posted
NASA has a plan in the works to create an enormous (30 meters!) probe to examine the Jovian moons most likely to have environments that could harbor life.
I'm excited at the prospect of checking out Europa, Callisto, and Ganymede, but I haven't yet decided what I think about the prospect of launching a probe like this from Earth, given the nulear material aboard. Most launches go well, of course, but some don't (the Japanese heavy lifter rocket that went awry the other day being the most recent example). I know that this is kind of tired ground, but I haven't quite made up my mind what I think about this. I'd feel a lot better about it if the ship were being launched from somewhere other than Earth. Any thoughts? Think NASA will be able to get thing thing into space, or do you think that protesters will get the project canned before it can get off the ground (so to speak)?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The material needs to leave Earth somehow, right?
Or are you saying we should hold off on such missions until we are harvesting minerals from extraterrestrial sources and processing them "up there?"
Or just that you'd rather not have nuclear-powered spacecraft until we can do the above?
What worries me is that the Jovians will get really pissed about us raining nuclear material and 30 meter space junk onto their planet and start a jihad.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it. Ideally, we'd hold off on building nuclear powered spacecraft until we could mine the uranium somewhere off planet. That could be quite awhile though, and I wouldn't want to hold off on solar system exploration while we waited. I'd like it if this mission could be accomplished using a more conventional fuel, but I don't really know if it's feasible.
I'd be curious to know what kind of safety measures they could take with the uranium. Would it be possible to build a storage chamber in such a way that even if the probe blew up in the atmosphere, the chamber would remain intact?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummm, we've been sending nuclear-powered probes to the outer solar system since the Voyagers (Galileo was the most recent). I'm not sure what the fissile materials are in tese reactors, uranium, or some other element.
But to get any reasonable, and reasonably cheap, methods to get to the outer solar system, fission is the only way. Fusion is a non-starter, solar wind is not efficient at those distances, and just about anything else you can think of is purely drawing-board dreaming.
Not that we shouldn't be careful (particularly with extra reactor shielding, perhaps?), but the cat is already out of the bag.
EDIT: I'd add that these reactors powering spacecraft are much smaller than a full nuclear plant, and therefore are intrinsically a smaller risk. I'd worry more about the fact that large plants, closer to home, are built on at least a half-dozen fault lines (Seabrook, in this case)!
posted
lets hope that NASA can pick one set of units to use this time.
I think that the terrestial plant (at least in the US and France) would take an enormouse quake to cause a release of any radioactive material.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Once the payload is on it's way to Jupiter, no problem. A great source of energy for space, but the drawback is, indeed, launch.
I think this issue has been argued to death. If the source of the plutonium was refined on the moon, however....
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've certainly never heard of this before. Even though it's been argued to death, would you mind doing it one last time, for my education? Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just personally hope that the programmers who design the launch program do not mess up and cause a disaster like the one which happened with one probe recently. I can not remember which probe it was, but a programming glitch basically caused the rocket to explode soon after launch. This is inexcusable negligence upon the programmers' parts. They were using an old program, which had prevoiusly worked at lower speeds. The program could not handle the new higher speeds that the rocket could now reach. The problem was a little more complex than that, but you guys get the point. If anyone really wants to know more, I might be able to find the article within my papers.
posted
They launch from Florida, and in the event of a mishap would most likely fall into the ocean, from which they could be recovered, right? Our unmanned exploration of space (which right now is our ONLY exploration of space) would come to a screeching dead halt if we weren't allowed to launch any nuclear materials. I think this is such a non-issue. All the people who killed the nuclear power industry in the U.S. were so misguided! What did they end up accomplishing? A huge greenhouse gas emissions increase, that's what!
We accept the risks involved in driving a car everyday, and so many other things. I think we should make them as safe as possible, and then take the risk. After all, if we DON'T explore and then eventually colonize the solar system, we are all going to go extinct here on Earth, when we mess up the environment to the point that it won't support us anymore. We HAVE to do space research. It's not just a passing fancy, or something that we can give up. Our species' long-term survival depends on it.
[ December 10, 2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally agree with the rant about space research and colonizing space. Right now I am majoring in Physics and Math, with the hopes of either working for NASA or becoming an astronaut. It is ridiculous to think that the human race has to stay on this rock forever. I mean.. didn't people think going to America was nuts at first??
Posts: 8 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm completely on board as to the necessity of space research. I just get a little nervous when we launch relatively large quantities of radioactive materials through our atmosphere. I think it probably is a necessity at this point, but I'll be happy when we get beyond it.
What about those new ion engines I was reading (and posting)about a couple of weeks ago in the asteroid defense thread? Do those not provide enough thrust to get a probe to Jupiter in a timely fashion? Couldn't you just get the probe out of our atmosphere with conventional chemical rockets, and then fire up the ion engines for the intra-system voyage?
What do you guys think the next step should be? Is a manned Mars mission the best plan, or would it be better to get a lunar base going, from which we could launch interplanetary missions more easily? I haven't read any feasibility studies of the latter option, but if we can do it, it seems to me that it would be the better plan.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought on one of these threads a few days ago someone said something about long-range planning included the TERMINATION of the ISS. Which makes no sense to me at all.
The initial purpose of the Space Station was to build a working platform in space, where we could eventually ship parts, and build a probe, satellite, shuttle, etc AT the space station and then send it on it's path from there. The reasoning being, it takes a TREMENDOUS amount of energy to get our space vehicles from the earth, through the atmosphere, and into space. If they could be BUILT in space, then whole new possibilities open up.
But if they are scrapping the ISS, then are they scrapping that whole idea?
posted
Just came across this article. Looks like the world in general is moving in a direction I approve of, when it comes to space exploration.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
