Slashdot Mirror


NASA Restarts Plutonium Production

Celarent Darii writes "In what looks like good news for the American Space program, NASA has restarted production of plutonium. According to the article, after the closure of Savannah Rivers reactor NASA purchased plutonium from Russia, but since 2010 this was no longer possible. The native production of plutonium is a step forward for the space program to achieve the energy density for long term space exploration."

20 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. If not at the Savannah River Site, then where? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

    My first thought upon reading the summary was that if the Savannah River Site is closed, where are they making the new plutonium?

    The answer, according to TFA, is the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. I wonder by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

    if Iran will impose sanctions on the United States...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  3. UK Plutonium by prefect42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Am I wrong in thinking the UK has a plutonium stockpile it really doesn't know what to do with? Simply not juicy enough?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21505271

    --

    jh

    1. Re:UK Plutonium by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      Am I wrong in thinking the UK has a plutonium stockpile it really doesn't know what to do with? Simply not juicy enough?

      It's the wrong isotope - bombs and reactors use Pu-239, while RTGs use Pu-238. The key difference is half-life and thus the heat generated, as the heat drives the thermocouples in the RTG to produce power. Pu-239 has a half life of 24 kyears, which means it decays slowly and thus doesn't produce much heat (relatively speaking). Pu-238 has a half life of 87 years, which means it emits considerable heat.
       
      That short half life is also why NASA has been trying to figure out how to re-start production for some years now, since production was halted in 1988 a considerable quantity of the stockpiled fuel has essentially 'evaporated'. (And the stockpile wasn't that large to begin with.) Since the 'evaporated' fuel doesn't actually physically go anywhere, this means that you either have to use a bigger and heavier RTG or redesign the mission to use less power. (The first is obviously bad, and the second can paint you into a bit of a corner if the launch is delayed.) Processing the fuel to remove the decay products and restore energy density is... Very Expensive, so it's not an option (especially since it doesn't solve the problem of 'evaporation').

  4. Re:Dehabitation by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Informative

    RTGs are designed to survive both the explosion and an uncontrolled impact with the ground.

    Even if ruptured by the impact, plutonium is an immensely dense material - it's not easily scattered.

  5. Re:Dehabitation by mug+funky · · Score: 4, Informative

    it scatters in smoke just fine. look up "windscale fire"

  6. When will you finally.... by FunkyLich · · Score: 4, Funny

    .... make up your mind?
    You used to produce Plutonium and you saw it was good. But then man got greedy and raced upward to the skies and eat from the forbidden fruit. And complicated-gdp-involving-economy-formula was not happy and it convinced you that it was bad. And Plutonium was no more, Savannah Rivers dropped the Rivers and became a p0rn5tar and the fallen from grace NASA purchased plutonium from Russia. Now there is what looks like good news, the saviour will be born, the native plutonium-producer child of NASA. A step forward for the space program to achieve the energy density for long space exploration. After a jump backward, sort of.

    I wish we just got rid of the jumps backward.

  7. Re:Dehabitation by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

    An RTG falling out of the sky may hurt if it hits you on the head but other than that it's mostly harmless. Besides we already spread Pu all over the globe in the 60's and 70's, it's now a geological layer marking our entry into the nuclear age for millions of years to come..

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  8. Re:I Think We All Know the Real Reason..... by Looker_Device · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nonsense. NASA wouldn't want to go backwards now, not when they're on the verge of building their very own rocket that can take men into space!

    --
    Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
  9. Re:Why do this when... by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Pu in the fuel rods is not the right isotope, it is almost all Pu239 (U238 + neutron = Pu239, [after a stage as Np239]). NASA needs Pu238. What Pu239 is in there would be a real bear to separate from the Pu239 (more difficult than the separation of U235 from U238 because the mass difference is less).

  10. Re:Dehabitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mod parent informative. Plutonium burns readily, and oxide particles can be scattered widely. OTOH, RTGs are built to survive all kinds of launch failure, including pad fire and uncontrolled reentry. Also, the amount of Pu in an RTG is 1-4 kg, less than what has been released in all but the puniest atmospheric nuclear tests, which the humanity has survived rather well. So, no apocalyptic zombie hordes as a result of even a faulty RTG burnup.

  11. Re:Dehabitation by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Informative

    The wiki article on that fire notes that it released large amounts of iodine-131. The fire was caused by attempting to produce plutonium, not by burning plutonium and the reports on its cause seem to be either uranium and magnesium/lithium cartridges.

    Plutonium dioxide is already oxidized. It's chemically impossible for it to catch fire, and again, dense and heavy with a high melting point.

  12. Plutonium 238 by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 4, Informative

    For the folks who don't know, we are talking about plutonium 238. This has a half live of 88 years so decays rapidly and produces a fair amount of heat. Using thermocouples this can be used to generate power with no moving parts. The decay route is alpha particles which are fairly easy to shield against. Your favorite bomb material plutonium 239 has a half life of 24000 years which leaves it safer to handle but not useful for thermoelectric generation

  13. Re:Dehabitation by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Informative

    you need more information. the pu-238 used in RTGs is in oxide form, bound with Oxygen 16 to absorb the occasional neutron (it is mostly an alpha emitter) that can be formed. So, the pu-238 is "already burned", in a sense, and in a form to be safer to humans.

  14. Let's hope they learned their lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We didn't stop producing plutonium just because it wasn't economically feasible (when did that stop the government from doing anything) -- the history of plutonium in the United States has been littered with accidents and costly, multi-decade cleanup projects that cost billions of dollars. See Rocky Flats, et al.

  15. Re:Why do this when... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Informative

    Commercial reactor waste has very little weapons-grade material in it, because in order to maximize production of weapons-grade Plutonium, you have to use a commercially inefficient fuel cycle to minimize the amount of spontaneously fissioning Plutonium isotopes being created through continued neutrox flux.

    More succinctly: the more time U238 spends being bombarded in a reactor (thus, the more energy you create from the same fuel assembly), the more likely it is going to pass the "sweet spot" of Pu-239 into the undesireable Pu-240 or Pu-241 which poisons a prompt supercriticality which is created during a nuclear detonation. The reactors at Hanford that made the vast majority of weapons-bound Plutonium for the US weapons stockpile used somewhere around 6-month fuel cycles, where the average commercial reactor uses the fuel assembly for several years.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  16. Re:Why do this when... by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you want to kill multiple birds, then wind turbines are the answer.

    /ducks

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  17. No Plutonium is pretty useful. by mozumder · · Score: 5, Informative

    1g of Pu-238 produces .5 watts, which is really useful for long-lasting portable devices. There are some early pacemakers running from Pu-238 that are still operational.

    For example, a few grams of Pu-238 could power an iPhone for a century without ever recharging...

    (but would cost tens of thousands of dollars..)

  18. Re:As Seen On TV by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because they demoted Pluto, NASA only gets dwarfium now.
           

  19. Re:1.21 Jiggawatts by budgenator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually non-fissile material can be used as a X-ray/gamma reflector, once thing get cooking good in the pit, the gama rays get reflected back to the secondary implode it and the excess neutrons which can transmute some of the PU-238 into fissile PU-239, some of which is going to fission.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds