Talk:Advanced Stirling radioisotope generator

Merge with Stirling radioisotope generator
This article should be merged, possibly as a subsection, with Stirling radioisotope generator. It should include information to explain why the word 'Advanced' is used. treesmill (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree to the merger as proposed. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also please add the Curiosity Mission to the list of programs which used RTGs as power source. The mission's name is Mars Science Laboratory but only the rover appears to use the RTG. Subin Sebastian (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There was an SRG-110 design that was the first. The "advanced" is an improvement on that by switching converters and moving to a 2 converter system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.223.155 (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

fourfold reduction
"offers the advantage of a fourfold reduction in PuO2 fuel." Can someone please explain, preferrably without using contradictory semantics, what a "fourfold reduction" is? Andersenman (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Suppose a radioisotope thermoelectric generator required four kg of plutonium to generate a given amount of electrical power, while a stirling-based generator required only one kg of plutonium to generate the same amount of electrical power.  That would be a fourfold reduction, and it would be a very good thing. Novel compound (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. However, by that logic, what would be a 3-fold, a 2-fold and – perhaps technically superfluous but nonetheless semantically consistent – a 1-fold reduction? What I'm saying is: Combining a multiplier with some expression of decrease may work in English colloquialism, but in an encyclopedic text this only causes confusion especially for non-natives. I would have reworded it but refrained from doing so because I couldn't source data on this. Andersenman (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I figured almost a decade is long enough for anyone to refute this, the existing wording wasn't supported by the sources, and I couldn't find any other sources to support the existing wording, so I went ahead and fixed the lead. Leebert (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Who has the latest and greatest Stirling engines?
It's well known that Dean Kamen's company, DEKA, is working to improve the efficiency of Stirling engines. This Wikipedia reader would like to know: how efficient are the engines NASA has been working with, compared to the DEKA engines? Novel compound (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Research it. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did research it, and came up with nothing. That's why I appealed to other Wikipedia editors for help.  Sheesh. Novel compound (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Which contractor?
Which contractor was responsible for the massive cost overrun that caused the cancellation of the program? The public deserves to know. 75.163.218.136 (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Development was undertaken under joint sponsorship by the United States Department of Energy and NASA. It is stated in the intro. It was an inside program.
 * "Because ASRGs are fueled with plutonium, the Department of Energy managed Lockheed Martin’s ASRG development contract, which was awarded in 2008. However, NASA paid for all the work."
 * I read somewhere that this project could be revived if the Dep. of Energy could replace the press needed to form the fuel pellets. It may still happen, as NASA's Glenn Research Center took the functioning prototype to further develop Stirling technology. The Dep of Energy may be asking soon for that press to be replaced, regardless of who builds the radioisotope generator. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing development
I found out that the Glenn Research Center continues the development on the ASRG, but I have not figured out how/when they got more money to continue. I guess they cancelled its "budget", not the project. Maybe some big wig scraped some money from other programs? (As of 2015, they estimate to have a flight-ready unit ready for launch in 2028.) -BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * An IP editor deleted the latest NASA info. I may have misunderstood your edit summary, but the fact is that NASA's Glenn Research Center updated their project page in January 22, 2015 and stated that 2 test units will be ready to be fueled as early as 2017;  and in this 2015 document they state in page 47: "Goal is for flight system launch in 2028".  Therefore the development is ongoing. If you have a 2016 document that contradicts this, please bring it forward.  Thank you. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first page cited above has been taken down. The second one says on page 6 that ASRG was cancelled in 2013 for budget reasons.  The 2028 goal is for a different RPS technology.  The RPS program in general is still funded..  I can find no news sources that say the ASRG program has restarted, and given how easy it is to find sources saying it was cancelled in 2013, I conclude it is still cancelled. -- Beland (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the project was "cancelled", only its financing, as it is evident that NASA coughed up some of its own money to continue low-level R&D. Maybe this can be explained better in the article. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Blarg, sorry, I was in a hurry and coming from a different article saying the project was cancelled and I totally missed the info in the main body. Unfortunately, some of the references there and some external links are dead, so I removed them.  The homepage for the Sterling Research Laboratory at GRC turned out to confirm research is still underway, and you're right, it was just the Lockheed contract that was cancelled.  Some people refer to that as "ASRG" but that's also used to refer to some of the current GRC research. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I wish I had more time yesterday to address the issue and the 'live' references. Looks good now. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Advanced Stirling radioisotope generator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160420084629/https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/165279-OTHER-005-001.pdf to https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/165279-OTHER-005-001.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160330212653/https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/SSPO/ASRG/ to https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/sspo/asrg/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160420084629/https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/165279-OTHER-005-001.pdf to https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/165279-OTHER-005-001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Kilopower Project
I just came across NASA's "Kilopower Project" that is now testing a "proof of concept" (prototype) of a Stirling generator using active nuclear fission:,. I don't know if it can have a sub-section here or if it deserves its own article. Your thoughts? BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)