[Paradox]

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.

[ArrogantBustard]

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.

[cripplecreek]

Unfortunately the flat earth luddites will side with envirowhackos on this one.

[gaijin]

Nuke! All the way! Disco ball and lasers for the aliens..!

[Yo-Yo]

I vote for one of these:

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

The big question is "Will it be able to find the flag the Astronauts left?" as per S. Jackso-Lee.

[KarlInOhio]

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.

[Cincinatus]

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?

[Yossarian]

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:

1. If there were to be a malfunction with the probe, it would be stuck there for a long, long time;
2. If the power source on the probe is nuclear, it could be a source of warmth for a long, long time;
3. Probes must be assumed to have some non-zero amount of earth microbes that somehow snuck aboard to make it alive to Mars;
4. 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.

[Waverunner]

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.

[RightWhale]

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.

[LibWhacker]

Since the envirowhackos are going to be overruled, I say let's overrule them with style: When the mission is finally launched the main rocket should be designed so that it can do an hour of aerobatic stunts over the Amazon rain forrest, fly up San Francisco/Berkeley way and do an hour of risky stunts over that bastion of envirowhackoism, then fly up to Washington state and do ten laps around the head of the only known pregnant snail darter in existence, before flying off to Mars.

[CaptRon]

regulations require the U.S. agency to give the general public a chance to weigh in before making a final decision on the rover,

OK. I'm weighing in.

Do it.