A Government Accountability Office report has found that the U.S. is unlikely to produce enough Plutonium-238 for NASA missions about a decade from now. The isotope has been used in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) on missions such as Voyager, Cassini, and the Mars Science Laboratory:
Another GAO report notes: "[...], DOE currently maintains about 35 kilograms (kg) [77 pounds] of Pu-238 isotope designated for NASA missions, about half of which meets power specifications for spaceflight. However, given NASA's current plans for solar system exploration, this supply could be exhausted within the next decade."
[...] To address the plutonium problem, in 2011 NASA provided funding to the Department of Energy (DOE) to restart domestic production of the substance. The program is called the Pu-238 Supply Project. So far, the Project has produced ∼3.5 ounces (100 grams) of Pu-238. DOE identified an interim goal of producing 10 to 17.5 ounces (300 to 500 grams) of new Pu-238 per year by 2019. The goal is to produce 1.5 kilograms of new Pu-238 per year—considered full production—by 2023, at the earliest.
GAO is questioning the Supply Project's ability to meet its goal of producing 1.5 kilograms of new Pu-238 per year by 2026. For one thing, the oversight agency's interviews with DOE officials revealed that the agency hasn't perfected the chemical processing required to extract new Pu-238 from irradiated targets to meet production goals.
Only one DOE reactor is currently qualified to make Pu-238:
NASA's plutonium will be produced at two of these reactors, but only one of them is currently qualified to make Pu-238. GAO reported that initial samples of the new Pu-238 did not meet spaceflight specifications because of impurities. However, according to DOE, the samples can be blended and used with existing Pu-238.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday October 21 2017, @08:34AM (1 child)
You're right, of course, more money would solve many problems. So would keeping Congress out of the decision-making loop, since they keep changing their minds about what NASA ought to be doing.
That said, NASA is just unbelievably inefficient. By some estimates, anything NASA does costs about 10x as much as if private industry were to do it (e.g. SpaceX or Blue Origin). NASA is a thoroughly entrenched bureaucracy, totally risk averse. Not what you really want to have in an exploratory space agency.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 21 2017, @10:10AM
The risk averse approach could mitigate expensive fatal errors:
http://spacenews.com/esa-mars-lander-crash-caused-by-1-second-inertial-measurement-error/ [spacenews.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobos-Grunt [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]