Slashdot Mirror
NASA Running Out of Plutonium
PRB_Ohio takes us to Space.com for a story about NASA's plutonium shortage, and how it may affect future missions to the far reaches of the solar system. The U.S. hasn't produced plutonium since 1988, instead preferring to purchase it from Russia. We discussed the U.S. government's plans to resume production in 2005, but those plans ended up being shelved. If NASA is unable to find an additional source, it could limit missions that take spacecraft too far from the Sun. Quoting:
"Alan Stern, NASA associate administrator for science, ... said he believed the United States had sufficient plutonium-238 on hand or on order to fuel next year's Mars Science Lab, an outer planets flagship mission targeted for 2017 and a Discovery-class mission slated to fly a couple years earlier to test a more efficient radioisotope power system NASA and the Energy Department have in development. To help ensure there is enough plutonium-238 for those missions, NASA notified scientists in January that its next New Frontiers solicitation, due out in June, will seek only missions that do not require a nuclear power source."
You can't take the sky from me...
dilithium crystals
Ooops. That's Illudium Q-36 - Not Plutonium - for the Explosive Space Modulator.
It still obstructs my view of Venus!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Pluto isn't a planet anymore, it shouldn't have an element named after it.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
Maybe they can arrange to purchase some from Iran. Everybody wins!
More music, fewer hits
it worked for star wars, it can work for nasa.
If people can get past, can they get future? Best way to confuse a stoner
Simple solution. They can go back in time and steal plutonium from themselves.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
I bet we could purchase Uranium from Iran. I hear we have a good relationship with them and they are experts at enriching this stuff for power production.
I hear Iran might have a nice supply shortly.
(Its a freakin JOKE!)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
NASA should use simple wind turbines. Must be windy up there since all of George's movies make sound barabooms in space.
Full Tilt
"I'm sure in 1985 plutonium is available at every corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by!"
"Flag on the moon. How did it get there?"
If I recall correctly, the Soviet Union finally dissolved in 1991. So at some point, circa 1988, somebody in either Reagan or Bush's administration decided it'd be easier to get Plutonium from the Soviet Union? You know, the sworn enemy, evil empire, etc. etc.? And even weirder, the Soviet Union agreed?
I know, it was for NASA, not the Minuteman missile, but still...
First, kudos to the U.S. for buying plutonium from the Russians. What better way to get it off their hands?
Second, many people should rejoice, this is a golden opportunity to decommission a warhead or two for the plutonium in it.
They were planning to send it all to America for free at one point.
Nullius in verba
I'm sure in 1985 plutonium is available at every corner drugstore, but in 2008 it's a little hard to come by!
1. Find a group of Libyan nationalists that want you to build a bomb.
2. Take their plutonium.
3. Give them a shiny bomb-casing full of used pinball machine parts.
Just make sure you keep the DeLorean's engine running for step 3.
Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
Why not disassemble one of the thousands of plutonium warheads rusting away in warehouses?
There are currently 2 ways for US to obtain Plutonium-238 for space flights without buying it from abroad: 1. Use nuclear waste. Laser Isotope Seperation (LIS) is needed to seperate the Pu-238 from the other isotopes. 2. Breed on Neptunium-237. It is also found in nuclear waste, however it is easily separated from the rest. It can be bred into Pu-238 in a breeder blanket in a reactor.
they will burn for a long duration flight's. xenon and kyrpton are espcially useful for long missions.
If people can get past, can they get future? Best way to confuse a stoner
Libyans.
I've noticed that over the past few days most of the ACs are posting at -1, and that's without any mods applied. I haven't changed my comment preferences, so what the hell is going on? Some ACs are at 0 as usual, but the majority are -1. Am I seeing things?
Just send a team to Russia and comb the backwoods. Abandoned military and civilian crap containing any number of radioactive elements is pretty easy to come by...
Just order up some from Iran and North Korea? ^_^
Maybe the Iranians would sell it to NASA ?
What happened to the plutonium glut? According to the World Nuclear Association, the US has 38 tons of surplus plutonium as of 2007. The USSR had even more, because they kept their production plant going even when there was no demand. The UK has surplus plutonium. What's NASA's problem?
Apparently they have (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7006056.stm) hundreds of tons of the stuff that they need to get rid of....
Sure, you'll need to process it, but isn't that an option?
NASA states that for their next mission they will only consider missions without a nuclear power source. This is a sad thing to hear, because it shows just how short-sighted and unambitious they have become. I've had enough with sending tiny robots to various places to look for traces of water. Some of those missions have been awesome, but we're now reaching the point that they're not going to teach us much more or help us to move forward.
The greatest promise for truly advancing space exploration is nuclear power. We're not even willing to produce plutonium for providing a little power to deep space missions. We're nowhere near actively considering the use of nuclear reactors for propulsion. Nuclear has the potential to increase by one or two orders of magnitude the size and weight we can send into space, which would radically change what we can do in space. However, it would require a huge investment in R&D as well as a big change of mindset, and the United States is not willing. Here's hoping another country will pick up the slack.
Time to convert all their deLoreans... um... space shuttles, to use Mr. Fusion - http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070201LadischBio.html
Think they ship that stuff DHL?
Dr. Emmett Brown: Shhhhhh. Of course. From a group of Libyan nationalists. They wanted me to build them a bomb, so I took their plutonium and in turn, gave them a shiny bomb-casing full of used pinball machine parts! Come on! Let's get you a radiation suit. We must prepare to reload. ...back in 1955...
Dr. Emmett Brown: I'm sure in 1985 plutonium is available at every corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by.
It seems that in 2008, its still hard even for NASA.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
First we're running out of helium and now we're running out of plutonium.
Our manufacturing jobs are overseas and we're in debt. OK, so we're good there, we're not running out of debt.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
The Plutonium used by NASA is Pu-238, which is quite different from the weapons usable Pu-239. Pu-238 would melt its self to a liquid by its own alpha decay heat before long before you get a critical mass, thus Pu-238 is not weapons usable.
Best territorial pissing evar.
....they COULD have bought plutonium easily enough from the British (their reprocessing plant produces a fair amount of extractable plutonium) and probably from the French. Possibly even from the Israelis. Buying from Russia makes no real sense, due to the security issues in the region, politics and the problems of safe transport. The British would seem to be the best bet, as they probably generate the most, have extensive experience in transporting nuclear material, and have a special relationship with the US. Except for the fact that the special relationship doesn't seem to include giving the British very much. For that matter, there's probably enough plutonium of the right isotope on the bed of the Irish Sea, due to questionable BNFL dumping practices and accidents at Sellafield. The sea is shallow and it shouldn't be hard for NASA to rig up some extraction system or other. Even if it were rocket science, they ARE rocket scientists.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I've heard a bit about these NASA and pacemaker RTG's which use plutonium-238. On the other hand, the much more widely-produced Soviet power RTG's (like the Beta-M) use strontium-90.
Any reason why we don't just use strontium--everybody makes that stuff. On the same note, why didn't the USSR use Pu-238?
We have 100 tons of the damn stuff we want to get rid of over here in the UK. They were even thinking of building a new reactor to use it all up cos there's no where suitable to keep it all. I'm sure the US and UK could strike a good deal, and I'm sure all those grouchy old cold war rememberers would prefer buying from the UK than Russia.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Because that's the wrong isotope.
Why don't they just fill the space shuttle with trash from Marty's trashcan?
"Meanwhile, how much of the plutonium-238 the United States has at its disposal was not immediately clear. DOE reported in 2005 that its inventory stood at 39.5 kilograms, with U.S. national security customers and NASA expected to consume all but 6.5 kilograms by 2010."
NASA, obviously, is shooting plutonium battery packs into space with their exploration craft. But "national security customers"? Does anyone know what sort of national security interests are consuming plutonium? I'm guessing they're not going to the Ghostbuster's proton packs...
I thought in 1985 we could buy plutonium at any corner store.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Who cares if Pluto is a planet or not in the context of naming the element. It wasn't named for the planet anyway, it was named for the mythological god.
Source: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
If you want to read an excellent discussion of reactor vs. weapons grade plutonium (though there isn't much information on Pu238 for thermoelectric generators) go here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/pu-isotope.htm
Methods used to make the two isotopes (weapons grade Pu239 vs. thermoelectric generator Pu238) are quite different.
Pu239 is produced from U238 when it absorbs a neutron and decays to Pu239.
Pu238 is produced with U235 through a chain of neutron absorptions and decays.
U238 is the more common form of uranium and is not the kind used for uranium weapons. Relatively pure U235 is what is frequently called highly-enriched uranium (HEU) and is the kind used for weapons.
Please turn in your nerd card, and quietly exit the room.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Not directed at you in particular, but when I hear these kind of comments, I have to wonder how much growing up and watching Rocky IV a little too many times, comes into effect.
Maybe the end of the current supply of Plutonium, could encourage better research into ion drives. Deep Space 1 already showed it was possible, not to increase the effectiveness:
- http://nmp.nasa.gov/ds1/
- http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/97/ioneng2.html
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Making that chain reaction run, but run slow, is why there are nuclear reactors. Those generally get a bit unwieldy to mount on the top of a rocket to send into space. Plus you gradually get a very radioactive reactor that needs lots of shielding to protect a NASA satellite from radiation.
As many others have noted, Pu238 in the thermoelectric generators is not the same as Pu239 in nuclear warheads. Pu238 is an alpha emitter which makes shielding pretty easy. Alpha particles are just helium nuclei and can be stopped by just about anything. Even though Pu238 is pretty radioactive due to the short (88 year) half life, the radiation is easily contained.
Thermoelectric generators just get really hot in the thermal sense and not so hot in the radioactive sense other than the alpha decay route that generates the heat.
Why don't they just write a letter to Santa for more plutonium? I'm sure they can avoid being naughty little scientists and technicians for another nine months.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
NASA has thus far used radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) to produce the electricity from the heat of the decaying plutonium. They are now moving forward with its plans to use Stirling engines to produce the electricity. Stirling engines are much more effective in this regard, requiring only one-fourth the amount of plutonium to produce and equivalent amount of power and have the added benefit of weighing about half as much as the current RTGs.
Just buy some from the Libyans... although they may try to gun NASA down in a parking lot if it's not used for the bomb they want...
How about dump the thermoelectrics and put up a real fission reactor? Then you can run it on any random mix of U-235 and Pu-239. IIRC, that was the plan for the Jupiter Icy Moons mission, now shelved.
I am not a Nuclear Physicist, but I think you can use a combination of Thorium and Pu239 to kind of breed a high-heat generating isotope U-233 which might work for a Radioisotope Thermal Generator.
Again, I am not a nuclear physicist, and I think that research in thorium power still has a ways to go.
That would be Bush, Sr. He spent a lot of time negotiating with Gorbachev, at times secretly, at times openly, on how to wind down the Cold War (including safe stewardship of the Soviet nuclear arsenal) without giving nationalist fanatics in either country weapons -- literally or metaphorically -- with which to derail the process.
A measure of how much attention both these men gave to this delicate issue is the fact that both neglected domestic concerns and were promptly booted from power, Bush Sr. losing to Bill Clinton in 1992 in part because he was seen as unconcerned with US economic issues ("It's the economy, stupid!" being the famous Clinton campaign slogan), and Gorbachev being euchred out by Russian nationalist Boris Yeltsin after a failed coup against the former by Red Army hardliners.
It's ironic that few people know this, and that little historical credit goes to those who most successfully defused the Cold War bomb, so to speak. But then most people have short little attention spans, and are not intelligent enough to realize the significance of the dog that does not bark, or the bomb that does not go off.
i was just in Perth a few months ago, and China is letting all kinds of contracts for that kind of mining. hmm, we may have to get it from the Chinese. uranium ingots with "made in china" on them shouldn't be so bad. watch out for the lead poisoning though.
I get it. You say "Buying from Russia makes no real sense" then he gives you a reason why it does make sense, and you ignore that you were wrong and make up a new argument.
Let me make this clear for you because you're obviously a fucking moron.
TAKING RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES OF ANY KIND AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE LAX WITH SECURITY, AND GIVING IT TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LAX WITH SECURITY MAKES SENSE.
There's your reason, it makes sense, you're wrong.
There's nothing more pathetic than douchebags like you who, once proven wrong like you were, can't just take it and move on. You have to formulate some response that attempts to make you look less wrong, because it absolutely crushes you that you were shown to be ignorant in public.
The comment to which you replied, and the grandparent, are not discussing the thermoelectric generators. They are instead discussing the breeder reactors which you need in order to process Uranium into Plutonium to create the fuel (plutonium) for the thermoelectric generators. It's like the difference between an oil refinery and an internal combustion engine - they are discussing the 'refinery', while you are discussing the engine.
He asked you "Since they aren't able to produce their own plutonium, just what do you suggest they do instead?"
You didn't answer.
And no, "getting plutonium production back online in the US." is not an answer for anything but the long term
So?
story about NASA's plutonium shortage, and how it may affect future missions to the far reaches of the solar system.
Need plutonium to get to Pluto, eh? I don't want to think about what it takes to get to Uranus.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I mean, isn't this what Mr. Fusion is for?
There's nothing you have that they can't take away: Absolute zero, Gentle Jack, bottom line.
That should be that they would sell the plutonium suitable for weapons, rather than the plutonium suitable for radioisotope thermoelectric generators in probes. The other consideration is quantity, which I neglected to point out. Probes are very small and need only a very small generator. The Cassini probe started with a massive 72 lbs. of radioisotopes (plutonium included), intended to last 7 years. Voyagers 1 and 2 used only 4.5 lbs. of radioisotopes, whereas Pioneers 10 and 11 used a mere 1 lb. The usable lifespan of any given RTG would depend on the power requirements of whatever used it and the exact fuel mixture, provided only natural decay occurs. As people don't generally build RTGs on the scale of self-sustaining nuclear reactors, this is normally the case.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
They can just buy it from Iran?
(Strictly speaking, they don't need to buy them anyway. A huge number of RTGs have crashed to Earth when rockets have failed, and more than a few are probably within reach. RTGs are designed to be able to withstand a high-speed impact with a planet without shedding any load, which is why the one on the Apollo 13 lander is still completely intact. If they wanted something with a bit more oomph, there's always the missing hydrogen bomb in the Carolinas. There should be enough remaining fissile material from the trigger to run quite a nice space program.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Dihydrogen oxide
ebay.
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
NASA: "No, no, no. This sucker's electrical, but I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity I need."
so lets get this right, even spacecraft now have to use green fuels. :-)
All reactors are breeder reactors. And we can easily reprocess the fuel and use it over again and burn off the plutonium for a good while. In fact most of our high grade nuclear waste is spent about 1% of it's fuel capacity. We could easily let it breed a number of isotopes of Pu and just burn them off again. Until they finally break down to some far lighter elements which have extremely short half-lives (and would kill you rather instantly if you were in the room) of several days. The only real difference between breeders and non-breeders is we call the breeders what they are and lie about the other kind.
--
We should invest in passively safe (physically unable to meltdown) nuclear reactors and reprocess all that fuel, burn up our old nuclear weapons while your at it, and take a little bit of Pu for NASA. The science is pretty clear and nuclear energy could be done without massive amounts of high grade waste (you're still going to have *SHITLOADS* of low grade waste like gloves and old reactors / we have a lot of that from the medical field already). Come on, let's ditch those fossil fuels and switch over to the French system of running our power on safe green DEATH-BOMB power.
I swear the odd association of everything nuclear (bombs) with everything else nuclear (energy) is downright amusing. It's almost like the association of everything chemical with everything else chemical. "This new wholesome food, contains no chemicals!"
We should have been off fossil fuels decades ago.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Cant we just dismatle some plutonium nukes? doesnt that use the same isotope?
I read NASA is close to replacing their current RTG generators with something based on the ancient stirling engine. It has more moving parts, but uses less fuel or lasts longer, and is lighter. The Pu-shortage may be an incentive.