Timeline for Requirements to orbit Pluto
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 2017 at 12:09 | comment | added | FKEinternet |
@TildalWave Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm interpreting kWt as kilowatts-thermal and kWe as kilowatts-electric
|
|
| Oct 18, 2015 at 17:38 | comment | added | TildalWave | @kert That's still just the reactor. BTW it's 15kWt and could be coupled with 3kWe Stirling engine power system for Mars surface operations. That tells me fairly little about its total mass (heat transfer, power conversion and shielding systems are not included in those 214 kg, that's just the "heat pipe"). I guess I could make broad assumptions tho. I'll see what I can do, but it'll take a while. | |
| Oct 18, 2015 at 17:13 | comment | added | kert | HOMER-15 reactor full design was 214kg with 5kWe | |
| Oct 17, 2015 at 18:32 | comment | added | TildalWave | @kert It would, but I lack knowledge of any flight worthy design. So the reactor itself is 512 kg but how massive are heat transfer, power conversion and reactor reflector (shielding) systems? I also don't know how far away from the science part of the spacecraft it would have to be placed not to interfere with it. The only complete design that I know of is SNAP-10A, but that was only 500 We at 290 kg unshielded, and it still experienced problems soon after launch. SAFE-400 is 100 kWe at 400 kWt, an altogether different ballgame, even if it's still relatively small. | |
| Oct 17, 2015 at 18:13 | comment | added | kert | Old topic, but would be interesting to see this with a SAFE-400 reactor | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 20:56 | comment | added | Deer Hunter | We're all forgetting the "insertion via lithobraking" option... Call it "plutobraking", then. | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 16:21 | comment | added | Hobbes | Don't forget you have to get those 26 tons up to 16 km/s in the launch phase... | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 4:49 | comment | added | TildalWave | @RussellBorogove For 3 x NSTAR trusters (same est. 100 kg each, 6.9 kW, 276 mN, 3,100 s) I get dry mass of 18,280 kg, wet mass of 28,770 kg, 10,490 kg fuel and 6.1 years long burn for Δv of 13.79 km/s. It's not that much different to NEXT, but you would have some redundancy with engines (3 vs 1). | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 4:02 | comment | added | Mark Adler | Oops. Almost 38 years. | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 3:57 | comment | added | TildalWave | @MarkAdler Heh yes, well a small fraction of what Voyagers used to be at launch at least. Most of their science, heaters,... are powered down by now. | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 3:54 | comment | added | Mark Adler | The Voyagers have been working for almost 37 years. Just don't put a scan platform on it. | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 3:51 | comment | added | TildalWave | @MarkAdler All that is true, or course. But now that I recalculated to correct a glaring error on my part, it would actually be over 6 years longer mission, not just a year. That means that all its parts have to function for that much longer without a major glitch. Going there slower wouldn't solve that, but there might be fewer parts to fail. | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 3:47 | history | edited | TildalWave | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 305 characters in body
|
| Jul 11, 2015 at 3:45 | comment | added | Mark Adler | It's not nearly that bad. You would not pick a New Horizons fast flyby trajectory if you planned to go into orbit. You would take longer to get there, and have a much lower arrival velocity. | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 3:38 | comment | added | Russell Borogove | Try it with NSTAR instead of NEXT -- thruster and power controller 26kg, 2.3kW draw. | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 2:52 | history | answered | TildalWave | CC BY-SA 3.0 |