Talk:Cassini retirement

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cassini retirement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe: ESA Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by ESA task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The End of Cassini

What is to become of Cassini at the end of the mission in 2008? After it performs its final task (what is that, by the way?), is it going to remain in orbit of Saturn forever? Or will it fly off into deep space? Or will it crash into Saturn or Titan? (unsigned)

It would probably be crashed into Saturn, assuming that they don't approve an extended mission. I wouldn't be surprised if they performed an extended mission (many of these interplanetary probes have been getting extended missions lately; the rovers on Mars, Mars Global Surveyor, Galileo, etc). bob rulz 21:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably good cause to put in a new article or subsection for the Cassini ultra-extended mission. There is talk about doing a gravity-assist maneuver and flinging it back toward Jupiter (or, at least, Sun-bound) to keep it from crashing into Titan or Enceledus. Here's a summary of the various options being looked at: http://www.sstd.rl.ac.uk/news/cassini/mission/ext.html 147.145.40.43 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good summary, and pretty close to the horse's mouth. The decision will be based on the science return for the expended resource (i.e. keeping the mission ops team together for the extra year or whatever). It isn't really about whether other missions have been extended in the past. Matt Whyndham 11:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not too far outside saturn's gravity well are the Saturn Trojans possibly remnants of the early solar system and objects like Charon that put out cometary discharges. and a good place to die in the end for a plutonium laden spacecraft. could we touch Cassini down on a smaller trojan? we did it with NEAR.--Infocat13 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (spelling cleaned by Matt Whyndham 11:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Crashing/landing on a moon is unlikely to be favoured because of the risk of biological contamination. Matt Whyndham 11:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a mission to crash the megabomb that is the Cassini probe (it carries almost 3000x the amount of plutonium of the largest nuke ever detonated on earth) into the hexagonal opening at Saturn's pole in an attempt to create a 'second sun' and make it possible to terraform Saturn's moon Titan, maybe? 86.135.164.200 13:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A 'formula quantity' of plutonium-239 is about 6.7 kg or 14 lb. That's what's in your "average" fission weapon or primary for a thermonuclear weapon (well, maybe not that much, with good tampers, etc). The Cassini probe has 72 lb. of plutonium in it, or about five average-sized nuclear weapons' worth - not 3,000. Efficiency limitations prevent significant increases in nuclear yield past four formula quantities of Pu-239 - 25 kg or 55 lb. for a yield in the neighborhood of 100-200 kt. The French MR31 missile warhead, probably the largest pure plutonium nuclear weapon built, may have had close to this much Pu-239, and had a yield of 120 kt. Moot point though, as Matt points out below. vfrickey 17:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vfrickey (talk • contribs)

That's just comic-book garbage. The RTG's on Cassini are not explosive. A very specific configuration of material needs to happen for fissile material to be made into a "megabomb". See Nuclear weapon design. Randomly throwing it at a planet isn't among the options. Matt Whyndham 11:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where has all this "Lucifer Project", "2nd Sun" stuff regarding Cassini come from? Why is there concern around the amount of plutonium on this probe in relation to previous missions? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a grassroots protest movement aimed at scrubbing the launch of Cassini unless (as Michio Kaku suggested) the RTGs onboard could be replaced with solar arrays, fuel cells, or a combination thereof. This despite the fact that the fuel in the RTGs (plutonium-239 oxide) was fabricated as refractory ceramic fuel elements with elaborate graphite "aeroshells" surrounding them, so that (a) exposure of the plutonium fuel during a re-entry (itself incredibly unlikely) would be highly unlikely to occur, and (b) if it did occur, the plutonium fuel would be in a form that would break up (IF it broke up) into small clumps, not finely distributed powder of the sort required to cause a toxicity problem. This whole "megabomb" trope comes from the fact that 72 pounds of plutonium is distributed among the three RTGs in Cassini. Read Carey Sublette's High Energy Weapons Archive, 4.2 "Fission Weapon Designs," however, for a good feel of the effort required to create a nuclear detonation with plutonium. You just can't get a nuclear detonation by randomly crushing plutonium - there would have to be explosives to compress the fissile plutonium past its critical mass/density. vfrickey 16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good News! It's an extended tour! Horray!!! --122.105.115.72 (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RTG

Has a decision been made to crash Cassini into Saturn yet? I didn't think so. Also, if this is done the reasoning is about biological contamination, not radiological. (re main article on 17 Sept 06) 80.177.152.35 23:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the most plausible outcome now according to the possible Solstice Extended Mission from 2010 to 2017--pending its approval from NASA. Refer here: Cassini Extended Missions PDF --Marsbound2024 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassini–Huygens Swan Song

I was curious about NASA's plans for the Cassini–Huygens spacecraft final exit, I realize those plans are flexible and determined by critical issues like low fuel and funding however it wasn't so long ago that NASA engineers were toying with the idea of letting Cassini break Saturn orbit and drift away to explore and eliminate the possibility of contaminating Saturn's moons. Exploring a similar idea could they still break orbit and aim Cassini back towards Jupiter which after some extra scientific exploration slingshot the spacecraft on a suicide plunge towards the Sun, I realize this is a lot to ask with current fuel levels -however if future spacecraft survival depends on limiting travel time via gravitational slingshots & fast speeds courtesy of our Sun lets see how fast (think speed record)and how long (as in not designed for) the Cassini–Huygens can survive its fiery plunge. Jalanp2 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem Cassini has is propellent. This is a shame, because with its 3 RTGs, it could function until about 2050. Basically, Cassini encounters moons often. These moons change its orbit. This is generally a good thing, because Cassini makes slight adjustments which the flybys amplify, so Cassini can go all over the Saturnian System at little expense of fuel. The trouble is that when the propellent runs out, Cassini will be thrown around until it crashes into something such as Saturn, 1 of its moons, or a ring, or it will be ejected from the Saturnian System.

Leaving Saturn with enough velocity to make it to Jupiter so it can end up in the Sun would be extremely difficult to accomplish. Considering that the RTGS have decades of life in them, it might be better to maneuver Cassini so that a flyby of a moon such as Titan ejects it from the Saturnian System and throws it into the L2 point of Saturn where it can observe the Saturnian System for decades. Another Possibility is to park Cassini in the L4 or L5 point of Titan. Because of the gravitational perturbations of the other moons, this would be stable for less than a decade, but it would still allows observations from within the Saturnian system into the 2020s.

64.175.35.23 (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename back

Please rename the article back to Cassini retirement because Huygens retirement was 12 years ago, see Huygens (spacecraft). 185.26.183.66 (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved back. @Brandmeister: please discuss. SkyWarrior 17:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about likely ambiguity, as it could mean the retirement of Giovanni Domenico Cassini. Something like Cassini space probe retirement could be better. Brandmeister^talk 18:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to move to Cassini retirement (spacecraft).--Twilight Magic (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the move to Cassini-Huygens I though it was not correct. About the current title, I feel no ambiguity in "Cassini retirement" because I'd expect "retirement of Domenico Cassini" as a title for the person, but it's juts a title, so if you think we need more precision, fine with me.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article

Why isn't this just a subsection in Cassini–Huygens article? See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Galileo_(spacecraft)#End_of_mission_and_deorbit, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8004:AB20:3CA9:6BF2:6BF7:833F (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It *should* be part of the main article! I'm not sure how much of this is notability either. Dan100 (Talk) 21:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Dan100 (Talk) 21:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained acronym

The acronym EOL is used in the table, but isn't explained. Does anyone know what it stands for, and can it be included in the article? Stephen! ^Coming... 11:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EOL is End Of Life. Link added. CounterEarth (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Stephen! ^Coming... 10:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prospect of consensus to move. Andrewa (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cassini retirement → Grand Finale (Cassini) – The event of retiring Cassini has been named "The Grand Finale"...can I suggest the article is renamed Grand Finale (Cassini). See nasa.gov/mission/grand-finale SethWhales^talk 11:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the "Grand Finale" refers to the phase of the Cassini Solstice Mission when the spacecraft made orbits of Saturn with a periapsis between Saturn and its rings. This phase occurred from April–September 2017. This article, however, specifically refers to the plans to, and the eventual occurrence, of the spacecraft's disposal in September 2017. The Grand Finale mission phase itself is not specifically described in this article, but the aforementioned details on Cassini's disposal is. I do propose the article's name to be renamed to the more suitable "Retirement of Cassini (spacecraft)", to make it more in line with article titles such as "Timeline of Cassini–Huygens". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 11:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed Per arguments above by PhilipTerryGraham. The disposal/retirement of the spacecraft will be searched by users as such, not under a poetic description. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed as well - based on comments by PhilipTerryGraham and BatteryIncluded presented earlier - the suggested names, "Retirement of Cassini (spacecraft)" or "Disposal of Cassini" , seem *entirely* ok with me also - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed from me too. Retirement has a clear, well-defined meaning. "Grand Finale" is used in varying contexts, and it's not clear this "Finale" includes a change of existence for Cassini, it just implies just a final performance. "Retirement" is poetic enough, there was no retirement; "Disposal of Cassini" is much clearer a title for foreshadowing what happens to Cassini! 74.10.5.213 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed Option ″Disposal of Cassini″ is the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.109.16.2 (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For-As this article will eventually and inevitably be expanded, "Grande Finale" may be a better title, as it includes Cassini's end of mission, along with the science and overview of this particular phase of its overall mission.Swilliamrex (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed Every swan song has a prelude. kencf0618 (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PhilipTerryGraham. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 01:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it is too unclear for people searching for it. The previous suggested name of "Retirement of Cassini (spacecraft)" by PhilipTerryGraham were much clearer than "Grand Finale" in my opinion.Contraption5000 (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The name doesn't make sense and a terrible rename. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.