Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- From: Chris L Peterson <clp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:16:31 GMT
On 19 Jan 2006 10:03:31 -0800, "AustinMN" <tacooper260@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>I figured NASA had looked at it that way; the article (taken in it's
>own context) makes it look like there is a 1/350 chance of having to
>spend 1.3 billion dollars per square mile.
>
>One in 350 is far from extremely low.
This article is (as usual) a not terribly clear conversion of
information to the popular media.
The complete safety analysis report is available online (I don't have
the link, but I read through it last year). I believe the 1-in-350
statistic is the chance of an accident that actually releases plutonium.
Even if that happens, the analysis makes it clear that the area of
contamination would probably be small.
The chance of a catastrophic launch failure is quite a bit higher than
1/350, but the RTG is capable of surviving intact in most cases.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- From: Jeff
- Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- References:
- Activist cranks oppose the mission
- From: Rich
- Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- From: AustinMN
- Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- From: AustinMN
- Activist cranks oppose the mission
- Prev by Date: Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- Next by Date: Re: How to attach a C11 OTA on Vixen New Atlux Mount
- Previous by thread: Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- Next by thread: Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|