Author Topic: Good news on the Plutonium production issue  (Read 88930 times)

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #80 on: 01/07/2014 03:23 am »
So Thorium RTGs almost impossible or not worth (costs)?
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.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #81 on: 01/07/2014 09:15 am »
It would be nice for someone to get Americium-241  working.. ok its 25% power, and needs approx 2cm lead for enclosure

Why does it need shielding? Am-241 alpha-decays to Np-237 which is long-lived (iow: daughter isotope seems to be non-problematic).
Does it decay to an *excited* Np-237 nucleus which then emits gammas?

Offline akula2

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • USA, Germany and India
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #82 on: 01/07/2014 09:19 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. 

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #83 on: 01/07/2014 04:59 pm »
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.
Last night on Coast to Coast AM, the topic was Fukashima and other Nuclear issues. Mr Kamps, who was 1 of 3 experts on last night stated that using Thorium for power generation increases the possibility of nuclear proliferation. He also stated that during the "Manhattan Project" considered the Thorium cycle for plutonium production for the gun type "thin man" and implosion type "fat man" Plutonium proposals. (Thin Man was dropped because the fission rate was too great which blew the critical mass aparts "creating a fizzle". Then. conversly I read that using the Thorium Cycle for Plutonium production rate would be less than 2% of a conventional reactor, and the Plutonium produced would be unsuitable for nuclear detonation.

Any comments?
Paul

Offline Kryten

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #84 on: 01/07/2014 05:18 pm »
  Both statements are mostly true, albeit the first is somewhat garbled. Thorium reactors are both terrible at producing plutonium, and capable of producing large amounts of fissile material; Uranium-233. It is, however, more difficult to produce bombs with (higher critical mass) and to work with in general (produces high levels of gamma radiation due to unavoidable U-232 contamination) than U-235 or Pu-239.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #85 on: 01/07/2014 05:32 pm »
And all of this has to do with RTG's, ASRG's, Pu-238, potential Pu-238 alternatives such as Sr-90,Po-210,Cm-242, Cm-244, Am-241, and deep space mission how?

Really over in the advanced topics and historical sections there are several other threads on reactors and fuel cycles in space. In reality this is more of spring board for RTG's and producing the "special" fuel that fuels them.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #86 on: 01/09/2014 01:56 am »
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.

« Last Edit: 01/09/2014 01:59 am by Blackstar »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #87 on: 01/09/2014 02:07 am »
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.

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)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #88 on: 01/09/2014 02:12 am »
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.

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.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #89 on: 01/09/2014 02:19 am »
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.

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.

Oh, we'll then awesome!
Now they only need to find the money for the spacecraft (and the reprocessing)

Offline Mike_1179

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • New Jersey
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #90 on: 01/09/2014 02:51 am »
A few questions: If this material became "available to NASA" does that mean it was originally planned for use in some other non-NASA project that has since been cancelled or re-designed such that it's no longer needed?

Other than NRO stuff, what else uses that much Pu-238?

Is there a use for the lower energy density Pu other than for RTGs?

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #91 on: 01/09/2014 11:48 am »
Other than NRO stuff, what else uses that much Pu-238?
I believe the DOD users of the stuff are not the NRO. The NRO has not launched anything that uses an RTG in a very long time.

I would wager to bet they are used in other DOD information gathering and monitoring missions that require power over the long term in inaccessible places. Things like cable taps on the sea floor...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #92 on: 02/20/2014 12:16 pm »
Btw.


Emily Lakdawalla just tweeted:
Quote
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

Not RTG's for You!
« Last Edit: 02/20/2014 01:41 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #93 on: 02/20/2014 12:25 pm »

Btw.


Emily Lakdawalla just tweeted:
Quote
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?

Not RTG's for You!

Get a flagged security warning on that link?

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #94 on: 02/20/2014 01:06 pm »

Btw.


Emily Lakdawalla just tweeted:
Quote
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?

Not RTG's for You!

Get a flagged security warning on that link?

I got a 'does not exist'

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #95 on: 02/20/2014 01:38 pm »
Quote

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).


Odd, works from her Twitter feed. Try the direct link.

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=159660

Quote
NASA DISCOVERY PROGRAM DRAFT ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY

Synopsis - Feb 19, 2014
General Information
Solicitation Number:   NNH14ZDA004J
Posted Date:   Feb 19, 2014
FedBizOpps Posted Date:   Feb 19, 2014
Recovery and Reinvestment Act Action:   No
Original Response Date:   N/A
Current Response Date:   N/A
Classification Code:   A -- Research and Development
NAICS Code:   541712


Contracting Office Address

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA Headquarters Acquisition Branch, Code 210.H, Greenbelt, MD 20771

Description

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, 2021

The 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 Contact

Name:   Dr Michael New
Title:   Planetary Science Division
Phone:   202-358-1766
Fax:   202-358-3097
Email:   [email protected]

« Last Edit: 02/20/2014 01:43 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #97 on: 02/20/2014 03:35 pm »
Space Politics has an article on this:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/02/20/next-nasa-discovery-solicitation-will-miss-congressional-deadline/

I don't understand the whole process of putting out an AO, but there is a whole process. NASA doesn't just spring these on a community of scientists. It takes people a lot of time to form their proposal teams and write the proposals, and so I imagine that if NASA has decided that issuing the AO has to be delayed, it is partly to give people some advance notice that the AO is coming so they can do the preliminary work. Proposals are a LOT of work. Plus, Congress can tell NASA to fund more stuff all they want, but if the money is not actually in the budget--and the White House keeps cutting the planetary budget--then NASA cannot comply.*

There were 28 Discovery mission proposals last round. Figure that there will be approximately that many this time as well. Of those 28, 7 were Venus missions (4 radar), about 7-8 were for asteroids and comets, probably 5-7 were for lunar missions, and the rest were scattered around other things, including TiME, an Io mission, and some observatories like NEOCam.

Taking the ASRG out of the equation of course cripples any proposal that would have used it, so no Io Mapper this time, and Comet Hopper is probably gone as well.

Oh, I don't think I've seen it discussed anywhere, but the total available Pu-238 supply is now 35 kg, of which about 17 kg is good enough to use without some kind of reprocessing. That's double the previously announced amount. Ta da.




*There's a catch to this: The White House keeps asking for less money for planetary science and Congress keeps putting more money in. Now even if that money does go into the budget, it's extremely difficult for NASA to do anything meaningful with it, because they cannot start projects without knowing that there will also be money for the projects in the next year budget, and with the White House cutting the budget, that's an indication that there will NOT be money in the budget. So NASA gets stuck in the middle of the budget fight, told to spend money that it cannot really spend.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #98 on: 11/26/2014 05:41 am »
Alexandra Witze has a long article about the the PU production restart on the Nature news site http://www.nature.com/news/nuclear-power-desperately-seeking-plutonium-1.16411

Gives the impression that it's less restarting production than building new production capability, with years between the initial test batches and kg/year scale production.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15288
  • Liked: 7823
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Good news on the Plutonium production issue
« Reply #99 on: 06/04/2015 10:26 pm »
This is a rather important study. It is the Nuclear Power Assessment Study, now public after a long security review. You can download it here or it is also attached:

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/docs/NPAS.pdf

The home site is here:

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/home.cfm


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1