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."
6Km under the ocean is probably the safest place for it.
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.
Keepin' it in their back pocket to recover when a distraction is needed from some other larger screw-up.
In the early 1970s book "The Flight That Failed" by S.F. Cooper mentions as the spacecraft was approaching earth, someone (I think from the AEC) said they need to consider where the RTG will land. Ugh, there was already enough going on as crews were powering up the command module, a looming storm in the landing area, spacecraft attitude close to gimbal lock as it positions for re-entry. All this when many had very little sleep, then this guy brings up the RTG. Interesting book as it was written years before the fame brought on by the movie, also lots of esoteric details for techies.
mfwright@batnet.com
You mean radiation can't penetrate 6,000 meters of water? If you look at the decay chain of PU 238 they are all solid until you get to radon. And at 6000 m of water the pressure is enough to keep it a liquid and too dense to bubble up.That means all of the decay products will sit there in the water and decay protected by an equivalent shielding of 1000 ft of lead.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
The Plutonium 238 is suitable for RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator) but not for bombs.
Maybe this info will spare us most "nuke" posts (terrorist jokes, etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents.
find that Mark 15 H-Bomb they misplaced somewhere near the coast of Georgia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Tybee_Island_mid-air_collision
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
What does that even mean? Anyway, if it was in the LEM, did the LEM even survive rentry? Since it had no heat shield, etc.? Is the LEM still attched to the CM during re-entry even? Pretty sure it's not.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
We used to just set off fission and fusion bombs in the air and on the ground, so I would kinda think the long term risk from a small amount of PU238 at the bottom of the ocean is not all that much in the grand scheme of things, especially since it may be completely contained.
Oh, and there may be a few people still walking around with similarly plutonium-powered pacemakers in their chests...
http://www.theodoregray.com/periodictable/Samples/094.3/index.s12.html
http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/miscellaneous/pacemaker.htm
G.
I always wondered whether or not recovering this would be viable, but I wasn't sure since I know next to nothing about nuclear physics if this plutonium (Pu) could be used to make a bomb. Still, I guess it could be used for a dirty bomb.
When Cassini was launched I figured that (if the plutonium was the right kind), Saddam Hussein (remember him?) might be very interested in getting a hold of the 70(!) lbs. of Pu on board. Cassini was scheduled to do a flyby (gravitational assist) using the earth, passing overhead at an altitude of 800 miles I think, and it would be easy to redirect it so that it would instead impact the earth almost anywhere, say for example the Iraqi desert. Since the RTGs carrying the plutonium were specifically designed to handle the most horrific accidents like an explosion on launch or reentry, I figured that all Saddam had to do was get control of Cassini.
He (or rather his minions) wouldn't need to control Cassini for a long period of time. All that would have to be done would be to make the appropriate course correction WHILE USING UP ALL THE FUEL. Then even if NASA (or most likely by then the CIA) wrested control back of Cassini, they could only watch helplessly while Cassini plummeted back to earth into Saddams greedy little hands (and into a James Bond like action movie as MI-6 tried to recover it).
I actually knew the senior flight control engineer on Cassini at the time and asked him if anyone had offered him a couple of million dollars to make this happen. He laughed and said of course not and there were safeguards to prevent this from happening but then told me not to tell anyone about this idea. (Maybe he was afraid of someone making him an offer he couldn't refuse). Now that Cassini is safe orbiting Saturn, New Horizons is out of the inner solar system and MSL is on its way to Mars I guess it's okay to talk about it now! (All these probes have plutonium filled RTGs).
Anyway, the other point that the summary makes is that with undersea technology now getting robust and cheap enough for non-governments to afford it, there are other nuclear prizes in the deep sea. Like what about the Thresher which even if it wasn't carrying nuclear warheads, certainly had a huge amount of nuclear fuel in its reactor? Or even more to the point how bout the nuclear sub the CIA tried to lift in the 70s using Howard Hughes and the Glomar Challenger as a cover? That sub WAS carrying nuclear warheads and that was the part of the sub they were unable to recover. (There are lots of other nukes lost at sea, I'm sure Google or Wikipedia can enlighten you).
So if Al-Qaeeda starts developing undersea technology, you know what they're after. Or maybe they'll just use it to smuggle drugs like the south american drug cartels are doing.
The Russian Mars-96 probe never left orbit and dumped 200 grams of Plutonium 238 over Bolivia, none of which has been recovered...at least no one is talking about it. Some of this Plutonium 238 was in ground penetrators that were designed to survive atmospheric entry and impact so it is probably still out there unless someone has quietly snatched it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_96#Fate_of_the_plutonium_fuel
Not if the mermen militarise the plutonium and use it against the land people.
They're vicious SOBs down there.
This may be a joke, but it is worth pointing out that the Plutonium used in RTGs is not fissile, and can't be used to make bombs. Pu-238 is only useful for RTGs. The isotope used in bombs is Pu-239, which is a common product of Uranium based reactors.
Producing Pu-238 is actually very difficult, as described in the above link. Unfortunately, the worlds supply is dwindling, and this endangers many upcoming space missions. One attractive option for creating more is to use Liquid fluoride thorium reactors, where Pu-238 is one of many useful products created.
Rather, it's the SNAP reactor buried in an avalanche at the headwaters of the Ganges river.
Autumn 1965
Advice: on VPS providers
GODZILLA!
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
It all sounds kind of fishy to me.
Oh, c'mon. Would you rather I said, "Really rad, man!"
Cheers!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
How has the recovery and development of this plutonium into a weapon NOT been featured as the plot of a James Bond movie?
I'm a nuclear engineer.
These things are not cheap. We have recovered one from the ocean floor before to fly it on a later mission. (albeit, the relative shallows of the florida coast.) If its possible to build a remote sub that could find it, I would bet the cost of recovery would be less than the cost of manufacture. (radar, sonar? how many right angles are on that thing? HOW would you find it?)
Its not dangerous. PU-238 cannot be used to make weapons.
Ref:
http://www.ne.doe.gov/space/neSpace2c.html
---
SNAP-19B2
Nimbus-B-1
Meteorological
18-May-68
Status: Mission was aborted because of range safety destruct. RTG heat sources recovered and recycled.
---