eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene N. Miya) (02/04/88)
In article <1484@boulder.Colorado.EDU> huntting@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Bradley Enoch Huntting) writes: >In his article <347@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: >>According to activist and musician Jello Biafra, the next flight of the >>shuttle was to carring a payload of 46 pounds of *plutonium*. >>He claims this is from _The_Nation_ and _Common_Cause_, who got >>it from NASA, who "conveniently forgot to tell us about it." >> >>1. Is this correct? >> >>2. If so, I thought there was a law or treaty or something... >> [that] prohibits the launching of radioactive material... > >I seem to remember hearing this on network TV the day the Columbia exploded. I'll overlook this ^^^^^^^^ >As for Pu in space, I've never understood how a satelite could use so much >power that it would need a fision reactor insted of photovoltaic cells, and a >battery? Is there a weight problem? Is it a political issue? It's not a fission reactor. It's more the thermal characteristics. I won't describe how they work, Voyager and Pioneer have RTGs as will Galileo, the space craft in question. A document is available somewhere on the history and development of space craft nuclear power systems. Is there a weigh problem? Yes: power per weight. The problem comes with the inverse square law: the craft can't get enough solar energy (RORSATs or deep space missions). One satellite carrying an RTG was destroyed years ago during liftoff. The RTG was recovered and used on a replacement satellite. They are ballistic armored with a minimum of radiation shielding and well made. --eugene