Joe,
I've read about RTG's but would like more info on how they work, ie schematics. Seems hard to find on the
net. Can you direct me to a source, or answer a few questions. How much U-238 is required to produce this
500 watts? If they are small, simple and safe, how come they are not more readily available, say to the
public? Are they prohibitively expensive, a radiation hazard?
Jim
Joe wrote:
> >>After this observation we continued to discuss about
> >>different satellite topics and somehow it came up that
> >>there are satellites with atomic reactors "up there" which
> >>will decay in the atmosphere for sure.
>
> An experimental nuclear reactor power system, the SNAP 10A which used
> thermoelectric power conversion, was launched by the United States in 1965 and
> worked satisfactorily for 43 days until shut down. It is now in a very high
> orbit where it will remain for hundreds of years. Except for that one case, the
> use of nuclear sources for powering spacecraft built and launched by the United
> States been limited to very low power (less than 1/2 kW) systems called
> radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG). They do not use nuclear reactor
> heat sources. RTGs convert the heat generated by the decay of radioisotopes to
> electricity by using an array of thermocouples. Compared to a 1000-kilowatt
> reactor RTG's are extremely small,simple and safe. The fuel source in all U.S.
> RTGs has been plutonium-238.
>
> >>Who knows, how many reactors are up there?
> I'm not certain, but at last count I think it was about 48 RTG's.
>
> >>Embedded in what satellites?
> not sure of them all, I'll have to look it up later.
>
> >>Any plans to bring them back safely? :-)
>
> Of the RTGs launched by the US, there have been three mission malfunctions that
> I know of involving spacecraft which carried a total of four RTGs. One of these
> occurred in 1964 before the full fuel containment policy was initiated. This
> was the SNAP 9A RTG aboard a malfunctioning Navy spacecraft and it burned up in
> the upper atmosphere as designed. Since 1964, the design philosophy of full
> fuel containment has performed flawlessly in two mission failures involving
> RTGs. One landed intact in the Pacific Ocean in 1968 after a Nimbus B weather
> satellite failed to reach orbit. The two generators were recovered and their
> fuel used in a subsequent mission. In 1970, the Apollo 13 lunar module
> reentered the atmosphere and its RTG was jettisoned and fell intact into the
> Tonga Trench of the Pacific Ocean. In each case air and water samples taken in
> the reentry area indicate there was no release of radioactive material.
>
> >>How, in general, it was possible to solve the
> >>(veeery heavy) radiation shielding which made
> >>reactor driven aircrafts obsolete
> >>(because they where too heavy to lift off...)?
>
> No country was ever able to develop a true atomic-powered aircraft. But a
> nuclear plane of sorts did manage to fly, the NB-36H test airplane. Its
> original B-36H airframe had been extensively modified, most notably with a
> 12-ton shielded crew capsule in the nose, a 4-ton lead disc shield in the
> middle and a number of large air intake and exhaust holes to cool the reactor
> in the aft section. The reactor was a 1000-kilowatt design weighing 35,000
> pounds. Its operation was observed from the crew capsule by closed circuit
> television. NB-36H flew with its radioactive cargo 47 times between 1955 and
> 1957, and, although it did not power the airplane, the reactor provided
> considerable data on the effects of radiation emitted during flight. The test
> plane was eventually decommissioned at Fort Worth in late 1957.
>
> Joe Hurley
> 42.669575 -073.685737
> (Don't spam me, these are just the coordinates geocode spit out at me.)
> RS_Joe@yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
> http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
> in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org
> http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org
http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 25 2001 - 04:58:22 PDT