CNN: U.S. considers plutonium space rockets

guffaw of the week (and we NEED one this week...)

U.S. considers plutonium space rockets

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/0...ion=cnn_latest

Friday, September 2, 2005; Posted: 11:49 a.m. EDT (15:49 GMT)

SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) -- The United States is poised to produce plutonium-238 for the first time since the end of the Cold War but it will be used for space missions, not weapons, officials said this week.

*Perfect* timing! The general populace should be just about ready to
start stringing up environmentalists. So plutonium production should be
less of a political problem in the near future.

"Jim Oberg" wrote:


guffaw of the week (and we NEED one this week...)

U.S. considers plutonium space rockets

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/0...ion=cnn_latest

Why is it funny? This has been in the works for months - we've all
known the decision was coming soon one way or another.

And I hate to point out what should be obvious - the whole country
doesn't stop because a small area (of the total, though it's vast by
itself) is in dire straits.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Jim Oberg wrote:


http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/0...ion=cnn_latest


I can't parse these two paragraphs:

"The proposal calls for half the batteries to be earmarked for NASA
projects and the rest for undisclosed national security purposes.

"The United States needs to produce plutonium because its stockpiles are
low and because an agreement with Russia prevents it from using
plutonium-238 produced there for security or defense applications,
according to DOE analyses."

If an agreement with Russia prevents using plutonium-238 for security
applications, how can they use the rest for "undisclosed national
security purposes".



--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

"Derek Lyons" wrote
Why is it funny? This has been in the works for months - we've all
known the decision was coming soon one way or another.

PLUTONIUM ROCKETS ??????????????????

Hop David wrote:
"The proposal calls for half the batteries to be earmarked for NASA
projects and the rest for undisclosed national security purposes.

"The United States needs to produce plutonium because its stockpiles are
low and because an agreement with Russia prevents it from using
plutonium-238 produced there for security or defense applications,
according to DOE analyses."

If an agreement with Russia prevents using plutonium-238 for security
applications, how can they use the rest for "undisclosed national
security purposes".

I think that means that the US "bought" some plutonium from Russia
after the collapse (presumably to prevent it falling into terrorist
hands). However, the sale was on condition that it not be used by the
US for defense purposes. This means that despite the fact that they
have some already, they still need to make more. This would mean that
"there" refers to Russia not to the Idaho facility.

wrote:

*Perfect* timing! The general populace should be just about ready to
start stringing up environmentalists. So plutonium production should be
less of a political problem in the near future.


For what it's worth, I have over the years defended the use of sturdy
RTGs to clue-challenged people who are baffled as to why we can't use
solar cells when going to say, Neptune.

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"Jim Oberg" wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote
Why is it funny? This has been in the works for months - we've all
known the decision was coming soon one way or another.

PLUTONIUM ROCKETS ??????????????????


Ah - the title. Sorry, I've been to serious this week (Between
Katrina and real estate troubles of my own) to recognize subtle humor.

Mea Culpa.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:58:32 -0700, Hop David
wrote, in part:

I can't parse these two paragraphs:

"The proposal calls for half the batteries to be earmarked for NASA
projects and the rest for undisclosed national security purposes.

"The United States needs to produce plutonium because its stockpiles are
low and because an agreement with Russia prevents it from using
plutonium-238 produced there for security or defense applications,
according to DOE analyses."

If an agreement with Russia prevents using plutonium-238 for security
applications, how can they use the rest for "undisclosed national
security purposes".

The United States needs to produce plutonium itself

because the plutonium it buys from Russia

can't be used for the undisclosed national security purposes

for which some is needed.

So *that* part makes perfect sense. But why are they using any
U.S.-produced plutonium for NASA projects, when they have plutonium from
Russia available for them?

Of course, some NASA projects relate to security and national defense,
even if the existence of the projects themselves are not secret.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:14:02 GMT, "Jim Oberg"
wrote, in part:

PLUTONIUM ROCKETS ??????????????????

I missed the joke too - that a resumption of Pu-238 production,
presumably for use in RTGs in NASA projects, is automatically assumed to
mean, well, since NASA is going to be using it, it must mean that
Project Orion has risen again.

I guess we can shortly expect from CNN a story about how NASA is going
to make a space rocket powered by concentrated orange juice crystals...

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account