Jump to content

Rosetta...Comet landing.


keptie

Recommended Posts

this is the first post of yours I have ever agreed with.

The c***s do my head in,we have/had a chance to explore further into space...but no these stupid fucking fannys have basically fucked it up.

Because they did not want a plutonium fucking generator...why should these backwards c***s have a say in what these scientists can and can do...

I would have told them to f**k off and mind their own business, fucking loonballs the idiots.

Science is more important than a few bunny huggers.

I think this lander is fucked now,hope to f**k I'm wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The c***s do my head in,we have/had a chance to explore further into space...but no these stupid fucking fannys have basically fucked it up.Because they did not want a plutonium fucking generator...why should these backwards c***s have a say in what these scientists can and can do...I would have told them to f**k off and mind their own business, fucking loonballs the idiots. Science is more important than a few bunny huggers.I think this lander is fucked now,hope to f**k I'm wrong though.

What a state to get yourself in over a bit of rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The c***s do my head in,we have/had a chance to explore further into space...but no these stupid fucking fannys have basically fucked it up.Because they did not want a plutonium fucking generator...why should these backwards c***s have a say in what these scientists can and can do...I would have told them to f**k off and mind their own business, fucking loonballs the idiots. Science is more important than a few bunny huggers.I think this lander is fucked now,hope to f**k I'm wrong though.

Vote YSU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The c***s do my head in,we have/had a chance to explore further into space...but no these stupid fucking fannys have basically fucked it up. Because they did not want a plutonium fucking generator...why should these backwards c***s have a say in what these scientists can and can do... I would have told them to f**k off and mind their own business, fucking loonballs the idiots. Science is more important than a few bunny huggers. I think this lander is fucked now,hope to f**k I'm wrong though.

:lol:

Aye mate, the bunny huggers have ruined space exploration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The c***s do my head in,we have/had a chance to explore further into space...but no these stupid fucking fannys have basically fucked it up. Because they did not want a plutonium fucking generator...why should these backwards c***s have a say in what these scientists can and can do... I would have told them to f**k off and mind their own business, fucking loonballs the idiots. Science is more important than a few bunny huggers. I think this lander is fucked now,hope to f**k I'm wrong though.

Well no, It wasn't nuclear battery powered because of at least three criteria I can think of .

Firstly, mass. All space launches are dictated by the mass of the payload. The mass of a nuclear battery is not insignificant for what is a smallish, compact probe, which would've made getting the thing up there in the first place far more expensive (each kg in payload costs many times that number in kg of propellant at launch).

Secondly, Availability of the isoptope. The isotope used in typical nuclear batteries is Plutonium-238, which is produced in small supplies and was not being produced in the timeframe Rosetta/Philae was built, hence the cost would've been driven up by the market.

Third, technology transfer. ESA is a publically funded program, one of the main reasons for it's continued funding is the research and transfer of new technologies to further industry. Nuclear batteries are well researched and possess very little European content ,either in design or manufacturing. There was therefore little incentive to use them from a technology viewpoint. By contrast, for it's mission profile (relatively close to the sun) solar power offered ESA a chance to demonstrate new levels of reliability and efficiency in the use of solar panels to power space probes, helping drive research and technology transfer into industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephan Ulamec, the Lander Manager said live on TV that the reasons they didn't use one were political, one, resistance for environmental reasons and 2, it would look bad having to buy or beg one off the Americans. Nothing to do with what would be best technically for the mission. He gave the clear impression that given the choice he would have equipped the lander with one, the smallest one only weighs a couple of kilos. At least it might have been able to heat up the batteries to zero so they could start charging in short periods of sunlight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no, It wasn't nuclear battery powered because of at least three criteria I can think of .

Firstly, mass. All space launches are dictated by the mass of the payload. The mass of a nuclear battery is not insignificant for what is a smallish, compact probe, which would've made getting the thing up there in the first place far more expensive (each kg in payload costs many times that number in kg of propellant at launch).

Secondly, Availability of the isoptope. The isotope used in typical nuclear batteries is Plutonium-238, which is produced in small supplies and was not being produced in the timeframe Rosetta/Philae was built, hence the cost would've been driven up by the market.

Third, technology transfer. ESA is a publically funded program, one of the main reasons for it's continued funding is the research and transfer of new technologies to further industry. Nuclear batteries are well researched and possess very little European content ,either in design or manufacturing. There was therefore little incentive to use them from a technology viewpoint. By contrast, for it's mission profile (relatively close to the sun) solar power offered ESA a chance to demonstrate new levels of reliability and efficiency in the use of solar panels to power space probes, helping drive research and technology transfer into industry.

Do you own a sexist shirt by any chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no, It wasn't nuclear battery powered because of at least three criteria I can think of .

Firstly, mass. All space launches are dictated by the mass of the payload. The mass of a nuclear battery is not insignificant for what is a smallish, compact probe, which would've made getting the thing up there in the first place far more expensive (each kg in payload costs many times that number in kg of propellant at launch).

Secondly, Availability of the isoptope. The isotope used in typical nuclear batteries is Plutonium-238, which is produced in small supplies and was not being produced in the timeframe Rosetta/Philae was built, hence the cost would've been driven up by the market.

Third, technology transfer. ESA is a publically funded program, one of the main reasons for it's continued funding is the research and transfer of new technologies to further industry. Nuclear batteries are well researched and possess very little European content ,either in design or manufacturing. There was therefore little incentive to use them from a technology viewpoint. By contrast, for it's mission profile (relatively close to the sun) solar power offered ESA a chance to demonstrate new levels of reliability and efficiency in the use of solar panels to power space probes, helping drive research and technology transfer into industry.

You always get in just before me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...