Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,522
- 15,564
- 146
I wonder if that's the amount that can burn up safely in the case of an unscheduled re-entry.
Actually these things are almost comically tough:
second was the Nimbus B-1 weather satellite whose launch vehicle was deliberately destroyed shortly after launch on 21 May 1968 because of erratic trajectory. Launched from the Vandenberg Air Force Base, its SNAP-19 RTG containing relatively inert plutonium dioxide was recovered intact from the seabed in the Santa Barbara Channel five months later and no environmental contamination was detected.[28]
failure of the Apollo 13 mission in April 1970 meant that the Lunar Module reentered the atmosphere carrying an RTG and burned up over Fiji. It carried a SNAP-27 RTG containing 44,500 Ci (1,650 TBq) of plutonium dioxide which survived reentry into the Earth's atmosphere intact, as it was designed to do, the trajectory being arranged so that it would plunge into 69 kilometers of water in the Tonga trench in the Pacific Ocean. The absence of plutonium-238 contamination in atmospheric and seawater sampling confirmed the assumption that the cask is intact on the seabed. The cask is expected to contain the fuel for at least 10 half-lives (i.e. 870 years). The US Department of Energy has conducted seawater tests and determined that the graphite casing, which was designed to withstand reentry, is stable and no release of plutonium should occur. Subsequent investigations have found no increase in the natural background radiation in the area. The Apollo 13 accident represents an extreme scenario because of the high re-entry velocities of the craft returning from cis-lunar space (the region between Earth's atmosphere and the Moon). This accident has served to validate the design of later-generation RTGs as highly safe.
If it was used in a fission reactor, you can get a lot more out of it. This is just slow radioactive decay that produces heat, which then uses thermocouples to convert that to electricity. It's not efficient at all, but it lasts a long time and is far more simplistic than an outright reactor, though having a proper reactor would mean a lot more energy available for some very powerful equipment.
Thanks!
I'll also point out the 125W you get from 4.8kg is the electrical power. Thermally it's giving off around 2500W thermally. So it does give off a lot more power as heat.
At 125W electrical it puts it right in 4-6% efficiency range.