Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- From: "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Aug 2005 17:50:19 -0700
Damon Hill wrote:
> "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1124124116.012592.294250
> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
> > The question is shouldn't an Atlas 551 be flown
> > without an RTG payload first, to prove the vehicle?
>
> The RTGs are already proven to survive worst-case
> scenarios. That's what really counts.
They've been proven to survive these scenarios, but
they're not predicted to survive *every* scenario,
which is why the eviro impact report predicts a
1/300 chance of plutonium dispersal.
- Ed Kyle
.
- References:
- Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- From: Cardman
- Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- From: Cardman
- Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- From: paris2012
- Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- From: Damon Hill
- Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- Prev by Date: Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- Next by Date: Re: Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV
- Previous by thread: Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- Next by thread: Re: Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea?
- Index(es):