Nuclear Spacecraft Fuel to Run Out By 2018

Earnest Cavalli

New member
Jun 19, 2008
5,352
0
0
Nuclear Spacecraft Fuel to Run Out By 2018



Scientists at the U.S. National Research Council have issued a report warning that our current supply of nuclear spacecraft fuel will be completely exhausted as early as 2018.

The fuel, mainly consisting of plutonium-238 (pictured at right), is used primarily to power exploratory vehicles [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17095-nuclear-fuel-for-spacecraft-set-to-run-out-in-2018.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news] such as the Apollo moon landers and the Cassini-Huygens robotic spacecraft. Due to plutonium-238's tendency to shed alpha particles during decay -- which offer relatively large amounts of energy in the form of heat -- vehicles powered by the isotope can function for decades using only small amounts of the element.

Though it's almost impossible, due to p-238's unique decay patterns, to construct weaponry from the element, our surplus of the isotope was originally spawned from plants designed to construct nuclear arms. Given that these plants have almost entirely been decommissioned since the end of the Cold War, we no longer have a simple, cost-effective way to create more of the fuel.

What does this mean for you, personally? Unless you're an astronaut, not much, but it serves as yet another barrier to our exploration of space.

Combined with the repeated budget cuts NASA has seen during the past few government regimes, this is a damning blow in our quest to explore (and eventually colonize) other planets -- assuming scientists are unable to find another, relatively inexpensive way to procure fuel for their fancy toys.

That said, we still have a few billion years before the Sun decides to expand and incinerate our planet, so there's no need to start biting your nails just yet. For the moment you're better off fretting over more immediate threats, such as the dinosaurs currently devising plans to eat everyone you love [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91194].


Permalink
 

IrrelevantTangent

New member
Oct 4, 2008
2,424
0
0
Well, this is.....ominous. Of course, we'll all be dead six years earlier so it won't matter anyway, amirite? [/satire]
 

ryai458

New member
Oct 20, 2008
1,494
0
0
i think we should let space exploration tank until we are in the green economicaly (american speaking) millions possiblely billions of dollars are spent on space exploration let the other countries waste there money on something that they are going to have to share
 

Tech Team FTW!

New member
Apr 1, 2009
1,049
0
0
They will find another fuel.

A few years ago I believe I read an article suggesting that microwave radiation may be a possible alternative propulsion mechanism. I have no idea what became of that or how it was theoretically going to work...
 

massau

New member
Apr 25, 2009
409
0
0
Earnest Cavalli said:
Nuclear Spacecraft Fuel to Run Out By 2018



Scientists at the U.S. National Research Council have issued a report warning that our current supply of nuclear spacecraft fuel will be completely exhausted as early as 2018.

The fuel, mainly consisting of plutonium-238 (pictured at right), is used primarily to power exploratory vehicles [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17095-nuclear-fuel-for-spacecraft-set-to-run-out-in-2018.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news] such as the Apollo moon landers and the Cassini-Huygens robotic spacecraft. Due to plutonium-238's tendency to shed alpha particles during decay -- which offer relatively large amounts of energy in the form of heat -- vehicles powered by the isotope can function for decades using only small amounts of the element.

Though it's almost impossible, due to p-238's unique decay patterns, to construct weaponry from the element, our surplus of the isotope was originally spawned from plants designed to construct nuclear arms. Given that these plants have almost entirely been decommissioned since the end of the Cold War, we no longer have a simple, cost-effective way to create more of the fuel.

What does this mean for you, personally? Unless you're an astronaut, not much, but it serves as yet another barrier to our exploration of space.

Combined with the repeated budget cuts NASA has seen during the past few government regimes, this is a damning blow in our quest to explore (and eventually colonize) other planets -- assuming scientists are unable to find another, relatively inexpensive way to procure fuel for their fancy toys.

That said, we still have a few billion years before the Sun decides to expand and incinerate our planet, so there's no need to start biting your nails just yet. For the moment you're better off fretting over more immediate threats, such as the dinosaurs currently devising plans to eat everyone you love [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91194].


Permalink
they already made a special reactor that makes from U238 Pu238 through splitting U235 so there is enough fuel and we can use Pu238 for nukes.
 

massau

New member
Apr 25, 2009
409
0
0
maybe we need to work together on things like this not like NASA and other things we need one space centre so the budget will be much larger
 

massau

New member
Apr 25, 2009
409
0
0
Wouldukindly said:
massau said:
they already made a special reactor that makes from U238 Pu238 through splitting U235 so there is enough fuel and we can use Pu238 for nukes.
Why would we want more nukes? */hippieness*
destroy aliens ?
and now real it would be better if we destroy all our nukes or only use them for destroying comets. and we can better use the U and Pu for nuclear power plants
and we already found something ells than nukes its stronger and has no radioactivity but it takes to long to make its anti matter but if we can produce it faster we would have a huge problem
 

Lord_Ascendant

New member
Jan 14, 2008
2,909
0
0
Then a long came the Starslip Drive and we were all saved. Sort of.

www.starslip.com [Starlsip] if you want to read the comic my statement came from
 

electric_warrior

New member
Oct 5, 2008
1,721
0
0
even if we could travel at the speed of light, which is theoretically impossible and way out of our capabilities for the foreeable future, it would take us years to get anywhere and even longer to get anywhere interesting. space exploration is futile until we figure out a way, if there is one, of travelling at many times the speed of light. therefore, this makes no difference whatsoever.
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
Hopefully by 2018, some form of usable fusion power will be available, and the hydrogen used in that reaction is capable of producing a lot more power that this stuff.
 

Earnest Cavalli

New member
Jun 19, 2008
5,352
0
0
chrisdibs said:
even if we could travel at the speed of light, which is theoretically impossible and way out of our capabilities for the foreeable future ...
Actually, it's more like "literally impossible" to travel faster than the speed of light. Even in our wildest theories we can't create any sort of vehicle capable of avoiding the mass/energy issues inherent in approaching light speed.
 

ElephantGuts

New member
Jul 9, 2008
3,520
0
0
No matter. As you said, we have plenty of time before we need to start packing our planetary bags and looking for a new planet to rent out.
 

Valiance

New member
Jan 14, 2009
3,823
0
0
Well, that sucks.

Being a big space-exploration lover, it continuously pains me to no end to see things like this happen.
 

Andy_Panthro

Man of Science
May 3, 2009
514
0
0
Agreed about the light speed thing. I'm sure we'll manage to find another fuel or propulsion/power method to at least get to Mars.

Of course, we could try to make an Event Horizon type of spaceship. That worked really well, didn't it?

Oh wait.
 

electric_warrior

New member
Oct 5, 2008
1,721
0
0
Earnest Cavalli said:
chrisdibs said:
even if we could travel at the speed of light, which is theoretically impossible and way out of our capabilities for the foreeable future ...
Actually, it's more like "literally impossible" to travel faster than the speed of light. Even in our wildest theories we can't create any sort of vehicle capable of avoiding the mass/energy issues inherent in approaching light speed.
i know and accept that, however, seeing as our basis for believing in its impossibility is purely theoretical i feel a bit uneasy sayinf for certain that it is literally impossible. afterall scientific opinions change all the time.
 

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
chrisdibs said:
Earnest Cavalli said:
chrisdibs said:
even if we could travel at the speed of light, which is theoretically impossible and way out of our capabilities for the foreeable future ...
Actually, it's more like "literally impossible" to travel faster than the speed of light. Even in our wildest theories we can't create any sort of vehicle capable of avoiding the mass/energy issues inherent in approaching light speed.
i know and accept that, however, seeing as our basis for believing in its impossibility is purely theoretical i feel a bit uneasy sayinf for certain that it is literally impossible. afterall scientific opinions change all the time.
To surpass the speed of light you need infinite energy in finite time. The more viable solution is to bend space.