Read my letter to Dr. Plait again. The original concern was about a launch that resulted in New Horizons burning up in the atmosphere (perhaps from friction of unanticipated reentry). What help would the RTG be? If this could never be a plausible failure mode, and only something less intense like a Challenger explosion is involved, then RTG might afford protection.

But suppose the RTG indeed survives with the plutonium intact. Now we have the problem of locating and recovering the RTG, and the possible political, if not technical, fallout of difficulty or failure to do so. This may open yet another can of worms.

No one has answered my questions in the closing paragraphs of my letter to Plait.

Correction: Anticipating one more formal nitpick objection to my letter, plutonium is considered to be one of the most toxic “elements”, not “materials”, known.

OK. I’ll let you off!

Irishman said:
“Perhaps it wasn’t intended as such, and is just the habitual signature?” Good point. I hadn’t thought of that.

Perhaps it wasn’t intended as such, and is just the habitual signature?

In support of what the BA has written, “black box” flight recorders contain significantly more moving parts than an RTG, and they are expected to survive some very harsh treatment. Aerospace engineers know how to design something small to withstand VERY rough treatment. Plus, the BA did mention the extensive testing (although without supplying any detail – perhaps he assumed you had the initiative to go and find out for yourself).

Also, “Marcosa J. Santiago, M.D.”. Why is the qualification relevant? An MD is not a science qualification. Either your argument can stand on its own, or not. Irrespective of any qualifications you may have, your argument will be assessed by the many critical thinkers and sceptics (or skeptics if you’re west of the Atlantic) who visit this site.

Having said that, BA, I have a bone to pick with you. You need to have words with your pal Dan Durda about his dramatic representation of the New Horizons probe in the vicinity of the Pluto-Charon system. The sun is a small bright object in the far distance, providing faint and oblique illumination over the two planets (moons, KBOs, whatever). So what is illuminating the probe from the foreground????? Bad astronomy. Bad, bad astronomy!

Either that, or it’s all been faked in a studio with 2 sources of light!!! Hah! I knew it was too hard to get a space probe through the asteroid belt!!:)

Yes, the page I wrote did talk about fission of plutonium, which was the thrust of the debunking. However, I linked to a couple of off-site pages (http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/cassini/rtg.html and http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/cassini/rtgpages.html) which discuss RTG safety. The point is that the RTGs are built like tanks, and will almost certainly remain intact if a rocket blows up. Take a look at the Challenger explosion– at that speed and with that violent an explosion, a lot of the pieces of debris were still in “good” shape; that is, the assembly didn’t vaporize or crumble. The military has tested RTGs out the wazoo and uses them fairly often from what I have read.

> I’m just kind of sad that the possibility of a proper probe visiting Europa in my lifetime is looking rather bleak. I can understand why researchers want to ‘check out’ Pluto, but with their limited budget, why not the more ‘fascinating’ (from a general public point of view) objects in our Solar System first?

?? Do you really think the public is as interested in one of Jupiter’s moons as it is in the one planet we haven’t visited yet?

(I realize Europa is an exciting place to study, but the general public isn’t really aware of it. I also realize Pluto’s standing as a planet is questionable, but again the general public probably doesn’t feel that way.)