WTH, did they completely run out of plutonium? Why risk a failure for what will likely be a hugely expensive mission? Also, so little power is generated from solar energy at a Jupiter distance, the panels will have to be HUGE.
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-nasa-europa-clipper-wheels-deep.html
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 22:48:14 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
WTH, did they completely run out of plutonium? Why risk a failure for what will likely be a hugely expensive mission? Also, so little power is generated from solar energy at a Jupiter distance, the panels will have to be HUGE.
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-nasa-europa-clipper-wheels-deep.html
Good choice. Lots less expensive and they can get much more power than
is possible from a RTG.
WTH, did they completely run out of plutonium? Why risk a failure for what will likely be a hugely expensive mission? Also, so little power is generated from solar energy at a Jupiter distance, the panels will have to be HUGE.
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-nasa-europa-clipper-wheels-deep.html
On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 2:54:08 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 22:48:14 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
WTH, did they completely run out of plutonium? Why risk a failure for what will likely be a hugely expensive mission? Also, so little power is generated from solar energy at a Jupiter distance, the panels will have to be HUGE.
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-nasa-europa-clipper-wheels-deep.html
Good choice. Lots less expensive and they can get much more power than
is possible from a RTG.
Depends on the size of the panels. If they are big enough the can work that far from the Sun.
WTH, did they completely run out of plutonium? Why risk a failure for what will likely be a hugely expensive mission? Also, so little power is generated from solar energy at a Jupiter distance, the panels will have to be HUGE.
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-nasa-europa-clipper-wheels-deep.html
Why risk a failure for what will likely be a hugely expensive mission?
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 11:48:15 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Why risk a failure for what will likely be a hugely expensive mission?
It's not as if the panels are going to be covered up by dust storms.
The risk of failure is actually quite small, so it's weighed against the safety
risk of dangerous radioactive substances being released if the rocket were
to blow up on the launch pad. Admittedly, the chance of _that_ is very slight, >and you're not wrong to believe that people are needlessly panicked about
the risks of radiation.
But RTGs _are_ used in space missions when they're *really* needed, when >solar panels absolutely can't serve as an alternative. So I don't feel it's a serious
problem if the choice between solar and nuclear power isn't really made in a >fully rational manner for each individual mission. Since NASA depends on tax >dollars being sent its way in a democracy, it needs to be popular.
I mean, a bigger issue is why they're being forced by Congress to waste money >on boosters from the old-line suppliers when SpaceX and other newer outfits >can supply ones that are vastly cheaper.
On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 01:48:15 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
WTH, did they completely run out of plutonium? Why risk a failure for what will likely be a hugely expensive mission? Also, so little power is generated from solar energy at a Jupiter distance, the panels will have to be HUGE.
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-nasa-europa-clipper-wheels-deep.html
Also, solar panels present MUCH larger targets for micro meteoroids which can disable them.
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 19:15:42 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 11:48:15 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Why risk a failure for what will likely be a hugely expensive mission?
It's not as if the panels are going to be covered up by dust storms.
The risk of failure is actually quite small, so it's weighed against the safety
risk of dangerous radioactive substances being released if the rocket were >to blow up on the launch pad. Admittedly, the chance of _that_ is very slight,
and you're not wrong to believe that people are needlessly panicked about >the risks of radiation.
But RTGs _are_ used in space missions when they're *really* needed, when >solar panels absolutely can't serve as an alternative. So I don't feel it's a serious
problem if the choice between solar and nuclear power isn't really made in a >fully rational manner for each individual mission. Since NASA depends on tax >dollars being sent its way in a democracy, it needs to be popular.
I mean, a bigger issue is why they're being forced by Congress to waste moneyThe safety issues with RTGs is largely connected with increased launch
on boosters from the old-line suppliers when SpaceX and other newer outfits >can supply ones that are vastly cheaper.
costs. They are also very expensive to construct because of the
difficulty of procuring the materials required. And finally, they are
low power devices, so we usually see them used on missions where
experiments are cycled. The RTG slowly charges a battery, which can
then provide the high power required for some particular device. Solar
panels are easily scaled such that adequate power is always available.
On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 9:21:34 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 19:15:42 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 11:48:15 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Why risk a failure for what will likely be a hugely expensive mission?
It's not as if the panels are going to be covered up by dust storms.
The risk of failure is actually quite small, so it's weighed against the safety
risk of dangerous radioactive substances being released if the rocket were >to blow up on the launch pad. Admittedly, the chance of _that_ is very slight,
and you're not wrong to believe that people are needlessly panicked about >the risks of radiation.
But RTGs _are_ used in space missions when they're *really* needed, when >solar panels absolutely can't serve as an alternative. So I don't feel it's a serious
problem if the choice between solar and nuclear power isn't really made in a
fully rational manner for each individual mission. Since NASA depends on tax
dollars being sent its way in a democracy, it needs to be popular.
I mean, a bigger issue is why they're being forced by Congress to waste moneyThe safety issues with RTGs is largely connected with increased launch costs. They are also very expensive to construct because of the
on boosters from the old-line suppliers when SpaceX and other newer outfits
can supply ones that are vastly cheaper.
difficulty of procuring the materials required. And finally, they are
low power devices, so we usually see them used on missions where experiments are cycled. The RTG slowly charges a battery, which can
then provide the high power required for some particular device. Solar panels are easily scaled such that adequate power is always available.
So would solar panels be feasible at Saturn?
On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 9:21:34 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 19:15:42 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 11:48:15 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:The safety issues with RTGs is largely connected with increased launch
Why risk a failure for what will likely be a hugely expensive mission?
It's not as if the panels are going to be covered up by dust storms.
The risk of failure is actually quite small, so it's weighed against the safety
risk of dangerous radioactive substances being released if the rocket were >> >to blow up on the launch pad. Admittedly, the chance of _that_ is very slight,
and you're not wrong to believe that people are needlessly panicked about >> >the risks of radiation.
But RTGs _are_ used in space missions when they're *really* needed, when
solar panels absolutely can't serve as an alternative. So I don't feel it's a serious
problem if the choice between solar and nuclear power isn't really made in a
fully rational manner for each individual mission. Since NASA depends on tax
dollars being sent its way in a democracy, it needs to be popular.
I mean, a bigger issue is why they're being forced by Congress to waste money
on boosters from the old-line suppliers when SpaceX and other newer outfits >> >can supply ones that are vastly cheaper.
costs. They are also very expensive to construct because of the
difficulty of procuring the materials required. And finally, they are
low power devices, so we usually see them used on missions where
experiments are cycled. The RTG slowly charges a battery, which can
then provide the high power required for some particular device. Solar
panels are easily scaled such that adequate power is always available.
So would solar panels be feasible at Saturn?
On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 9:42:00 PM UTC-8, Scott Kozel wrote:
So would solar panels be feasible at Saturn?
Some interesting facts and figures here...
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/115582-solar-panels-at-saturn/
... and the conclusion, after a quick scan of this page, is... "it depends".
On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 21:41:59 -0800 (PST), Scott Kozel
<koz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So would solar panels be feasible at Saturn?
Solar panels are feasible anywhere there is light. It all comes down
to the engineering process of creating an energy budget and weighing
all the possible choices, costs and benefits. That's how all missions
are designed.
Whether solar panels would be the best choice for a mission at Saturn
depends on the nature of the mission. No sensible designer would start
by assuming any particular power source was or was not going to be considered.
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 9:56:35 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 21:41:59 -0800 (PST), Scott Kozel
<koz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So would solar panels be feasible at Saturn?
Solar panels are feasible anywhere there is light. It all comes down
to the engineering process of creating an energy budget and weighing
all the possible choices, costs and benefits. That's how all missions
are designed.
Whether solar panels would be the best choice for a mission at Saturn
depends on the nature of the mission. No sensible designer would start
by assuming any particular power source was or was not going to be
considered.
"Saturn is more than 9 times farther away from the Sun as Earth is from the Sun.
As a result, Saturn receives less than approximately 1/81 or 1.2 % of the sunlight
that Earth receives."
So that means that the solar panels would need to be 81 times the size/area of that
of at Earth?
They would be massive and there may be engineering issues with launching weights
and successful deployment of the panels in space.
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 21:44:28 -0800 (PST), Scott Kozel
<koz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Saturn is more than 9 times farther away from the Sun as Earth is from the Sun.
As a result, Saturn receives less than approximately 1/81 or 1.2 % of the sunlight
that Earth receives."
So that means that the solar panels would need to be 81 times the size/area of that
of at Earth?
They would be massive and there may be engineering issues with launching weights
and successful deployment of the panels in space.
What if 81 times larger means that the panel needs to be a square
meter at Saturn?
On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 8:58:46 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 21:44:28 -0800 (PST), Scott Kozel
<koz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Saturn is more than 9 times farther away from the Sun as Earth is from the Sun.
As a result, Saturn receives less than approximately 1/81 or 1.2 % of the sunlight
that Earth receives."
So that means that the solar panels would need to be 81 times the size/area of that
of at Earth?
They would be massive and there may be engineering issues with launching weights
and successful deployment of the panels in space.
What if 81 times larger means that the panel needs to be a square
meter at Saturn?
But isn't a square meter about the size needed to power a spacecraft at Earth orbit?
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 20:51:42 -0800 (PST), Scott Kozel
<koz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 8:58:46 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 21:44:28 -0800 (PST), Scott Kozel
<koz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Saturn is more than 9 times farther away from the Sun as Earth is from the Sun.
As a result, Saturn receives less than approximately 1/81 or 1.2 % of the sunlight
that Earth receives."
So that means that the solar panels would need to be 81 times the size/area of that
of at Earth?
They would be massive and there may be engineering issues with launching weights
and successful deployment of the panels in space.
What if 81 times larger means that the panel needs to be a square
meter at Saturn?
But isn't a square meter about the size needed to power a spacecraft at Earth orbit?There are probes orbiting the Earth with panels just 100 mm square.
Again, it all comes down to the nature of the probe. You design the
mission, you calculate the power requirements, and only then do you
consider the options.
On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:44:32 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 20:51:42 -0800 (PST), Scott Kozel
<koz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 8:58:46 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 21:44:28 -0800 (PST), Scott KozelThere are probes orbiting the Earth with panels just 100 mm square.
<koz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Saturn is more than 9 times farther away from the Sun as Earth is from the Sun.
As a result, Saturn receives less than approximately 1/81 or 1.2 % of the sunlight
that Earth receives."
So that means that the solar panels would need to be 81 times the size/area of that
of at Earth?
They would be massive and there may be engineering issues with launching weights
and successful deployment of the panels in space.
What if 81 times larger means that the panel needs to be a square
meter at Saturn?
But isn't a square meter about the size needed to power a spacecraft at Earth orbit?
Micro satellites?
Again, it all comes down to the nature of the probe. You design the
mission, you calculate the power requirements, and only then do you
consider the options.
Outer planet probes are in the 2,000+ pound range, correct?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:29:04 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,644 |