Skip to comments.
NASA Weighs Power-Source Options for Mars Rover
space.com ^
| Monday, October 16, 2006
| Brian Berger
Posted on 10/18/2006 8:53:38 AM PDT by Paradox
NASA expects to decide by the end of the year whether to use conventional solar arrays or a nuclear battery to power the 2009 Mars Science Laboratory rover.
NASA clearly would prefer to use a so-called multi-mission radioisotope thermoelectric generator, or MMRTG, a device that converts heat from decaying Plutonium-238 into electricity. But federal environmental regulations require the U.S. agency to give the general public a chance to weigh in before making a final decision on the rover, which will be roughly the size of a compact car and equipped with 10 instruments.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: mars; nasa; nuclear; rover
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Envirowhacko's really hate the idea of launching nuclear things. They get all bent out of shape about the potential risks. IMNSHO, Nuclear is the only way to go. The advantages far outweigh the risks.
1
posted on
10/18/2006 8:53:42 AM PDT
by
Paradox
To: Paradox
the rover, which will be roughly the size of a compact car and equipped with 10 instruments. Dang, that's big. Better go with the nuke, guys.
2
posted on
10/18/2006 8:54:58 AM PDT
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: Paradox
Unfortunately the flat earth luddites will side with envirowhackos on this one.
3
posted on
10/18/2006 8:56:06 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?)
To: Paradox
Nuke! All the way! Disco ball and lasers for the aliens..!
4
posted on
10/18/2006 8:57:10 AM PDT
by
gaijin
To: Paradox
I vote for one of these:
5
posted on
10/18/2006 8:57:14 AM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
(USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
To: Paradox
The big question is "Will it be able to find the flag the Astronauts left?" as per S. Jackso-Lee.
6
posted on
10/18/2006 8:59:57 AM PDT
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
To: cripplecreek
I believe Dr. Michio Kaku is still alive, so we can be sure he'll drag out and dust off all his old anti Cassini ranting and raving.
7
posted on
10/18/2006 9:01:24 AM PDT
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: Paradox
The North Koreans and Iranians will beat us there. After all, they only want plutonium for peaceful uses. They and Jimmy Carter told me so.
8
posted on
10/18/2006 9:03:46 AM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(I fear that we are the RINOs. The real Republican party is the big government Dem-lite party.)
To: ArrogantBustard
Better go with the nuke, guys. Yup. It'll power a better stereo system.
9
posted on
10/18/2006 9:04:31 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: ArrogantBustard
There have been something like 2500 above ground nuclear detonations since the 40s and we aren't dead yet but the loons go ballistic over a couple of pounds of radioactive material that isn't even designed to go boom.
10
posted on
10/18/2006 9:05:15 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?)
To: Paradox
IMNSHO, Nuclear is the only way to go. The advantages far outweigh the risks.It's not really a risk issue -- it's cost. Using an RTG pushes the total mission cost up by at least several tens of millions of dollars. We already know we can operate successfully using solar power on Mars; why not use what works and is cheap?
11
posted on
10/18/2006 9:07:41 AM PDT
by
Cincinatus
(Omnia relinquit servare Republicam)
To: ArrogantBustard
I had some business with a DoD contractor on Cape Canaveral Air Station back then. It was funny to see the granola/birkenstock crew shuffling around just outside the base stoned and toting signs protesting Cassini. It used to make me chuckle every time.
12
posted on
10/18/2006 9:08:28 AM PDT
by
Sax
To: Cincinatus
We know that solar works well in well lighted areas of mars but what about areas that don't catch as much sunlight? I'm thinking of canyons and polar regions. Also this will be a much larger lander requiring a lot more power.
13
posted on
10/18/2006 9:18:10 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?)
To: Paradox
Envirowhackos might not be the only ones questioning nuclear power for the probe. I just got done reading a space.com article, and it mentions how the choice of power source can affect the "go/no-go" areas for the probe.
Apparently the mission planners are telling the scientists that a nuke-powered rover will not be allowed to go to any potential water source, like a gulch! It is an issue of (Mars) planetary protection:
- If there were to be a malfunction with the probe, it would be stuck there for a long, long time;
- If the power source on the probe is nuclear, it could be a source of warmth for a long, long time;
- Probes must be assumed to have some non-zero amount of earth microbes that somehow snuck aboard to make it alive to Mars;
- Water, heat, microbes and time add together to form even more microbes (or Godzilla), and that's a contamination issue. While I think this is more of a "science contamination" issue than a "bad for Mars" contamination issue, that's still the concern.
14
posted on
10/18/2006 9:25:47 AM PDT
by
Yossarian
(Everyday, somewhere on the globe, somebody is pushing the frontier of stupidity.)
To: Yossarian
Aren't we planing on putting man there by mid-century? I suspect we'll be leaving a few microbes bahind then. And beer cans, cigarette butts, twinkee wrappers.......
15
posted on
10/18/2006 9:53:30 AM PDT
by
east1234
(It's the borders stupid. It's also WWIV.)
To: Paradox
I live near KSC, NASA just had a public coment meeting on it here. Fortunately Brevard county is a high tech friendly area ( go figure) , and everyone understood that for them to launch, there was a .002% chance of plutonium dispersal, if the launch was command detonated and aborted. The community here supports the space program. We love the launches. We want more and bigger rockets going up.
Heck - you can't even put up an eco friendly wind farm in massatwoshits.
To: 1rudeboy
It'll power a better stereo system.Yeah, but is there sound on Mars?
Cordially,
17
posted on
10/18/2006 10:07:17 AM PDT
by
Diamond
To: east1234
And beer cans, cigarette butts, twinkee wrappers....... And a worn out rover up on concrete blocks.
To: Diamond
Mars has a thin, mostly CO2 atmosphere ... Yes, there's sound on Mars.
19
posted on
10/18/2006 10:11:38 AM PDT
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: Paradox
environmental regulations require the U.S. agency to give the general public a chance to weigh That is not necessarily private citizens. Most of the testimony will be from other agencies and corporations including non-profits and NGOs.
20
posted on
10/18/2006 10:13:58 AM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson