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.
If it was nuclear powered, then it would have been much heavier and would require a much longer mission and use something more than single-use devices. The entire scope of the mission would have to change!
The primary batteries were for the main mission, The solar panels were "extras". So, nothing much would have been gained if this was nuclear powered device and nothing else changed.
Nuclear powered spacecraft are only really needed outside Jupiter's orbit. Or perhaps on landers designed to operate for extended period of time with a reliable power supply. For the rest, the extra weight is something that is not desirable.
This is only because of precaution-principle aficionados, gaia loving, "activists" who objected to both the building of new, safer, reactors and reactor design research.
Er you mean logical and obviously superior?
It would be superior, but not logical. Using a nuke would have doubled the cost of the mission, due to handling costs and higher payload mass. Since the ESA has a fixed budget, doubling the cost means half as many missions. Rather than a few expensive "superior" probes, it is better to launch more missions, and live with the fact that some of them will fail.
How do you plan on doing that? Like, do you have milestones and action items?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I get the mission design, and I think most people here get the idea, too. But ESA seems to have missed the boat on the PR and public affairs front.
The demise of the lander after a complete primary mission is being portrayed as a huge failure. As near as I can tell, it did exactly what it was supposed to do for about as long as it was supposed to. Anything beyond that was "if possible".
Additionally, the mission is being shown as a "lander mission" instead of an orbiter with a small lander tacked on. Rosetta is still doing the mission as intended, and most of the objectives are being met very nicely. I see all sorts of comments in the press (and particularly in the European media and media comments section) as another Beagle "cock-up".
I think it's a very nicely done mission that is working very well. It's a shame that it is not coming across like that.
I was ignorantly assuming that they'd do everything they could to insure the accomplishment of the mission. I realize how foolish I was now.
Yes, that is a very foolish assumption. Even if they spent a quadrillion euros, they still could not do everything to ensure success. Real life involves tradeoffs. Most people learn this by the time they are adults.
we don't want plutonium-powered reactors on an exploding rocket
Back up a bit, who's the "we"?
I recall seeing testing footage for the RTG in the Cassini probe, among other things the tests involved a large artillery gun and a steel wall a few feet thick. Cassini was particularly controversial because it made a 'sling shot' flyby of earth at a much greater speed than escape velocity. From the tests I saw in the doco decades ago the worst thing that could possibly happen with an RTG is that it falls from the sky directly onto someone's head. Far from being anti-nuke, I'm actually interested the idea of "pebble bed" reactors (materials research is what's needed there). I'm also in favour of "full life cycle" nuclear power as practised in some parts of the EU. I don't know of a -science based- environmentalist/hippie/greenie who thinks otherwise. I've held these views since the early 90's, I'm not alone either, James Lovelock and some other influential greenies expressed similar opinions in the early 2000's
I speak to you today as a scientist and as the originator of Gaia Theory, the earth's system science which describes a self regulating planet which keeps its temperature and its chemical composition always favourable for life. I care deeply about the natural world, but as a scientist I consider that the earth has now reached a state profoundly dangerous to all of us and to our civilisation. And this view is shared by scientists around the world. Unfortunately, governments, especially in Europe, appear to listen less to scientists than they do to Green political parties and to Green lobbies. Now, I am a green myself, so I know that these greens are well intentioned, but they understand people a lot better than they understand the earth, and consequently they recommend inappropriate remedies and action. Lovelock 2005.
Disclaimer: According to my parents I became a Hippie back in 1976. Like any other social group, "Hippies" in general are reasonable people if you stop insulting them and feeding them on bullshit.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.