Atlas V rockets have been the choice for launching all NASA's RTG-equipped deep space probes for nearly two decades, including New Horizons and the latest Mars rovers. Future NASA missions, such as Dragonfly set for 2028, will not have access to these rockets. Do we have any reliable information on which modern LV would be certified for launches with radioactive materials onboard? Falcon 9/Heavy, Vulcan, or probably both? (I'm just wondering about the possibility of Trident mission and the actual mass constrains to keep it somewhat low-budget).
Who performs the certification, how is it paid for, and what are the requirements?
Falcon 9 v1.2 is the most reliable orbital launch vehicle devised to date. 330+ consecutive successes. Yet on July 12 one failed during Starlink 9-3, leaving a second stage and payload in a degrading orbit from which they soon reentered - somewhere - spreading a path of debris over some part of the planet. Upper stage and payload debris is one thing when partly disintegrated and spread uncontrolled over an area of the planet. Plutonium 238 is another.
Yet on July 12 one failed during Starlink 9-3, leaving a second stage and payload in a degrading orbit from which they soon reentered - somewhere - spreading a path of debris over some part of the planet.
Also, years ago now, before all of those successes, a Falcon 9 blew up on SLC 40, exploding and, more importantly for this discussion, burning. An RTG in that circumstance could result in a substantial decontamination zone that would have to be closed for an extended period of time, encompassing, perhaps, multiple nearby launch sites and support facilities.
True, Falcon 9 seems to be the obvious choice in the terms of safety. Things might be a bit trickier for Falcon Heavy, however. Can't say anything about Vulcan so far. Titan IIIE launched Viking 1 on its 3rd flight, but it was another era.
AFAIK the certification is done by NASA, and for launching the spacecraft with RTG onboard your need a Category 3 LV with some additional requirements for FTS (aka "nuclear rating"). Since F9 is regularly launching crewed missions, I assume it is already "Category 3" certified, nevertheless, at least some paperwork needs to be done before NASA could fly Dragonfly on Falcon Heavy.
Cat 3 cert and nuclear rating are completely different. There is major work required for nuclear approval.
Quote from: shiro on 08/18/2024 06:50 pmAFAIK the certification is done by NASA, and for launching the spacecraft with RTG onboard your need a Category 3 LV with some additional requirements for FTS (aka "nuclear rating"). Since F9 is regularly launching crewed missions, I assume it is already "Category 3" certified, nevertheless, at least some paperwork needs to be done before NASA could fly Dragonfly on Falcon Heavy.Cat 3 cert and nuclear rating are completely different. There is major work required for nuclear approval.
With the developing situation of 2024YR4, I'm thinking that a weapon delivery system might become a much higher priority in the next couple of years.
Payload would be purposely deorbited (MSL and M2020 contingency ops) over an unpopulated area.
Quote from: Jim on 08/18/2024 09:51 pmPayload would be purposely deorbited (MSL and M2020 contingency ops) over an unpopulated area.That is, if the second stage failure was not energetic enough to damage the payload and make it uncontrollable.
