4 ms·

Ever again? Why is this?

by pheoki 11y ago

gherkin0 11y ago
My guess is implacable anti-nuclear public opinion.
- teamhappy 11y ago
  I'm german and live approximately 30 miles away from a very big nuclear waste disposal site, which is one of the reasons I prefer solar/wind/etc. energy over nuclear. I don't see why anybody would be against using it for scientific purposes though (especially stuff happening in space).
  - matt4077 11y ago
    Because it's fissile material that somehow has to get into space, and the mechanism for that is 200tons of explosives controlled by 2 million movable parts each procured from the lowest bidder :)
    - sillysaurus3 11y ago
      Why not make a case about why this is a bad thing? Talking about it like it's incredibly obvious isn't really productive.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - kuschku 11y ago
        A complex system with each part optimized for being cheap, not for quality, is not going to be very reliable.
        nitrogen 11y ago
        Perhaps you should use actual statistics for launch and slingshot failures, because those numbers are actually available. Also consider that the design of an RTG probably takes those risks into account.
        antoinealb 11y ago
        Have you compared the price of consumer and space-grade hardware ? Probably not, otherwise you would realise it wasn't cost-optimized. example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750 200'000 USD for a 200Mhz PowerPC isn't exactly the best bang-for-the buck, even in 2001.
        kuschku 11y ago
        Thanks to trade treaties, ESA always has to use the cheapest available hardware that fulfils the requirements – no matter if other hardware is more reliable. This has been part of many discussions before – and it doesn’t just affect ESA. From government agencies which have to buy pencils that break after every use and are practically useless, to contractors building Autobahnen where the asphalt melts in the summer sun away.
        EdHominem 11y ago
        If the requirements don't have enough safety margin built in then that's an issue, but if the safety margins are being met then what's the problem? If you're receiving pencils that break, specify pencils that don't... If the asphalt melts, spec a different mix.
        kuschku 11y ago
        > specify pencils that don't... If the asphalt melts, spec a different mix. And then get a warning from the WTO for unfair practices. Contracts can’t that specific in most places, sadly.
        11y ago

Ever again? Why is this?

by pheoki 11y ago

Ever again? Why is this?

gherkin0 11y ago

My guess is implacable anti-nuclear public opinion.

teamhappy 11y ago
I'm german and live approximately 30 miles away from a very big nuclear waste disposal site, which is one of the reasons I prefer solar/wind/etc. energy over nuclear. I don't see why anybody would be against using it for scientific purposes though (especially stuff happening in space).
- matt4077 11y ago
  Because it's fissile material that somehow has to get into space, and the mechanism for that is 200tons of explosives controlled by 2 million movable parts each procured from the lowest bidder :)
  - sillysaurus3 11y ago
    Why not make a case about why this is a bad thing? Talking about it like it's incredibly obvious isn't really productive.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - kuschku 11y ago
      A complex system with each part optimized for being cheap, not for quality, is not going to be very reliable.
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        Perhaps you should use actual statistics for launch and slingshot failures, because those numbers are actually available. Also consider that the design of an RTG probably takes those risks into account.
      - antoinealb 11y ago
        Have you compared the price of consumer and space-grade hardware ? Probably not, otherwise you would realise it wasn't cost-optimized. example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750 200'000 USD for a 200Mhz PowerPC isn't exactly the best bang-for-the buck, even in 2001.
        kuschku 11y ago
        Thanks to trade treaties, ESA always has to use the cheapest available hardware that fulfils the requirements – no matter if other hardware is more reliable. This has been part of many discussions before – and it doesn’t just affect ESA. From government agencies which have to buy pencils that break after every use and are practically useless, to contractors building Autobahnen where the asphalt melts in the summer sun away.
        EdHominem 11y ago
        If the requirements don't have enough safety margin built in then that's an issue, but if the safety margins are being met then what's the problem? If you're receiving pencils that break, specify pencils that don't... If the asphalt melts, spec a different mix.
        kuschku 11y ago
        > specify pencils that don't... If the asphalt melts, spec a different mix. And then get a warning from the WTO for unfair practices. Contracts can’t that specific in most places, sadly.
        11y ago