
NASA Struggles Over Deep-Space Plutonium Power - known
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/within-nasa-a-plutonium-power-struggle/
======
jtwebman
It is sad we spend so much money on military yet can't give NASA more money. I
hate politics!

~~~
baldfat
Don't "I hate politics." Get more involved. There are people who only see
positives in tax cuts and hate "BIG GOVERNMENT" means we don't have money to
spend on science that benefits humanity.

Best thing people can do who don't like what is happening with their tax money
is to vote and be vocal. If you negate yourself into I hate politics you
reinforce the need to feed the proponents your disagree with.

~~~
mikeash
Get involved how, exactly?

I do vote. I have a hard time convincing myself that it's even worth the time
it takes to do so, but I do it.

I've tried writing to my representatives to express my views. I get form
letters in response, with absolutely no indication that my voice has been
taken into account in even the smallest way.

People say you should get involved in local party meetings and such, but there
are no viable parties that I agree with even remotely, and in any case I'd
rather stab myself in the eyeballs with a toothpick than attend such meetings.

~~~
NegativeK
> I get form letters in response, with absolutely no indication that my voice
> has been taken into account in even the smallest way.

They listen; they just don't have the staffing to write an individual response
to every comment. Unfortunately, they listen by having a staffer say "We had X
people contact us in favor of this; Y were opposed." But they do listen. Or:
Our voices have been abstracted into sort of a reverse-poll thanks, in part,
to technology.

As an anecdote, the only time I had a staffer actually respond to my opinion
with more than "I'll pass along your comment" was during the SOPA/PIPA call
ins. The staffer I spoke to was clearly (and kind of understandably) irritated
with the volume of calls and was somewhat short with me. I think everyone
views that whole thing as an exception, though.

~~~
jessaustin
_They listen; they just don 't have the staffing to write an individual
response to every comment._

The latter statement _really_ calls the first into question. Similarly, they
care about my vote, except to the extent that it's completely lost in the
noise of thousands of other votes.

~~~
TrevorJ
I can't prove it, but I imagine we'd be surprised at how few letters they
actually get during parts of the election cycle. Depending on your district
your congressman may be far more accessible than you think.

~~~
jessaustin
I know my _state_ representative and senator are accessible; I've had email
conversations with both in the last couple of months. I've never contributed
to either of their campaigns.

However, there's an obvious difference when one sends letters or emails to the
federal level. _When_ I've gotten responses, it's always been at least several
weeks later, and sometimes several months. The messages I've received have
been loosely related to my original message, but they have never addressed any
actual point I might have made. I'm not feeling the love.

~~~
baldfat
THIS is why local politics are so much important and yet they receive the
least participation.

~~~
techdragon
Politics is also a hierarchy and its worth keeping in mind that local
politicians may have much better connections to people in the next tier than
you do from outside. Your local state senator may have much better access to
your federal senator and that level of access can turn into opportunity for
them to influence them. If your state representatives know how important their
behaviour with regards to federal issues is to you as a voter, you stand a
much better chance of the system working how it's intended.

It's systemic lack of involvement that's causing the most issues in American
politics. From the top with "lifetime senators" largely immune from their
constituencies, and from the bottom with voter turnouts under twenty percent.

------
drzaiusapelord
This is such a non-issue (from the article):

“The project is planning to produce new Pu-238 at a rate that supports
currently projected NASA missions,” says Rebecca Onuschak, program director
for the DOE’s plutonium infrastructure. “There is no shortfall of material
projected to meeting those needs, and so no remedy or action plan has been
implemented.”

\---

The argument that if NASA had more RTG's laying around it would be doing more
is a bit suspicious as that's not how space missions are planned. Not to
mention, Charles Bolden just wrote a letter to Congress asking them why they
can't fund the SLS properly. There's no extra money laying around.

~~~
sehugg
I think you've got it wrong; Bolden is mad at Congress for funding SLS at the
expense of Commercial Crew, which includes SpaceX and Boeing's new CST-100
vehicle: [http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/11/commercial-crew-
spacesh...](http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/11/commercial-crew-spaceships-
face-likely-delays/)

SLS is a white elephant that currently has nothing to do. The first crewed
mission is scheduled for 2021, and plans beyond that are hazy. NASA managers
have looked into "how seldom" they can launch the thing while still
maintaining a safe and viable program.

And the article describes a chilling effect which keeps plutonium-dependent
missions from being seen as viable, so of course there will be enough
plutonium for all the planned missions (of which there are precious few).

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Bolden very clearly stated that he's upset that there's money for all these
Russian ISS launches, but not for his SLS and the CCV programs. There is no
bigger cheerleader for CCV than Bolden. This SLS vs CCV "controversy" is 100%
manufactured.

[http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/28/9221541/NASA-Charles-
Bolde...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/28/9221541/NASA-Charles-Bolden-
Congress-open-letter)

It costs around $81 million to send just one astronaut on the Soyuz. Bolden
says it will only cost $58 million per seat to send astronauts on the
Commercial Crew vehicles. "It’s as if we keep ordering expensive takeout
because we haven’t yet set up our own kitchen — only, in this case, the
takeout meals are costing us hundreds of millions of dollars," he writes.

~~~
Symmetry
Congress keeps insisting that NASA spend more on the SLS than it wants to, and
less on the CCV. Even if we were to fully fund CCV this year it wouldn't be
until 2018 or so that we could stop hitching rides with the Russians so I
don't think it's fair to say that the CCV and Russian ISS launches are in
conflict right now.

~~~
mzs
It is about 70% through 2015.

------
dghughes
Why not use polonium? It's very rare but at least it's not as rare as an
element that has to be actually be created.

The Russians use polonium for the same purpose in their spacecraft as the US
does using plutonium; heat to generate power suing thermoelectric generators.

~~~
zaphoyd
Polonium 210 has a half life of 138 days vs 88 years for Plutonium 238. I
believe Russia used it for short duration moon missions. For missions that
last years or decades it is not an option.

------
akshayB
NASA's budget is way less then what USA gives out in international aid to
other countries at times which is in a way used to buy influence in that
region of the world. It is a tragedy how politicians decide to use their brain
in general.

~~~
Symmetry
I wouldn't call it "way less." We spend $32 billion on aid compared to $18
billion for NASA. Those are large numbers but they're not so very different
considering the $4 trillion total.

------
Aldo_MX
Why don't they take the fuel from their nuclear missiles?

~~~
fluxquanta
>Pu-238 cannot be used to make atomic bombs, nor is it particularly useful for
fueling nuclear reactors, which are widely considered too controversial and
expensive for practical use in space missions.

Look up the difference between Pu-238 and Pu-239 (what most nuclear warheads
carry) and deduce why shooting a rocket filled with Pu-239 might be a bad
idea.

------
sageabilly
"...maintaining it all costs upwards of $50 million per year"

It's really dumb that we're going to sit in ignorance of SO MUCH STUFF because
someone in the government somewhere is getting into a tiff over this tiny,
tiny drop in the government budget. For some perspective, apparently the US
Gov spends about $1.7 Billion annually maintaining empty or abandoned federal
buildings/land [1]

[1] [http://www.npr.org/2014/03/12/287349831/governments-empty-
bu...](http://www.npr.org/2014/03/12/287349831/governments-empty-buildings-
are-costing-taxpayers-billions)

~~~
ekianjo
> about $1.7 Billion annually maintaining empty or abandoned federal building

and a lot more on killing people overseas.

~~~
knieveltech
Well, they weren't gonna kill themselves...

Edit: Seriously? Y'all downvote the parent and upvote this blatantly
inflammatory nonsense? Clearly I have no idea what motivates people.

~~~
MrZongle2
Humor is rarely permitted on HN, for fear that it would suddenly turn the site
into Reddit. Somehow.

------
psswrdshmashwrd
Two words: Thorium reactor.

~~~
rexignis
Every time someone gets all giggly about Thorium I'm suspicious. Could you
provide some documentation about why this is a viable option in space?

~~~
psswrdshmashwrd
I agree thorium isn't without its problems, but the end byproduct of a lftr
reactor is plutonium.

~~~
oppositelock
LFTR's produce 239Pu (among a mess of other stuff), that's the stuff that goes
BOOM in nuclear bombes, not 238Pu that glows warmly to make power for
spacecraft.

~~~
Roodgorf
As Jobu points out from Wikipedia: _he second proliferation resistant feature
comes from the fact that LFTRs produce very little plutonium, around 15 kg per
gigawatt-year of electricity ... This plutonium is also mostly Pu-238._
According the article this seems like quite a bit more than is currently being
produced, is it not viable for use in RTGs for some reason? Or is the cost of
a LFTR over the course of a year less cost effective than the current method
of Np to Pu?

I have very little knowledge of the science here, I'm just not sure what all
I'm missing.

