Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Hopefully they will get the right people to comment and not a bunch of idiots.NASA is offering people a chance to comment tonight and Wednesday on a planned mission to Pluto that will carry nuclear fuel
Doubtless there will be green goons and/or luddites bitching about the plutonium fuel.dragon wrote:Well nasa is going to ask the public if its a good idea.Hopefully they will get the right people to comment and not a bunch of idiots.NASA is offering people a chance to comment tonight and Wednesday on a planned mission to Pluto that will carry nuclear fuel
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/pl ... 50329.html
-- Asuka
I think it's worth a mission just to examine a Kupier Belt Object, and since Pluto is the most famous one, why not?Gil Hamilton wrote:Why Pluto? Despite it's public mystique as "the farthest planet from the sun" chances are it's just another Kuiper Belt Object, with a hundred more like it. I suppose that's a good reason to send a probe out to find out more about them, but still, how about more missions to Jupiter and Saturn, which are a bit more interesting.
Maybe, but I still think exploring Jupiter and it's moons would be more productive and be more informative.RedImperator wrote:I think it's worth a mission just to examine a Kupier Belt Object, and since Pluto is the most famous one, why not?
It's also a good oppurtunity to demonstrate how safe nuclear spacecraft are.RedImperator wrote:
I think it's worth a mission just to examine a Kupier Belt Object, and since Pluto is the most famous one, why not?
I'm curious to see what it's like under Europa's ice. Is it completely solid? IS there an ocean under it? Could there be lifew in that ocean?Gil Hamilton wrote: Maybe, but I still think exploring Jupiter and it's moons would be more productive and be more informative.
Well, most space probes as they are are "nuclear powered" in that they are powered by a chunk of radioactive material in a metal ball studded with thermocouple. It's not like nuclear powered probes are new it's just they are much more of a big deal nowadays as scariness.Cpl Kendall wrote:It's also a good oppurtunity to demonstrate how safe nuclear spacecraft are.
On a side note, is the probe nuclear powered or does it use a nuclear rocket?
After a little bit of searching the probe is a nuclear electric. Basiclly a nuclear reactor providing power to an ion engine. Flight times to pluto was 9.5 yearsCpl Kendall wrote:It's also a good oppurtunity to demonstrate how safe nuclear spacecraft are.RedImperator wrote:
I think it's worth a mission just to examine a Kupier Belt Object, and since Pluto is the most famous one, why not?
On a side note, is the probe nuclear powered or does it use a nuclear rocket?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4329645.stmProject Prometheus proposes using a nuclear reactor not much bigger than a dustbin, linked to a turbine or other generator to provide perhaps 250 kW of power.
Ahh Cassini, I did love the what-if scenarios where all of Florida was DOOMED if the rocket blew up during launch.Hell Cassini had an RTG but didn't even have enough power for a hair dryer.
Excellent....Ultimately, the mission must receive presidential approval.
Why put it on Pluto though. The Kuiper belts so vast and Pluto's orbit is so large that much of the belt would actually be farther away from you than if you put your array at a more centralized position... like say the moon.Solauren wrote:We need to put some kind of sensor on Pluto to map the Kuiper belt....
Space Radar anyone?
Personally, I think that NASA should build the damn engine in an effective and efficient way and then edit the word "nuclear" out of news reference or title, kind of in the same way medical doctors stopped calling NMIs "Nuclear Magnetic Imaging" and renamed it "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" without changing the basic function of the machines at all.tharkûn wrote:My big worry with nuclear power is that NASA will not sufficiently overegineer whatever reactors it sends up and when a totally harmless 'problem' ensues the populace will recoil in horror or that they will so gratiutiously overegineer it that it grossly distorts real cost. It is an unfortunate reality that anything nuclear has to meet ridiciously high "safety" specs, and that meeting them costs buckets of money. I don't envy the egineers and bean counters at NASA who have to walk that thin line, but here is hoping they do a damn excellent job.
It's all about how you sell it, baby.
I very highly doubt the people who thought this up did it for public opinion. It's a scientific mission. There are a lot of scientists who are interested in Pluto and the KBOs. Many scientists have wanted to send a mission to Pluto for years (and want it to get there before Pluto's thin atmosphere freezes back out as it will in a decade or so). They're also interested in studying the KBOs since they're the oldest remnants left over from the solar system's formation and are pretty much intact from that time (since they haven't been doing much). There are also some theories saying that some of the KBOs might actually be from another solar system who's sun came close (astronomically speaking) to ours and some of the outer iceballs were switched (some give a 1-3% chance that Sedna might have gotten in orbit around our sun that way). And so on and so forth (I need to get to class in a moment).spikenigma wrote:very good that they are pimping new technologies, but why not something worthwhile like anything of the following
- missions to mars
- missions to europa
- missions to titan
- loads of missions to the moon
- mission to any other of the jovian / saturnian satellites that are interesting
does make you wonder who sat up in the meeting and said:
"I've got an idea Bob. Forget the very INTERESTING parts of the solar system, you know what would REALLY invigorate the space programme......wait for it.......a mission.....to PLUTO....the public will lap it up!"
"hmmm, good idea Steve, lets get right on canvasing public opinion...."
. But this is a good start.
