Gregory's Server
@Junco Yeah, like that! (RTGs; 50 watts of endless power ... from a 50kg package that costs $50M. Only deep space missions out past Jupiter need apply!)
|
12 comments
 @graydon @cstross @Junco Your vehicle should not have "repeat the Lia accident" as a failure mode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_radiological_accident  @michael_w_busch @Junco @cstross The space-rated ones wound up with a "direct lunar return velocity into a steel mill" spec. Which didn't happen (though it would have been an interesting report from the night shift about the hole in the roof...) but Apollo 13 did, and as I recall they fished those out of the Pacific and flew them again. Which does seem like "sufficiently sturdy" was achieved. @graydon @Junco @cstross Apollo 13's RTG was never recovered - it was deliberately dropped in 10 km of water. The RTG from the Nimbus B launch failure in 1968 was recovered from a few hundred meters down - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbus_B . The redesign was after the Transit 5BN-3 launch failure in 1964, where the older RTG disintegrated on re-entry. @michael_w_busch @Junco @cstross Thank you! I do find it kinda silly to be paralytically worried about 4 kilos of Pu in the atmosphere given the amount scattered about by weapons testing. @michael_w_busch @graydon @cstross @Junco So has anybody actually checked a Tesla for radiation sources? It would be a bit unlikely for power but the computers might need some sort of RTG back-up. So... funny story. Tesla has already lost at least one source... and maybe three of them. THIS YEAR ALONE. @michael_w_busch @graydon @cstross @Junco totally coincidentally, I went along the highway on the other side of that valley in 2014 on the way to Mestia ... was a definite "huh" moment when I read about the accident earlier this year ...  |
@cstross @Junco You will of course be aware of the folks who want to do RTG with short-half-life isotopes. Including some folks who want to power nanobots with radioactive aluminium.