We can theoretically run trips down to the depths of the ocean faster than we can send stuff into outer space, plus there's the whole going with or against gravity thing. But powering an expedition down into the ocean is *seemingly* easier than one into outer space, since they have to go farther and last longer. So, you can't really burn stuff without oxygen and there is a significant lack of that out in space. No wind to power wind turbines. Batteries seem logical but how do you charge them? You're got 2 options so far: solar charged batteries and nuclear radioisotope thermal generators. What if your space mission takes you out too far from the sun? What to a really cloudy or dusty planet, or anything that would obstruct the sunlight? That's where nuclear power comes in.
Radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs) are really just that, radioisotopes that generate thermal...energy. The main use is to get really really hot and provide heat to a thermocouple, where two metals are connected and temperature differences create an electric current. These RTGs are restricted to powering things that require less than about 100 Watts but they can last up to 50 years. Voyager 1 space probe was launched in 1977 and is expected to keep transmitting signals up until 2025.The drawback is that even though these things can last that long, they're still serious radiation hazards long after they've surpassed their useful power lifetimes. So, we can't ethically just go parking radioactive golf carts on other planets, inhabited or not. We're not likely to power any manned probes with these as they're too low power and potentially dangerous to support us, but they're pretty darn useful when the sun isn't shining in the depths of space.
-Michael
Is that B Franks with Wolverine blades? lol. Space missions are an ideal place to use RTGs since they're radioactivity are nowhere near humans. I wonder if any of the radiation is enough to do any damage to the components of such vehicle. Interesting Blog.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, they're primarily alpha emitters so probably no significant damage. Have you seen the movie The Martian where he takes the RTG out of the living center and hangs it in his vehicle to warm him? I'm pretty sure that's been vetted and found scientifically possible.
DeleteSpace and deep ocean exploration are both exciting to me. I think that I'm more interested in space, although I have heard that we have only explored about 5% of the Earth's oceans, which seems crazy low to me. There may be a sea monster that we don't even know about!
ReplyDeletevery interesting! It will be crazy to see where the future of space exploration goes.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting blog, especially since I love reading and learning about space exploration. It does seem a bit crazy that we have explored space more than our own oceans though. Maybe because space seems more mysterious and unknown, while we can see or swim in an ocean any day? I don't know but both are very interesting to learn about.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of the reason is because we can "see" into space. Water attenuates EM radiation, that's the reason ships and submarines use sonar since it's sound waves travel farther. The downside of that is like we learned in lab Thursday, different densities reflect and refract sound waves like they do light, thus really deep and cold stuff changes the density of water enough to reflect or trap the sound. Plus, most of space (aside from near really heavy objects with weird gravity) is subject to the same vacuum, while the pressure grows steadily the deeper you get. I would love to see what the bottom of the Mariana Trench looks like but I doubt humans will ever go down there.
DeleteThis is a very unique perspective on nuclear energy as most have not thought about how to power these space missions that we want to undertake
ReplyDelete