NASA is running out of plutonium

[RF]

With the end of the Cold War and the decommissioning of nuclear weapons a number of unforseen consequences arise in respect of the civilian use of nuclear materials. NASA is running out of plutonium 238.
Deep space missions involving probes powered by surplus nuclear isotypes derived from weapons built at the height of the Cold War are at future risk, as the US isn't manufacturing any more nuclear bombs and the ones in existence are being decommissioned. Future missions on the scale of the Cassini probe to the planet Saturn may not be possible unless a supply of this type of fuel can be obtained - NASA has been buying plutonium 238 from the Russians, and they are running out too....

[lwd]

The latest talks are aimed at further reducing the number of nuclear weapons. Having nasa dump the componets in space seams as good a way of getting rid of it as any I can think of.

[lwd]

Just found this:
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/2009 ... am+to+grow
makes me wonder how well founded the first article is.

[RF]

This article refers to President Obama decommissioning more US warheads and the costs involved therein. I presume that this (if carried out) would increase the supply of isotype for civilian use but I understand that the basic problem for NASA is that there is no production of the isotype from the manufacturing of new weapons.

[lwd]

But there's a 15 year back log of weapons to be decomissioned and the storage sites for the plutonium from them are filling up. Sending it outsystem should make some more room. If it's a different isotope then NASA should be able to modify their reactors to take the weapons grade stuff.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Do anyone thinks that the western govements still think of going big time into space? You´re wrong: research and science are outdated, fosils from the Cold War. Goverments now have interest in homosexual marriage, in abortion plans, in destroying free behaivor in order to be political correct societies. If you say something offensive then you go to jail... "scientific social jail". Damn! Even in Spain when a birth certificate is written there is no more "father" and "mother" slots, just "procreator one" and "procreator two".

Returning to this let´s face it: In 1960 the US have the same potential to put o man on the moon than Mexico or Botswana. In 1969 the US built the greatest rocket in History: Saturn V and, without any digital technology as nowadays´, built Apollo mission and went to the Moon. Awesome! Really ! If once the US was bright it was then. I still remember seeing Armstrong walking on the Moon from the black and white General Electric TV we had.
Then what? Nixon, Ford and Carter... Space Shuttle. Good for Reagan to spook the damn commies with the Star Wars drama and make them waste money they cant afford. Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and now Osama... excuse me, Obama. Since 1971 to now, what? The same aging Space Shuttles, two of them blown away. Replacements? I haven´t seen one. Mars? When Nixon was President they had this plan of a nuclear powered spaceship to get there.
A co national, Franklin Chang Diaz, has been working with the plasma engine in a lab in Guanacaste province, funded mainly by NASA. He has lasted three times as much what the US spent on puting a man on the Moon from zero. Now, with all the digital technology, windows enviroment, know how, and we are still without any prospect to "boldly go where man has never gone before". No Mars spaceship... it makes me wonder if the intention is to build a spaceship or to sell twenty thousand dollar hammers...

Maybe what it´s needed are some dark political incorrect kidnapped German scientist to achieve something again.

This article refers to President Obama decommissioning more US warheads

Before Korea Trumann decomisioned so many weapons that the US almost has nothing to fight the commies. Decomisioning nuclear warheas? Good. Are the ruskies or our friends the chinese willing to do the same or to modernize theirs? Weakness invites attack.

[RF]

If it's a different isotope then NASA should be able to modify their reactors to take the weapons grade stuff.

Here we are talking of space satellites hardly bigger than the standard hatchback car - they aren't big enough for reactors, the plutonium has to be stored in them in special cells. You can't class these satellites as if they were a nuclear powered submarine....

[lwd]

If it's a different isotope then NASA should be able to modify their reactors to take the weapons grade stuff.

Here we are talking of space satellites hardly bigger than the standard hatchback car - they aren't big enough for reactors, the plutonium has to be stored in them in special cells. You can't class these satellites as if they were a nuclear powered submarine....

I was using the term in the more general since. Did a little reading up and it looks like they use the plutonium as a heat source. See:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519382,00.html
and
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/lib ... 98-102.htm
Looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium
or
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-colle ... onium.html
Pu-239 is the main isotope used for weapons and it has a half life of 24,000 years as opposed to Pu-238 which has a half life of 88 years. A space born reactor is a possiblity but it does look like the demilled Pu would not work in the thermo electric generators.