OT: Voyager watts

From: Geoff Roberts <geoffrob_at_stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au>
Date: Mon May 12 22:56:01 2003

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dwight K. Elvey" <dwightk.elvey_at_amd.com>
To: <cctalk_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 4:11 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Voyager watts


> What most where worried about was just the accidental
> spread of radioactive material in the atmosphere. I don't know
> about you but I don't like breathing that stuff if I don't
> have to. The problem is that NASA doesn't have a good track
> record for using common sense to avoid accidents.
> I'm still in favor of them using the radioactive power sources
> for the probes, I just wish it was someone else determining
> when and how it was safe to launch them.

When Apollo 13 had 'a problem', they used the LEM as a 'life boat' to conserve
CM resources for re-entry. This meant the LEM burned up on re-entry also. There
was an RTG on the LEM (In a seismograph IIRC) that was meant to be left on the moon.
ISTR there were some concerns voiced by the greenie types at the time. IIRC, it was considered that
the radioisotope fuel element would survive re-entry as it was encapsulated in a graphite sheath. I don't recall
the reason for the sheath, I *think* it was part of the normal design of such things, but I'm twitching on the half
remembered idea that it was to ensure the fuel element survived re-entry intact in the event of an accident and not burn up and
disperse and thereby cause contamination to be spread over a significant area. The re-entry path was over deep ocean and it if the
fuel element survived intact it's at the bottom of the ocean somewhere deep.

Cheers

Geoff in OZ
Received on Mon May 12 2003 - 22:56:01 BST