all the tables of
celestial distances and planetary and star compositions. It wasn't
until later in life I actually started to do the math around those
figures to find out they are fictitious.
According to the inverse square law of light all the other planets and
stars would be completely invisible with the distances given by NASA.
It would also mean that to even see Mars, disregarding the inverse
square law, Mars would have to be glowing bright enough to burn out
your eye sockets from orbit for any visible amount of its light to reach
earth at an average of 140 million miles distance. For Mars to reflect
that much sunlight the earth would have to be a ball of superheated
magma with no atmosphere from all the solar energy reaching it. The
moon would also glow red hot even on its dark side.
It would also mean that Alpha Centauri at more than 4 light years
(24.7 trillion miles) away, would need to be more than a
million times brighter than the sun to see its light, if the inverse
square law weren't applicable. But because of the inverse square law,
even at a million times the brightness of the sun, Rigil would be
totally invisible both to the human eye and to telescopes, if the
distances provided by NASA were true, which they aren't. The distances
provided by NASA are false. Alpha Centauri is roughly 3,700 miles above
the surface of the earth, and its rapidly changing shape and plasma
discharge rings can be seen clearly with a 90-power telescope through a
clear sky.
This means that space believers are rubes who can't do simple maths.
The physicists who sell you this fake astronomy bullshit are so beholden
to the grift for their careers they will never expose it.
But you will cling to your fairy tales rather than admit that simple
math exposes the charade known as the 'space program'.
You and Gerald should sit down together in a pub somewhere.
It would also mean that to even see Mars, disregarding the inverse
square law, Mars would have to be glowing bright enough to burn out
your eye sockets from orbit for any visible amount of its light to reach earth at an average of 140 million miles distance.
According to the inverse square law of light all the other planets and
stars would be completely invisible with the distances given by NASA.
On 8/4/23 2:14 AM, RichA wrote:areas like Jupiter because even the largest solar panels won't provide enough power. With the Rosetta comet probe, emerging from hibernation worked, but the risk is very high it will fail. So probes in the future destined for past-Mars destinations
The need to power a probe beyond Mars logically means using RTGs or radio(active) thermal generators. But, for some reason, they elect not to use them on some probes and use solar panels. Problem is, you need to hibernate probes during the journey to
Is this something you're conjuring up, or is it the consensus of the
actual scientists dealing with this subject?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 393 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:07:17 |
| Calls: | 8,256 |
| Files: | 13,132 |
| Messages: | 5,877,410 |