Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the clean-up-your-mess dept.

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."

16 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. No by bsane · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    1. Re:No by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not if the mermen militarise the plutonium and use it against the land people.

      They're vicious SOBs down there.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    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:No by EyelessFade · · Score: 5, Funny

      What? And let it fall in the hands of the zombie Nazis?

  2. 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:Why would they? by dcw3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is on Cohen's wikipedia page:

      When Ralph Nader described plutonium as "the most toxic substance known to mankind", Cohen, then a tenured professor, offered to consume on camera as much plutonium oxide as Nader could consume of caffeine,[17] the stimulant found in coffee and other beverages, which in its pure form has an oral (LD50) of 192 milligrams per kilogram in rats.[18]

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  3. There was concern at the last minute! by k6mfw · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  4. You have got to be kidding me by trout007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  5. Pu238 not for bombs by advid.net · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

  6. Small potatos compared to.... by seifried · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents.

  7. Will the US Military ever... by stox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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. "
  8. Re:wtf? by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    The LEM was attached to the CM until just before re-entry; the SM was separated from the CM before the CM separated from the LEM, since the LEM was providing most of the life support and the SM was just dead weight. The LEM was not designed for reentry and burned up, but the RTG itself was designed to survive accidental reentry intact and is probably sitting on the sea-bed somewhere.

  9. Pu-238 is not fissile... by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. 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.

  10. Maybe by databaseadmin · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    ---