On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:42:22 -0800, John Smith
wrote:
On 11/12/2011 11:12 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:24:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:44 pm, John wrote:
On 11/11/2011 10:10 PM, RHF wrote:
...
-wrt- Faraday Cage :
Old Metal {Steel} Garbage Can with a
tight fitting Lid. -store-holding-
+ The Solid State AM/FM/SW Radio
+ Plenty of Batteries
-or- Re-Chargeable Batteries and a
Solar Charger
-no-tubes-required- ~ RHF
.
Satellites are withstanding these on an almost daily basis, for years,
if not decades ... doesn't seem to be a real problem anymore ...
however, laying hands to that technology might be a bit of a different
story ... as, while one nation might wants its' own satellites hardened,
it certainly doesn't want the enemies ...
Regards,
JS
As far as I know- none of the satellites are using vacuum tubes .
That's the reality .
Dream on. Just about every satellite in the sky uses vacuum tubes. The
TWT (travelling wave tube) is still the way to generate high, reliable
power for space-borne transmitters.
d
They would be fools to attempt to boost the weight and fragility of
vacuum tubes into space, if they have any other alternative ... high
power is easily handled with the modern transistors ... the energy
requirements of the heaters is also another no-go ...
Regards,
JS
Energy requirements are not a problem, and neither is G-loading on
takeoff. You are inventing problems where none need exist. TWTs are
mega-reliable devices with a very predictable life curve.
It is much more important to know exactly how long and how well your
satellite is going to work than to hope to get longer by using a
technology that might last longer, but will more probably die
unexpectedly when struck by a cosmic ray burst.
d