1-Is this driven by decadal survey expectations? 2-Or just because it is wise in general? 3-Are there specific missions in mind for this?
They are now in the process of refining those targets to extract minute amounts of Pu-238, ...
There were a couple of possible Discovery class missions that lost out in the last Discovery round: a Titan lake boat and a comet hopping mission.
The staff at the RTG booth at DPS last week sounded very upbeat. Also, Jim Green confirmed at NASA night that they will go ahead and build the two stirling generators that would have been used if Insight had not been selected and then put them in storage. The next Discovery round will be allow to propose to use them, but that won't be until 2016 with the current budget cuts to the planetary program.
Any idea where this refining will take place? They're tearing down buildings in Paducah where Oak Ridge's gaseous diffusion took place during the later years of the Cold War. A bit of a mess there, as in many similar places like Hanford or Rocky Flats, with nasty clean up and former worker cancers, etc.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/27/2012 02:46 amAny idea where this refining will take place? They're tearing down buildings in Paducah where Oak Ridge's gaseous diffusion took place during the later years of the Cold War. A bit of a mess there, as in many similar places like Hanford or Rocky Flats, with nasty clean up and former worker cancers, etc.I don't. But I presume that it will be at Oak Ridge. I cannot remember exactly how this all was explained to me, but what has happened so far has essentially been to gain experience required to start production. The person who told me put it sorta like this: nobody has handled this stuff in two decades; they have handled processed Pu-238, but they have not actually processed it themselves. And they have not handled all the other materials that are generated with it. And what they are doing is "exposing" humans to a dangerous material for the first time in decades and they need to make sure that their safety procedures are correct. There are other things involved. For instance, they have models that predict how much Pu-238 they expect to get when they put the targets into the reactor. But they actually have to do it and see if what they get out is what their models say they are supposed to. That's what they're doing with this test batch. They'll use the experience they gain from doing this to figure out exactly how to restart production.When I worked the RPS study (and I've forgotten most of that stuff) I think we were given a rough timeline for production. It was something like 1 year of study (which included things like designing some of the equipment), 1 year of testing and planning, and 5 years of irradiating targets to start producing materials, leading to about 7 years from a go-decision to finally getting useful material at the end. I think we're about two years into that overall schedule.As it has also been explained to me, producing nuclear materials involves a lot of arcane chemistry. They have these little metal targets made of aluminum and neptunium, and they insert them into the reactor where they get bombarded with radiation (note that there are spots in the reactor that are very close to the core and other spots that are a little farther out, so not every target will necessarily get irradiated the same amount). When they remove the targets they have to dissolve them, separate out the materials, then do all kinds of other refining. This involves multiple steps, nasty chemicals, probably generates toxic fumes and maybe even radioactive gases, and you have to control all of that to make sure that nobody gets exposed to anything that can harm them, nothing leaks down the drain, etc. It's very elaborate and complex, and sometimes more of an art than a science. They're relearning all of that.
I really hope they can make this all work out again and have a domestic source of supply (in useful quantities as well).
I presume--I don't know--that they are also doing full life tests on their ASRG designs.
Quote from: Blackstar on 10/27/2012 11:08 amI presume--I don't know--that they are also doing full life tests on their ASRG designs. 1-I didn't think to ask. They had some videos of tests and a nice detailed model, but I don't know how old those were.SNIP2-On a semi-related note, the current JPL reference design for the Europa Clipper had a separate power module which could be either a few ASRGs (3 or 4? can't remember) or solar arrays. Solar is slightly heavier, but could still do the science baseline.3-And the guys in the Boeing booth were saying that their FAST concentrator solar arrays should work right out to Saturn...
...stop changing the design, pick a single design...
We've had some discussions about the Pu-238 supply issue in the past:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26900.0http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16912.0There is now good news on this front. After six years of effort by NASA officials, and 20+ years since the last American Pu-238 production, in August the Department of Energy inserted some Neptunium targets into a reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, irradiated them, and removed them in September. They are now in the process of refining those targets to extract minute amounts of Pu-238, which has been used in the past to power numerous American spacecraft and currently powers the Curiosity rover on Mars.This is NOT production of Pu-238. Instead, this is essentially an initial test run so that DoE can determine if their processes and handling procedures and production models for Pu-238 are correct. As a NASA official told me, the last time that DoE ever handled this stuff in this form was over two decades ago--the only thing they have been doing since then is handling the essentially finished product, not the production, and there's a lot that they need to re-learn about doing that.I was also told that NASA no longer expects the Russians to offer their remaining Pu-238 for sale, and NASA is not interested in purchasing it. Instead of giving NASA money to the Russians, NASA would rather spend that money on indigenous production.I did not find out when they expect to actually start producing Pu-238 again, but my guess is that they'll do that in the next 1-2 years.
Quote from: Blackstar on 10/27/2012 01:25 amThey are now in the process of refining those targets to extract minute amounts of Pu-238, ...Any idea where this refining will take place? They're tearing down buildings in Paducah where Oak Ridge's gaseous diffusion took place during the later years of the Cold War. A bit of a mess there, as in many similar places like Hanford or Rocky Flats, with nasty clean up and former worker cancers, etc. - Ed Kyle
Last I read was that the Advanced Test Reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory and the High Flux Isotope Reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory were the top potential producers.
First time I've seen this get mentioned in the Public Media.http://news.yahoo.com/u-restarts-plutonium-production-space-probes-013110181.html
Blackstar, he's just pulling down you being over the moon with this news, I don't even think if we filled your pockets with all the Pu-238 ever produced we could pull you off of cloud 9 and back down to earth Short of someone developing a tabletop fusion device, this is the only way we are ever going to explore the outer solar system. It is great to see the US re-taking it's lead.
Most likely the probably want it to be used in things like UAVs so that they may fly for years rather than days.
The only problem I have is that I doubt their production rate of 1.5 kg per year will be enough to satisfy demand. 1.5 kg per year is only enough to supply an unmanned mission every 5 years. Manned missions to Mars or the Moon would require much more.At the same time the DOD has expressed interest in using Pu-238 for some yet to be disclosed national security purpose. Most likely the probably want it to be used in things like UAVs so that they may fly for years rather than days.
AFAIK, DoD is referring mainly to satellites.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 03/21/2013 01:16 pmAFAIK, DoD is referring mainly to satellites.Are you sure, space is not the only remote hard to reach location that lacks a power outlet.
1-The only problem I have is that I doubt their production rate of 1.5 kg per year will be enough to satisfy demand. 1.5 kg per year is only enough to supply an unmanned mission every 5 years. 2-Manned missions to Mars or the Moon would require much more.3-At the same time the DOD has expressed interest in using Pu-238 for some yet to be disclosed national security purpose. Most likely the probably want it to be used in things like UAVs so that they may fly for years rather than days.
NASA is a collection of people, centers, programs, offices, and budgets. They are not one single collective. They have specific budgets for their work and they seek to protect their budgets. If somebody from another program, particularly outside of their directorate (NASA has four directorates), or even outside of their division comes to them and says "I want you to do X for me," the first response they will get is "Do you have the money in your budget to pay me to do that?" If the answer is "no," then they will be shown the door.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 03/21/2013 01:23 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 03/21/2013 01:16 pmAFAIK, DoD is referring mainly to satellites.Are you sure, space is not the only remote hard to reach location that lacks a power outlet. I meant mostly not mainly.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 03/21/2013 11:45 am1-The only problem I have is that I doubt their production rate of 1.5 kg per year will be enough to satisfy demand. 1.5 kg per year is only enough to supply an unmanned mission every 5 years. 2-Manned missions to Mars or the Moon would require much more.3-At the same time the DOD has expressed interest in using Pu-238 for some yet to be disclosed national security purpose. Most likely the probably want it to be used in things like UAVs so that they may fly for years rather than days. 1-Right now the "demand" is only 1.5 kg per year.
2-That is true. However, they are not approved and funded, so they pose no demand. If they get approved and funded, and if they determine that they require Pu-238, then they (the human spaceflight program) will be expected to pay for it and the supply will be increased.
We actually considered this issue during our study back in 2008 or so. Somewhere I probably even have NASA's briefing chart on this. If I remember correctly, the human spaceflight stated requirement was something like twice the robotic/science requirement. At that time the Constellation program was considering using RTGs/ASRGs to provide backup emergency power for a lunar outpost. It was a legitimate use, assuming that NASA actually developed a lunar outpost. However, at the time we looked at this, we all realized that either Constellation was going to get scaled back or canceled, and that their requirement was not going to emerge until the 2020s or 2030s at the earliest. So the committee instead focused upon the much more near-term requirement for the science program. And to be totally honest, the most important thing was simply restarting production, not how much actually gets produced. That's because the restart cost is the greatest cost. You have to fund people, new equipment, and processes (and things like lab space for doing the processing). Once you've done that, then you can worry about increasing production later.
And although you won't understand this because it's obscure Washington policy-wonky stuff, the key issue is getting the bureaucracy to MOVE. The easiest thing in the world is doing nothing. What was most important was to get production started so that everybody was comfortable with that and willing to keep producing Pu-238 and wasn't going to stop. The bizarre thing about this is that NASA and DoE were in agreement on restarting Pu-238 production. The White House was in favor of it. And nobody was opposed to it from an anti-nuke standpoint. And yet it took SIX YEARS simply to get the go-ahead. That's because of weird inside government issues.
I do not see anything changing until either NASA is given the right to produce its own Pu-238
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.
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.
It has taken the US decades and several Billion to develop it's current RTG technology. It is not something you can do overnight. It would eat India's entire space budget, leaving none for rockets or space missions.
is a 1950 technology using a heat source and thermocouples.. its very simple .. it will take India less that three months to get it running if needed.. the Russians could easy supply.
You need other elements, Pu-238 has a half life of 87.7 years, and generates a fair amount of internal heat, hence it's current use.
It's worth mentioning that Polonium-210 is a viable alternative,
Not really, the half life is much to short for most the types of missions you would want to use RTGs for. The Soviets used it for heaters on Lunokhod, but they didn't have a long cruise and had a design life of months.
Quote from: Avron on 12/20/2013 01:37 pmis a 1950 technology using a heat source and thermocouples.. its very simple .. it will take India less that three months to get it running if needed.. the Russians could easy supply.And the expertise you possess to make this kind of statement is ....?
RTG's use plutonium-238, weapons use plutonium-239; the processes of producing and refining the two are completely different.
Am-241 and Sr -90 could be used, but they have very significant drawbacks.
The existing stocks of plutonium at Sellafield are more than sufficient for the production of multiple 241-Am-based RTGs each year for a number of years.
Well, Lunokhod-2 worked for 4 months, and didnt die of cold. For applications like exploring lunar poles i think it would be entirely appropriate.
A complete guess, but i think there is a good chance that heaters in Chang'e are polonium as well, especially considering that Chinese specialists apparently have been to Sarov on couple of occasions.
That technique would require you to separate the Pu-238 from the Pu-239, which would be incredibly difficult. Actual production involves neutron bombardment of Neptunium-237 followed by chemical separation, and Np-237 isn't easy to produce in the first place.
The Chinese have said they are using Pu-238. This was discussed quite a bit in the Chang'e thread.
Quote from: Kryten on 12/20/2013 06:30 pm That technique would require you to separate the Pu-238 from the Pu-239, which would be incredibly difficult. Actual production involves neutron bombardment of Neptunium-237 followed by chemical separation, and Np-237 isn't easy to produce in the first place.Np-237 is made how? Take ur old spent fuel rods and add barium and simmer at approx 1200C2 NpF3 + 3 Ba → 2 Np + 3 BaF2
Actually no. Np-237 is separated out using the PUREX process which uses tributyl phosphate (TBP). That solution goes through a number of reductions in oxidation states before being precipitated out as neptunium oxalate and then calcined into neptunium oxide. Then as stated before, the Np-237 is fabricated into targets and irradiated by a high neutron flux to produce Pu-238 which must then be separated, reacted to form PuO2, and then formed into high density compacts before it can be used as a radioisotope heat source. And that is only the start as significant work post compact forming is needed to encapsulate and protect the PuO2. And beyond that, one has to design a structural support around the PuO2 fuel forms to prevent release of the PuO2 under potential accident scenarios as PuO2 is highly toxic. Hardly something one does in 3 months as you claim. But perhaps you have an advanced degree in nuclear physics, inorganic chemistry, materials science or specialty manufacturing that enables you to do all this in 3 months. Hence my prior question; what expertise do you possess to make this kind of statement?
Quote from: GuessWho on 12/22/2013 01:18 pmActually no. Np-237 is separated out using the PUREX process which uses tributyl phosphate (TBP). That solution goes through a number of reductions in oxidation states before being precipitated out as neptunium oxalate and then calcined into neptunium oxide. Then as stated before, the Np-237 is fabricated into targets and irradiated by a high neutron flux to produce Pu-238 which must then be separated, reacted to form PuO2, and then formed into high density compacts before it can be used as a radioisotope heat source. And that is only the start as significant work post compact forming is needed to encapsulate and protect the PuO2. And beyond that, one has to design a structural support around the PuO2 fuel forms to prevent release of the PuO2 under potential accident scenarios as PuO2 is highly toxic. Hardly something one does in 3 months as you claim. But perhaps you have an advanced degree in nuclear physics, inorganic chemistry, materials science or specialty manufacturing that enables you to do all this in 3 months. Hence my prior question; what expertise do you possess to make this kind of statement?A succinct description of a very complex process. You also politely side stepped the fact most of this process has to be handled remotely due to radiation exposure, substantially complicating things. And of course that just gets you to the raw material, not the finished RTG design itself. That said it's an interesting idea that India could act as a niche supplier in this area, enabling any nation that wanted to build a long duration space mission.But not a simple task.
Well, I didn't want to write a book. :-) To complete the story, you also have to consider that everything that remotely touches the process is contaminated and the legacy costs to clean that contamination problem will haunt you for decades.
I doubt that India has either the infrastructure or the expertise to produce and separate the required plutonium isotope, and acquiring those would take a lot longer than three months.
Yes, it works for short duration missions like this, but as I said this is a very narrow subset of the kind of space missions you want RTGs for. A dubious investment unless you are sure you aren't going to want to use them anywhere else.
So Thorium RTGs almost impossible or not worth (costs)?
It would be nice for someone to get Americium-241 working.. ok its 25% power, and needs approx 2cm lead for enclosure
It's not really an issue of cost or difficulty, but that they'd be completely useless; the heat produced from thorium decay is negligible.
Quote from: Kryten on 01/07/2014 03:23 am It's not really an issue of cost or difficulty, but that they'd be completely useless; the heat produced from thorium decay is negligible.Thanks for responding. You're correct on the heat factor; it's just a few ideas on my mind about Thorium. Say, for Power generation for various applications.
I mentioned awhile back that there was news on the Pu-238 front.This afternoon at the SBAG meeting in Washington, it was revealed that there are 35 kg of plutonium available for NASA missions. About 17 kg of this is suitable for the General Purpose Heat Source pellets (meaning high enough energy density). The remainder is lower quality, meaning that it would have to be reprocessed to get its energy density up.
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/09/2014 01:56 amI mentioned awhile back that there was news on the Pu-238 front.This afternoon at the SBAG meeting in Washington, it was revealed that there are 35 kg of plutonium available for NASA missions. About 17 kg of this is suitable for the General Purpose Heat Source pellets (meaning high enough energy density). The remainder is lower quality, meaning that it would have to be reprocessed to get its energy density up.Thanks for passing that along.So from the charts we have, and assuming that the remaining mass after MSL is the 35 kg, without an ASRG develoment that likely puts any hope of a Europa mission clearly on the back-burner for some time, well beyond 2030 (not that there was much chance due to cost)
Quote from: robertross on 01/09/2014 02:07 amQuote from: Blackstar on 01/09/2014 01:56 amI mentioned awhile back that there was news on the Pu-238 front.This afternoon at the SBAG meeting in Washington, it was revealed that there are 35 kg of plutonium available for NASA missions. About 17 kg of this is suitable for the General Purpose Heat Source pellets (meaning high enough energy density). The remainder is lower quality, meaning that it would have to be reprocessed to get its energy density up.Thanks for passing that along.So from the charts we have, and assuming that the remaining mass after MSL is the 35 kg, without an ASRG develoment that likely puts any hope of a Europa mission clearly on the back-burner for some time, well beyond 2030 (not that there was much chance due to cost)Huh? You're misreading this. There's more Pu-238 than previously acknowledged.
Other than NRO stuff, what else uses that much Pu-238?
MT @Shamrocketeer: #NASA's latest Discovery mission AO just came out: no radioisotope power; bad news outer planets https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=159660
Btw.Emily Lakdawalla just tweeted:QuoteMT @Shamrocketeer: #NASA's latest Discovery mission AO just came out: no radioisotope power; bad news outer planets https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/synopsis.cgi?Not RTG's for You!
MT @Shamrocketeer: #NASA's latest Discovery mission AO just came out: no radioisotope power; bad news outer planets https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/synopsis.cgi?
Quote from: kevin-rf on 02/20/2014 12:16 pmBtw.Emily Lakdawalla just tweeted:QuoteMT @Shamrocketeer: #NASA's latest Discovery mission AO just came out: no radioisotope power; bad news outer planets https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/synopsis.cgi?Not RTG's for You!Get a flagged security warning on that link?
The schedule for fueling of radioisotope power systems (RPSs) cannot be met in time for the expected launch window of Discovery 2014 investigations. Therefore, Discovery Program investigations may not propose the use of RPSs. Proposed investigations may include the use of radioactive sources for science instruments and the use of radioisotope heater units (RHUs).
NASA DISCOVERY PROGRAM DRAFT ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITYSynopsis - Feb 19, 2014General InformationSolicitation Number: NNH14ZDA004JPosted Date: Feb 19, 2014FedBizOpps Posted Date: Feb 19, 2014Recovery and Reinvestment Act Action: NoOriginal Response Date: N/ACurrent Response Date: N/AClassification Code: A -- Research and DevelopmentNAICS Code: 541712Contracting Office Address NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA Headquarters Acquisition Branch, Code 210.H, Greenbelt, MD 20771Description NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is releasing this Community Announcement for a Draft Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for Discovery Program missions by May 2014. The Discovery Program conducts Principal Investigator (PI)-led space science investigations in SMD’s planetary programs under a not-to-exceed cost cap. It is anticipated that approximately two to three Discovery investigations will be selected for nine-month, $3M (RY) Phase A concept studies through this AO. At the conclusion of these concept studies, it is planned that one Discovery investigation will be selected to continue into Phase B and subsequent mission phases. There will be no Missions of Opportunity (MO) solicited as part of this AO. All MOs are now solicited through the Stand Alone Mission of Opportunity Notice (SALMON) AO.Discovery Program investigations must address NASA’s planetary science objectives as described in 2014 NASA Strategic Plan and the 2014 NASA Science Plan. Both of these documents will be publicly released following the submission of the FY 2015 budget to Congress.Investigations may focus on any body in the Solar System, excluding the Earth and the Sun. Investigations may not focus on the identification or characterization of extra-solar planetary systems.Discovery Program investigations may propose activities that have the potential to broaden the scientific impact of investigations as optional Science Enhancement Options (SEOs). SEOs include, but are not limited to, guest investigator programs, general observer programs, participating scientist programs, interdisciplinary scientist programs, and archival data analysis programs. Discovery Program investigations may also propose Technology Demonstration Opportunities (TDOs) to demonstrate new capabilities. TDO proposals, like Science Enhancement Opportunities (SEOs), are funded outside of the cost cap and may possibly not be selected even if the parent mission is selected for flight.Discovery Program investigations involving entry, descent, and landing (EDL) into the atmosphere of a Solar System object (including the Earth) shall include an Engineering Science Activity, to be funded outside of the cost cap, to obtain diagnostic and technical data about vehicle performance and entry environments. Details of the goals and objectives of this activity will be posted on the Discovery Program Acquisition Website (discovery.larc.nasa.gov) in the Program Library.The schedule for fueling of radioisotope power systems (RPSs) cannot be met in time for the expected launch window of Discovery 2014 investigations. Therefore, Discovery Program investigations may not propose the use of RPSs. Proposed investigations may include the use of radioactive sources for science instruments and the use of radioisotope heater units (RHUs).NASA is considering providing additional technologies as Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE). Currently under consideration is a commercially produced version of the NASA Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) ion propulsion system (two flight model power processing units and two thrusters). Also under consideration is the Heat Shield for Extreme Entry Environment Technology (HEEET) — a woven Thermal Protection System.NASA is also considering requiring all investigations to carry a Deep Space Laser Communications (DSLO) package, to be provided as GFE. Given the success of the Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration (LLCD) on the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer mission, a demonstration of laser communications from deep space is a high priority for NASA.Decisions on the three technologies described above, or any other technologies (e.g., Deep Space Atomic Clock, Advanced Solar Arrays), will be made before the release of a draft AO.Launch Vehicle costs and procurement will be the responsibility of NASA. Launch vehicle standard services will be provided as GFE and the cost will not be included in the cost cap. The cost of mission specific and special launch services, including the use of radioisotope heating units (RHUs), is the responsibility of the PI and must be included within the cost cap. NASA is reviewing the possibility of offering options for different launch vehicle capabilities and their impact on the cost cap.The constraint that the value of foreign contributions must not exceed one-third of the PI-Managed Mission Cost has been modified: the total value of foreign contributions may still not exceed one-third of the PI-Managed Mission Cost and the value of foreign contributions to the science payload may not exceed one-third of the total payload cost.Investigations are capped at a Phase A-D cost of $450M (FY 2015), excluding standard launch services. The now-standard 25% minimum reserve on Phases A-D will be required within the cost cap. Operations costs (Phase E) are not included in the cost cap, but will be evaluated for reasonableness. Lower-cost investigations and cost-efficient operations are encouraged.The time frame for the solicitation is intended to be:Release of draft AO May 2014 (target) Release of final AO September 2014 (target) Preproposal conference ~3 weeks after final AO release Proposals due 90 days after AO release Selection for competitive Phase A studies May 2015 (target) Concept study reports due April 2016 (target) Down-selection October 2016 (target) Launch readiness date NLT December 31, 2021The Draft Discovery AO will be based on the Standard PI-led Mission AO Template available at http://soma.larc.nasa.gov/standardao/sao_templates.html . Proposers should read the Draft Discovery AO carefully when it is released.NASA has not approved the issuance of the Discovery AO and this notification does not obligate NASA to issue the AO and solicit proposals. Any costs incurred by prospective investigators in preparing submissions in response to this notification or the planned Draft Discovery AO are incurred completely at the submitter's own risk.Further information will be posted on the Discovery Program Acquisition Page at http://discovery.larc.nasa.gov/as it becomes available. Questions may be addressed to Dr. Michael New, Discovery Program Lead Scientist, Planetary Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA, Washington, DC 20546; Tel.: (202) 358-1766; Email: [email protected].Point of ContactName: Dr Michael NewTitle: Planetary Science DivisionPhone: 202-358-1766Fax: 202-358-3097Email: [email protected]
Space Politics has an article on this:http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/20/next-nasa-discovery-solicitation-will-miss-congressional-deadline/
Attached is a report on Europe's radioisotope program. They are going to use a different radioisotope than the United States.
Would it be possible that this remaining Plutonium be sold to/used by the USA? Or are there too many technical, political, security & other issues?
Third, there's no good discussion of the ASRG issue, which is more complex than they portray it.
The RPS Program will continue to construct ASCs at Sunpower in the near term, but also has begun plans with DOE for a reformulated flight hardware development project.This plan will begin with a release of a Request for Information to establish whether the industrial base for Stirling converters may be applicable to a flight system. Based on the availability of the converters, Level I and II requirements will be written for a system implementation. Subject to funding availability, this would be followed by a Request for Proposal for a system implementation, beginning with a TM phase.
In any case, it was concluded the outcome resulting from these investments would be of significant benefit to the future space science program
Not sure this is appropriate here, mentions reprocessing plutonium briefly. Is it possible this effort could lead to increased availability of Pu-238?
ORNL achieves milestone with plutonium-238 sample With the production of 50 grams of plutonium-238, researchers at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory have restored a U.S. capability dormant for nearly 30 years and set the course to provide power for NASA and other missions. The new sample, which is in the same oxide powder form used to manufacture heat sources for power systems, represents the first end-to-end demonstration of a plutonium-238 production capability in the United States since the Savannah River Plant in South Carolina ceased production of the material in the late 1980s.Researchers will analyze the sample for chemical purity and plutonium-238 content, then verify production efficiency models and determine whether adjustments need to be made before scaling up the process.“Once we automate and scale up the process, the nation will have a long-range capability to produce radioisotope power systems such as those used by NASA for deep space exploration,” said Bob Wham, who leads the project for the lab’s Nuclear Security and Isotope Technology Division.With continued NASA funding, DOE’s Oak Ridge and Idaho national laboratories can ensure that NASA’s needs are met, initially by producing 300 to 400 grams of the material per year and then, through automation and scale-up processes, by producing an average of 1.5 kilograms per year.https://www.ornl.gov/news/ornl-achieves-milestone-plutonium-238-sample
new batch of plutonium-238 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.“This significant achievement by our team mates at DOE signals a new renaissance in the exploration of our solar system,” said John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for NASA’s science mission directorate, in a press release. “Radioisotope power systems are a key tool to power the next generation of planetary orbiters, landers and rovers in our quest to unravel the mysteries of the universe.”
I've ready maybe 6 articles on the issue, all of them just copy the ORNL release. A few actually talked about missions, but in general when describing the production milestones it seems all they can do is copy the press release word to word
Meanwhile, outer planets mission proposals consists of 'a tennis field of solar panels with two tiny instruments attached to it' as some people on twitter quipped.
I understand that the first method is to irradiate Neptunium-237. The other is to irradiate Americium, right? In both cases then you have to chemically separate the Pu.
“What we’re shooting for is to get to an interim production level of around 400 to 500 grams [14 to 18 ounces] per year in 2019, and then full-scale, a kilogram and a half [3.3 lbs.] — if everything goes right — in 2023,” Bob Wham, the Pu-238 project lead in the Nuclear Security and Isotope Technology division at Oak Ridge, said last month during a presentation with NASA’s Future In-Space Operations (FISO) working group.
...{snip}In a few months I'll be working with Ralph McNutt again and Ralph probably knows more about the overall history and the infrastructure issues than anybody. So I'll have to get some perspective from him on this.
The article also confirms that they have baselined the solvent separation method. If I understood you right the last time, this was something that even back then they wanted to do and they appear to have decided to do this time. It would make sense that if you are going to have to design, validate and certify the process again, to start with the cheap and easy one, since you don't have the nuclear weapon subsidy now.
Which effort? If they build an ASRG and have confidence in it, that will use less Pu-238, meaning that more is available for other missions--with a caveat: some missions require the MMRTG because they need the excess heat that an ASRG does not produce. Also, there may be missions that people don't want to use the ASRG on.
Quote from: savuporo on 10/01/2015 06:39 pmMeanwhile, outer planets mission proposals consists of 'a tennis field of solar panels with two tiny instruments attached to it' as some people on twitter quipped.And this would be *perfectly fine*, except we resolutely refuse to prioritize the production of tennis courts worth of solar panels, a product that is useful in the inner system, the Earth orbit, and the outer system (as a first choice out to maybe Saturn, and a backup option farther out). Lots of powerpoints, very few, very small grants.Why is the 300kw Government Reference Array (3kw at Saturn, 300W at Neptune) still posed as being years off? Why aren't we building and testing them by the dozen?
I'm sorry for jumping back to relatively old posts. I don't have time to keep up with interesting topics like this regularly.Quote from: Blackstar on 10/01/2015 08:07 pmWhich effort? If they build an ASRG and have confidence in it, that will use less Pu-238, meaning that more is available for other missions--with a caveat: some missions require the MMRTG because they need the excess heat that an ASRG does not produce. Also, there may be missions that people don't want to use the ASRG on. Are you aware off the top of your head of specific mission studies where the lower heat output of an ASRG would have been a problem. It may only 1/4 as much waste heat as an MMRTG, but 400-500W still seems like a decent amount for keeping electronics boxes and bearings warm.
While NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE) have restarted production of a plutonium isotope used to power some space missions, a new report warns of challenges that could threaten its long-term supply.The Oct. 4 report by the Government Accountability Office, tied to a House space subcommittee hearing on the subject, said that while there is sufficient plutonium-238 in stockpiles now for missions planned through the mid-2020s, scaling up production of the isotope faces a number of technical issues.“DOE is making progress towards producing new plutonium-238,” said Shelby Oakley, director of acquisition and sourcing management at the GAO, in testimony at the hearing. “However, DOE faces challenges in hiring and training the necessary workforce, perfecting and scaling up chemical processing, and ensuring the availability of reactors that must be addressed or its ability to meet NASA’s needs could be jeopardized.”
WASHINGTON – An evolving and uncertain geopolitical landscape calls for the United States to recapitalize its defense plutonium capabilities. The Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) has certified that the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) recommended alternative for recapitalization of these capabilities is acceptable and represents a resilient and responsive option to meet Department of Defense (DoD) requirements. To achieve DoD’s 80 pits per year requirement by 2030, NNSA’s recommended alternative repurposes the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to produce plutonium pits while also maximizing pit production activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. This two-prong approach – with at least 50 pits per year produced at Savannah River and at least 30 pits per year at Los Alamos – is the best way to manage the cost, schedule, and risk of such a vital undertaking. Furthermore, by maintaining Los Alamos as the Nation’s Plutonium Center of Excellence for Research and Development, the recommended alternative improves the resiliency, flexibility, and redundancy of our Nuclear Security Enterprise by not relying on a single production site.
ORNL is currently capable of producing up to 700 grams of Pu-238 heat source material each year at its High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR). Since 2015, the test reactor has produced nearly 1 kilogram of heat source material. The additional support of ATR is expected to help meet NASA’s target of 1.5 kilograms per year by 2026.
One of the RPS Program’s primary objectives is to develop new technologies that advance NASA’s capability to meet its science goals by developing more efficient RPS by reducing cost, reducing Pu-238 quantity requirements per RPS, reducing RPS mass and size, and increasing RPS power output and duration. However, NASA has not produced a viable new RPS technology since the Program began in 2010 despite an average investment of $40 million per year. We also found that NASA lacks a clear resource allocation strategy to ensure completion of its new technology development projects. In addition, the Program’s optimistic assumptions about the maturity of nuclear power technologies and its lack of formal assessments of technology readiness, coupled with associated technology maturation risks, contributed to the termination of two technology development projects—the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator and Enhanced Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator—and portend cost and schedule challenges for current and future RPS developments. The cancellation of these technology development projects prior to substantive results disincentivizes the already limited number of contractors remaining in the RPS industry, leading to increased costs and risks to future space-based nuclear power systems developments. But despite these challenges, the Program has inappropriately tailored its management approach and elected not to implement required flight project management tools from NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5F, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements, for its two current technology development efforts—the Next-Gen Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (Next-Gen RTG) and Dynamic Radioisotope Power System (DRPS).
This seems like a relevant (old) thread:NASA OIG has released a report on NASA’s Management of Its Radioisotope Power Systems Program.QuoteOne of the RPS Program’s primary objectives is to develop new technologies that advance NASA’s capability to meet its science goals by developing more efficient RPS by reducing cost, reducing Pu-238 quantity requirements per RPS, reducing RPS mass and size, and increasing RPS power output and duration. However, NASA has not produced a viable new RPS technology since the Program began in 2010 despite an average investment of $40 million per year. We also found that NASA lacks a clear resource allocation strategy to ensure completion of its new technology development projects. In addition, the Program’s optimistic assumptions about the maturity of nuclear power technologies and its lack of formal assessments of technology readiness, coupled with associated technology maturation risks, contributed to the termination of two technology development projects—the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator and Enhanced Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator—and portend cost and schedule challenges for current and future RPS developments. The cancellation of these technology development projects prior to substantive results disincentivizes the already limited number of contractors remaining in the RPS industry, leading to increased costs and risks to future space-based nuclear power systems developments. But despite these challenges, the Program has inappropriately tailored its management approach and elected not to implement required flight project management tools from NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5F, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements, for its two current technology development efforts—the Next-Gen Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (Next-Gen RTG) and Dynamic Radioisotope Power System (DRPS).https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/NASA/IG-23-010.pdf