Slashdot Mirror
Philae's Lost Seven Months Were Completely Unnecessary
StartsWithABang writes: This past weekend, the Philae lander reawakened after seven dormant months, the best outcome that mission scientists could've hoped for with the way the mission unfolded. But the first probe to softly land on a comet ever would never have needed to hibernate at all if we had simply built it with the nuclear power capabilities it should've had. The seven months of lost data were completely unnecessary, and resulted solely from the world's nuclear fears.
With nuclear arms?
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
SOLAR Wind turbines!
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
People will stop fearing nuclear power when world leader stop making irresponsible remarks about nuking people when they are upset. Until then, anything with a rocket stage and a nuclear device in the payload will be taboo.
Firstly, what caused the problem was not "Nuclear fear", but failure of the harpoon to hold Philea down. The solar panels would have worked fine otherwise.
Secoundly, Plutonium-238 is simply no longer available - nobody makes it anymore. The reason why is because it is created using a dangerous and expensive process by irradiation of neptunium-237.
What bollocks is that? What has an RTG in space to do with a nuclear (fission) reactor on earth?
Nevertheless, a bunch of fearful and uninformed people vigorously protested Cassini and it's RTG. Sky is falling, something something we're all going to die!
It wasn't. This is a troll piece. People need to stopped be suckered by ass-holes and doe some god damn research before continuing the troll machine.
Worse, it's not even informed opinion. You can't just "slap an RTG" on a probe and hope for the best. There are engineering, cost, and benefits considerations to make.
I really feel like people forget that the lander was an afterthought. The primary science of the mission was and is being performed by the Rosetta spacecraft. It was a "nice to have" that everyone was thrilled to see work as well as it did but wasn't critical for the success of the mission. Furthermore, it performed the vast majority if it's planned science activities during the 60 hour battery period after initial landing.
Yes, obviously, probes and landers can and do outperform their initial program goals. But treating the lander like a failure when it was anything but is dishonest. Using it as a soapbox to push your agenda (whether it's one I agree with or not) is insulting to the 2000+ people who worked to make the mission the fabulous success that it is and was.
And people go "oh no they can detect the radiation IN CALIFORNIA ITS LIKE THE TITANIC BUT WITH BEARS EVERYBODY PANIC!!11111ONE!11ONEoneleven1!11"
Which is actually a testament to the astonishing sensitivity of modern equipment. The level of radation in california is 8 disintegrations per cubic meter per second. That's 8 whole atoms per second in a tonne of water. That's 8 out of 100000000000000000000000000 atoms (that's actually the right number of zeros give or take).
It's also about an order of magnitude below the background radiation from naturally occuring stuff in the water, never mind the incoming cosmic rays and stuff from the ground and food.
Another fun fact: the Super-K detector can pick up the signature from relatively nearby nuclear submarines that aren't leaking any ionising radiation at all.
Instruments are sensitive.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yeah, that table is based on LNT, a "theory" with less supporting evidence than Santa Claus. Actually, that's not fair to Santa, since the evidence directly contradicts LNT. But LNT is mandated by law in many cases, which you should keep in mind the next time someone tells you that the left is pro-science.
LNT is "Linear, no threshold". According to that nonsense, a radiation dose expected to cause cancer in a person, but distributed over 7 billion people still causes 1 "extra" cancer in the world. This dose may not even be detectable, by the way, and would be far smaller than the ordinary background radiation levels.
In reality, people with occupational radiation doses have lower cancer rates than the general population.
See that "Preview" button?
While it is true that people are not dropping dead in the thousands due to Fukushima, I'll leave this to consider:
Whether the estimate is correct or not, it will take decades before it's safe to say "a nuclear reactor that didn't kill anyone". The actual outcome will also largely depend on how well the Japanese authorities will handle the cleanup. Judge for yourself whether they've done a good job so far.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
To answer this specific engineering problem, plutonium is simply too dangerous and costly to use in space. The reason is that plutonium is actually very safe to humans except when breathed in as small particles, such as what might be generated when a launch vehicles catastrophically explodes on launch. In this case, the small particles will tend to be inhaled by animals, pass through the lungs, and pretty permanently become part of the body. The plutonium will then go though the 24,000 half life, which means over the lifespan of the contaminated human almost no Pu will decay. It will radiate and cause health issue for a lifetime.
Again, this is an engineering problem with very smart people working it. All engineering problem result in an engineering solution, and an engineering solution is always a compromise between competing factors, some technical, some emotional.
In hind sight it is always easy to poo poo an engineering solution. People who do nothing but push paper, like the readers or forbes, are the most likely candidate is simply say 'why did we do this'. They can ask that question because they have never created a practical device in their lives, therefore never have been part of the engineering process and therefore have never understood that the result is always a less than perfect but usually quite acceptable solution.
While the nuclear power proponents want us to believe that nuclear power is the solution to everything, history tells us otherwise. Even though nuclear power is very mature technology, there is little private funding for it. In the US Nuclear power plants are not being build because bankers know there is no profit in it, and government should no more subsidize a nuclear power plant than a coal fired plant. Both are mature enough to stand on their own.
Nuclear power cannot stand on it's own because it cannot generate enough profit. For instance, BP generates enough profits so that when the Deep Horizon rig failed it could cover the 13 billion dollar clean up. Fukushima is going to cost 10 times that much to clean up. Who is going to pay for that. They taxpayer. The US taxpayer for contamination that reaches US land and water. It is true that the readers of Forbes loves to make profits at taxpayer expense, but I don't think that it is a good idea. It is only free if you are not the one impacted.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black