Hacker News Reader

Comment by matt4077 | Hacker News Reader

Nuclear material isn't going to 'fly' in Europe ever again. No use griping about it (Nor to pester the scientists when you already know the answer)

View on HN

> Nuclear material isn't going to 'fly' in Europe ever again

France (which is in Europe and part of the EU, obviously) is the biggest pro-nuclear energy nation in the world, and (together with the USA) has been on the forefront of exploration and development in that region.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

It's not pestering, it's getting the opportunity to speak with scientists directly. I would ask the same thing. It doesn't matter if I "already know the answer" - I have no place at the table and assumptions that you're right are so often wrong.

Ever again? Why is this?

My guess is implacable anti-nuclear public opinion.

I'm german and live approximately 30 miles away from a very big nuclear waste disposal site, which is one of the reasons I prefer solar/wind/etc. energy over nuclear. I don't see why anybody would be against using it for scientific purposes though (especially stuff happening in space).

Because it's fissile material that somehow has to get into space, and the mechanism for that is 200tons of explosives controlled by 2 million movable parts each procured from the lowest bidder :)

Why not make a case about why this is a bad thing?

Talking about it like it's incredibly obvious isn't really productive.

A complex system with each part optimized for being cheap, not for quality, is not going to be very reliable.

Perhaps you should use actual statistics for launch and slingshot failures, because those numbers are actually available. Also consider that the design of an RTG probably takes those risks into account.

Have you compared the price of consumer and space-grade hardware ? Probably not, otherwise you would realise it wasn't cost-optimized.

example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750

200'000 USD for a 200Mhz PowerPC isn't exactly the best bang-for-the buck, even in 2001.

Thanks to trade treaties, ESA always has to use the cheapest available hardware that fulfils the requirements – no matter if other hardware is more reliable.

This has been part of many discussions before – and it doesn’t just affect ESA.

From government agencies which have to buy pencils that break after every use and are practically useless, to contractors building Autobahnen where the asphalt melts in the summer sun away.

If the requirements don't have enough safety margin built in then that's an issue, but if the safety margins are being met then what's the problem?

If you're receiving pencils that break, specify pencils that don't... If the asphalt melts, spec a different mix.

> specify pencils that don't... If the asphalt melts, spec a different mix.

And then get a warning from the WTO for unfair practices.

Contracts can’t that specific in most places, sadly.

I've seen a process like this that forbids naming brands, etc, but you've always been able to spec standards and performance tests.

You're bringing up a non issue. Add reliability constraints into your requirements. Airplane components are also made of the cheapest materials that satisfy the constraints required by the engineers and they don't randomly fall apart.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com