RTG Production Begins

[yurkin]

<font color="yellow">The Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 since the cold war<br />Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory</font><br /><br />Great news! New Horizons was put in jeopardy due to the lack of Pu-238. 330 pounds will provide plenty of power for the Mars Science Rover and Europa Orbiter. I’m glad a New York Times editorial and NPR report is providing a balanced view of the good news.

 

[vt_hokie]

Nothing the Bush administration does is for purely altruistic reasons, so I must wonder what the military implications are.

 

[le3119]

How many kg of Americium 241 can be produced from a process producing 330 kg of Pl?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I'm very green on nuclear propulsion. Has it been stated this is what the production re-start is for?

 

[bpcooper]

New Horizons is using the third, backup RTG originally slated for Cassini. The worry about not having the Pu for it was cleared up a long time ago. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Very interesting. Thanks Ben. Time to do some googling <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[yurkin]

The RTG reactor was from Cassini, but the plutonium fuel still had to be processed. It was being done at Los Alamos but when the whole facility was put on hold it did jeopardize the mission. Fortunately it was resolved but New Horizons still has less fuel that it was originally expected to have.<br /><br />Shuttle RTF<br />Im having doubts that nuclear propulsion is going to happen, but here is a link about what work is working on.<br />http://nuclear.inl.gov/spacenuclear/index.shtml

 

[bpcooper]

Correct Yurkin. The news today does not concern New Horizons since that was already set. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[le3119]

There are good uses for these nuclear by-products, in the field of space propulsion. Check:<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010103073253.htm

 

[najab]

Yes, there's a lot of Plutonium around, but most of it is Pu-239 - useless for building RTGs.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The last thing needed in the world is more plutonium. There is enough for any flight you want to take.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Unfortunately, no. There is enough for New Horizons (although not as much as was originally planned). Without this new resumption in production, there would be none of the right kind of plutonium left in the entire United States. Seriously. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

warheads! warheads! warheads! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[toymaker]

Btw as compeletely green fellow on matters of isotopes, I once stumbled on some report about new and rare type of plutonium(I think), that in much smaller quantities would produce the same energy as larger normal one.<br />Is it true or is it bogus ?

 

[yurkin]

<font color="yellow">Plutonium-238 is far more radioactive than its cousin, plutonium-239, which is used in bombs. It's so radioactive, it stays hot to the touch for decades.<br />~NPR</font><br /><br />Toymaker, I’m guessing that the article you read is referring to Pu-238. Its certainly fits the bill for a very rare and very high energy form of plutonium.<br /><br />On another note I don’t think they are actually making any more Pu. Just changing Pu-239 to Pu-238. But the total amount is the same.

 

[toymaker]

No it was a research on new types of isotopes.<br />Actually I found it.<br />As I have little knowledge in this things I am unsure if it is credible (or overhyped)<br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971001084635.htm<br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/hafnium.htm

 

[crix]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4780813<br /><br />I heard this story on NPR last week. 238 is not weapon or reactor grade fissile material.

 

[john_316]

I read the article on using Americium-241 in space powered reactors. <br /><br />Is there a sight where the comparisons to Plutonium-238 and Americium-241 are looked at?<br /><br />I understand that people will be upset due to the hazarderous waste problem but we need to continue the development of power sources that dont rely on the sun.<br /><br />Even if you could renergize fuel cells you need to have self contained power sources. So those who oppose these power sources wont see us going anywhere in the solar system as long as they block the way to get there...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Even if you could renergize fuel cells you need to have self contained power sources.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />NASA is trying to develop a self-recharging fuel cell, which would use solar power to separate the hydrogen and oxygen back into separate tanks. But you are quite right -- this is not a power generation method. It's a power storage method. Fuel cells are basically just a kind of high performance battery. You need something to charge them. If you've got an RTG, you don't need a batterry, but if you're dependent on solar power, a self-recharging fuel cell battery would be wonderful. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>