That was also one of the many issues that cropped up during Apollo 13. They too had an RTG on board that was supposed to stay on the moon[1].
According to the book "Lost Moon" by Lovell and Kluger, a potential explosion of the Saturn V during launch was accounted/planned for, but the RTG "coming home" together with the LEM wasn't.
IMO the book was a bit hazy on how that situation was addressed exactly, but according to Wikipedia that RTG is currently resting somewhere deep in the Pacific[2].
Also an interesting read on that topic is the SNAP program itself that developed the technology in the first place, even shot entire mini-nuclear-reactors into earth orbit[3] and resulted in some stereotypical 1960s nuclear safety shenanigans/mishaps during testing[4][5].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13#Experiments_and_scie...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13#Reentry_and_splashdo...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_for_Nuclear_Auxiliary_...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A#Safety
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_for_Nuclear_Auxiliary_...
Given that radioisotopes decay with a halflife pattern, I would expect that you'd see a 16.6% drop in capacity every 23 years. So something like:
1977: 100% (470 W)
2000: 83.4% (392 W)
2023: 69.6% (327 W)
To get a full answer, you'd need to know how the thermocouples degrade. Under the (completely unsubstantiated) assumption that they degrade linearly, that's about a 20% efficiency degradation per 23 years: 1977: 100% isotope * 100% coupling efficiency -> 470 W (100% of capacity)
2000: 83.4% isotope * 80% coupling efficiency -> 314 W (67% of capacity)
2023: 69.6% isotope * 60% coupling efficiency -> 196 W (41% of capacity)
I suspect the thermocouple efficiency degradation is very much non-linear -- or rather, I have no reason to actually expect it to be linear -- so the second half of the above is a total SWAG, but maybe gives you a rough idea :)
> In the year 2000, 23 years after production, the radioactive material inside the RTG had decreased in power by 16.6%, i.e. providing 83.4% of its initial output; starting with a capacity of 470 W, after this length of time it would have a capacity of only 392 W. A related loss of power in the Voyager RTGs is the degrading properties of the bi-metallic thermocouples used to convert thermal energy into electrical energy; the RTGs were working at about 67% of their total original capacity instead of the expected 83.4%. By the beginning of 2001, the power generated by the Voyager RTGs had dropped to 315 W for Voyager 1.
There's also a nice picture of one deployed on the moon. The dust on the moon's surface looks spectacular in that picture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...