Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
I thought they were getting rid of that method (reverse peltier effect) and implementing something else nuclear related. I had read about this quite a while ago and forget the details.
In any case, that method works well IMO, probably won't provide tons of power, but still a good amount for them to work with.
I wonder how their efficiency is on that now... I remember that they were working on bringing the efficiency as high as possible. I want to know how much plutonium they're going to use and how much heat that will develop.
The only other nuclear project I can think of was Prometheus, which (dammit all) was cancelled. It was supposed to yield fission-powered spacecraft. Probes could have equipment whose power consumption could be in the kilowatts range, not watts. To give you an idea of power levels in current spacecraft, Cassini, the largest probe launched to this date, has a power output of about 700 watts from 3 radioisotope thermoelectric generators. Its high gain antenna has an output of 20 watts.
Prometheus was to allow probes to have genuine fission reactors to operate very powerful instruments. I would have loved to see a fission-powered probe visit Jupiter's moon Europa. The large amount of power could have allowed for deep scans of the moon, to look for the theorized ocean beneath its icy crust.
Concerning the RTGs on Cassini:
"The Power and Pyrotechnics Subsystem provides regulated 30 Volts DC electrical power to the spacecraft. The power is derived from three Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs), each of which use heat from the radioactive decay of 10.9 kg of plutonium dioxide to generate 300 Watts of electrical power at launch, reducing to around 210 Watts at the end of the nominal, eleven-year mission."
Source
Originally posted by: wahoyaho
how come they just find this out now?
Because before Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter arrived, they didn't have a camera in orbit with 30cm/pixel resolution.
