Slashdot Mirror


Without Plutonium, Deep-Space Probe Missions May Sputter Out

cold fjord writes with this excerpt from Wired: "Most of what humanity knows about the outer planets came back to Earth on plutonium power. ... The characteristics of this metal's radioactive decay make it a super-fuel. ... there is no other viable option. Solar power is too weak, chemical batteries don't last, nuclear fission systems are too heavy. So, we depend on plutonium-238, a fuel largely acquired as by-product of making nuclear weapons. But there's a problem: We've almost run out. 'We've got enough to last to the end of this decade. That's it,' said Steve Johnson, a nuclear chemist at Idaho National Laboratory. And it's not just the U.S. reserves that are in jeopardy. The entire planet's stores are nearly depleted. ... what's left has already been spoken for and then some. ... Political ignorance and shortsighted squabbling, along with false promises from Russia, and penny-wise management of NASA's ever-thinning budget still stand in the way of a robust plutonium-238 production system." The plutonium shortage has been deepening for a long time, leading to some creative solutions. The Wired article alludes to the NASA project underway to create more, but leans toward gloom.

3 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Why are nuclear fission systems too heavy? by MillerHighLife21 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't know anything about them, but I have to ask why anything is too heavy in space? Is it too heavy when assembled on earth?

    --
    "Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
    1. Re:Why are nuclear fission systems too heavy? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Probably not; a sub's reactor would likely depend on the presence of the ocean for part of its cooling system (cooling is always a big problem in space -- basically it can only be done with radiators, which isn't very efficient), and is surely way overpowered for most missions.

      The US and Russia have sent up actual reactors before. The US had SNAP and the USSR had BES.

      But you really don't need nuclear power sources at all unless you're either far from the sun (beyond the orbit of Mars, usually), have serious power needs that modern solar power isn't sufficient for (the recently landed Curiosity rover on Mars uses an RTG for main power), or need heat to keep systems from getting too cold (the solar powered Mars rovers had small RTGs in them for heating purposes, IIRC).

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  2. Another reason to build LFTRs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the helpful byproducts of a Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is Pu-238

    Source: http://flibe-energy.com/?page_id=64