Difference between revisions of "Talk:2115: Plutonium"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(COMMENT)
(Talk about Voyager I & II.)
Line 15: Line 15:
 
This seems to be in the same vein as two other recent comics, Internet Archive and ArkXiv. Perhaps real things that seem unrealistic is a new topic of Randalls? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.4|172.69.247.4]] 17:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 
This seems to be in the same vein as two other recent comics, Internet Archive and ArkXiv. Perhaps real things that seem unrealistic is a new topic of Randalls? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.4|172.69.247.4]] 17:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 
:Nope, it goes back at least to the 331st comic! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]] 21:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 
:Nope, it goes back at least to the 331st comic! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]] 21:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 +
 +
Re: "Note that the radioactive material obviously doesn't produce this energy forever, although it can produce it so long the device will break before it gets out of energy."  The main problem with Voyager I and Voyager II is not that the devices on board have been broken, exhausted a finite reserve or otherwise failed, but that the power supply can not keep most of the machine powered anymore.  In fact, if there was enough electrical power, most of the cameras and other sensors would still work; they might see much that far from the sun and other bodies, but they would work.  The plutonium power source undergoes exponential decay, producing proportionally less power each year and each year, the NASA scientists have to decide which devices on the spacecraft need to power-down, never to turn on again, or maybe a device is so important, but needs so much power that they will turn it on for less and less time, sort of like rotating brown-outs.  I think the Pioneer probes are in the same boat.  [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 04:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:13, 23 February 2019

Even though space is cold, it conducts so poorly that spacecraft would probably have more problems getting rid of heat than keeping heat, considering how isolated they are. Tharkon (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It actually has little to do with conduction; the heat radiates pretty effectively, especially as it gets "hotter" vs the surrounding radiation. 172.69.69.124 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You're right, spacecraft are cooled by radiation. Yet it is far less effective than conductive/convective cooling by blowing the surrounding medium (water, air, whatever) over the hot parts. It's so much easier to cool things down here on Earth! Cooling problems is one of the reasons why nuclear reactors are not very popular in space, they need massive cooling systems.

Reminds me of reddit.com/r/outside Linker (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I put in how the title text makes a probable reference to game development. Netherin5 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It could, with equal probability, be a reference to parallel universes. There's nothing anywhere that says anything about game development.... 162.158.214.10 18:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
”Cool Mechanic” “Unbalanced” and “Join the team” seemed like hints Netherin5 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
It seemed obvious to me it was a reference to episodic story development, as it looks like that happens with shows and comics all the time. Don't understand how it makes sense for parallel universes (except that this kind of happened with star trek and the introduction of the parallel reality) but recommend updating the article to include all interpretations. 172.68.47.240 21:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be in the same vein as two other recent comics, Internet Archive and ArkXiv. Perhaps real things that seem unrealistic is a new topic of Randalls? 172.69.247.4 17:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it goes back at least to the 331st comic! 162.158.78.220 21:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Note that the radioactive material obviously doesn't produce this energy forever, although it can produce it so long the device will break before it gets out of energy." The main problem with Voyager I and Voyager II is not that the devices on board have been broken, exhausted a finite reserve or otherwise failed, but that the power supply can not keep most of the machine powered anymore. In fact, if there was enough electrical power, most of the cameras and other sensors would still work; they might see much that far from the sun and other bodies, but they would work. The plutonium power source undergoes exponential decay, producing proportionally less power each year and each year, the NASA scientists have to decide which devices on the spacecraft need to power-down, never to turn on again, or maybe a device is so important, but needs so much power that they will turn it on for less and less time, sort of like rotating brown-outs. I think the Pioneer probes are in the same boat. Nutster (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)