this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
131 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

77090 readers
3566 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"The isotope of interest for space is americium-241....Its half-life is a staggering 432 years, five times longer than plutonium-238."

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 51 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

In the UK, large stocks of civil nuclear waste contain significant quantities of americium-241. That makes the fuel not only long-lasting but also readily accessible. Instead of building new reactors to produce plutonium, agencies can extract Americium from existing waste, a form of recycling at a planetary scale.

Using it seems way more preferable to just letting it sit in casks.

Traditional RTGs utilize thermoelectrics, which are reliable but inefficient, often achieving only five percent efficiency. Stirling engines can convert heat to electricity with an efficiency of 25 percent or more. [...] Stirling engines introduce moving parts, which also raises reliability concerns in space. However, Americium’s steady heat output enables RTG designs with multiple Stirling converters operating in tandem. If one fails, the others compensate, preserving power output.

That seems a little ridiculous though. All that friction requires a lube that'll last "generations." In space, without gravity, and at incredibly low temperatures.

[–] rowinxavier@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, but there are many good options. Magnetic alignment can keep things from touching most of the time, maintaining very good movement without friction. Graphite is a great lubricant and works even in very cold environments, not to mention it will not be all that cold given the heat passing through the system. Redundancy is also a big part of the design, making failures much less impactful. And using sterling engines for the highest draw part of the lifetime of a probe with peltier style generators there for later would allow a failover to a solid state system at lower efficiency.

[–] KingOfSuede@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Sterling Engines are usually piston driven, no? I’ll admit, I’m not up to snuff on alternative designs of the Sterling engine.

Magnetically aligned or not, you still have to seal the piston to the chamber to stop blow-by. Friction and lubrication would still come into play, wouldn’t it?

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago

And Stirling engines run on gases, so the contraption would have to be sealed. Not insurmountable, and I love me some Stirling engine... IANAE but it seems a challenging choice for a device which hopes up run for decades or a century.

[–] rowinxavier@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Not necessarily. You don't actually need the fluid to be perfectly sealed out, just slowed down a lot. This means that you could run it open but with very close tolerances and there would be almost no leakage. You just need to make the gap small enough for the leakage to be trivial.

As for magnetic alignment, that is all about maintaining smooth operation without losing efficiency to friction. Instead of a guide with friction you could use magnetic attraction to keep things aligned.

[–] aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, not at low temperatures, stirling engines still need heat.

[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

My understanding of space engineering is that getting rid of heat is a bigger problem. Makes me wonder how much of efficiency of Stirling engines are lost due to extra weight and complexity for heat exchangers and radiators.

[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You think thermoelectric generators are going to struggle with low temperatures?

If there's one thing we can practically guarantee, it's the heat output lol

I'm not an engineer in this space, so i'll leave it to more knowledgeable people to poke holes in my argument.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago

I'm not an engineer in this space

I see what you did there.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not thermoelectrics, but sterling engines. But fair point about the heat.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Voyager I and II are 48 years old running on thermoelectric generators. that’s amazing. They are winding down because the half life of plutonium means there is much less power than when new.

I can see future probes lasting even longer with americium as a fuel source

But introducing moving parts for a sterling engine? In space? And expect it to last like that? Seems unlikely

[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Good point on the lubricants, but given the potential profits, it's already being worked on. https://www.nyelubricants.com/space

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

isn't this the same element found in older smoke detectors?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago
[–] Badabinski@kbin.earth 4 points 2 weeks ago

Yep, and it's still used in some new ones.

[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

That it is!

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It also costs about 10 times as much as gold. Still actually cheaper than Pu-238 though but hard to put a price on Pu since it isn't for sale.

As an alpha emitter it is as dangerous as Polonium but it doesn't dissolve in water. It is easily shielded but if it gets in your body it causes lots of damage, similar to Plutonium.

[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

10 times as much as gold

To -make-, yep. As the article pointed out, there's a lot of Amercium in waste dumps where old smoke detectors ... and anyone can make it. Five times the half-life means it can power much longer missions.

[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

I like to recover old smoke detectors and eat the americium. I'm well on my way to becoming captain americium.

[–] Johnmannesca@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Seems kinda dangerous to do radioactive materials scrapping, but if you got the safety protocols and equipment worked out then it's a living

[–] diablexical@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

longer missions

The length of missions is not currently and will not in the short or medium term be limited by the lifespan of plutonium.

[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Except in regions where there is no access to Pu ... as the article itself pointed out.

[–] mercano@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

With an atomic number of 241, it’s hardly small.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes. And also:

Its half-life is a staggering 432 years, five times longer than plutonium-238.

Cringe...

AI slop?

[–] settxy@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Cringe…

AI slop?

Plutonium-238's half-life is 87.7 years, Americium-241 is 432.6 years. Which... is almost 5 times longer, so... not sure why that's cringe?

With an atomic number of 241, it’s hardly small.

I believe they're referring to the fact that it's not an element of major topic. This is the first time I've ever heard of it.

I think this could be compelling given that tech continues to get more power efficient. I don't know the numbers, but if we were to launch the same tech that's on Voyager 1/2 today, would we be able to do that with 1/5 the power? If so, those probes could likely still have all their instruments running if they used Americium.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Plutonium-238’s half-life is 87.7 years, Americium-241 is 432.6 years. Which… is almost 5 times longer, so… not sure why that’s cringe?

What's cringe is the word "staggering". Natural radioactive isotopes have half-lives on the order of billions of years. All elements heavier than iron are created in supernovae. Billions of years have passed since the novae that created that heavy elements now on earth. Anything with shorter half-lives is no longer around. (More correctly, one should talk decay chains.)

What's staggering is that these isotopes are available at all. They are artificially created in nuclear reactors. Mass production of Pl-238 began only during WW2 for bombs. That's almost a half-life ago. The shorter half-life makes the availability of Pl-238 much more impressive.

I believe they’re referring to the fact that it’s not an element of major topic. This is the first time I’ve ever heard of it.

There are over 100 named elements. I don't think I could name half of them. Americium is relatively prominent because of it's use in smoke detectors. And while I'm at it: Americium is the element. Americium-241 is a specific isotope; a specific variant, chemically identical to other variants but with slightly different physical properties.

There are a number of isotopes suitable for RTGs. It's a matter of trade-offs. There's half-life, which is basically how fast the properties of the material change. There's also energy density and how bad the radiation is for the device. And always, there's cost. Fun fact, in Chernobyl they did try robots, but the electronics could not withstand the radiation. People don't withstand it either, but there's a lot of them.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

"Small" meaning "author of article seldom thought of it before."