41–50 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"RTGs are therefore only used when no other technology will work." I think this is a good thing. And it seems they can use them if nothing else works.
"Good" as in "extra expense and possibly lesser capabilities", I suppose.
Okay, this is awesome. 10kW is a serious enough amount of energy to do some fun stuff. Things like rovers that move at km/h rather than m/h and all day operation. It also solves the 'base load' problem on deep space missions which would like to use more power for radio communications.
Not really, since "moving parts" ...
This is a very cool technology, but frankly I have a hard time imagining that it will see much use. NASA sees public protests and scare mongering whenever it tries to fly an RTG, which is based in the radioactive decay of (usually) plutonium, and does not use a nuclear chain reaction. They did fly one on Mars Science Lab, because it was the only way to get enough power for the rover. But it takes a PR hit every time…
they should be indoctrinating kids at school that nuclear is safe, rather than other "stuff" they tell them nowadays
I agree with the sentiment. Anti-science sentiments proliferate partly because science doesn't spend much on public outreach, especially compared to people who want to make a buck off scaring others about new technologies. NASA has been doing more and more PR work over the past few years, and that's great - but IMO in this case, they really need to get someone who looks and sounds confident, and who would go on national TV and say "Yes, we are totally sending a nuclear reactor to space, why wouldn't we?".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with Stirling engines is they have moving parts. It's highly unlikely a Stirling cycle generator on the Voyagers would have operated for 40+ years as their RTGs have.
Yup, I wonder how they can guarantee the engine will keep turning for 10 years even. Maybe if everything is sealed in a (very long) lived lubricant that stands the harshness of space? Still hard to imagine
So a bit OT, I was wondering if anyone has yet thought about the solution of still using solar panels for them, but to also use a mirror to focus more light in the direction of the probe or a laserbeam?
I mean, theoretical I don't see why not, appart from being more expensive? Andd you could also offset the laser/mirror cost, because you only need them later on ....
(but to be on the safer side, I still would add a RTG)
Anyone know the approximate size of that thing? Hard to tell from the picture.
Hard to tell what the weight is, of course. Judging from the size of other objects in the picture (the lift point and the connectors) it's very roughly around four cubic feet. Which is actually pretty awesome; the equivalent solar panels would be significantly larger.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/201700...
My first thought was "deep space mission". But because of moving parts involved, this is probably not the use-case. So a bit OT, I was wondering if anyone has yet thought about the solution of still using solar panels for them, but to also use a mirror to focus more light in the direction of the probe or a laserbeam? I mean, theoretical I don't see why not, appart from being more expensive? Andd you could also offset…
Say you have a mission to Uranus, you will need a mirror with 400 times the area of the solar cells to get as much power as they would in earth orbit.
This is a very cool technology, but frankly I have a hard time imagining that it will see much use. NASA sees public protests and scare mongering whenever it tries to fly an RTG, which is based in the radioactive decay of (usually) plutonium, and does not use a nuclear chain reaction. They did fly one on Mars Science Lab, because it was the only way to get enough power for the rover. But it takes a PR hit every time…
Kilopower is safer, because it would launch inert, and it avoids Pu so any failures would be less toxic.
Downplaying the usefulness of a technology because of imaginary protesters isn't very helpful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how ?
They're very low power, make a lot of waste low-grade heat, and use an inefficient electricity generation approach.
That's probably the biggest issue for deep space it's extremely difficult to shed heat in hard vacuum (without ejecting mass and its heat with it) as you can only radiate it away.