NASA Running Out of Plutonium

PRB_Ohio takes us to Space.com for a story about NASA's plutonium shortage, and how it may affect future missions to the far reaches of the solar system. The U.S. hasn't produced plutonium since 1988, instead preferring to purchase it from Russia. We discussed the U.S. government's plans to resume production in 2005, but those plans ended up being shelved. If NASA is unable to find an additional source, it could limit missions that take spacecraft too far from the Sun. Quoting: "Alan Stern, NASA associate administrator for science, ... said he believed the United States had sufficient plutonium-238 on hand or on order to fuel next year's Mars Science Lab, an outer planets flagship mission targeted for 2017 and a Discovery-class mission slated to fly a couple years earlier to test a more efficient radioisotope power system NASA and the Energy Department have in development. To help ensure there is enough plutonium-238 for those missions, NASA notified scientists in January that its next New Frontiers solicitation, due out in June, will seek only missions that do not require a nuclear power source."

WTF?

[Scrameustache (459504)]

The U.S. hasn't produced plutonium since 1988, instead preferring to purchase it from Russia.

Whaaaaaa?

Re:WTF?

[eln (21727)]

Give them a little credit, buying it from Russia was plan B. Our first source of plutonium was from Libyan nationalists. See, they would ask us to build them a bomb, we would take the plutonium, and then give them a shiny bomb casing full of used pinball machine parts. Unfortunately, the Libyans eventually found out and tried to kill us with RPGs. I swear, if Reagan hadn't managed to get up to 88 mph before he hit that photo kiosk, I don't know what we would have done.

Re:WTF?

[ZOmegaZ (687142)]

Ronald Reagan?! The ACTOR!?

Re:WTF?

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

The official position of the US Government is that breeder reactors are a potential threat. Bad Guys(TM) might get ahold of fissible materials bound for reprocessing, and THEN where would we be, hmm?

Never mind the fact that it's about 1000x simpler to create a gun-type bomb with Uranium rather than creating an uber-complex implosion device. All terrorists obviously have access to the advanced nuclear engineering and simulation capabilities necessary to create a plutonium implosion device.

...

Despite the fact that they can't refine Uranium...

Re:WTF?

[NeverVotedBush (1041088)]

Hey all - there is a very important concept to this discussion that most don't seem to be aware of.

Pu239 is the isotope of plutonium that is used in weapons. It has a very long half life (~24,000 years) and works great in nuclear weapons since it releases neutrons when the nucleus breaks apart and those neutrons cause other nuclei to break apart as well in a massive chain reaction that releases huge amounts of energy. (Normal decay path is through alpha particle emission (helium nuclei))

Pu238 is the isotope used in thermoelectric energy generators. It has a relatively short half live of ~88 years. Because of the shorter half life, it is a lot more radioactive than Pu239. The nucleus spontaneously undergoes alpha decay and releases enough energy frequently enough that chunks of this isotope glow red from the heat.

The plutonium used in warheads cannot be used in thermoelectric generators and vice versa.

Re:WTF?

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

The catch-22 is that they come from the same type of breeder reactor and have to separated by processing. Ergo, lack of breeder reactors == lack of PU-238. You follow?

Re:WTF?

[NeverVotedBush (1041088)]

Not entirely true. You operate the reactors and process the fuel rods differently, and I would assume load the fuel rods differently, depending on the isotope you want to make.

If you read the Global Security link I added, you will see. If you want to make predominately Pu239, you go with short run cycles so you don't get buildup of other, more radioactive isotopes, that make handling the fuel rods more problematic. You also want to use more U238 in the rods.

I would guess (as I don't know) that based on the Global Security article, if you want to make Pu238, you would start with more U235 in the rods and maybe run longer between reprocessing cycles.

It's interesting stuff.

Re:WTF?

[NeverVotedBush (1041088)]

Also, though a breeder may be more efficient at making them (I don't know), it isn't required. Plutonium was first made in the X-10 graphite reactor at Oak Ridge. All rectors that use uranium as fuel will produce plutonium. If you read the Wikipedia articles on breeder reactors, all light water reactors gradually transition from predominately burning their starting fuel to predominately burning the new isotopes that get bred into the fuel rods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor [wikipedia.org]

More Info On Plutonium

[NeverVotedBush (1041088)]

If you want to read an excellent discussion of reactor vs. weapons grade plutonium (though there isn't much information on Pu238 for thermoelectric generators) go here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/pu-isotope.htm [globalsecurity.org]

Methods used to make the two isotopes (weapons grade Pu239 vs. thermoelectric generator Pu238) are quite different.

Pu239 is produced from U238 when it absorbs a neutron and decays to Pu239.

Pu238 is produced with U235 through a chain of neutron absorptions and decays.

U238 is the more common form of uranium and is not the kind used for uranium weapons. Relatively pure U235 is what is frequently called highly-enriched uranium (HEU) and is the kind used for weapons.

Re:WTF?

[ISoldat53 (977164)]

The West has been buying Russian plutonium from old weapons and from surplus stockpiles under the idea that it's better to use it as fuel in a power plant than in a weapon.

Re:WTF?

[TubeSteak (669689)]

The West has been buying Russian plutonium from old weapons and from surplus stockpiles under the idea that it's better to use it as fuel in a power plant than in a weapon.

Huh?

The Russians do not want to use it in a weapon. The Russians have been pushing for accelerated nuclear disarmament because they literally can't afford to protect & maintain all their nuclear warheads. The U.S. has been filling the gap by helping to cover the security costs (including stuff like rusting submarines sitting at the dock), but Russia still has serious security issues.

Read this to get a picture of the state of Russian nuclear storage [blogspot.com]
Keep in mind that Russia has many nuclear dump sites spread around the country & I doubt anything has changed since that article was written last year.

Re:WTF?

[Junior J. Junior III (192702)]

Right, the Russians want to dismantle the weapons and not have to maintain them or protect them. Problem is, what do they do with the Pu once the weapons have been dismantled? Answer: sell it. But to who? Unsavory guys who'll make it into weapons, or US Science Guys who promise not to? The Russians and US both think it's better for the Pu not to be made into weapons, so we have the arrangement. If we didn't take it, someone would need to do something with it, and who knows what that would be -- probably not something the US would like.

Well...

[jd (1658)]

....they COULD have bought plutonium easily enough from the British (their reprocessing plant produces a fair amount of extractable plutonium) and probably from the French. Possibly even from the Israelis. Buying from Russia makes no real sense, due to the security issues in the region, politics and the problems of safe transport. The British would seem to be the best bet, as they probably generate the most, have extensive experience in transporting nuclear material, and have a special relationship with the

Please stop

[by Anonymous Coward]

I get it. You say "Buying from Russia makes no real sense" then he gives you a reason why it does make sense, and you ignore that you were wrong and make up a new argument.

Let me make this clear for you because you're obviously a fucking moron.

TAKING RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES OF ANY KIND AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE LAX WITH SECURITY, AND GIVING IT TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LAX WITH SECURITY MAKES SENSE.

There's your reason, it makes sense, you're wrong.

There's nothing more pathetic than douchebags like you who, once proven wrong like you were, can't just take it and move on. You have to formulate some response that attempts to make you look less wrong, because it absolutely crushes you that you were shown to be ignorant in public.

Re:WTF?

[nizo (81281)]

Depends on where and how fast you want it.

Two words

[Lucas123 (935744)]

dilithium crystals

One word

[by Anonymous Coward]

Libyans.

Now, How Will They Destroy the Earth?

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

Ooops. That's Illudium Q-36 - Not Plutonium - for the Explosive Space Modulator. [everything2.com]

It still obstructs my view of Venus!

Re:Now, How Will They Destroy the Earth?

[SensitiveMale (155605)]

It still obstructs my view of Venus!

Yeah, but you can still see Uranus.

Funny every time.

Re:

[Usquebaugh (230216)]

Until you hit puberty

What-tonium?

[longacre (1090157)]

Pluto isn't a planet anymore, it shouldn't have an element named after it.

Re:

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

Well, maybe they'll buy it if we call it "Vista".

Re:What-tonium?

[bky1701 (979071)]

Well, it did bomb.

Re:

[geminidomino (614729)]

And every Chemistry course will have a $700 "Disney Licensing fee" attached to it.

Plan B

[OglinTatas (710589)]

Maybe they can arrange to purchase some from Iran. Everybody wins!

Re:

[edwardpickman (965122)]

In all seriousness N Korea would probably be thrilled to trade us Plutonium for wheat. That is a deal where everyone wins.

Simple solution!

[WK2 (1072560)]

Simple solution. They can go back in time and steal plutonium from themselves.

Marty!

[amccaf1 (813772)]

"I'm sure in 1985 plutonium is available at every corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by!"

Re:

[dkleinsc (563838)]

According to Philo of UHF [wikipedia.org], it is possible to create plutonium from common household items.

You mean the USSR?

[wandazulu (265281)]

If I recall correctly, the Soviet Union finally dissolved in 1991. So at some point, circa 1988, somebody in either Reagan or Bush's administration decided it'd be easier to get Plutonium from the Soviet Union? You know, the sworn enemy, evil empire, etc. etc.? And even weirder, the Soviet Union agreed?

I know, it was for NASA, not the Minuteman missile, but still...

Re:You mean the USSR?

[Vellmont (569020)]

So at some point, circa 1988, somebody in either Reagan or Bush's administration decided it'd be easier to get Plutonium from the Soviet Union?

I'd say this is unlikely. The summary says we haven't PRODUCED plutonium since 1988, it says nothing about when we decided to purchase from Russia.

It could very well be the case that we had sufficient stockpiles in 1988 to last us several years until after the collapase of the Soviet Union.

Re:You mean the USSR?

[CompMD (522020)]

In Soviet Russia, plutonium enriches YOU!

This is an opportunity

[Coward Anonymous (110649)]

First, kudos to the U.S. for buying plutonium from the Russians. What better way to get it off their hands?
Second, many people should rejoice, this is a golden opportunity to decommission a warhead or two for the plutonium in it.

Re:This is an opportunity

[Vellmont (569020)]

Second, many people should rejoice, this is a golden opportunity to decommission a warhead or two for the plutonium in it.

No dice.

Nasa uses Plutonium-238 in it's RTGs because it's a strong alpha-emitter, and has a short half-life on 87 years. I also believe it's non-fissile (meaning it can't be used for an nuclear weapon).

Plutonium-239 is the stuff they use in nuclear weapons, and it's fairly useless as an RTG generator.

Pu-238 vs. Sr-90

[Dr. Cody (554864)]

I've heard a bit about these NASA and pacemaker RTG's which use plutonium-238. On the other hand, the much more widely-produced Soviet power RTG's (like the Beta-M) use strontium-90.

Any reason why we don't just use strontium--everybody makes that stuff. On the same note, why didn't the USSR use Pu-238?

Pay for it...

[bugs2squash (1132591)]

They were planning to send it all to America for free at one point.

It's simple, really.

[clem (5683)]

1. Find a group of Libyan nationalists that want you to build a bomb.
2. Take their plutonium.
3. Give them a shiny bomb-casing full of used pinball machine parts.

Just make sure you keep the DeLorean's engine running for step 3.

The 2 ways to obtain Pu-238

[extract (889530)]

There are currently 2 ways for US to obtain Plutonium-238 for space flights without buying it from abroad: 1. Use nuclear waste. Laser Isotope Seperation (LIS) is needed to seperate the Pu-238 from the other isotopes. 2. Breed on Neptunium-237. It is also found in nuclear waste, however it is easily separated from the rest. It can be bred into Pu-238 in a breeder blanket in a reactor.

NASA is weak

[CopaceticOpus (965603)]

NASA states that for their next mission they will only consider missions without a nuclear power source. This is a sad thing to hear, because it shows just how short-sighted and unambitious they have become. I've had enough with sending tiny robots to various places to look for traces of water. Some of those missions have been awesome, but we're now reaching the point that they're not going to teach us much more or help us to move forward.

The greatest promise for truly advancing space exploration is nuclear power. We're not even willing to produce plutonium for providing a little power to deep space missions. We're nowhere near actively considering the use of nuclear reactors for propulsion. Nuclear has the potential to increase by one or two orders of magnitude the size and weight we can send into space, which would radically change what we can do in space. However, it would require a huge investment in R&D as well as a big change of mindset, and the United States is not willing. Here's hoping another country will pick up the slack.

Re:NASA is weak

[Translation Error (1176675)]

How is this short sightedness on NASA's part? They're low on plutonium and have to conserve it for specific missions. Since they aren't able to produce their own plutonium, just what do you suggest they do instead?

Purchased from Russia?

[RandoX (828285)]

Think they ship that stuff DHL?

We're just plain running out.

[Ucklak (755284)]

First we're running out of helium [slashdot.org] and now we're running out of plutonium.
Our manufacturing jobs are overseas and we're in debt. OK, so we're good there, we're not running out of debt.

Re:We're just plain running out.

[MacColossus (932054)]

We have plenty of plutonium 238 in country. All the spent nuclear fuel rods sitting at power plants have plutonium 238. The states won't allow them to ship it to processing centers. So it sits in water or structures in storage at each individual power plant.

Different Plutonium

[Mollyg (1153045)]

The Plutonium used by NASA is Pu-238, which is quite different from the weapons usable Pu-239. Pu-238 would melt its self to a liquid by its own alpha decay heat before long before you get a critical mass, thus Pu-238 is not weapons usable.

They should make us an offer.

[Oktober Sunset (838224)]

We have 100 tons of the damn stuff we want to get rid of over here in the UK. They were even thinking of building a new reactor to use it all up cos there's no where suitable to keep it all. I'm sure the US and UK could strike a good deal, and I'm sure all those grouchy old cold war rememberers would prefer buying from the UK than Russia.

We have a ready supply of domestic plutonium

[MSTCrow5429 (642744)]

Spent fuel rods are 95 percent U-238. Plutonium can be produced form U-238. If we recycled our spent fuel rods, there would be a ready supply of domestic plutonium available. Why aren't we recycling our fuel rods? In 1977, President Jimmy Carter outlawed nuclear recycling, out of fear foreign nations would somehow steal plutonium to make nuclear bombs. This fear never came to pass, and nations have simply produced plutonium from their own reactors, or enriched uranium, a la Iran. It is time to discard baseless fears about the dangers of nuclear recycling, and produce our own plutonium. Canada, Britain, France and Russia all recycle their nuclear fuel, and France, which produces 80% of its electricity from nuclear energy, stores all of its waste inside of a single room. Recycling our nuclear fuel would render Yucca Mountain obsolete, and vastly decrease the time, energy and space that would need to be spent to handle spent nuclear fuel.

Source: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp [hillsdale.edu]

More efficient usage

[NMajik (935461)]

NASA has thus far used radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) to produce the electricity from the heat of the decaying plutonium. They are now moving forward with its plans to use Stirling engines to produce the electricity. Stirling engines are much more effective in this regard, requiring only one-fourth the amount of plutonium to produce and equivalent amount of power and have the added benefit of weighing about half as much as the current RTGs.

Re:simple solution: ionic propulsion

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

Ion propulsion [wikipedia.org] does indeed work. NASA has used it on a variety of craft to great success. There's just one catch-22: You need POWER to convert into thrust. And where are you going to get that power when you're too far from the Sun for solar panels?

Oh, oh! I have an idea! Plutonium would solve everything!

Wait... ah, crap.

Re:

[zippthorne (748122)]

Yeah, until they hit round about Mars orbit. Then, due to the dropoff in insolation, it starts to make sense to switch to internal power supplies. Especially if you require propulsion-level power supply.

Plutonium RTGs will run for a very long time, and your electric propulsion doesn't care where the electricity comes from. Why not use both? Solar panels for the inner solar system, and explosive bolts for when the the panels' mass causes "drag" on a decay-dominated power source?

Re:

[FrankSchwab (675585)]

We have too much of the wrong isotope of Plutonium. See
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=479826&cid=22679162 [slashdot.org]