×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA's Juno, Armored Tank Heading For Jupiter

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the gonna-be-a-bumpy-ride dept.

NASA 185

coondoggie writes "When it comes to ensuring that its upcoming Juno spacecraft can survive its mission, NASA is surrounding the spacecraft's electronic innards with titanium to ward off mission-threatening radiation. Juno's so-called radiation vault weighs about 200 kilograms (500 pounds), has walls that measure about a square meter (nearly 9 square feet) in area, about 1 centimeter (a third of an inch) in thickness, and 18 kilograms (40 pounds) in mass. About the size of an SUV's trunk — encloses Juno's command and data handling box, power and data distribution unit and about 20 other electronic assemblies, according to NASA."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

185 comments

Get it??? Michael Hunt! Eh-heh! (-1, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32902960)

"Show them the dark side of the Plutonian Moons!"

Re:Get it??? Michael Hunt! Eh-heh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903032)

Why don't we simply let the Japanese Space Agency send a humanoid robot?
Gundams are long overdue anyway! ;)

Unit conversions (0, Troll)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903016)

has walls that measure about a square meter (nearly 9 square feet)

Is that really how American's say it?

1 meter = 3.2808399 feet. Wouldn't that make it ~3.2 Square feet? Or do you guys take off the square from the unit somehow, and apply it to the number, So a square meter would be 3.2808399 squared, or 10.76391044943201 (so closer to 11 feet than 9).

I just...

No seriously whats going on here?

Re:Unit conversions (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903104)

4 Square meters is not a square with 4m sides but with 2m sides so the parent is correct and you buddy are wrong

Re:Unit conversions (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903172)

So one square meter isn't a square with 1 meter sides?

Re:Unit conversions (0, Redundant)

Flea of Pain (1577213) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903340)

Technically yes, because the square root of 1 is still 1. See, you take the square root of your area to determine your side length. For example, if I give you something 2 meters long, and two meters wide, it will have an area of 4 square meters. Try it with shreddies if you are still confused.

Re:Unit conversions (2, Interesting)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903406)

I understand the math. I was being sarcastic, actually. yeah, I know it doesn't communicate well over the internet. The point is that 1 square meter is considerbly more than 9 square feet. The actual article is poorly written. If the topic weren't so terribly interesting, I wouldn't have wasted my time. However, I would have linked directly to NASA's page instead of the hack that wrote the article.

Re:Unit conversions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32904092)

This is only true because 1 squared is 1.

Re:Unit conversions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32904206)

A square with 3 foot sides has an area of ( 3 foot x 3 foot ) = 9 square feet. Draw it on a sheet of paper and it will become more apparent. You example is unique in that 1 squared is 1.

Re:Unit conversions (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903116)

One square meter is about 10.8 square feet. They got everything right except for the "nearly" part (it should be "over"). Squaring the unit does square the number.

NASA Misspoke (1)

peterofoz (1038508) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903310)

Their new mission is not to recognized the contributions by Muslims to the fields of mathematics and physics, but to develop a new paradigm for approximating numbers.

Just don't confuse metric with english units lest you miss Mars by a few 100,000 units of whatever

(oh, that's already been done: ref http://www.jamesoberg.com/mars/loss.html [jamesoberg.com] )

Re:Unit conversions (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903366)

1 square meter is the same as a square with sides measuring 1 meter. 10.8 square feet is the same as a square with sides measuring 10.8 feet. 1 meter != 10.8 feet. Think about it.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

WCguru42 (1268530) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903612)

Let's drop meter to feet conversions and go with 1 square yard to square feet.

There are 3 feet in a yard.

1 yard^2 * (3 feet/yard) * (3 feet/yard) = 9 feet^2

9 square units means you can fit nine 1 square units in the space (dependent on geometry you might have to modify the actual shapes of those pieces as a square unit doesn't necesary have equal length sides, or sides at all).

Re:Unit conversions (1)

mjpaci (33725) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904130)

10.8 feet square is the same as a square with sides measuring 10.8 feet.

10.8 square feet is an area that can hold the equivalent of 10.8 squares whose sides are 1 foot.

Re:Unit conversions (2, Insightful)

Dr Caleb (121505) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903120)

I learned many years ago that converting units for the metrically challenged does them no service. They need to learn to convert them themselves, so they can speak to the rest of the world in units we all understand.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903334)

It's not a big deal like you all make it out to be. Conversion between number systems is rudimentary math.

Re:Unit conversions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903604)

It's not a big deal like you all make it out to be. Conversion between number systems is rudimentary math.

Whether it's rudimentary or not wasn't the point. The point is that the people who don't like the metric units can bloody well do the rudimentary math themselves and maybe understand a little better what people outside of Americaland are doing.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903132)

Maybe it's 8.9 square feet (nearly 9 square feet), about 1 square meter (rounding up, and not overly concerned with accuracy)

Re:Unit conversions (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903158)

What the heck are you talking about? A square foot, say, is a measure of area. Scale the linear dimensions and the value of the area goes up by the square of the linear dimensions. A square foot = 144 square inches. Same thing with european units, presumably.

Re:Unit conversions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903166)

No, it's how people who can do math say it.

3 linear feet by 3 linear feet = 9 square feet.

(But, yes, 1 square meter is more than 9 square feet.)

Re:Unit conversions (1)

carn1fex (613593) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903170)

Yea and 200kg is about 441lbs.. but as this is not in libraries-of-congress, the numbers are incomprehensible anyways.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

sv_libertarian (1317837) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903206)

It's laziness and for most of the public and unwilling desire based on perceived lack of need to properly understand the metric system. In this case most Americans "know" that a meter is "a bit more than a yard" and since most won't care that much about the size of this thing, when someone says "three square meters", most will round it off to "about 9 square feet". Granted in this case the article should have said for the lazy "somewhat more than 9 square feet" or something like that. Sorry, the metric system never caught on over here except for large soda and water bottles, drugs, wine and distilled spirits.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

Sack (660286) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903458)

I think you missed the point of his question. He's not asking why the summary did not use a more precise conversion than "nearly 9 square feet." Rather, he's asking why the summary equates 1 square meter to 9 square feet instead of equating 1 square meter to 3 square feet.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904224)

It's a misguided question that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the difference between linear units and area units.

Re:Unit conversions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903208)

Do you say a 3x3 meter square is 3 square meters? Or 9 square meters?

A meter is about 3 ft. 3x3 = 9.

I was actually pleased that the unit in parenthesis was the imperial version, and I'm American.

Are all you Brits so obtuse?

Re:Unit conversions (5, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903242)

In English, the unit m^2 is written (and said) "square meter(s)" and the unit ft^2 is written "square foot [feet]".

So, one square meter is 1 m^2, which is an area 1 m x 1 m = 3.28 ft x 3.28 ft = 10.8 ft^2, which is 10.8 square feet.

There's an acceptable, albeit annoying, construction in English (or at least American English) that's completely different: "3 feet square" refers to an area 3 ft. x 3 ft., which is 9 ft^2.

Re:Unit conversions (2, Funny)

Meriahven (1154311) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903814)

[in American English] "3 feet square" refers to an area 3 ft. x 3 ft

I'm no expert in your language on that side of the big wet thing, but in Finglish the phrase would be "3 foot square", modulo hyphens. Which just further proves your point about the construction being annoying, I guess :-)

Re:Unit conversions (1)

cpotoso (606303) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903992)

Your rounding is incorrect. 1 ft = 0.305 m (exact), 1 m^2 = 1/(0.305)^2 ft^2 = 10.7497884... = 10.7 if you round it to the nearest 0.1.

Re:Unit conversions (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903252)

1 m^2

(1 m^2)(3.28 ft/m) = 3.28 m ft

(1 m^2)(3.28 ft/m)(3.28 ft/m) = 10.75 ft^2

Re:Unit conversions (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903278)

Yes. Because 3 feet are in a yard. And as a tool we can get these things called Yard Sticks and then we can usually easily envision 3 of those back to back to grasp the general size.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

jusdisgi (617863) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903280)

I don't know what you mean by "take off the square from the unit" but I can assure you we're doing it the same way it's done in metric, and there's only one right way. Just as one square meter is 10,000 square centimeters rather than 100, one square meter is ~10.8 square feet rather than ~3.3

Maybe it'll help to draw it on graph paper.

Re:Unit conversions (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903288)

Is that really how American's say it?

(How our what say it?)

I think the convention is that "feet square" vs "square feet" tell you whether or not the multiplication has been done yet. So it's 3.2 feet square or 10.24 square feet.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903410)

Presumably the wall area was intended to be for a cube shape ? Ti has a density of about 4.5g/cc and if it weighs 200kg (in space !) and has a 1cm wall thickness then presumably it has a surface area of around 44,000cm^2 which would give a total wall area of around 48 square feet or around 8 square feet per wall (if it is a cube). But what I really need is a good idea of the physical size of the library of congress, so that I can expess it in its proper units of SUV trunks per library of congress football field.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903420)

1 meter = 3.2808399 feet. Wouldn't that make it ~3.2 Square feet?

No, each square foot is a 1'x1' area, which is the standard unit of measure. There would be nine in a 1 meter tile.

Three foot square would describe an square area measuring 3 feet on a side, but people don't like the math. Wherever possible, the "^2" is removed so people don't need to do the calculation. So, the "9 square feet" is how it's usually described -- already multiplied. The single square foot is the base unit of measure when doing area -- it would never be 5ft^2, but 25 square feet.

If you want real fun, look at how construction is done here in North America (including Canada even though we're officially metric). All measurements are based on imperial since the industry never changed. AFAIK, all of the building codes and standards are still using those measures. Metric is almost completely excluded since the trades don't use it.

As someone who grew up with in the transition to metric -- my height and weight is in feet/inches and pounds. My speed is in kilometers. My measuring tape handles both. Baking uses cups, but gasoline is bought in liters. Beer is in pints. It really is complicated. :-P

Re:Unit conversions (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903436)

What has become of this world, when a consortium of Slashdotters can't convert 1 sq m to sq ft? No wonder I didn't drive to work today in the flying car I was promised 50 years ago.

Re:Unit conversions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903452)

How do you guys read slashdot and not know this? Square meter is a measure of area (length * length).
One square meeter = 1m * 1m
To convert this to feet, you need 3.2 feet * 3.2 feet.
There are 10.8 square feet in a square meter.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1+meter+^2+in+feet+^2

Re:Unit conversions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903620)

1 square meter is 1 meter by 1 meter. A 3 meter by 3 meter surface would be 9 square meters. There's no unit conversion problem in what was stated, other than that 9 square feet is underestimating by quite a bit. It's really more like almost 11 square feet.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903624)

that number isnt nearly as far off as the conversions from kilograms to pounds. 200 kilos = 500 pounds, but 18 kilos = 40 pounds??? There is a very liberal use of significant digits and rounding going on here. Or maybe its that one of these units was called mass, but the other weight.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903692)

Its 8.something square feet which converts to about 1 +/- 1 square meter.

The odd part is, in this day and age, I can't find anything but two or three pics and some super-fluffy PR trash. I searched google for awhile looking for info, couldn't find any.

Fifteen years ago, when I was on the internet, I was pleased to see I could download multi-hundred page "press kits" for shuttle launches, full of all kinds of detail, diagrams, writeups of each experiment and team, measurements, diagrams and blueprints. I wondered what the future would be like, and daydreamed of what amounts to reading nasa blogs, live webcams, tens or hundreds of times the detail. Read actual contracts and semi-internal status reports, since "publishing" on the net is approximately free. Public having read only mailing list access, sort of like modern twitter feeds? Very optimistic view of the future.

Fifteen years later, what do I get? An extra shiny website with no more "press kits", two or three snapshots, and a handful of cutesy fluffy bunny BS for high school glee club. Just about the right level to try and interest middle school girls into a career in technology. Nothing at all for educated, adult, space fanatics. WTF? Where did it all go wrong?

Re:Unit conversions (1)

multimediavt (965608) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903998)

Oh yeah, try this...

weighs about 200 kilograms (500 pounds) ... and 18 kilograms (40 pounds) in mass.

So does the vault weigh 40 or 500 lbs?

I hope the article is correct and it's just the summary or we're gonna have a problem getting Juno where it needs to go!

Re:Unit conversions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32904080)

This is why we American's sometimes have doubts about people over the pond telling us how to do math...

assume 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft)

1 m x 1 m = 1 m^2 or 1 square meter

3.3 ft x 3.3 ft = 10.89 ft^2 or 10.89 square feet.

You can't use a simple substitution when adding dimensions. I sincerely hope this was some sort of brain fart...

Re:Unit conversions (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904228)

3.2 square feet is wrong in the same sense that a square kilometer doesn't contain one thousand square meters, but a million of them.

But a meter is indeed more than three feet, so it should be "over nine square feet" instead of "nearly".

Errors like this are the price they pay for non-metric units, I guess.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904282)

Is that really how American's say it?

Americans say everything with at least two units of measure and fractions.

So 1 square metre is 10 sqare feet, 110 and 3/1024th square inches... give or take.

Re:Unit conversions (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904298)

A square meter is the area of a square with 1 meter long sides. A square foot is the area of a square with 1 foot long sides.

9 square feet, would be the area of 9 squares with 1 foot long sides. Which if it was a square would be 3x3 feet.

It isn't nearly 9 square feet, it's over 10 square feet - though they are probably converting the "about a square meter" part not the "square meter" part.

Let the fat jokes commence (4, Funny)

Widowwolf (779548) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903038)

It's not fat, It's thick plated!

shiny (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903056)

But if you hold it the wrong way it blocks the antenna

Juniper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903058)

"Juniper" has 63 moons, eh?

Re:Juniper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32904066)

Of course it has juniper berries, it's a juniper planet!

Couldn't get past the headline... (2, Funny)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903098)

it is just screaming for a pewpewpew tag!

Re:Couldn't get past the headline... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903742)

Only if they used a 1600mm rolled tungsten plate or two, some EANMs, a T2 damage control and some trimarks for their tank. But armour tanking makes you slow.

Antenna? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903182)

Does the antenna still work if you hold this?

HURRY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903214)

Shoot if off before congress kills this project too!

1.8 g/cm^3? What material is that? (1)

isaac (2852) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903274)

Per the measurements given (18kg/(1m^2 * 1cm)) the vault's density is 1.8 grams per cubic centimeter. This is much less dense than aluminum (or steel or lead obviously) - anyone know what the vault is made from?

-Isaac

Re:1.8 g/cm^3? What material is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903356)

Titanium, per the article and summary.

Re:1.8 g/cm^3? What material is that? (1)

isaac (2852) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903394)

Titanium, per the article and summary.

Titanium is over twice as dense - about 4.5g/cm^3 - so either the material spec is wrong or the dimensions are wrong.

Probably the latter, I guess.

Re:1.8 g/cm^3? What material is that? (1)

SmurfButcher Bob (313810) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903554)

No, it's... in space! With no gravity, so it weighs less! Yeah!

That, and they were probably holding the tape measure wrong.

Re:1.8 g/cm^3? What material is that? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903810)

Per the measurements given (18kg/(1m^2 * 1cm)) the vault's density is 1.8 grams per cubic centimeter. This is much less dense than aluminum (or steel or lead obviously) - anyone know what the vault is made from?

The density of extra glossy thick marketing material is about one and a half g/cc, I kid you not. (I'm talking about "junk mail" type paper thats almost but not quite cardboard slathered with glossy ink).

Obviously the device is made out of printed out power point presentations. I've heard NASA is pretty good at making power point presentations, if nothing else...

Re:1.8 g/cm^3? What material is that? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904050)

Presumably it also has more than one wall.

The summary is horribly written, but it does mention that the vault masses 200 kg (is that including contents?) then later that one wall (?) is 18 kg, which doesn't add up either.

Supposing the 200 kg is correct and we're talking about a cube, then each 1 m^2 wall masses 200 / 6 = 33 1/3 kg, or 3.33 g/cm^3. That's close enough to the density of titanium that I suspect the 200 kg figure is correct and the box just isn't a cube.

if this is a NASA story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32903360)

why are we reading it on the advertising shitfest that is networkworld ?

Is there an engineer or scientist in the house? (5, Insightful)

natoochtoniket (763630) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903610)

"about 200 kilograms (500 pounds), has walls that measure about a square meter (nearly 9 square feet) in area, about 1 centimeter (a third of an inch) in thickness, and 18 kilograms (40 pounds) in mass. About the size of an SUV's trunk "

I notice a few issues in this description, which also appears in the article. Some fact-checking might be in order.

How can a single thing be 200 kg, and also be 18 kg? You would think that a single thing would have only one mass.

Then, of course, a square meter is slightly more than 10 square feet.

How can a single square meter of material be made into all six sides of a box the size of a SUV trunk, without slicing it into thinner sheets. A square meter might make one side of such a box, but not all six. If all six sides of a cube total 1 square meter, each side would be about 40.8 cm square. Of course, the box doesn't have to be a cube, but the sum of the areas of the six sides still cannot exceed the total of the material.

Titanium has density of 4.5 g/cm^3. So a 100x100x1 cm piece of it would be 45 kg, not 18 kg.

Re:Is there an engineer or scientist in the house? (3, Informative)

rwv (1636355) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903950)

Maybe they are estimating badly. Encasing a command module in square plates of titanium, however, would require 6 of those plates (envision a six-sided die). 6*18kg = 108kg. Using your math, 6*45kg = 270kg. The summary estimates 200kg which falls somewhere in between the two back of the envelope calculations.

So my guess is that 200kg refers to the total enclosure that's being created from 6 different components that are estimated in the summary to each weigh 18kg.

It'd be nice if people who submit articles "measured twice and cut once" for the maths they include in their submissions, since this is that place where discussion of the incorrect math will dominate an otherwise interesting conversation about Jupiter exploration.

Re:Is there an engineer or scientist in the house? (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904156)

Also the comments about Juniper having moons. I would like to think that it was a typo, but it is too conveniently a Google keyword that would raise the page rank.

Re:Is there an engineer or scientist in the house? (1)

Gravitron 5000 (1621683) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904146)

You took out an important part of the summary. It weighs 200 kg, but its mass is 18 kg. They must be measuring the weight in a high gravity environment.

Also, about a square meter, is not exactly one square meter. The loss a square foot depends whether your approximate meter is on the big side or small side of an actual square meter.

Re:Is there an engineer or scientist in the house? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904342)

Perhaps the units are in Martian measures.

Days on Mars are almost, but not quite, equal to days on Earth.
Mars meters (and feet) are also not the same as Earth measures due to the difference in gravities (and thus space-time warping).

Perhaps Martian math isn't an exact science...

Victory Unintentional (1)

ibirman (176167) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903708)

Asimov's ZZ-1, ZZ-2, and ZZ-3 now have a companion! Can we call it ZZ-4?

Re:Victory Unintentional (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903812)

Asimov's ZZ-1, ZZ-2, and ZZ-3 now have a companion! Can we call it ZZ-4?

I say we call it ZZ Top. :-P

this is the american space program (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903724)

for those who havent seen it in action. if the math is correct we tend to affirm our intention to have visited the planet. should the math be flagrantly bogus, a press statement is quickly issued to confirm our original intent to send millions of dollars of exotic probe hardware hurtling into the surface of a far away world for science.

if you're a space alien, dont worry. eventually a probe will either land or explode violently on your homeworld. its the intergalactic equivalent of throwing rocks down a dark alley to make friends.

Something new? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#32903906)

Ordinarily, we don't hear about shielding, certainly not about a titanium tank to shield those electrtonics. Crap, they should have welded some A-10 cockpit tubs together...

Is this because NASA is using some COTS electronics on this mission? In the 'old days', we saw hardened electronics being used. Or is it a unique mission requirement, beyond what the old probes did?

Re:Something new? (2, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904088)

Is this because NASA is using some COTS electronics on this mission? In the 'old days', we saw hardened electronics being used. Or is it a unique mission requirement, beyond what the old probes did?

From TFA ..

For the 15 months Juno orbits Jupiter, the spacecraft will have to withstand the equivalent of more than 100 million dental X-rays

It's going to see hella radiation, so it needs some pretty beefy shielding. They're also using hardened components developed for Mars missions.

Without its protective shield, or radiation vault, Juno's brain would get fried on the very first pass near Jupiter

So, yes, it's a unique mission requirement.

Re:Something new? (2, Informative)

Tekfactory (937086) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904190)

FTFA

"For the 15 months Juno orbits Jupiter, the spacecraft will have to withstand the equivalent of more than 100 million dental X-rays," said Bill McAlpine, Juno's radiation control manager, based at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., in a release.

According to NASA Jupiter has sizzling radiation belts surrounding its equatorial region and extend out past one of its moons, Europa, about 650,000 kilometers (400,000 miles) out from the top of Jupiter's clouds. Juniper has 63 moons.

Re:Something new? (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904198)

Most likely a unique requirement as the article goes in to mention that Jupiter has stronger radiation fields then Mars, a planet supposably known for strong radiation.

NASA Juno site (1)

guido1 (108876) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904032)

The mission site is here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/spacecraft/index.html [nasa.gov] Includes pictures and better information, including Monday's press release, (which happens to be the source of the ft^3 m^3 units in the linked article): http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/news/juno20100712.html [nasa.gov]

Shielding is titanium, as lead wouldn't survive liftoff "too soft to withstand the vibrations of launch" and other materials were "were too difficult to work with".

Cables between electronics are shielded in copper or stainless braid, and smaller electronics sections have their own shields.

We welcome the planet Juniper overlords... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32904056)

"According to NASA Jupiter has sizzling radiation belts surrounding its equatorial region and extend out past one of its moons, Europa, about 650,000 kilometers (400,000 miles) out from the top of Jupiter's clouds.

"Juniper has 63 moons."

Too dangerous (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904196)

If this tank probe thing crashes back to earth, it could reek havoc. What are you going to do then, send some sort of cyborg superman to attach it to a skycrane and detonate a nuclear bomb beside it to destroy it?

Summary bad, but not as bad as you might think (4, Interesting)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904210)

The article links to some kind of 'ooh, look at me' article instead of NASA's own page on Juno.

Juno Armored Up to Go to Jupiter [nasa.gov]

Each titanium wall measures nearly a square meter (nearly 9 square feet) in area, about 1 centimeter (a third of an inch) in thickness, and 18 kilograms (40 pounds) in mass.

Not exactly good maths there, so probably a PR piece from a 'journalist'.
9 foot^2 = 0.84 m^2 [google.com] . Could be correct, though I wouldn't use "nearly" for something that far off. And it's impossible to tell if the walls are really 9 foot^2 and they just made a very rough guestimate of the metric equivalent.

1/3 inch = 0.85 cm [google.com]
Again, that could be right. It might be exactly 1/3rd inch and they guestimated that to about 1 cm. But it's still 15% off.

40 lbs = 18.14 kg [google.com]
And then you hit something where the weight is actually correct. But since they've messed up that much on the other two, we now don't know if it's exactly 40 lbs or exactly 18 kg.

Hell, we don't even know if the NASA guys who wrote this are incompetent or not. Well, we know they're incompetent, we even know how much (about 15%).

However, the NASA page seemingly being written by an 8-year-old with a bad understanding of units, doesn't really justify linking to an article that is essentially a copy of NASA's page, and especially not when there is no attribution or links to the original article.

SUV's trunk (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#32904358)

"About the size of an SUV's trunk..."

SUV's don't have trunks, they are generally hatchbacks with enclosed cargo areas.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...