NASA Running Low On Fuel For Space Exploration 282
smooth wombat writes "With the end of the Cold War came warmer relations with old adversaries, increased trade and a world less worried about nuclear war. It also brought with it an unexpected downside: lack of nuclear fuel to power deep space probes. Without this fuel, probes beyond Jupiter won't work because there isn't enough sunlight to use solar panels, which probes closer to the sun use. The fuel NASA relies on to power deep space probes is plutonium-238. This isotope is the result of nuclear weaponry, and since the United States has not made a nuclear device in 20 years, the supply has run out. For now, NASA is using Soviet supplies, but they too are almost exhausted. It is estimated it will cost at least $150 million to resume making the 11 pounds per year that is needed for space probes."
buy it from North Korea or Iran (Score:5, Funny)
Or if that wont work it looks like there is a decent chance we'll be able to buy some from the Taliban soon.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:buy it from North Korea or Iran (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, we'll just invade a few years later searching for weapons of mass destruction. Then, after a few short weeks, the dictator will be gone, we'll have our plutonium, and (as a side benefit) the North Korean people will love us! Foolproof plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the people won't love you. But hey... Two out of three ain't bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_Tf2lQvDz0 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(as a side benefit) the North Korean people will love us!
Joking aside, were it to happen, I believe that liberation of the North Korean people would open a massive can of worms.
Given that they've lived under an all-encompassing veil of propaganda and likely have a totally skewed worldview, can you imagine what would happen if the government fell and (e.g.) UN forces went in?
What do you tell these people? How will they react? How will you govern them?
Would it be necessary to exploit the existing propaganda machine to create the false impression that Kim Jong
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't been there - and I've only talked with a couple people that have been close, on the China side, but I've got the feeling that for many of the people getting fed on a regular basis is high enough a priority that they wont care where it comes from or who is in charge.
Re:buy it from North Korea or Iran (Score:5, Funny)
What do you tell these people? How will they react? How will you govern them?
It can work, as long as you think about these issues along with the rest of the invasion plan. Going in and just expecting to be greeted as liberators is criminally naive.
A bit like this? (Score:3, Funny)
[wavy lines, as we look into the crystal ball [today.com] ...]
North Korea has threatened to carry out nuclear missile tests unless the UN Security Council apologises for its "unseemly snickering" at their recent rocket launch falling into the sea.
"The communications satellite was successfully launched and is fulfilling its mission, sending transmissions from Pacific Ocean life in deep space," a Pyongyang communique said today. "If the UN does not take back its grievous slanders, we will be forced to retaliate with th
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I didn't know they employ Comical Ali now :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure they can tell they're being lied to, that their lives are not how they should be, and something is
Re:buy it from North Korea or Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, I didn't see that coming! (Score:3, Insightful)
I expected a cheap shot like this, so here's my answer:
The 'Propaganda' you refer to is generally about far-away places and events, and therefor any contrast with reality would not be apparent.
These people are being fed bullshit about the workings of their daily lives, and are required to participate in the lies or be hauled off to the gulag. There is a big difference between 'stoopid americans falling for propaganda about WMD/Iraq Lollerskates!!11Lol!' and Koreans believing or not believing the nonsense th
Re:Gee, I didn't see that coming! (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'Propaganda' you refer to is generally about far-away places and events, and therefor any contrast with reality would not be apparent.
No. American propaganda is alive and well but it has different goals. Korea is about obeying and serving your god-like leader. American is about consuming and consuming and is so successful that it's very difficult to get people to even see it.
One good method is to go backpacking for a month. You'd be amazed at how obvious and vulgar it all is when you return to 'civilization'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference between the USA and North Korea is that North Korea is as close to a perfect example of a totalitarian state as has probably ever existed. The state is everywhere, in every aspect of its citizens' lives, to the point where they have internalised it. (Witness, for example, reports from the train explosion in the north of North Korea a few years ago, which stated that many citizens perished going back into their burning houses to rescue their portraits of Kim Jong Il, and imagine, for a moment,
Re: (Score:2)
What do you tell these people?
Pickled cabbage only taste good when Germans do it?
Re: (Score:2)
I've always thought it would be interesting to take someone that lived in the jungle their whole life into a movie theater, and show them the latest movie. How would they react? Would they be able to tell it was just a movie, or would they hit the floor? I think that would work with North Korea. Something tells me (from the few crap video's i've seen from there) that they have never really seen special effects (besides government photoshopping, of course) and they might just crap their pants watching the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:buy it from North Korea or Iran (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not fund our own nuclear power plants programs? Build more plants. Build the breeder reactors (and the newer reprocessing tech)...and along the lines, maybe a little of the 238 stuff can come off the line for NASA?
First, we need to repeal the Carter ban on such nuclear reprocessing...and then, start building nuke power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. What most people do not know, is that the price of oil did not rise because of greed. If went back to the normal market price, where it should have been, but wasn't because of greed. Many OPEC leaders were bribed and threatened, and gave away the oil below market price, at the expense of the people there. Then China came along, and wanted oil too. So much that the USA were not the sole client that you needed to survive. Suddenly they could sell it to them at the normal price, and tell the USA
Re: (Score:2)
That would explain the price surge from $50/bbl to $150/bbl, but, since we and China and India are buying just about as much as we used to, not the precipitous drop back to $50.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Since when does the United States have money? I thought they went broke shortly after the second world war.
I am getting so moded down for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me we'd pay Kim Jong Il $150 million and get a brick by return mail.
Marty: This is, uh, this is heavy-duty Doc! Does it run like on regular unleaded gasoline?
Doc: Unfortunately no. It requires something with a little more kick: Plutonium.
Marty: Uh, plutonium... Wait a minute, Doc, are you tellin me that this sucker is nuclear?!?
Doc: Hey, keep rolling, keep rolling there, No, no, no, no, this sucker's electrical, but it needs a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 jigawatts of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me that we might get it from Kim Jong Il without asking. In fact, there may be several providers out there that would be HAPPY to send us some plutonium, for free. Special Delivery.
We could, I suppose see if Israel has any, or could make some. They wouldn't charge much, and it would be good stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:buy it from North Korea or Iran (Score:5, Funny)
there is a decent chance we'll be able to buy some from the Taliban soon.
Buy it from Pakistan now, before the Taliban takes over.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
In unrelated news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Precisely! Instead of all this nuclear material, NASA could just use... a bolt of lightning.
This wouldn't be a problem if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The advantage of a breeder reactor like the IFR [wikipedia.org] is that it uses a fuel cycle in which this is effectively impossible. You would need to run a completely different fuel cycle, and likewise, the type of reprocessing facilities required are completely different. This is a good thing.
If we really need more Plutonium, we should be looking to dismantle our weapons stockpile instead. It is way way beyond what could ever be considered reasonable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We allowed breeder reactors or nuclear reprocessing at civilian reactors.
Where do you get that idea? RTGs run on Pu-238, a specific isotope of plutonium which has nothing to do with Pu-240 reactor fuel or weapon material.
This substance is only called plutonium because it has 94 protons per atom. It may have chemical properties in common with other isotopes with 94 protons, but its nuclear properties have no relation whatsoever. It is not a significant direct byproduct of nuclear reactors.
Breeder reactors and reprocessing efforts would in fact attempt to *avoid* creating this iso
Re:This wouldn't be a problem if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Alternatives? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Alternatives? (Score:5, Informative)
Sr-90 is not a good as Pu-238 for 3 reasons.
1. Shorter half life (28.8 years vs. 87.7), thus the power drops off faster.
2. Lower energy density, thus less power to start with, or more weight.
3. It produces beta radiation (Pu-238 produces alpha radiation) and requires much more shielding (and thus more weight) so it doesn't mess with the electronics.
Research. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I kind of see your point, but given the lack of funding that NASA is generally dealing with these days, I'd imagine they'd probably rather spend their research dollars solving newer problems, rather than having to find another solution to something that was basically solved. It was a good solution too. RTG's are reasonably simple as far as nuclear technology goes, they're durable, and they last a long time.
Also, there's plenty of earth-bound activities which would benefit from a power source of similar capa
Re: (Score:2)
They did and this is it.
1. Solar will not work for deep space probes. That thing called the inverse square law really comes into play out past Mars.
2. No gas stations and no air so forget about burning anything.
3. You could use a reactor but it would be a lot more complex than an RTG. It would be more expensive to build and to launch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Research. (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy freaking Hanna!
Okay lets take a look at what this "New energy source" has to do.
1. Supply several hundred watts for at least a decade without refueling. RTGs from the 70s are still working and the probes that use them still sending data.
2. Work in a vacuum.
3. Work in the Dark.
4. Work in the extreme cold of the outer solar system.
5. Be light An RTG has a mass of under 60 kg.
6. Dependable. Must work for decades with nobody to fix it.
Just what the heck do you think can do that that isn't an RTG?
We don't have working fusion so we are left with reactors but they are not as light or as simple as RTGs.
More mass means a bigger launch vehicle. That means a lot more money and fewer missions.
I love the way people on Slashdot are so willing to make comments like "They just need to find a replacment". Doesn't anybody ever consider that fact that this is the best solution there is without some massive technical leap? And that technical leap may be many decades away if it ever comes!
Re: (Score:2)
Uranium has a half-life, right? It's a use-it-or-lose-it fuel source. I say we use as much of it as we can before it goes to waste!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first one to figure out how the power a device with the stored smugness of prius owners is going to make a mint!
Plenty of Warheads to Reprocess (Score:3, Insightful)
President Obama has suggested additional reductions in nuclear arms held by the US and Russia, so perhaps the plutonium from those could be used.
Or perhaps NASA could adapt their generators to use plutonium 239, which they could get from a Fast Breeder reactor [wikipedia.org], if we ever build one.
Re: (Score:2)
Pu-238 is used for these because it's an almost pure alpha emitter. Among other things, this makes it easy to design a foolproof casing in the event of a launch failure.
Re: (Score:2)
President Obama has suggested additional reductions in nuclear arms held by the US and Russia
The President needs a big clue. Those nuclear arms are for deterrence against all the suicidal nutjobs out there trying to get their hands on their own bombs. I mean we need some way to convince them not to strap a nuke on and walk into a city and...
Wait. Let me get back to you.
Weapons are not a source (Score:2)
Weapons contain Pu-239. NASA needs Pu-238.
> Or perhaps NASA could adapt their generators to use plutonium 239
Pu-239 won't work. It has much too long a half-life.
Try the French (Score:2)
about time (Score:2)
It's about time we found something more expensive than the refills for my inkjet.
(If you are going to tell me to wait to post about mentioning how long....)
about plutonium (Score:3, Informative)
The article says that P-238 is used as a power source because of the heat is causes during decay. Surely someone could come up with a better power source for these probes than a rare isotope. I'm not even sure than this plutonium could be manufactured by refining nuclear waste, since that process produces P-239.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely someone could come up with a better power source for these probes than a rare isotope.
Stable materials don't give off any energy to speak of. Radioactive isotopes do, obviously highly powerful with an acceptable halflife is desirable but thus also rare. There's not many others in that category and if there was they'd probably be nuke material too. What's the alternative? No battery would deliver that much power for that long in a reliable fashion.
Re:about plutonium (Score:4, Informative)
The article says that P-238 is used as a power source because of the heat is causes during decay. Surely someone could come up with a better power source for these probes than a rare isotope. I'm not even sure than this plutonium could be manufactured by refining nuclear waste, since that process produces P-239.
The thing is that nuclear fission and decay have a higher energy density, by a factor of at least six orders of magnitude, than anything else*.
Storing an equivalent amount of any other type of energy source would require increasing the craft size by a factor of a million or so. If you can't use solar, some sort of nuclear generation is the only alternative.
Now, if you mean maybe they can find a less-rare isotope to work with, well, maybe. They have $150 million reasons to look for decent alternatives.
*I work at a nuclear power plant, and we generate 1.2 gigawatts of electrical power for a year and a half on a low enrichment 12' cube of uranium. The coal required to produce the same amount of power would fill about 60 miles of 500' long coal-hauling ships. Batteries have even less density than that.
Re: (Score:2)
> Surely someone could come up with a better power source for these probes than a rare
> isotope.
Someone such as you, perhaps? Have at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely someone could come up with a better power source for these probes than a rare isotope.
Yeah, I'll do it. I've got a few minutes spare in an hour or so. I'll come up with something quickly, I'm sure. I mean, it's got to be piss-easy, right? I'm actually sort of surprised no-one else has bothered. Stupid lazy nuclear scientists.
The US has a source (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a source available. Just decommission a few nuclear warheads each year. Since the US has enough nuclear weapons [wikipedia.org] to basically end civilization, I suspect some could be spared without meaningfully degrading national security.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's worth risking not having enough operational nuclear warheads to ensure global-thermo-nuclear annihilation just to fuel a bunch of stupid probes. What if the fuel in one of those probes was the difference between the end of all mankind and human civilization continuing after a war? Would you want to have that to worry about on your plate on top of the fact that your family was vaporized and you're living underground? I don't think so.
Re:The US has a source (Score:5, Informative)
"Just decommission a few nuclear warheads each year."
Except that nuclear warheads use Plutonium-239, and the power plants NASA uses are based on Plutonium-238.
And converting Pu-239 into Pu-238 is much more difficult than converting rad-waste into Pu-238.
Weapons are not a source (Score:2)
Weapons do not contain Pu-238 which is what NASA needs for their thermoelectric generators. Pu-239, which is what is used in weapons, won't do.
In your face, Edwin Starr! (Score:5, Funny)
War! Huh! What is it good for?
Space exploration, apparently.
Not all plutonium is the same (Score:5, Informative)
To all the smart alecks, no they can't use weapons grade plutonium, which is 239, they need 238, which has a much shorter half-life (88 y compared to 24100 y) and therefore gives off much more energy. They don't need an isoptope that is fissile, they need one with a short half-life.
Re:Not all plutonium is the same (Score:4, Interesting)
Sigh...
I really, really hope that was a joke. Because I'm sure somebody out there is going to assume it wasn't, and wonder why NASA doesn't just do that.
You can't "fission a few particles now and then". To establish the sort of chain reaction you're talking about in fissile fuel would require equipping the probe with a reactor. Ignoring the fact that people would scream bloody murder about launching such a device into orbit (it's been done before, but not recently, and not in this political climate), there are also technical limitations.
A RTG is not a reactor; it's something much lighter, with fewer moving parts. Doesn't generate as much power, but less power is needed if all you're running is a few sensor and communication systems. Even if we could make a reactor that lightweight, we couldn't make it go for decades at a time without maintenance.
So, to recap, we can't use Pu239 to power a RTG, and can't use a reactor to perform the same job. And we don't have very many isotopes that can fill the same role Pu238 does.
Plus, any fancy new solution would surely cost more than the $150 mil mentioned in TFA, making the question moot to begin with. Compared to the cost of developing, testing and building a next generation fission reactor that will run for decades sans maintainable, a few hundred million dollars is a drop in the bucket.
Peace Dividend (Score:2)
After the US won the Cold War, we agreed to buy their huge nuke stockpile that they agreed to give up. Then Bush Sr didn't buy it with the money (the Democratic) Congress put out. Then the Republican Congress that took over deleted the money so Clinton couldn't buy it.
Now the Russians have a nuke stockpile, and we don't even have enough plutonium to run a space program.
Nice work. Notice who prevented the proper processing of the most essential peace dividend.
Oblig BTTF quote... (Score:4, Funny)
Simple Enough (Score:2)
probes beyond Jupiter won't work because there isn't enough sunlight to use solar panels
Then just have the probes bring the sun with them...
Someone has to say it... (Score:3, Funny)
It looks like their stocks are literally decaying away!
Bwahahahahahaha...ahaha...ha...ha..h
Yeah, I'll get my coat.
Re:Hm, an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that nuclear reprocessing plants, such as Sellafield, supplied a lot of weapons material for the British nuclear program, I'd be astonished if these could not extract all of the plutonium needed from those fuel rods that have been recycled this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that sure would get rid of our nasty Disposal problem.. Beef up NASA's budget. Help science, and no more Yucca mountain or reprocessing mess to deal with!
Re: (Score:2)
My vote is "no," by definition, since "spent fuel" simply means the fuel is depleted enough that you don't think it's worth harvesting the energy from it any more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> That's because those isotopes were created the last time the sun went nova...
Speak for yourself. Our sun has never gone nova.
Re:Hm, an idea (Score:5, Funny)
That's what your body thetans want you to think.
Read the gnikcuf summary (Score:5, Funny)
Can't wind farms and solar energy suffice?
No. Wind farms work on the relative velocity between the ground and the atmosphere, but in space, there's no ground and almost no atmosphere. And the summary states: "there isn't enough sunlight to use solar panels".
Re:Read the gnikcuf summary (Score:5, Funny)
Never has a "woosh" post been more relevant than in a thread poking fun at wind power...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, you don't need an atmosphere to turn a windmill. They could be powered by the flows of the aether. This method (pushing against the aether) is the same means by which rockets move in space, so it's proven technology.
Re:Look to newcomers? (Score:5, Funny)
problem is they will most likely want to deliver it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
But Iran seems to be itching for quick delivery to Israel, so they might not be the best option.
Re:Beam energy? (Score:5, Funny)
You're right. About the first part.
Re:Beam energy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the big fuel expense was breaking atmo. What happened to coasting in space?
Nothing. Coasting in space works great. But how do you plan to power the cameras and radios on it?
Out past jupiter the sun is too far away for us to get enough energy from solar. What else is there?
Need heat too, don't you? (Score:2, Informative)
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that, in addition to the electricity needed to run cameras, sensors, the main CPU of the probes, and radio, etc, that part of the reason to use radioactive materials to power these deep space probes was to keep them warm enough that they could actually still operate? Doesn't the probe have to heat itself somehow?
Re: (Score:2)
Space is cold, but with no conduction or convection, it's hard to get rid of heat. The primary problem here is too much heat rather than a lack of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're thinking of things like the ISS and Space Shuttle. That's more an issue in the inner system, and more an issue with manned spacecraft.
If a probe's electronics aren't giving off too much waste heat, and it's operating far enough from the sun, freezing becomes more of a problem than overheating. The reasons heat is a larger problem for something like the Shuttle are the large number of waste-heat generating parts (including the squishy organic parts running the thing), and the greater exposure to sun
Re: (Score:2)
you need to keep your electronics powered and not-frozen. you also have to transmit your data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uranus is dark? (Score:5, Funny)
No, remember, Uranus is where the sun doesn't shine.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just wait another year when Jupiter explodes into a new Sun. After all, we already know that the Great Red Spot is shrinking [cnn.com]. Just don't send any space probes to Europa, and we should be ok,... ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why people had such a hissy fit over this. That *is* the correct pronunciation in half the country.
Re:sounds pretty bogus (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh.. No your wrong.
Really RTGs are actually simple, cheap, and effective. Solar will not work well past the orbit of Mars, Reactors are more expensive, complex, and weigh more.
So sparky you tell me what can produce power for years without much light, heat, or air, and has a mass of less then 60 kgs?
Oh and "I am sure they can think of something" is not an answer.
Re: (Score:2)
"'I am sure they can think of something' is not an answer"
It isn't? What, do they expect slashdot users to come up with something? Aren't they paid to do this? Didn't they see this coming 20 or 30 years ago? Do NASA scientists wait until the last minute to solve something like this? Of course they have to think of something, that's what their job entails. If they ran out of Pu 238 they can either 1) make or get more, or 2) figure something e
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually they have been trying to get funding to get PU 238 production started again for about 5 years. This isn't a last minute thing. Also NASA has no control over Pu 238 that is under the AEC and NASA has been asking them for more for several years. The buying it from Russia was their solution.
The thing is that there is NOTHING really better than an RTG powered by Pu 238.
As far as snide the original post was made with both a massive influx of arrogance and ignorance.
Pu238 is as close to a perfect fuel fo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Solar will not work well past the orbit of Mars
Actually, NASA is building a Jupiter space probe now called Juno [wikipedia.org] that uses solar panels. Quoting the article:
Advancement in solar cell technology and efficiency over the past several decades now makes it economically feasible to use solar panels of practical size to provide power so far from the Sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Start producing Pu 238.
That is the answer. There is nothing better than an RTG for this problem and probably never will be.
Pu-238 is hard to beat for this application (Score:2)
Pu-238 is hard to beat for this application
Pu-238 is used because it is relatively short-lived and is not easily fissile (low multiplication factor), and instead experiences relatively rapid Alpha decay.
Like most alpha decay, it generates heat as a decay byproduct. Unlike Pu-239, which has a half life of a little over 24,000 years, the Pu-238 half-life is a little under 90 years, which makes it a better thermal source for use in power generation (Pu-239 decays way to slowly to be used as an Alpha decay bas
Re: (Score:2)
We may be past nuclear holocaust, but we still face viral holocaust. The bacon-lung will get ye.
The only known protection from this flu is to put a plastic bag over your head, poke a hole in it, then use a snorkel to breathe. You will then be known as a baconaut. You will roam the world like a god as all those around you die of the disease.
Weapons use Pu-239 (Score:5, Informative)
This about Pu-238 for use in thermoelectric generators. Pu-239 does not produce enough heat.
Re:A wonderful problem to have (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Pu-238 â Pu 239.
Pu-239 is what is used in warheads. It's rather stable (half life of ~24,000 years) but is a fissile substance which you can assemble into a supercritical form.
Pu-238 is relatively unstable (half life of ~88 years), so it gives off quite a bit of heat as it breaks down. Thus, it is used for RTGs (Radioisotope Thermal Generators).
Different isotopes are different.
Agreed!! (Score:2)
Re:Two Birds + any city you wreck it in (Score:2)
It'll take only one car accident bad enough to breach containment, it'll cook a lot of folks.