Cassini-Huygens Saturn Orbit Insertion Imminent 205
Anonymous Explorer writes "Fresh
off of its fly-by with the Saturnian satellite Phoebe, the
Cassini-Huygens
craft is set for Saturn
Orbit Insertion on June 30, 2004.
Cassini-Huygens has a planned four year mission ahead for Saturn
and its many moons. With 450 watts of power for the electronics, this
mission has plenty enough horses to run the stretch with plenty-o-pep
to spare. Thanks to all that power, and the plethora of electronics on Cassini
and the Huygens
probe, we
can now hear sounds from Saturn. Pretty cool stuff! Festivities are
scheduled to begin on June 29th with a broadcast of Cassini Saturn
Orbit Insertion Press Conference on Nasa TV. SOI [PDF link] will occur after Cassini
fires its main engine for 96 minutes, in order
to slow down and be grabbed by the pull of Saturn. As always we extend
an invitation to everyone to join
#cassini on irc.freenode.net and
help us celebrate this historic mission."
Re:Victory of SCIENCE over ECOIDIOLOGY (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the greenies were making a mountain out of a molehill. Nuclear powered satellites have been launched for years, and the reactors are specifically designed to survive the destruction of the spacecraft.
The problem is that we live in a world that is only willing to offer 30 seconds of attention about any subject at a time.
Re:Victory of SCIENCE over ECOIDIOLOGY (Score:4, Insightful)
Take your pick.
Re:Pheobe as a source of ice (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but did it generate the 450? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your little computer is a lot bigger if you include the size of the Power Station it is attached to through a long peice of wire.
Someone should calculate how the amount of coal or oil that would be needed to provide power for Cassini if it weren't nuclear. Or the size of solar cells needed at that distance from the sun (and their wieight).
Re:Ah, but did it generate the 450? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pheobe as a source of ice (Score:3, Insightful)
Fission reactors typically control a chain reaction and use the heat to create steam that turns a generator. That generator produces the electricity.
Yes, at an atomic level the processes are similar (or even the same) but it is important to note the differences. The word nuclear is often maligned due to lack of understanding.
Shorter Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
7 off-topic "troll" posts.
30 posts regarding the nuclear decay powering the craft or simply clarifying the fact that it is not a nuclear reactor.
96 comments making jokes about the use of the word "insertion" with more than 80 of those comments also mentioning Uranus.
Re:ObSpock (Score:3, Insightful)
But from outside, you wouldn't hear anything, unless electrical interference from the ship's system or natural sources was being picked up by your space suit radio. What is interesting, is that astronouts can communicate without radios if they touch their helmets together, as the helmet itself will carry sound.
Even a nuclear blast in space wouldn't produce much of anything in the way of sound, as the only "atmosphere" would come from the vaporized bomb itself, and would be quite tenuous unless you were right beside it, when the thing went off. And you would of course be vaporized long before you could sense it.
Most of the explosion effects would be thermal energy and radiation pressure. Particle and directed energy weapons (lasers or phasers?) would not produce any sound at all.
The only way to get any sound at all floating about in a space battle, is perhaps if you were right beside a ship was ripped apart and lost pressurization. Then you would (very briefly) have a tenuous atmosphere to carry whispers of the ship's destruction. You might have better luck hearing something if you press your helmet to the hull of a vessel.