Slashdot Mirror


Will NASA Ever Recover Apollo 13's Plutonium From the Ocean

An anonymous reader writes "'Houston, we've had a problem,' said astronaut Jack Swigert on April 13, 1970. But the problem wasn't as simple as three astronauts potentially trapped in the void of space, 200,000 miles from Earth. The catastrophic risk came from the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), a small nuclear reactor that was going to be placed on the moon to power experiments, carrying Plutonium 238 in Apollo 13's lunar module. As luck would have it, NASA had experience losing RTGs – a navigation satellite failed to reach orbit in 1964 and scattered small amounts of plutonium over the Indian Ocean. The SNAP-27 had been engineered to make it back to Earth intact in such an incident. The plutonium, like the astronauts, apparently survived reentry and came to rest with what remained of the lunar module in the Tonga Trench south of Fiji, approximately 6-9 kilometers underwater (its exact location is unknown). Extensive monitoring of the atmosphere in the area showed that no radiation escaped."

4 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Why would they? by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would take a lot of effort and money to disturb this sleeping dog. Why go to the trouble?

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Why would they? by drhemi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because people believe the media's saber rattling and they believe Ralph Nader who said that plutonium is “the most toxic substance known to mankind.” Even though it isn't. It's just too bad Ralph didn't accept Dr. Bernard Cohen's challenge to ingest equal amounts of caffeine to plutonium.

      Basically it's a "Won't somebody please think of the children!" kind of response and the government loves to keep idiots happy.

  2. Re:No by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    6Km under the ocean is probably the safest place for it.

    Putting it on the Moon would probably had been safer.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  3. Re:Pu-238 is not fissile... by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's also worth noting that you're talking about nuclear weapons. It can be used to make "dirty" bombs, however.

    Only a really stupid terrorist would bother with dirty bombs. The added impact (vs conventional bombs) is negligible, and the risk of detection goes up drastically.

    Dirty bombs are one of those "threats" that some military consultant dreamed up because he was asked to come up with an exhaustive list of possibilities, and the media latched on to it because most people are stupid, uninformed animals who react instinctively at the mention of the word "nuclear". A more real threat is chemical and biological (especially biological) warfare, though even there we've seen no serious attempts by any of the major players. Your standard suicide bombings are a much more likely scenario - personally I expected to see at least a few of those pulled off against targets like trains and busses by now, but the American feds seem to be doing an excellent job at stopping them.