Juno spacecraft to attempt polar Jupiter Orbit Insertion 7/4

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,522
15,564
146
I wonder if that's the amount that can burn up safely in the case of an unscheduled re-entry.


Actually these things are almost comically tough:

second was the Nimbus B-1 weather satellite whose launch vehicle was deliberately destroyed shortly after launch on 21 May 1968 because of erratic trajectory. Launched from the Vandenberg Air Force Base, its SNAP-19 RTG containing relatively inert plutonium dioxide was recovered intact from the seabed in the Santa Barbara Channel five months later and no environmental contamination was detected.[28]

failure of the Apollo 13 mission in April 1970 meant that the Lunar Module reentered the atmosphere carrying an RTG and burned up over Fiji. It carried a SNAP-27 RTG containing 44,500 Ci (1,650 TBq) of plutonium dioxide which survived reentry into the Earth's atmosphere intact, as it was designed to do, the trajectory being arranged so that it would plunge into 6–9 kilometers of water in the Tonga trench in the Pacific Ocean. The absence of plutonium-238 contamination in atmospheric and seawater sampling confirmed the assumption that the cask is intact on the seabed. The cask is expected to contain the fuel for at least 10 half-lives (i.e. 870 years). The US Department of Energy has conducted seawater tests and determined that the graphite casing, which was designed to withstand reentry, is stable and no release of plutonium should occur. Subsequent investigations have found no increase in the natural background radiation in the area. The Apollo 13 accident represents an extreme scenario because of the high re-entry velocities of the craft returning from cis-lunar space (the region between Earth's atmosphere and the Moon). This accident has served to validate the design of later-generation RTGs as highly safe.

If it was used in a fission reactor, you can get a lot more out of it. This is just slow radioactive decay that produces heat, which then uses thermocouples to convert that to electricity. It's not efficient at all, but it lasts a long time and is far more simplistic than an outright reactor, though having a proper reactor would mean a lot more energy available for some very powerful equipment.


I'll also point out the 125W you get from 4.8kg is the electrical power. Thermally it's giving off around 2500W thermally. So it does give off a lot more power as heat.

At 125W electrical it puts it right in 4-6% efficiency range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,155
13,566
126
www.anyf.ca
Guess they'll probably stick with this orbit for a while, and make a smaller orbit once they feel the craft can handle the radiation for longer periods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,522
15,564
146
As a point of comparison, current triple junction solar cells are hitting between 40% and 50% efficiency.

Ya, that's about three times as efficient as the ones on the ISS. We could have had arrays 1/3 as long which would have saved us some trouble or generated nearly 100kw per array which also would have saved us some trouble.

If you know a few simple facts you can calculate the maximum solar energy available at any given planet. You just need:

  • Suns temperature in K = 5778K
  • Suns Radius in m = 695,700,000m

For Juno we need the distance to Jupiter (we'll use the maximum to be considered conservative:)

  • Jupiters distance to the sun in m = 817,000,000,000m

Finally we need two equations:

  • Area of a Sphere = 4(Pi)(r^2)
  • Stefan-Boltzmann equation = (sigma)(T^4)=power/unit area
  • Sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.6703x10^-8 W/((m^2)(K^4))

So first we plug in our values for sigma and the temperature of the sun into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

It gives us a value of 63.2 million watts/m^2 at the surface of the sun.


Next we use the radius of the sun to calculate its surface area and multiply it by our answer above to give us the entire power output of the sun: 3.84x10^26 watts.

Since we want to know how much of that energy is available in orbit around Jupiter and by conservation of energy we know all that energy reaches a sphere of a radius equal to Jupiters distance from the sun, we divide that number by the surface area of a sphere the size of Jupiter's orbit.

We get: 45.8W/m^2 of power in Jupiters orbit.

By comparison earth receives 1360W/m^2 - 30 times more power. Hence the large high efficiency arrays on Juno.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

Charmonium

Lifer
May 15, 2015
10,366
3,427
136
I have a question about the distance/power. On the broadcast, they said the intensity was 1/25 of earth. Jupiter is 5AU or 5 times the distance to the sun. So that implies that the intensity drops off by the square of the distance. But shouldn't it be the cube?

I'm probably missing something obvious or I misheard what they said.

edit: the cube would be 1/125 so I probably misheard.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

Oceanas

Senior member
Nov 23, 2006
263
0
76
I have a question about the distance/power. On the broadcast, they said the intensity was 1/25 of earth. Jupiter is 5AU or 5 times the distance to the sun. So that implies that the intensity drops off by the square of the distance. But shouldn't it be the cube?

I'm probably missing something obvious or I misheard what they said.

edit: the cube would be 1/125 so I probably misheard.

The drop-off follows the Inverse Square Law, and with the average distance of 5.2AU, Jupiter receives about 3.7% the amount of light that Earth does (or 1/25 to an approximation)
 
Last edited:

Artorias

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2014
2,239
1,544
136
Cant wait to see some new shots of the red spot and the planet in general.
 

Igo69

Senior member
Apr 26, 2015
724
105
106
It took 5 years to reach Jupiter at the speed of 165,000 mph (265,000 km/h), this is insane. OvO

Edit: actually I am wrong it's the speed nearing Jupiter and the actual speed was 23,610 mph.
 
Last edited:

Charmonium

Lifer
May 15, 2015
10,366
3,427
136
Cant wait to see some new shots of the red spot and the planet in general.
According to the live stream, you're going be able to vote on where they point the camera. So schools and individuals will come up with suggestions and a rational for viewing a particular area and then people will vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
I was a little bummed too. Pictures from that close would be insane.

We'll get them just have to wait a couple more months.

Maybe we forgo building $350 million F35s, three 4 billion dollar each "stealth destroyers" we could have a hell of a space program (and make fix some infrastructure as well) and the we could send a lander/probe to Titan. But thats for another topic. :)

Congratulations Juno!

juno-success.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,332
32,876
136
We'll get them just have to wait a couple more months.

Maybe we forgo building $350 million F35s, three 4 billion dollar each "stealth destroyers" we could have a hell of a space program (and make fix some infrastructure as well) and the we could send a lander/probe to Titan. But thats for another topic. :)

Congratulations Juno!

Why can't we have both?

space_battleship_yamato_2199_yamato_vs_planet_bomb_by_sparduck117-d7cxa9u.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
We'll get them just have to wait a couple more months.

Maybe we forgo building $350 million F35s, three 4 billion dollar each "stealth destroyers" we could have a hell of a space program (and make fix some infrastructure as well) and the we could send a lander/probe to Titan. But thats for another topic. :)

Congratulations Juno!

juno-success.jpg

NASAs budget works out to one half of a penny of our tax dollars and from that half penny we get amazing stuff like this. Just imagine if we gave them one whole penny...
 

Igo69

Senior member
Apr 26, 2015
724
105
106
NASAs budget works out to one half of a penny of our tax dollars and from that half penny we get amazing stuff like this. Just imagine if we gave them one whole penny...

Are you kidding me??? They rather spend all on weaponry :rolleyes:
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
You might be glad they do if NASA finds aliens and they come knocking.
I think the prevailing wisdom on aliens is that they will be so far behind us technologically that they wouldn't be capable of space travel, or they'd be very far advanced.
If they're very far advanced:
1) They won't see us as a threat or worth dealing with, and ignore us and be on their way.
2a) See us as being as trivial as bacteria and steamroll past any defenses we can put up.
2b) They might be so advanced that we wouldn't even see them as a life form, and so would not put up a defense because we didn't know how, or wouldn't have time. (Like a gravitational weapon that abruptly increases the effective attractive force of the planet's core by a factor of 50. Good luck against that.)

3) The short story The Road Less Traveled....I think that's what it was called. Aliens show up with weaponry 200 years behind us, because we just managed to miss the simple key to hyperspace travel. I'm thinking that's not too likely, but it was just a fun story.