Saeed al-Sahaf writes "According to the New York Times (login req, but you can google for it as well), the Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 since the cold war. Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory. Officials denied that any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space, but rather would power 'secret espionage devices.' Plutonium 238 has no central role in nuclear arms. Instead, it is valued for its steady heat, which can be turned into electricity. Nuclear batteries made of it are best known for powering spacecraft that go where sunlight is too dim to energize solar cells. For instance, they now power the Cassini probe exploring Saturn and its moons."
I, for one, welcome our secret espionage device overlord. 330lbs of Pu must make one hell of a secret espionage device. Maybe they're got an SEP field set up?
Seems to me that the physical size of the core has pretty much nothing to do with it. If it can reach critical mass, particularly when surrounded by appropriate materials (beryllium reflector, u-235 shell, etc), then it can...whether it's the size of a basketball...or a golf ball.
The smallest warhead made ("Davy Crockett") was a shoulder-launched, tactical size unit whose business end was the size of a cantaloupe.
330lbs of Pu must make one hell of a secret espionage device.
My guess would be that this is going to fuel thousands of small unattended ground sensors, not big devices. Because the are unattended, they need steady fuel for a long period of time, and because they are transmitting data (perhaps in an ad-hoc swarm manner), they will need need a moderate amount of energy.
So the correct slashdot cliche here is - in Soviet Russia a beowolf cluster of secrete espionage devices welcome you!
Sounds like this is used to power Radioisotope Thermal Generators. this is a very good thing; we need more experience with RTGs to power spacecraft, both nearby (spy satellites) and far (science missions). It's the only power we can generate when we're beyond Mars orbit (solar cells are much less effective the farther you get from the Sun.
My wife brought up the pollution aspect - not from polluting outer space (I explained already about the fact that space is far more radioactive than the plutonium is, we're not 'polluting' space). Rather, the Hanford (Washington State USA) processing facility created / processed lots of plutonium during the cold war and ended up creating massive environmental damage with radionucleides in the groundwater, soil, etc.
Where exactly is this processing plant and is the DOD allowing the EPA to supervise environmental maintenance/protection?
(Note: I don't care where it is; if telling me hurts security that's fine I don't need to know, but I don't want this kind of a plant showing up next door to me without someone having filed an environmental impact statement).
From TFA "The Idaho National Laboratory, founded in 1949 for atomic research, stretches across 890 square miles of southeastern Idaho... The site is dotted with 450 buildings and 52 reactors... New plutonium facilities there would take five years to build and cost about $250 million."
IYRTAYK, if you read the article you'd know or even just made an assumption from the summany. Idaho, is of course the location of the Idaho National Laboratory (go figure), which is near Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Looks like they'll run into a lot of local opposition to the plan, but personally I hope it passes. They dutifully elect Republicans, now, let them deal with some (more) long term environmental damage.
On the second page of the article gives this relevant fact:
Today, the United States doesn't make plutonium 238 and instead relies on aging stockpiles or imports from Russia. By agreement with the Russians, it cannot use the imported material -- some 35 pounds since the end of the Cold War -- for military purposes.
So what it sounds like is the goverment needs the plutonium for military applications, not for NASA since they can already get Pu-238 from Russia for NASA missions.
Espoinage (earth-facing satilites that use optical,infrared, or radar imaging that are in the government's name, pretty much) would be considered a military use. They can't use Russia's Pu-238 for them.
This is NOT good news. In fact, I think it sucks. Let me be perfectly clear, I think we need Pu238 and the RTGs it's used in for space missions that travel beyond the area close enough to the sun for solar cells to be useful. The Cassini mission to Saturn is the prime example of this, the amount of incredibly fantastic science being done by that mission is impossible without RTGs. There is a small risk of Pu dispersal if the probe explodes on launch, but after that these things are looong gone and pose no e
You are mistaken. If you had read the full environmental impact statement [nasa.gov] for Cassini you'd know that a significant portion of the RTG heater units were expected to burn up and disperse on re-entry should that've occured. These things are not indestructable. A fast flying shard of metal during an on pad explosion could easily slice right through an RTG.
Uh yeah thanks but I think I just MIGHT [wikipedia.org] know what I'm talking about here. The RTG heater units (NOT the 1 watt RHUs) are called GPHS modules (general purpose heat sources). Read this chapter [nasa.gov]!! The probabilities of RTG breakup and dispersal in the atmosphere are calculated for you, you don't even have to think. THE PROBABILITY IS NON ZERO! I can't make this any clearer.
So you claim to have a degree in probability theory yet cannot seem to tell the difference between zero and finite risk. wow. nice. you must've graduated at the head of the class.
Nuclear power really won't take you very far unless you use breeder reactors. About 40 years by some estimates.
I've heard that if the existing weapons-grade plutonium were converted to reactor fuel (by "diluting" it with other isotopes) we would have enough to last 250 years.
BTW, don't you mean breeder reactors produce Pu-239 instead of Pu-238? I've never heard of Pu-238 being used for fission before.
That's right. Other than for the benefits in powering espionage/space devices, this move could be laying the groundwork for full scale Pu238 production, to mix with Pu239 (from fast breeders), as a deterrent to the use of Pu239 for weapons. The world will need breeders soon, and neutralizing their potential for weapons use will be a priority.
From the article:
"Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming."
North and upwind of Grand Teton, eh? Sounds like we are going to be sending some pollution up Canada's way. On behalf of all Americans, I apologize.
D'OH
"Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming."
I read that "west" as "north" and deduced that the wind from the plant would be moving north into Canada, not west into my beloved home state of Oregon. OK I'll read more carefully next time.
Wikipedia article here [wikipedia.org]
Plutonium 239 is the one used in nuclear weapons and some nuclear power plants.
Pu238 has a halflife of 88 years, and the decay mode is fission (so it outputs quite a lot of energy) or alpha emission. Quoth the wiki:
"The plutonium isotope 238Pu is an alpha emitter with a half-life of 87 years. These characteristics make it well suited for electrical power generation for devices which must function without direct maintenance for timescales approximating a human lifetime. It is ther
This plutonium is sorely needed to aid in our national defense. Thanks to treaties signed by some nancy pants presidents of the past we are only down to a measly 4,000 or so ICBMs.
Perhaps you meant nuclear bombs? You know.. The things that make an ICBM something other than a big metal tube filled with fuel? Too bad you don't need this stuff to make one though...
I think it's for much cooler stuff. Like a spy cellphone that runs linux with a standby time of 600 hours!
I can't think of the exact agreement, but nuclear material is not allowed in orbit because satellites must be deorbited and could cause massive contamination. More likely the secret espionage devices are about the size of a nickel and run for years.
bugmenot (Score:2)
Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
I think...checking:
330lbs = 149,685 grams. 149,685 grams at 19.84 grams / cm^3 is about 7545 cm^3. The third root of 7545 is 19.6.
Can that be right? Wow. I knew it was dense stuff, but holy sh*t!
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
The smallest warhead made ("Davy Crockett") was a shoulder-launched, tactical size unit whose business end was the size of a cantaloupe.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
* Note: Yes, I know, it was originally an Illudium Q-36 model, but that was a long time ago; things change.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/marvin/Marvin16
http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/marvin/Marvin04
Not one. (Score:2)
My guess would be that this is going to fuel thousands of small unattended ground sensors, not big devices. Because the are unattended, they need steady fuel for a long period of time, and because they are transmitting data (perhaps in an ad-hoc swarm manner), they will need need a moderate amount of energy.
So the correct slashdot cliche here is - in Soviet Russia a beowolf cluster of secrete espionage devices welcome you!
Reg Free Link to Article (Score:3, Informative)
Spacecraft RTGs (Score:4, Insightful)
My wife brought up the pollution aspect - not from polluting outer space (I explained already about the fact that space is far more radioactive than the plutonium is, we're not 'polluting' space). Rather, the Hanford (Washington State USA) processing facility created / processed lots of plutonium during the cold war and ended up creating massive environmental damage with radionucleides in the groundwater, soil, etc.
Where exactly is this processing plant and is the DOD allowing the EPA to supervise environmental maintenance/protection?
(Note: I don't care where it is; if telling me hurts security that's fine I don't need to know, but I don't want this kind of a plant showing up next door to me without someone having filed an environmental impact statement).
Re:Spacecraft RTGs (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Spacecraft RTGs (Score:2)
Military applications, not NASA (Score:3, Interesting)
So what it sounds like is the goverment needs the plutonium for military applications, not for NASA since they can already get Pu-238 from Russia for NASA missions.
Re:Military applications, not NASA (Score:2)
Re:Spacecraft RTGs (Score:2)
Re:Spacecraft RTGs (Score:2)
Re:Spacecraft RTGs (Score:2)
Re:Spacecraft RTGs (Score:2)
Also good practice for breeder reactors? (Score:2, Interesting)
By using breeder reactors, we can have up to 40,000 years of energy.
Breeder reactors let you take U238, which is mostly useless for reactors, and turn it into Pu238, which is a great source of energy.
Maybe this is also practice for a larger project down the road.
Re:Also good practice for breeder reactors? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've heard that if the existing weapons-grade plutonium were converted to reactor fuel (by "diluting" it with other isotopes) we would have enough to last 250 years.
BTW, don't you mean breeder reactors produce Pu-239 instead of Pu-238? I've never heard of Pu-238 being used for fission before.
Parent
Re:Also good practice for breeder reactors? (Score:1)
Ooops. You're right, of course. Pu-239 is correct.
MOD parent up (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
secret missions (Score:4, Funny)
Secret Missions? Come on, we all know that plutonium is the perfect fuel to produce the 1.21 Jigawatts that our flux capacitors need.
Pollute Canada (Score:2, Insightful)
"Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming."
North and upwind of Grand Teton, eh? Sounds like we are going to be sending some pollution up Canada's way. On behalf of all Americans, I apologize.
Re:Pollute Canada (Score:2)
Ugh, I cannot believe I just made an "All Your Base" joke. I think I am going to be sick.
Re:Pollute Canada (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pollute Canada (Score:2)
"Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming."
I read that "west" as "north" and deduced that the wind from the plant would be moving north into Canada, not west into my beloved home state of Oregon. OK I'll read more carefully next time.
DIY is too expensive (Score:3, Funny)
If we're running low, why not just buy some more from North Korea?
Re:DIY is too expensive (Score:3, Funny)
Do they deliver?
Re:DIY is too expensive (Score:3, Funny)
Re:DIY is too expensive (Score:2)
Roughly half an hour delivery time, but they can't guarentee it'll get to the correct address. Kinda like Domino's.
As for pickup? Just look for the flash, then follow the sirens. Some of your order should still be in the area.
Re:DIY is too expensive (Score:2)
2 hours? I think you mean 20 minutes.
How much is that? (Score:4, Informative)
FYI (Score:2, Informative)
Plutonium 239 is the one used in nuclear weapons and some nuclear power plants. Pu238 has a halflife of 88 years, and the decay mode is fission (so it outputs quite a lot of energy) or alpha emission. Quoth the wiki:
"The plutonium isotope 238Pu is an alpha emitter with a half-life of 87 years. These characteristics make it well suited for electrical power generation for devices which must function without direct maintenance for timescales approximating a human lifetime. It is ther
Re:How much is that? (Score:2)
Huh? What's that in hogsheads?
-
Re:How much is that? (Score:2)
Re:How much is that? (Score:3, Informative)
Its about time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its about time. (Score:2)
I think it's for much cooler stuff. Like a spy cellphone that runs linux with a standby time of 600 hours!
Re:Its about time. (Score:2)
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush? Yeah, what pansies.
Re:Its about time. (Score:2)
Those 4000 ICBMs are quite enough to make Earth uninhabitable several times over. You really don't need more.
Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
secret espionage devices? (Score:2)
So what exactly are they planning on spying where the sun don't shine?
Re:secret espionage devices? (Score:2)
There are any number of possible applications that could be powered by radio-thermoelectric generators.
Re:secret espionage devices? (Score:2)
Re:secret espionage devices? (Score:2)
There you go. Answered your own question. Now you won't need heated seats in your car any more.
There are no RTGs in orbit (Score:2)
Re:There are no RTGs in orbit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There are no RTGs in orbit (Score:2)