NASA Struggles Over Deep-Space Plutonium Power

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/within-nasa-a-plutonium-power-struggle/

by known • 11 years ago

118 85 11 years ago

scientificamerican.com

psswrdshmashwrd3• 11 years ago

Two words: Thorium reactor.

cstross• 11 years ago

Please explain how you would design a thorium reactor to produce 238Pu suitable for use in RTGs.

Please explain how you would build a shiny new thorium reactor with 238Pu production capability on a budget competitive with the existing DoE 237Np -> 238Pu transmutation process in an existing research reactor.

psswrdshmashwrd3• 11 years ago

Please see: Liquid fluoride thorium reactor

jb55• 11 years ago

Take a look at http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/downloads/plutonium-238... for how it could be done

rexignis• 11 years ago

Every time someone gets all giggly about Thorium I'm suspicious. Could you provide some documentation about why this is a viable option in space?

psswrdshmashwrd3• 11 years ago

I agree thorium isn't without its problems, but the end byproduct of a lftr reactor is plutonium.

Vexs2• 11 years ago

AFAIK it's because they last a long time with very small amounts of reactants, are low maintenance, and are potentially very small. I mean, it kinda makes sense but RTGs are better for space applications because you really don't need massive amounts of power in space, plus the whole "power forever with no effort" aspect; they might as well be perpetual motion engines.

obfk• 11 years ago

The Thorium Dream (Documentary): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9Ll5EX1jc

Symmetry3• 11 years ago

I have no idea what you're getting at here. If you mean we should use a Thorium reactor to generate Plutonium then others have explained why that's impossible. If you mean that we should use a Thorium reactor instead of a Plutonium RTG then that also wouldn't work, the smallest reactor is still way heavier than an RTG.

jtwebman• 11 years ago

It is sad we spend so much money on military yet can't give NASA more money. I hate politics!

Vexs2• 11 years ago

Honestly, we could probably support the same sized military with substantally less money, due to all the waste and mismanagement. Honestly though, it's not just the military- massive waste occurs at all levels of govt. All this focus on cutting spending; yet nobody ever seems to seriously look at waste as a better alternative to public spending. I guess because it's harder to investigate than to cut from a spreadsheet.

Small story from reddit: This guy worked in a government office where his boss would order multi-thousand page reports to be rush delivered to the office, which cost anywhere from hundreds to thousands of dollars depending on the report; and then took a single paper out and trashed the rest- because she didn't know you could just print single pages.

omegaham• 11 years ago

Having served in the military, I don't think it's possible; the military wastes so much precisely because it's so big. Waste is inherent to large organizations. More administration, less flexible thinking, more room for fraud, waste, and abuse to go unnoticed.

Want less waste? Make it smaller. This will, of course, decrease its capabilities (which might not be a bad thing). If you want it to have the same capabilities as it currently has, the waste is going to stay as an unpleasant side effect.

EA• 11 years ago

SLS is going to cost NASA, what, $4B per launch and it's going to launch every 2 years. Careful what you wish for.

We (the US) have a space program because of the military. In fact, the military/intelligence space program is booming and space-based companies are going to be very healthy supporting military missions to LEO and beyond for the foreseeable future.

drzaiusapelord4• 11 years ago

SLS is estimated to be 500m per launch, about half what the shuttle cost and 1/6th what the Saturn V cost per launch.

Real world costs aren't entirely here considering this thing isn't built, but 500m is the planned cost and should be doable. Worst case scenario it costs us what the shuttles cost, except we're no longer trapped in LEO.

wnevets3• 11 years ago

Republicans hate NASA, and Democrats are too spineless to fight them on it. Welcome to US politics.

cjensen2• 11 years ago

That's flatly incorrect. Both parties are pretty much equally disinterested in NASA. The current Democratic administration, for example, is no friend to NASA.

Worse is the politically-driven directives given to NASA. Human space flight, for example, generates very little science per dollar spent. It's basically PR.

drak0n1c• 11 years ago

Newt Gingrich was the most pro-NASA candidate in the last election.

tsotha2• 11 years ago

This isn't how NASA politics works. Congressmen of both parties see NASA (and DoD, for that matter) as a way to channel funds to their districts. Nothing more. Republicans in national office, just like Democrats, are perfectly willing to support spending that's going to create jobs among the people who vote for them.

That's why research and bureaucracy is spread all over the country instead of being more efficiently consolidated in one place. That's why mission control is done in Houston instead of Florida. That's why the shuttle SRBs were built inland in Utah instead of somewhere they could be shipped to Florida by barge (with no need for the famous o-rings).

You don't like Republicans. We get that. But maybe you should become familiar with the subject before making blanket statements like that.

Shivetya• 11 years ago

Military spending creates a large number of jobs, allows claims of being patriotic, and hence creates votes. Social programs are very large as well and there is enough spending there as well to generate jobs and create votes.

Space, not so much. Refocus the young from the Kardashians to space and eventually we might sway politicians. For the most part I think commercial exploitation of space is more likely once the money factor works itself out. Then science can hitch rides and have more interest in it as commercial interest increase awareness

baldfat9• 11 years ago

Don't "I hate politics." Get more involved. There are people who only see positives in tax cuts and hate "BIG GOVERNMENT" means we don't have money to spend on science that benefits humanity.

Best thing people can do who don't like what is happening with their tax money is to vote and be vocal. If you negate yourself into I hate politics you reinforce the need to feed the proponents your disagree with.

podgib• 11 years ago

Thank you. If there's anything worse than apathy, it's people who get frustrated with outcomes from politics, but do nothing but express how much they dislike politicians. Decrying the whole process and staying away from it is the best way to ensure that power stays in the hands of those whose decisions you dislike so much.

mkaziz2• 11 years ago

Weren't there a few studies on HN that basically show the US government is for all intents and purposes a plutocracy? How will my voice matter?

logfromblammo4• 11 years ago

Have you ever played a game after reading the rules and determining that it is mathematically impossible for you to win?

Politics will never cease to be a complete waste of time for some people until the rules are changed such that all evidence of their participation is not completely eradicated before the results are determined.

Should all those people who vote Green or Libertarian or Constitution parties in their U.S. elections just double down on their efforts and vote harder? Should they steer even more conversations into long-winded tirades about politics?

I have sampled the "getting more involved" tactic. It is worse than a waste of time. Sometimes you suffer retaliation for "rubbing the cat the wrong way". If you want to make a difference, vote with your feet, and vote with your wallet. Voting with your vote only lends support to those who believe that voting means you must meekly accept the results.

It seems odd to suggest that if you hate something, you should do it more. If you truly despite politics, you should be exploring other means to accomplish your goals. Start a nonprofit business. Create an advocacy group. Create a community nexus for like-minded individuals to trade ideas. Write a book that browbeats your personal opinions into the reader with the help of a flimsy sci-fi plot line. Hell, create a for-profit business, and spend the profits on the thing you wanted the government to do.

Zach_the_Lizard• 11 years ago

Given how the political system is set up, it's not surprising that we get the "I hate politics" responses. In most states, your Presidential vote is already decided for you. A Republican in New York might as well not vote, and a Democrat in Alabama ought to stay home.

In most Congressional districts, the party has so gerrymandered the districts that it's easier to dislodge communist dictators than defeat the incumbent party.

Even if the above weren't true, our voting system encourages a two-party system with its winner-take-all rules, so third parties like the Green Party or Libertarian Party aren't as popular as they might otherwise be because of the 'wasting your vote' phenomenon.

IndianAstronaut• 11 years ago

Get more involved.

http://www.planetary.org/sos

The Planetary Society is one organization actively involved in promoting greater funding for space exploration.

mikeash• 11 years ago

Get involved how, exactly?

I do vote. I have a hard time convincing myself that it's even worth the time it takes to do so, but I do it.

I've tried writing to my representatives to express my views. I get form letters in response, with absolutely no indication that my voice has been taken into account in even the smallest way.

People say you should get involved in local party meetings and such, but there are no viable parties that I agree with even remotely, and in any case I'd rather stab myself in the eyeballs with a toothpick than attend such meetings.

ddingus• 11 years ago

Seconded. I invest about 10 percent of my free time on civics.

Speak or be spoken for by those who do.

13thLetter• 11 years ago

The United States spends far more on entitlements than we do on the military. Social Security 33% of the budget, Medicare 27%, the military is down at 16% -- far less than it was in the middle of the twentieth century. If you want money, you need to reform entitlements.

Lawtonfogle2• 11 years ago

entitlements

Such a weird word. By its very core, it is about things you are entitled to. Like SS, which you are entitled to because you paid into it.

But yet calling someone entitled, and the use of the word entitlements, is meant to describe someone thinking they are entitled to something they aren't. It is a word that in practice means the opposite of what it should mean in theory, especially when used in a political sense.

drzaiusapelord4• 11 years ago

While is is generally true, it does not include war spending. Afghanistan and Iraq were not paid out with just the regular military budget. The Iraq conflict alone cost $1.7T.

Also, social spending will always be more for any well run nation, so that shouldn't be a surprise. We have a social security system that we pay into that everyone is part of. Its a huge program and calling something I'm paying a lot into right now an entitlement is disingenious. Total military spending worldwide is probably a better metric. USA is first at 580b, China at 128b, SA at 80n, and Russia at 70b.

Personally, I have no problem with spending on this level. I believe the USA is the best nation to have this type of global policing power and maintaining it should be one of our top national goals. Especially in regards to helping and continuing to work with our NATO, Korean, and Japanese allies and to protect them from hostile foreign powers.

drzaiusapelord4• 11 years ago

This is such a non-issue (from the article):

“The project is planning to produce new Pu-238 at a rate that supports currently projected NASA missions,” says Rebecca Onuschak, program director for the DOE’s plutonium infrastructure. “There is no shortfall of material projected to meeting those needs, and so no remedy or action plan has been implemented.”

---

The argument that if NASA had more RTG's laying around it would be doing more is a bit suspicious as that's not how space missions are planned. Not to mention, Charles Bolden just wrote a letter to Congress asking them why they can't fund the SLS properly. There's no extra money laying around.

sehugg• 11 years ago

I think you've got it wrong; Bolden is mad at Congress for funding SLS at the expense of Commercial Crew, which includes SpaceX and Boeing's new CST-100 vehicle: http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/11/commercial-crew-spacesh...

SLS is a white elephant that currently has nothing to do. The first crewed mission is scheduled for 2021, and plans beyond that are hazy. NASA managers have looked into "how seldom" they can launch the thing while still maintaining a safe and viable program.

And the article describes a chilling effect which keeps plutonium-dependent missions from being seen as viable, so of course there will be enough plutonium for all the planned missions (of which there are precious few).

drzaiusapelord4• 11 years ago

Bolden very clearly stated that he's upset that there's money for all these Russian ISS launches, but not for his SLS and the CCV programs. There is no bigger cheerleader for CCV than Bolden. This SLS vs CCV "controversy" is 100% manufactured.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/28/9221541/NASA-Charles-Bolde...

It costs around $81 million to send just one astronaut on the Soyuz. Bolden says it will only cost $58 million per seat to send astronauts on the Commercial Crew vehicles. "It’s as if we keep ordering expensive takeout because we haven’t yet set up our own kitchen — only, in this case, the takeout meals are costing us hundreds of millions of dollars," he writes.

zaphoyd2• 11 years ago

And in the next paragraph the article explains why:

“There are tons of things NASA could use the new plutonium for, but there’s nothing on the books,” says Casey Dreier, director of advocacy at the Planetary Society. “Why is that? Because NASA isn’t sure when or if it will have the plutonium it needs!”

I don't think the argument is that NASA would be doing more if it had more RTGs, but rather that without more RTGs there will be new limits on the types of things it can do (no large rovers like MSL or outer solar system missions like Voyager/Cassini/New Horizons).

akshayB• 11 years ago

NASA's budget is way less then what USA gives out in international aid to other countries at times which is in a way used to buy influence in that region of the world. It is a tragedy how politicians decide to use their brain in general.

rebootthesystem• 11 years ago

It is a tragedy how politicians decide to use their brain in general.

The terms "politician" and "brain", when put together, result in a null pointer.

    A problem has been detected and Congress has been shut down 
    to prevent damage.

    DRIVER_IRQ_POLITICIAN_ATTEMPTED_TO_USE_BRAIN

    If this is the first time you see this Exception: BrainUseAttempt
    message, restart Congress.  If this screen appears again, follow
    these steps:
    
    ....

Symmetry3• 11 years ago

I wouldn't call it "way less." We spend $32 billion on aid compared to $18 billion for NASA. Those are large numbers but they're not so very different considering the $4 trillion total.

sageabilly• 11 years ago

"...maintaining it all costs upwards of $50 million per year"

It's really dumb that we're going to sit in ignorance of SO MUCH STUFF because someone in the government somewhere is getting into a tiff over this tiny, tiny drop in the government budget. For some perspective, apparently the US Gov spends about $1.7 Billion annually maintaining empty or abandoned federal buildings/land [1]

[1] http://www.npr.org/2014/03/12/287349831/governments-empty-bu...

ekianjo• 11 years ago

about $1.7 Billion annually maintaining empty or abandoned federal building

and a lot more on killing people overseas.

knieveltech• 11 years ago

Well, they weren't gonna kill themselves...

Edit: Seriously? Y'all downvote the parent and upvote this blatantly inflammatory nonsense? Clearly I have no idea what motivates people.

NegativeK2• 11 years ago

Each of those buildings costs less than $50M per year to maintain.

I, personally, am absolutely for giving NASA a lot more money -- even if it's $50M for plutonium production. But the "it's a drop in the bucket" argument isn't really a viable argument when national budgets are just heaps of drops in a really big bucket.

dghughes• 11 years ago

Why not use polonium? It's very rare but at least it's not as rare as an element that has to be actually be created.

The Russians use polonium for the same purpose in their spacecraft as the US does using plutonium; heat to generate power suing thermoelectric generators.

zaphoyd2• 11 years ago

Polonium 210 has a half life of 138 days vs 88 years for Plutonium 238. I believe Russia used it for short duration moon missions. For missions that last years or decades it is not an option.

MrZongle22• 11 years ago

Oh, the Russians use polonium for a lot of things. cough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine...

Aldo_MX• 11 years ago

Why don't they take the fuel from their nuclear missiles?

tsotha2• 11 years ago

It's not the same isotope.

fluxquanta• 11 years ago

Pu-238 cannot be used to make atomic bombs, nor is it particularly useful for fueling nuclear reactors, which are widely considered too controversial and expensive for practical use in space missions.

Look up the difference between Pu-238 and Pu-239 (what most nuclear warheads carry) and deduce why shooting a rocket filled with Pu-239 might be a bad idea.

NASA Struggles Over Deep-Space Plutonium Power

Related Stories