Slashdot Mirror


NASA Running Low On Fuel For Space Exploration

smooth wombat writes "With the end of the Cold War came warmer relations with old adversaries, increased trade and a world less worried about nuclear war. It also brought with it an unexpected downside: lack of nuclear fuel to power deep space probes. Without this fuel, probes beyond Jupiter won't work because there isn't enough sunlight to use solar panels, which probes closer to the sun use. The fuel NASA relies on to power deep space probes is plutonium-238. This isotope is the result of nuclear weaponry, and since the United States has not made a nuclear device in 20 years, the supply has run out. For now, NASA is using Soviet supplies, but they too are almost exhausted. It is estimated it will cost at least $150 million to resume making the 11 pounds per year that is needed for space probes."

37 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. buy it from North Korea or Iran by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or if that wont work it looks like there is a decent chance we'll be able to buy some from the Taliban soon.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:buy it from North Korea or Iran by captaindomon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The parent post was tongue-in-cheek, but seriously, it's something to consider. North Korea needs money badly. The United States doesn't want them to have nuclear materials. The United States has money and needs nuclear materials. Why don't we just buy it from them? It solves a lot of different problems.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    2. Re:buy it from North Korea or Iran by Gat0r30y · · Score: 4, Funny

      there is a decent chance we'll be able to buy some from the Taliban soon.

      Buy it from Pakistan now, before the Taliban takes over.

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    3. Re:buy it from North Korea or Iran by snl2587 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nah, we'll just invade a few years later searching for weapons of mass destruction. Then, after a few short weeks, the dictator will be gone, we'll have our plutonium, and (as a side benefit) the North Korean people will love us! Foolproof plan.

    4. Re:buy it from North Korea or Iran by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "And funding his nuclear weapons program."

      Why not fund our own nuclear power plants programs? Build more plants. Build the breeder reactors (and the newer reprocessing tech)...and along the lines, maybe a little of the 238 stuff can come off the line for NASA?

      First, we need to repeal the Carter ban on such nuclear reprocessing...and then, start building nuke power plants.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:buy it from North Korea or Iran by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      (as a side benefit) the North Korean people will love us!

      Joking aside, were it to happen, I believe that liberation of the North Korean people would open a massive can of worms.

      Given that they've lived under an all-encompassing veil of propaganda and likely have a totally skewed worldview, can you imagine what would happen if the government fell and (e.g.) UN forces went in?

      What do you tell these people? How will they react? How will you govern them?

      Would it be necessary to exploit the existing propaganda machine to create the false impression that Kim Jong-Il is in power, gradually weaning them off their leaders over a period of years by pretending that these moves have been endorsed by their "beloved" leader and/or his "legitimate" successors until it converges with the real situation?

      Of course, once they're truly weaned off the leader, the controlling forces would have to admit what had actually happened- a double mindfuck.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    6. Re:buy it from North Korea or Iran by hardburn · · Score: 4, Funny

      What do you tell these people? How will they react? How will you govern them?

      It can work, as long as you think about these issues along with the rest of the invasion plan. Going in and just expecting to be greeted as liberators is criminally naive.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    7. Re:buy it from North Korea or Iran by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given the amount of propaganda that people right here in the US go for hook line and sinker, it would seem shocking to find that a good portion of the North Korean people don't believe a good portion of what they are being told.

  2. In unrelated news... by turthalion · · Score: 5, Funny

    In news unrelated to their shortage of plutonium, NASA is also looking for a buyer for a shiny bomb casing full of used pinball machine parts...

    --
    Michael Coyne
    http://turthalion.blogspot.com
  3. Re:Hm, an idea by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given that nuclear reprocessing plants, such as Sellafield, supplied a lot of weapons material for the British nuclear program, I'd be astonished if these could not extract all of the plutonium needed from those fuel rods that have been recycled this way.

    --
    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)
  4. This wouldn't be a problem if... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We allowed breeder reactors or nuclear reprocessing at civilian reactors.

    1. Re:This wouldn't be a problem if... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most civilian reactors aren't breeder reactors because of the danger of nuclear proliferation. They still produce tiny amounts of plutonium 238, but not in large quantities. Similarly, there isn't much in the way of nuclear reprocessing. The countries which are the exceptions have generally been countries that want to have lots of nukes. The French don't have that much that would help out. At this point, India or China might though.

  5. Read the gnikcuf summary by tepples · · Score: 4, Funny
    Anonymous Coward might have been trying to make a bad joke:

    Can't wind farms and solar energy suffice?

    No. Wind farms work on the relative velocity between the ground and the atmosphere, but in space, there's no ground and almost no atmosphere. And the summary states: "there isn't enough sunlight to use solar panels".

    1. Re:Read the gnikcuf summary by Tanktalus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Never has a "woosh" post been more relevant than in a thread poking fun at wind power...

  6. Alternatives? by pwnies · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know Sr-90 is often also used in similar devices (mainly Russian ones), any reason why we can't switch to that?

    1. Re:Alternatives? by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sr-90 is not a good as Pu-238 for 3 reasons.

      1. Shorter half life (28.8 years vs. 87.7), thus the power drops off faster.
      2. Lower energy density, thus less power to start with, or more weight.
      3. It produces beta radiation (Pu-238 produces alpha radiation) and requires much more shielding (and thus more weight) so it doesn't mess with the electronics.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  7. Research. by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Necessity is the mother of all invention. Lets take this opportunity to find a new method of powering probes for such long distance missions.

    1. Re:Research. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Holy freaking Hanna!
      Okay lets take a look at what this "New energy source" has to do.
      1. Supply several hundred watts for at least a decade without refueling. RTGs from the 70s are still working and the probes that use them still sending data.
      2. Work in a vacuum.
      3. Work in the Dark.
      4. Work in the extreme cold of the outer solar system.
      5. Be light An RTG has a mass of under 60 kg.
      6. Dependable. Must work for decades with nobody to fix it.

      Just what the heck do you think can do that that isn't an RTG?
      We don't have working fusion so we are left with reactors but they are not as light or as simple as RTGs.
      More mass means a bigger launch vehicle. That means a lot more money and fewer missions.

      I love the way people on Slashdot are so willing to make comments like "They just need to find a replacment". Doesn't anybody ever consider that fact that this is the best solution there is without some massive technical leap? And that technical leap may be many decades away if it ever comes!

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  8. Re:Look to newcomers? by peragrin · · Score: 4, Funny

    problem is they will most likely want to deliver it themselves.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  9. Re:Beam energy? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're right. About the first part.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  10. Plenty of Warheads to Reprocess by Deus777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The US still has plenty of nuclear warheads that could be retired and their plutonium used for this purpose, unless for some reason the fuel has degraded.
    President Obama has suggested additional reductions in nuclear arms held by the US and Russia, so perhaps the plutonium from those could be used.
    Or perhaps NASA could adapt their generators to use plutonium 239, which they could get from a Fast Breeder reactor, if we ever build one.

  11. about plutonium by codemaster2b · · Score: 3, Informative

    Weapons-grade plutonium is made by refining nuclear waste in a reactor. This process reduces nuclear waste by 95%, but is frowned upon by the major nuclear powers because it produces weapons-grade plutonium, and no one wants to be manufacturing bomb-making material. They've been doing it since the 1940's so its not new or anything. The problem is also that such manufacture is illegal on an international scale.

    The article says that P-238 is used as a power source because of the heat is causes during decay. Surely someone could come up with a better power source for these probes than a rare isotope. I'm not even sure than this plutonium could be manufactured by refining nuclear waste, since that process produces P-239.

    --
    And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
    1. Re:about plutonium by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article says that P-238 is used as a power source because of the heat is causes during decay. Surely someone could come up with a better power source for these probes than a rare isotope. I'm not even sure than this plutonium could be manufactured by refining nuclear waste, since that process produces P-239.

      The thing is that nuclear fission and decay have a higher energy density, by a factor of at least six orders of magnitude, than anything else*.
      Storing an equivalent amount of any other type of energy source would require increasing the craft size by a factor of a million or so. If you can't use solar, some sort of nuclear generation is the only alternative.

      Now, if you mean maybe they can find a less-rare isotope to work with, well, maybe. They have $150 million reasons to look for decent alternatives.

      *I work at a nuclear power plant, and we generate 1.2 gigawatts of electrical power for a year and a half on a low enrichment 12' cube of uranium. The coal required to produce the same amount of power would fill about 60 miles of 500' long coal-hauling ships. Batteries have even less density than that.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  12. Re:Uranus is dark? by twidarkling · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, remember, Uranus is where the sun doesn't shine.

    --
    Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  13. Re:Beam energy? by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except that they don't actually travel in a straight line away from the sun. They use the slingshot effect to travel a couple orbits around the sun and build up lots of speed. It would probably be very hard to aim the laser the correctly on a moving target millions of miles away.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  14. The US has a source by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is a source available. Just decommission a few nuclear warheads each year. Since the US has enough nuclear weapons to basically end civilization, I suspect some could be spared without meaningfully degrading national security.

    1. Re:The US has a source by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Just decommission a few nuclear warheads each year."

      Except that nuclear warheads use Plutonium-239, and the power plants NASA uses are based on Plutonium-238.

      And converting Pu-239 into Pu-238 is much more difficult than converting rad-waste into Pu-238.

  15. In your face, Edwin Starr! by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 5, Funny

    War! Huh! What is it good for?

    Space exploration, apparently.

  16. Re:sounds pretty bogus by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uhh.. No your wrong.
    Really RTGs are actually simple, cheap, and effective. Solar will not work well past the orbit of Mars, Reactors are more expensive, complex, and weigh more.
    So sparky you tell me what can produce power for years without much light, heat, or air, and has a mass of less then 60 kgs?
    Oh and "I am sure they can think of something" is not an answer.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  17. Not all plutonium is the same by tylersoze · · Score: 5, Informative

    To all the smart alecks, no they can't use weapons grade plutonium, which is 239, they need 238, which has a much shorter half-life (88 y compared to 24100 y) and therefore gives off much more energy. They don't need an isoptope that is fissile, they need one with a short half-life.

    1. Re:Not all plutonium is the same by RsG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sigh...

      I really, really hope that was a joke. Because I'm sure somebody out there is going to assume it wasn't, and wonder why NASA doesn't just do that.

      You can't "fission a few particles now and then". To establish the sort of chain reaction you're talking about in fissile fuel would require equipping the probe with a reactor. Ignoring the fact that people would scream bloody murder about launching such a device into orbit (it's been done before, but not recently, and not in this political climate), there are also technical limitations.

      A RTG is not a reactor; it's something much lighter, with fewer moving parts. Doesn't generate as much power, but less power is needed if all you're running is a few sensor and communication systems. Even if we could make a reactor that lightweight, we couldn't make it go for decades at a time without maintenance.

      So, to recap, we can't use Pu239 to power a RTG, and can't use a reactor to perform the same job. And we don't have very many isotopes that can fill the same role Pu238 does.

      Plus, any fancy new solution would surely cost more than the $150 mil mentioned in TFA, making the question moot to begin with. Compared to the cost of developing, testing and building a next generation fission reactor that will run for decades sans maintainable, a few hundred million dollars is a drop in the bucket.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  18. Re:Hm, an idea by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's what your body thetans want you to think.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Oblig BTTF quote... by JJRRutgers · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I'm sure that in 1985 plutonium is available in every corner drug store, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by."

  21. Weapons use Pu-239 by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

    This about Pu-238 for use in thermoelectric generators. Pu-239 does not produce enough heat.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  22. Re:Gee, I didn't see that coming! by Schemat1c · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The 'Propaganda' you refer to is generally about far-away places and events, and therefor any contrast with reality would not be apparent.

    No. American propaganda is alive and well but it has different goals. Korea is about obeying and serving your god-like leader. American is about consuming and consuming and is so successful that it's very difficult to get people to even see it.

    One good method is to go backpacking for a month. You'd be amazed at how obvious and vulgar it all is when you return to 'civilization'.

    --

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
  23. Re:A wonderful problem to have by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wrong.

    Wrong wrong wrong.

    Pu-238 â Pu 239.

    Pu-239 is what is used in warheads. It's rather stable (half life of ~24,000 years) but is a fissile substance which you can assemble into a supercritical form.

    Pu-238 is relatively unstable (half life of ~88 years), so it gives off quite a bit of heat as it breaks down. Thus, it is used for RTGs (Radioisotope Thermal Generators).

    Different isotopes are different.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.