Then there's the fact that heat is very difficult to get rid of when in space. The ISS's radiators are much bigger than its solar panels. If you wanted to have a very-long eva spacesuit you'd have to have radiators much bigger than your body hanging off of it. Short evas are handled by starting the eva with cold liquids in the suit and letting them heat up.
All of the mockups of starships going to Mars mostly fail to represent where they're going to put the radiators to get rid of all the excess heat.
I know it is much hotter, but that's way way hotter and they only find it at a "wall" way farther out.
This is more the temperature of the solar wind, dwarfing the steady state temperature you'd reach from the photonic solar radiation at any distance. The Sun's blackbody varies from like 5000K to 7000K, you won't see objects heated in the solar system heated higher than that even with full reflectors covering the field of view of the rear with more sun and being near the surface of the sun, other than a tiny amount higher from stellar wind, tidal friction, or nuclear radiation from the object's own material I don't think.
Yes! The tiny number of particles are moving really fast, but there are very few of them. We are talking about vacuum that is less than 10^-17 torr. A thermos is about 10^-4 torr. The LHC only gets down to 10^-10 torr. At those pressures you can lower the temperature of a kilometer cube by 10 thousand kelvin by raising the temperature of a cubic centimeter of water by 1 kelvin. There is very little thermal mass in such a vacuum which is why temperature can swing to such wild levels.
This is also why spacecraft have to reject heat purely using radiation. Typically you heat up a panel with a lot of surface area using a heat pump and dump the energy into space as infrared. Some cooling paints on roofing do this at night which is kind of neat.
Temperature is just the heat of particles moving. In the extreme case of a handful of N2 molecules moving at 1% the speed of light, it has a temperature of something like 9 billion Kelvin. But it's not going to heat you up if it hits you.
> An absorption refrigerator is a refrigerator that uses a heat source to provide the energy needed to drive the cooling process. Solar energy, burning a fossil fuel, waste heat from factories, and district heating systems are examples of heat sources that can be used. An absorption refrigerator uses two coolants: the first coolant performs evaporative cooling and then is absorbed into the second coolant; heat is needed to reset the two coolants to their initial states.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-refrigerati...
> Fishermen in the village of Maruata, which is located on the Mexican Pacific coast 18 degrees north of the equator, have no electricity. But for the past 16 years they have been able to store their fish on ice: Seven ice makers, powered by nothing but the scorching sun, churn out a half ton of ice every day.
There is no physical process that turns energy into cold. All "cooling" processes are just a way of extracting heat from a closed space and rejecting it to a different space. You cannot destroy heat, only move it. That's fundamental to the universe. You cannot destroy energy, only transform it.
Neither link is a rebuttal of that. An absorption refrigerator still has to reject the pumped heat somewhere else. Those people making ice with solar energy are still rejecting at minimum the ~334kj/kg to the environment.
An absorption refrigerator does not absorb heat, it's called that because you are taking advantage of some energy configurations that occur when one fluid absorbs another. The action of pumping heat is the same.
Giant radiators don't make ice.
The proposed method of pumping heat into someplace hot to make it hotter doesn't work. But there area definitely ways to do solar powered ac for cooling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_daytime_radiative_cool...
for PDRC there are a couple good videos about it from NightHawkInLight https://youtu.be/N3bJnKmeNJY?t=19s, https://youtu.be/KDRnEm-B3AI and Tech Ingredients https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zW9_ztTiw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNs_kNilSjk
That also makes nuclear totally infeasible- since turbines are inefficient you'd need 2.5x as many radiators to reject waste heat. Solar would be much lighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_thermal_control#Rad...
(How hot? I won't quote a number, but space nuclear reactors are generally engineered around molten metals).
The S6W reactor in the seawolf submarines run at ~300 C and produce 177 MW waste heat for 43 MWe. If the radiators are 12 kg/m^2 and reject 16x as much heat (call it 3600 W/m^2) then you can produce 875 watts of electricity per m^2 and 290 watts at the same weight as the solar panels. Water coolant at 300 C also needs to be pressurized to 2000+ PSI, which would require a much heavier radiator, and the weight of the reactor, shielding, turbines and coolant makes it very hard to believe it could ever be better than solar panels, but it isn't infeasible.
Plus, liquid metal reactors can run at ~600 C and reject 5x as much heat per unit area. They have their own problems: it would be extremely difficult to re-liquify a lead-bismuth mix if the reactor is ever shut off. I'm also not particularly convinced that radiators running at higher temperatures wouldn't be far heavier, but for a sufficiently large station it would be an obvious choice.
The Soviet ones used K (or maybe NaK eutectic); there's a ring of potassium metal dust around the Earth people track by radar (highly reflective)—a remnant from one of them exploding.
I was curious about this! The Extravehicular Mobility Units on the ISS have 8 hours of life support running on 1.42 kg of LiOH. That releases ~2 kJ per gram used, so .092 watts.
The 390 Wh battery puts out an average of 50 watts.
And the human is putting out at minimum 100 watts with bursts of 200+.
Long term it's probably reasonable to need at least 200 watts of heat rejection. That's about a square meter of most radiator, but it needs to be facing away from the station. You could put zones on the front/back and swap them depending on direction, as long as you aren't inside an enclosed but evacuated area, like between the Hubble and the Shuttle. The human body has a surface area of roughly 2 m^2 so its definitely not enough to handle it- half of that area is on your arms or between your legs and will just be radiating onto itself.
It's also not very feasible to have a sail-sized radiator floating around you. You'd definitely need a more effective radiator- something that absorbs all your heat and glows red hot to dump all that energy.
You only get fire risks when the things they touch are themselves tiny (like dust), so they're unable to absorb and spread the heat.
A similar thing happens when you bake with tinfoil. The foil will be at like 350 F, but you can still touch it basically immediately if you're willing to gamble that nothing with thermal mass is stuck to it where you can't see. It just doesn't have enough thermal mass on its own to burn you, but if there's a good-sized glob of cheese or water or something on the other side you can really be in for a nasty surprise.
"The thermal conductivity of aluminum is 237 W/mK, and that of tin is only 66.6 W/mK, so the thermal conductivity of aluminum foil is much better than that of tin foil. Due to its high thermal conductivity, aluminum foil is often used in cooking, for example, to wrap food to promote even heating and grilling, and to make heat sinks to facilitate rapid heat conduction and cooling."
You're not weaponizing Gell-Mann amnesia against us are you?
If it were really that hot we'd never observe the CMB at a balmy 2.7K.
The Parker Solar probe encounters a similar situation where it has to handle high amounts of direct radiation, but the latent/ambient environment is full of incredibly hot particles at very low density (because they are so hot) which means it isn't that hard to make the probe survive it.
It seems they use several tools - inferring from the descriptions, they can measure and compare the data when it gets back here to determine simple things like temps.
I think the article shows how relevant this still is today.
I don't know if any of this info was speculated at that point in time, but it turns out that teacher was at least partially correct!
What level of "hard radiation" are they now getting bombarded by that we will be unable to shield systems from in far future interstellar space travel?
Headline: > NASA's Voyager found a 30k-50k Kelvin "Wall"... Article: > While not a hard edge, or a "wall" as it has sometimes been called...
I hate the telephone tag, livescience.com-type journalism. Instead, I'd love to read an abstract and methods. The research must talk about this in detail and explain how the conclusions are reached. It probably isn't too inaccessible.
I suspect that there may be many such measurements correlated between both probes taken against some other baseline signal or an observed return to the mean.
Let me introduce you to negative temperature systems!
Imagine that there is one venomous and aggressive snake (in a cute little survival-suit) in some random spot in Antarctica. This means "the average snake in Antarctica" is ultra-dangerous.
But there's only one, and it's almost impossible for you ever to meet, so in practical terms it's still safer than Australia. :p
Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of a particle, so they can be both extremely hot and extremely diffuse.
Same reason why you can sit in a sauna with very hot air or pass your hand through a flame quickly without severe burns. Low density matter does not transfer heat very well. And space is especially devoid of matter.
Interesting to think that while it's not a concern to Voyager at its pokey 17km/second, a true interstellar ship traveling at some respectable fraction of C would compress the diffuse interstellar gasses enough to make them a potential hazard. You frequently see people saying stuff like "if we could accelerate to a high fraction of C you could get anywhere in the galaxy in a single lifetime", but it may not be so simple.
What of people growing up 10, 20, 30 years from now? They'll be taught in school about stuff from Voyager and then told 'and that was what we learned in the golden age of space exploration, which ended long before you were born because we couldn't be bothered to keep at it.' Having grown up in the 70s, I feel somewhat betrayed that we just just gave up on doing moon stuff, rendering a whole generation's aspirations on space exploration into a lie. The claims that 'there is nothing more to discover up/out there' is nonsense, much like the claims that 'chips can't be made any smaller' that I would hear back in the 32nm period.
The lack of long-term commitment to exploratory space is a terrible waste. To be sure we have been doing some stuff in system, but if he had kept putting out deep space probes every few years with more advanced instruments we would have learned a lot of other things by now, and we would have a long-term stream of new data coming in for the future. Now arguments for launching more deep space probes are dismissed with 'it'll take decades before we get anything useful back.' Yeah, because we stopped iterating! Meantime allowing that sort of exploration to become anachronistic is one reason we are overrun with flat-earthers and other science woo even at the highest levels of government.
I suppose an extra-solar-system probe though would simply need some gravitational slingshotting and not necessarily visit many of the outer planets. I suppose that changes the time scale.
https://youtu.be/NQFqDKRAROI?si=AzuL-NZ6JYJ71Rpj&t=883
...which might get up to 22 AU per year. And then in the future: laser-pushed light sails:
https://ia800108.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/24...
Also, I hate the ambiguity of a title that references “Voyager Spacecraft” so it’s unclear if it was one or both.
I skimmed the links that TFA provided and couldn't find the source of that figure. With rare space plasmas near shocks it's typical to have non-thermal distributions where the temperature isn't well defined. I don't think it's anything to get to excited about without having a proper article from NASA instead of IFL slop.
"In 1977, NASA launched the Voyager probes to study the Solar System's edge, and the interstellar medium between the stars. One by one, they both hit the "wall of fire" at the boundaries of our home system, measuring temperatures of 30,000-50,000 kelvin (54,000-90,000 degrees Fahrenheit) on their passage through it."
And I wonder what the distance mean free path length is. I suppose that must be pretty large. So that the T^4 Boltzmann radiation law doesn't really apply to these ~40,000 Kelvin temperatures? Or maybe the emissivity of hard vacuum is really low? I guess I've never thought about it before.
bbarnett•4h ago
Made me think of this Brin book. The first ship to try to leave the solar system, crashes into an invisible crystal barrier. It's unbreakable.
CamperBob2•4h ago
graemep•4h ago
cosmicgadget•4h ago
> From studying the Nataral's artifacts and writings, they learn that the only way to break the crystal spheres is from the inside.
He just had to go to the other solar system to learn how to go to the other solar system.
throwawayffffas•3h ago
They used their interstellar flight capabilities to go wait for someone in the universe to develop interstellar flight capabilities. Checks out.
clort•2h ago
I don't know if it was this book, but the 'suspended animation' was basically pushing several large stars and neutron stars close enough together that the flat space between them was inside an encompassing event horizon, and there they waited, living their lives at an extremely slow (compared to the outside universe) pace.
pulvinar•4h ago
throwawayffffas•3h ago
IAmBroom•4h ago