DailyDirt: Nuclear Power In Space
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
Nuclear energy usually has a significant NIMBY problem (Not In My Back Yard!) that prevents nuclear power plants from being constructed. There’s no simple solution to this obstacle, and even when the reactor is going to be thousands (or millions) of miles away from any people in a spacecraft, the danger of launching a nuclear reactor on a rocket is still too risky for some folks. There haven’t been any nuclear disasters in space, but as more and more nuclear powered spacecraft are built, the anti-nuclear groups may grow increasingly loud. Here are just a few nuclear spacecraft projects that could travel beyond our planet.
- NASA and DOE researchers have tested a new nuclear reactor design for spacecraft called the Demonstration Using Flattop Fissions (DUFF) experiment. This reactor relies on the heat from uranium fission to power a Stirling engine and can generate 24 watts of electricity. [url]
- Plutonium is the fissile material of choice for a lot of NASA spacecraft, but the US hasn’t produced much plutonium-238 since the 1980s. NASA could get a fresh supply, though, if the DOE continues its experiments for producing plutonium-238 at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee — which could produce about 3.3 pounds per year. [url]
- NASA has extensively tested its nuclear battery designs by smashing them and detonating them to assess their safety. If a nuclear-powered probe were to explode on the launchpad (or at any stage of getting into orbit or beyond), it’s unlikely that the radioactive material would cause much destruction. [url]
If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.
Filed Under: duff, energy, fission, nimby, nuclear, plutonium, radioactive materials, space, spacecraft, stirling engine, uranium
Companies: doe, nasa
Comments on “DailyDirt: Nuclear Power In Space”
Wow, a whopping 3.3 pounds in a year! And how much is THAT going to cast the taxpayers, I wonder?
Re: Re:
Plutonium is not in short supply
there a shit load of it hanging around, what do you think is inside of those nukes that are capable of destroying the world a 1000 times over ?
They have not produced much since 1980 because they don’t need too.
Re: Plutonium is not in short supply
There is a sh*tload of Plutonium-239, but a dire shortage of Plutonium-238. They are different isotopes, with very different properties.
Despite its nasty reputation for being carcinogenic and toxic (plus the prime ingredient for making atomic bombs), Plutonium-239 is not very radioactive. In fact, you could pick up a chunk the size of a golf ball and hold it in your hands safely. I would suggest you wear rubber gloves though, not because of radioactivity, but because you wouldn’t want any of the metal to rub off onto your skin and work its way through into your blood stream. Pu-239 is a heavy metal poison with devastating effects if it enters your blood stream. Which is why its a nuclear waste problem – you don’t want it leaking into water supplies, for example. Plutonium 239 has a very long half-life (24,000 years).
Plutonium-238, on the other hand, is highly radioactive, but with a short half-life (88 years). It puts out considerable decay heat, which is perfect for powering RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generators). NASA uses RTGs for powering all deep space probes.
Give the Wikipedia page a read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238
NASA should try thorium to jump start that technology.
Re: Re:
Is “thorium” your word of the day?
Timely Nasa decision
Uhm, Nasa just dumped their Pu plans, viz:
http://www.nature.com/news/nasa-pulls-plug-on-plutonium-power-source-1.14195
DUFF, Isn't that a brand of beer?
I’m quite sure it is.
But there could be a meltdown and it would get radiation all over space!!!