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
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'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
Ion propulsion does indeed work. NASA has used it on a variety of craft to great success. There's just one catch-22: You need POWER to convert into thrust. And where are you going to get that power when you're too far from the Sun for solar panels?
Oh, oh! I have an idea! Plutonium would solve everything!
Wait... ah, crap.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
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.
Libyans.
Yeah, until they hit round about Mars orbit. Then, due to the dropoff in insolation, it starts to make sense to switch to internal power supplies. Especially if you require propulsion-level power supply.
Plutonium RTGs will run for a very long time, and your electric propulsion doesn't care where the electricity comes from. Why not use both? Solar panels for the inner solar system, and explosive bolts for when the the panels' mass causes "drag" on a decay-dominated power source?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Burn noble gases? yeah, brilliant idea. You failed chemistry, I guess?
They use noble gases as reaction mass, but a power source is required. Solar is only good near the sun, obviously, so that only leaves nuclear as a viable 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?
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.
We have too much of the wrong isotope of Plutonium. See
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=479826&cid=22679162
And the worms ate into his brain.
....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?
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.
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.
Sorry, no. The planet is named after the god, the element is named after the planet. You might have noticed that uranium and neptunium are also named after planets.
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.