Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #588886 > unrolled thread

Why wasn't Juno nuclear powered? no news since July 4th ?

Started bySergio <invalid@invalid.com>
First post2016-07-12 09:04 -0500
Last post2016-07-13 16:11 -0700
Articles 8 — 5 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why wasn't Juno nuclear powered? no news since July 4th ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-12 09:04 -0500
    Re: Why wasn't Juno nuclear powered? no news since July 4th ? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 16:37 +0200
      Re: Why wasn't Juno nuclear powered? no news since July 4th ? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 11:38 -0700
        Re: Why wasn't Juno nuclear powered? no news since July 4th ? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 21:55 +0200
    Re: Why wasn't Juno nuclear powered? no news since July 4th ? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-12 17:00 -0700
    Re: Why wasn't Juno nuclear powered? no news since July 4th ? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 17:52 -0700
    Re: Why wasn't Juno nuclear powered? no news since July 4th ? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 17:54 -0700
      Re: Why wasn't Juno nuclear powered? no news since July 4th ? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 16:11 -0700

#588886 — Why wasn't Juno nuclear powered? no news since July 4th ?

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-07-12 09:04 -0500
SubjectWhy wasn't Juno nuclear powered? no news since July 4th ?
Message-ID<nm2te0$1qo8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Radiation and solar panels
It appears radiation will damage the solar panels. It is expected this 
will lead to progressively less power to the spacecraft over the 
mission, thus shortening the length of the mission. It would be 
interesting to know why the designers chose this vs. a nuclear powered 
craft which could last longer. -- GreenC 14:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


Cant find any news older than July 5th 2016

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#588895

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2016-07-12 16:37 +0200
Message-ID<nm2vb6$lbj$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#588886
On 07/12/2016 04:04 PM, Sergio wrote:
 > Radiation and solar panels
 > It appears radiation will damage the solar panels. It is expected this
 > will lead to progressively less power to the spacecraft over the
 > mission, thus shortening the length of the mission. It would be
 > interesting to know why the designers chose this vs. a nuclear powered
 > craft which could last longer. -- GreenC 14:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 >
 >
 > Cant find any news older than July 5th 2016

Critical point may be the limited availability of 238Pu,
the major radionuclide used in Radioisotope thermoelectric generators

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238#Production

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588921

FromnoTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date2016-07-12 11:38 -0700
Message-ID<08b19862-5373-468e-96fd-3e543145c9c6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#588895
it is part of the environmentlists, because
the write-up for consequences is so long,
it is somehow cheaper to not have a long-lived r.t.g

>  > interesting to know why the designers chose this vs. a nuclear powered
>  > craft which could last longer. -- GreenC 14:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
>  >
>  >
>  > Cant find any news older than July 5th 2016
> 
> Critical point may be the limited availability of 238Pu,
> the major radionuclide used in Radioisotope thermoelectric generators

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588937

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2016-07-12 21:55 +0200
Message-ID<nm3hvr$ubc$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#588921
238Pu production is technologically challenging 2 step process,
usually via 237Np.

Dne 12/07/2016 v 20:38 noTthaTguY napsal(a):
> it is part of the environmentlists, because
> the write-up for consequences is so long,
> it is somehow cheaper to not have a long-lived r.t.g
> 
>>  > interesting to know why the designers chose this vs. a nuclear powered
>>  > craft which could last longer. -- GreenC 14:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Cant find any news older than July 5th 2016
>>
>> Critical point may be the limited availability of 238Pu,
>> the major radionuclide used in Radioisotope thermoelectric generators



-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588977

Frompnalsing@gmail.com
Date2016-07-12 17:00 -0700
Message-ID<dc35112a-13ee-4505-8b8b-c1581059f798@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#588886
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 7:04:53 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> 
> Cant find any news older than July 5th 2016

http://www.space.com/33406-juno-jupiter-orbit-first-photo.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588990

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-07-12 17:52 -0700
Message-ID<96c4314b-dd20-4a13-ab9a-98736e93cd22@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#588886
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 7:04:53 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> Radiation and solar panels
> It appears radiation will damage the solar panels. It is expected this 
> will lead to progressively less power to the spacecraft over the 
> mission, thus shortening the length of the mission. It would be 
> interesting to know why the designers chose this vs. a nuclear powered 
> craft which could last longer. -- GreenC 14:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
> 
> 
> Cant find any news older than July 5th 2016

NASA is known not to measure the force of gravity right.That plus their sticky fingers have cost tax payer 100s of billions of b$$$$$  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588991

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-07-12 17:54 -0700
Message-ID<ed46e7db-c391-4afc-a58e-4646e4170c7a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#588886
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 7:04:53 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> Radiation and solar panels
> It appears radiation will damage the solar panels. It is expected this 
> will lead to progressively less power to the spacecraft over the 
> mission, thus shortening the length of the mission. It would be 
> interesting to know why the designers chose this vs. a nuclear powered 
> craft which could last longer. -- GreenC 14:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
> 
> 
> Cant find any news older than July 5th 2016

Stergio With NASA no news is bad news.That is NASA reality  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589131

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-07-13 16:11 -0700
Message-ID<5f44d495-f85d-445d-b092-48a65feb299c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#588991
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 5:54:29 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 7:04:53 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> > Radiation and solar panels
> > It appears radiation will damage the solar panels. It is expected this 
> > will lead to progressively less power to the spacecraft over the 
> > mission, thus shortening the length of the mission. It would be 
> > interesting to know why the designers chose this vs. a nuclear powered 
> > craft which could last longer. -- GreenC 14:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
> > 
> > 
> > Cant find any news older than July 5th 2016
> 
> Stergio With NASA no news is bad news.That is NASA reality  TreBert

NASA does not keep books,and can't make mistakes.Its been a GOPer money maker thanks to Nixon,and Walter Annenberg. Think shuttles.TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web