Slashdot Mirror
What Would Have Happened If Philae Were Nuclear Powered?
StartsWithABang writes After successfully landing on a comet with all 10 instruments intact, but failing to deploy its thrusters and harpoons to anchor onto the surface, Philae bounced, coming to rest in an area with woefully insufficient sunlight to keep it alive. After exhausting its primary battery, it went into hibernation, most likely never to wake again. We'll always be left to wonder what might have been if it had functioned optimally, and given us years of data rather than just 60 hours worth. The thing is, it wouldn't have needed to function optimally to give us years of data, if only it were better designed in one particular aspect: powered by Plutonium-238 instead of by solar panels.
NASA is almost out of Plutonium. With the end of the cold war the US stopped refining uranium and producing plutonium. There's not much left and it's becoming a real problem for the designers of long term space missions, especially ones that are far enough that solar power isn't a viable option.
Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it have been really bad if there had been a boatload of plutonium-238 on the Challenger?
Uh, no.
A boatload of Pu-238 won't explode, and RTGs are designed to stay together even in a launch explosion. If I remember correctly, one RTG was involved in a launch explosion, and it was recovered, refurbished, and used again.
The writer of the article didn't do his research. The designers did not expect the instruments to survive the approach to the Sun. So this could not have gone on for years and years.
From: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Frequently_asked_questions "In any case, by March 2015, when the comet is closer to the Sun, it is likely that the lander will become too hot to operate."
Philae was a European project, and they didn't have expertise in space-capable RTGs. Plutonium fuel is also difficult to source. And the fuel depletes even when you're not using it, so after a 10 year idle while travelling to the comet it would have lost a significant amount of fuel, requiring a larger amount to start with. They'd also need significant heatsinks to keep the waste energy from melting everything. RTGs aren't always superior in every situation.
The first is that if something goes wrong on takeoff you risk what is effectively a 'dirty bomb' going off somewhere in the Earth's atmosphere which is not good.
Its not nearly as bad as you think. The biggest impact of a dirty bomb in a city would be psychological.
In the atmosphere, less important.
had better make sure that the craft does not return for Earth for a few billion years otherwise, again, it is like a dirty bomb going off in the atmosphere.
Uh, nuh. Pu238 half-life is 88 years. Here is the most basic clue about radioactivity: radiation intensity is inversely related to halflife. If it has a billion-year half-life, it is barely radioactive at all. A dirty bomb needs something with lots of radiation, and so a short half-life.
I don't think you realise just how indestructible a nuclear battery is, the one on Cassini was designed to withstand a crash that might have occurred on it's slingshot flyby of earth (fortunately we didn't get to test that claim). Testing is done by firing the battery from an artillery gun directly into a solid steel wall several feet thick. What happened to Antares would have merely burnt the paint off the outside a nuclear battery. Basically the only way to get hurt by one of them is to be unlucky enough to be hit on the head with it.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The entire system is designed to operate in peak loads much of the time with long idle periods between, you can't downsize the battery that much.
And RTGs are heavy compared to their output in the inner solar system. A SNAP-19 fits the generation bill (30 watts at beginning of life) but that's 12 kilograms, which is almost certainly heavier than the solar panels.
But the real reasion is, what others have mentioned, cost. And no, it's not a case of "the cost part itself is largely due to politics", it's that plutonium-238 is simply expensive, period. You're talking a product only produced in a few parts of the world from a raw material (neptunium-237) that's only extracted in a few parts of the world in very small quantities from a raw material (nuclear fuel rods) that's already very expensive and difficult to transport. The neptunium takes years to accumulate in its reactor and must be handled with extreme safety protocols during the extraction, and properly secured against misuse. It then must be irradiated for long periods of time, converting it one atomic collision at a time to plutonium 238 using a tremendous amount of energy. Only then can the plutonium be extracted - and once again, you're talking the need for extreme safety protocols during the process, and proper security. None of that is "politics", it's simply the way it is plus very rational handling procedures.
Trick People Into Clicking Your Headline With This One Weird Trick!
Except that you are missing the fact that a nuclear battery is not the same think like a nuclear reactor. You can build a nuclear battery with something around a cup full of material, whereas a nuclear reactor needs a significant larger amount of material. Also it is funny how you mention Fukushima, the health effects in this incident where rather minor. There are chemical industrial accidents with significant higher casualty rates than that. If you mentioned Chernobyl you may have had a point, but not with Fukushima.