I have a question for people in the know based on the following from the article: “We’re expecting reports from (the DOE) later this year on a complete schedule that would then put plutonium on track to be generated at about 3.3 pounds a year, so it’s going quite well,” Green said.The fresh plutonium has the added benefit of reviving NASA's small and decaying supply of older plutonium still in storage.“It fairly old -- more than 20 years,” Green said, “When we add newly generated plutonium through this process to the older plutonium in a mixture of one new-to-two old units, we can actually revive that and get he energy density we need. So for every 1 kilogram [2.2 pounds], we really revive 2 other kilograms of the older plutonium by mixing it.”If they can revive old Plutonium stock with the newly produced Plutonium, how much old stock do they have to use to boost the yearly total?
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 03/21/2013 10:26 pm I do not see anything changing until either NASA is given the right to produce its own Pu-238 Huh? NASA doesn't desire, the manpower, facilities nor expertise to do it. Also, it is a bad idea.
I do not see anything changing until either NASA is given the right to produce its own Pu-238
Quote from: Jim on 03/21/2013 10:59 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 03/21/2013 10:26 pm I do not see anything changing until either NASA is given the right to produce its own Pu-238 Huh? NASA doesn't desire, the manpower, facilities nor expertise to do it. Also, it is a bad idea. Also illegal.
I'm considering responding point by point to what you wrote, but I'm not sure it's worth it. There are a bunch of half-true and incomplete statements above. For the record, I worked on both a high-level review of the Pu-238 supply issue and a study that dealt with planetary science for the next decade. Your statement about the Europa mission, for instance, is false. The killer was the cost, not Pu-238 availability. And NASA or a "commercial operation" cannot produce Pu-238. For starters, the source material, Neptunium, is owned by DoE, and furthermore, only DoE is legally allowed to produce these materials.
I'm considering responding point by point to what you wrote, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 03/21/2013 10:26 pmI do not see anything changing until either NASA is given the right to produce its own Pu-238 or a commercial operation is able to supply it.Neither will ever happen. As Jim points out, NASA doesn't *want* the former idea; furthermore, the latter is stupid and dangerous.
I do not see anything changing until either NASA is given the right to produce its own Pu-238 or a commercial operation is able to supply it.
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/22/2013 01:19 amI'm considering responding point by point to what you wrote, but I'm not sure it's worth it.Given that DarkenedOne already had a whole thread dedicated to the idea of NASA producing it's own pu back in 2011 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26927.0, it's hard to see the point.It was a non-starter back then, and the only thing that has changed is that pu production is basically on track now.
Quote from: Jorge on 03/21/2013 11:01 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 03/21/2013 10:26 pmI do not see anything changing until either NASA is given the right to produce its own Pu-238 or a commercial operation is able to supply it.Neither will ever happen. As Jim points out, NASA doesn't *want* the former idea; furthermore, the latter is stupid and dangerous.Sorry to break it to you, but there are a number of companies that sell isotopes that are produced in commercial reactors for uses in various industries including nuclear medicine. That is not to mention the hundreds of research reactors at universities where they produce isotopes for their own experiments.
Bringing the entire operation under one department would likely reduce these problems.
Don't you need centrifuges to separate the Pu-238 from the original material (probably americum?). Couldn't they use centrifuges to separate the Pu238 from the lead in the old stock?BTW, if they do need centrifuges I seriously doubt any gvt in the world would allow a pure commercial production.
The other Pu-238 thread inexplicably died.So thats the next best update thread for this :http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/van-kane/20131208-the-asrg-cancellation-in-context.htmlI think its slightly insane that anyone ever considers a solar powered probe out at Saturn, or even Jupiter for that matter.
Quote from: savuporo on 12/09/2013 09:10 pmThe other Pu-238 thread inexplicably died.So thats the next best update thread for this :http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/van-kane/20131208-the-asrg-cancellation-in-context.htmlI think its slightly insane that anyone ever considers a solar powered probe out at Saturn, or even Jupiter for that matter.Juno is making it work. It's not a ton of power to work with (around 450-ish watts if I remember) but its in the same neighborhood as the Galileo orbiter had at Jupiter using an RTG - I think that was in the mid 500's.
Juno is making it work. It's not a ton of power to work with (around 450-ish watts if I remember) but its in the same neighborhood as the Galileo orbiter had at Jupiter using an RTG - I think that was in the mid 500's.
Quote from: Mike_1179 on 12/10/2013 02:21 amQuote from: savuporo on 12/09/2013 09:10 pmThe other Pu-238 thread inexplicably died.So thats the next best update thread for this :http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/van-kane/20131208-the-asrg-cancellation-in-context.htmlI think its slightly insane that anyone ever considers a solar powered probe out at Saturn, or even Jupiter for that matter.Juno is making it work. It's not a ton of power to work with (around 450-ish watts if I remember) but its in the same neighborhood as the Galileo orbiter had at Jupiter using an RTG - I think that was in the mid 500's.From what I understand, Juno has to expend almost half of its electricity to power heaters, whereas Galileo had the advantage of being able to use heat directly from the RTGs, without using any of the power they produce (or perhaps a small amount, to heat areas more distant from the RTG? someone who knows please correct me)
Quote from: Mike_1179 on 12/10/2013 02:21 amJuno is making it work. It's not a ton of power to work with (around 450-ish watts if I remember) but its in the same neighborhood as the Galileo orbiter had at Jupiter using an RTG - I think that was in the mid 500's.Yeah, with instruments with low data rates or short data takes.Juno is an exception, especially since it has no real imaging instruments.