Funding Approved for Pluto/Kuiper Probe

azpenguin writes "While we discuss the acheivements of the now-silent Pioneer 10, Congress has apporved funding for the "New Horizons" mission to send a probe to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt. Space.com has the story here. NASA had actually fought the idea, but Congress approved the money anyway. Wonder if in 12 years (when the probe is supposed to reach Pluto) the public will be as fascinated with the pictures coming back as much as with the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft." In related news, dalewj writes "Seems the team at JPL will discontinue operations on the Galileo Space probe to Jupiter after extended the mission three times. Galileo has been in space since 1989 and has some amazing findings and pictures available on the JPL website. Truly NASA and JPL's best effort to date."

Comments

Did I Read That Right

[jade42]

Did Congress have to force money on NASA? It must be the last sign. I'm going to the bomb shelter.

This is good news

[ODD97]

Although I certainly won't have first post (having broken the unwritten "don't read the article first" rule), I would like to state that this seems like a good idea to me. I hope they put communications systems in it that will work for another 30 years, as a gift to the future $people_like_me that weren't alive while Pioneer 10 completed its stated mission, yet enjoyed reading about the communications with the spacecraft.
I don't understand the line "Though NASA fought the concept, Congress wrote the money into the space agency's 2003 budget" however. Can someone explain this?

Re:This is good news

[anubi]

When you are looking at something as incredibly complex as a space flight - 500 million sure isn't much.. over here in Southern California, USA, it is not surprising to see something like a high class home go for something like that.

I understand NASA was fighting the concept because they felt the money would be better spent on shuttle studies and Mars activity. Not that they did not want the money, they just did not want to earmark it onto a mission to Pluto.

Consider though the design and launch of such a thing will train another group of engineers in the art of spacecraft design. There are still many of us, now in our 50's and 60's that originally designed a lot of the missions when they were popular in the late 70's, but we are aging. We won't be around forever. And, due to budget cutbacks, a lot of us that have designed spacefaring circuitry are no longer in the industry. As I type this, I pulled a couple of old references I had, reviewing just for the heck of it an Energy Detector design for studying the Van Allen belts and the multiplexer design for the Explorer VII spacecraft launched in the 60's.

But not many of us lived through that heyday. If a new cadre of engineers are not trained on an unmanned exploratory mission, they get to train on a manned one. I would kinda like them to train and hone their skills on something like this. Back in the old days, we had very little to build our stuff with.. most of it was pre-integrated circuit... like we made them with individual transistors. And we were very concerned with how the transistors degraded with respect to radiation dosages - as nearly all circuits were linear. Today we have much better parts - lower power too- but there are other problems involved that the later parts today are far more sensitive to radiation than those big clunky ones we used. Even before that, our vacuum tubes were immune, for all practical purposes, to EMP - such as static discharges or , God forbid - nuclear artifact. I still use a vacuum-tube oscilloscope when I repair vacuum-tube guitar amps for friends because its front end is immune to the several hundred volt potentials I encounter on the plates of the vacuum tubes.

I know we just about could tell you how many electrons were in the battery, and we had to make such miserly usage of them. You would probably be surprised at all the tricks those guys went through to conserve every last electron of the flow of current.

Even our early receivers are works of art. Cryogenic tuners. By building resonators out of superconductors, we could get the "Q" sensitivity high enough to still see our birds as they transmitted on miniscule amounts of energy. The trick was in integration and probability analyses. Stuff like that takes time to learn. And it just about has to be hands-on too. Kinda like learning to walk. You fall a few times.. ( or you set a few rockets back on the ground a few feet from the launch point, launch things into useless trajectories, or launch things that don't work). The phrase that went around during that time was "launching a Maytag"... because the satellites of the day were about the size of a washing machine, and were just about as useful as one if they did not fulfill their intended function.

Budgets...

[Anonymous MadCoe]

What really strikes me is the money needed to do this...

Total mission under $504 Mil.

That really isn't bad, there are F1 teams that spend that type of money in one season, and most F1 teams will spend that type of money in two seasons.

You really can't fight any war for that kind of money.

Compared to other things this is quite cheap, if only more people would realise that the prices of space exploration aren't that bad...

AOL Poll

[Anonymous Coward]

A poll I was just reading on AOL. Remember this is voted on by AOL members. The results might surprise you.

Should manned flights into space be halted?

88% No, its our duty to explore space 2,152
12% Yes, the risk of loss of life is too great 285
Total votes: 2,437

Should the funding Nasa gets (currently $14bn per year) be increased?

82% Yes, the benefits space exploration bring are massive 1,964
18% No, far too much money is spent for too little benefit 445
Total votes: 2,409

NOTE: Poll results are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those users who chose to participate.

Re:We dont' need a CHERYNOBL in space!

[meringuoid]

This is not a nuclear reactor. It's a radioisotope thermal generator. No chain reaction is taking place; all that happens is that power is derived from the temperature difference between the radioactive core and space.

Because we're not running a nuclear reactor, we don't need any fancy machinery around the radioactive core, and so it can be embedded in extremely tough materials. This stuff makes a black-box recorder look flimsy. The worst damage the plutonium core could do to someone if the rocket exploded on launch would be to land on their head.

Furthermore, plutonium is not the deadliest substance known. While a dangerous alpha-emitter if ingested, and an undeniably toxic heavy-metal, there are far more lethal substances. That honour AFAIK goes to VX nerve gas.

Pluto not exciting...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at what Voyager 2 found out about Triton, which it only passed by default.

Pluto is very contrasty, it would be good to find out why that is, too.

Re:We dont' need a CHERYNOBL in space!

[FTL]

> Furthermore, plutonium is not the deadliest substance known. While a dangerous alpha-emitter if ingested, and an undeniably toxic heavy-metal, there are far more lethal substances. That honour AFAIK goes to VX nerve gas.

No need to compare plutonium with nerve gas. A better comparison would be caffeine. Yup, caffeine is more deadly than plutonium.

Ralph Nader made the claim that plutonium was the most toxic substance known. As the page linked to above says, "Dr. Bernard Cohen, went so far as to volunteer to eat as much plutonium as Ralph Nader would caffeine in an attempt to demonstrate the folly of the severe toxicity claims. Mr. Nader refused the challenge."