NASA Running Out of Plutonium 264
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Plan B (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:simple solution: ionic propulsion (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
NASA is weak (Score:4, Interesting)
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:We're just plain running out. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
They should make us an offer. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a ready supply of domestic plutonium (Score:5, Interesting)
Source: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp [hillsdale.edu]
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor [wikipedia.org]
More efficient usage (Score:3, Interesting)