The reactors in Voyager 1 rely on the heat produced by decaying plutonium, which decays into uranium. We could’ve powered it with the uranium, But, uranium decays INCREDIBLY slowly. You’d have needed like, some 70,000…
But, wouldn’t it have been worth it to keep this thing running thousands of years longer? Instead of just one light-day, we could’ve reached multiple light-weeks!
(This was written specifically for Voyager 1, but it may be applicable to Voyager 2)
6 comments
I’m not relying on the radiation to power it.
But rather, it’s own decay process.
That’s what they used.
The slower it decays, the more you’d need,
But the longer it decays, the longer it’s powered.
Which is why plutonium seemed so perfect.
But, we simply would’ve needed a little more time,
And it’d have been done,
With radium.
> ...
> this all would’ve been very completable in 1977
first flight of the Shuttle was 1981.
I think you're vastly overestimating the ability of 70s-era spacewalks to assemble a spacecraft in orbit, including handling 600 pounds of radioactive material
Just, possible.
But, I’d truly love for the thing to stay in contact for the first few thousand.
Wouldn’t you?
Read the full thread on Hacker News →
Related stories
- Less protein for maggots means longer lives for fruit fliesarstechnica.comArs Technica · 0 points · 1 day ago
- Initial-scale no longer neededquirksmode.orgHacker News · 1 points · 5 days ago
- Microsoft Publisher will no longer be supported after October 2026support.microsoft.comHacker News · 3 points · 7 days ago
- Lobsters · 6 points · 8 months ago
- Alzheimer's Is No Longer an Untreatable Diseasesciencealert.comHacker News · 4 points · 8 days ago
- When is a river no longer a river?texasmonthly.comHacker News · 2 points · 9 days ago