5 ms·
They mention possible future uses both for power production on space missions, and terrestrial power production. Is there likely to be a gap where it makes sens
by abeppu 6y ago
They mention possible future uses both for power production on space missions, and terrestrial power production. Is there likely to be a gap where it makes sense for the first, but not the second? E.g. is producing a deuterium-loaded metal an energy intensive undertaking, which could cause a process overall to be net negative, but still useful to put on a satellite?
- paledot 6y agoSure. Radioisotope thermal generators are standard issue on deep space probes but nearly unheard of in terrestrial applications, because there are so many easier and cheaper sources of energy on earth. If the best they can manage is a large, heavy reactor that produces a slow trickle of electricity that lasts for decades, that's viable for many autonomous space applications but nothing special on Earth, except maybe in a few remote applications like sensor platforms on the sea bed or inside volcanoes.
- addaon 6y ago"nearly unheard of in terrestrial applications" That "nearly" hides a lot of interesting stories, though! https://englishrussia.com/2009/01/06/abandoned-russian-polar-nuclear-lighthouses/ https://englishrussia.com/2009/01/06/abandoned-russian-polar...
- gpm 6y agoIf it's substantially more expensive per watt than solar, wind, and so on but can still be done compactly it could make sense for deep space probes that are too far from the sun for solar power. Currently these are powered by capturing heat from decaying radioactive elements which is far from efficient or cheap. Mostly I think that's just nasa justifying nasa doing this research though.