5 ms·
(Aerospace engineer/student here) While there were certainly some political aspects to the question, there were other more pressing reasons to not pursue an RT
by fbender 12y ago
(Aerospace engineer/student here)
While there were certainly some political aspects to the question, there were other more pressing reasons to not pursue an RTG design. First and foremost (as others have pointed out) is the lack of knowledge towards this technology within the EU/ESA member states. Also, there's little left of the fuel usually used for these generators (238-PuO2 in space applications), and while it can be bred, none was produced for centuries (last time I checked). It is expected that NASA can only launch a couple of addtional RTG-powered missions before its ressources are depleted.
An RTG also poses quite a few engineering challenges for the spacecraft itself. They are huge and heavy with low efficiency, and their design requires them to be positioned on the outside with sufficient surface area to radiate away their heat. One of their main benefits – almost constant power for a long time – is also their biggest flaw: Their power output cannot be regulated.
While these challenges are in no way unsolvable (they are used both in space and on Earth), they require a certain spacecraft design which makes them unsuitable for many missions. If you take a look at the design of Philae and where it was attached to Rosetta, there is no way an RTG would have fit the design and mission characteristics chosen.
They could have chosen a different design. Though the question is then: Would this have changed anything wrt science output and/or success of the mission?
I personally don't think so: An RTG would have increased cost and complexity without a significant impact on science output. An RTG would not have helped with the harpoon and ADS (cold gas thruster) issues which are the primary reasons why Philae landed in the shadows.
Though certainly a malfunction has happened, I do not consider this mission a failure, quite the opposite is true! Due to the hopping, there's a slew of unexpected science data which awaits to be analyzed. Additionally, there's still the chance that Philae may regain enough power once the comet is closer to the sun. Lastly, the primary mission objective – analyzing a comet – is still well underway with Rosetta orbitting Tschurie.
- crawshaw 12y agoHappily, Pu-238 is being manufactured again: http://news.discovery.com/space/nasa-plutonium-production-space-fuel-130314.htm http://news.discovery.com/space/nasa-plutonium-production-sp... Another source I read at the time of the announcement said it will take a while to spin up, so there are some mission constraints over the next ten years. A Europa mission would wipe out existing supplies.