3 ms·

I think the issue with Stirling Engines is the fact that they have moving parts that could wear and break down. Most (all?) RTGs are for all intents and purpos

• the8472 12y ago
  Yes, but I was comparing to molten salt reactors. Stirling engines are still much simpler than reactors, even if they are slightly more complicated than RTGs. AIUI they already have research models that are capable of running for decades without maintenance.
  • treetoppin 12y ago
    I worked for about a year and a half on the ASRG project, specifically doing reliability work for the Stirling engines. They had a bit of a ways to go to prove out the system (its a tricky problem trying to "prove" that your device will last 17 years), but they had made a whole lot of progress. The biggest problem for the project though was that the ASRG wasnt being designed for any one mission, so its performance requirements were a bit of a moving target.
• iwwr 12y ago
  >I think the issue with Stirling Engines is the fact that they have moving parts that could wear and break down. In NASA's ASRG design there is a stirling generator with only has one moving part: a free piston moving inside a coil, cushioned by the working gas. Wear and tear should be minimal, even for a multi-decade mission. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/docs/ASRGfacts2_10rev3_21.pdf https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/docs/ASRGfacts2_10rev3_21.p... (page 2)