Comments on: Another push for Pu-238 funding http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/15/another-push-for-pu-238-funding/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=another-push-for-pu-238-funding Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Doug Lassiter http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/15/another-push-for-pu-238-funding/#comment-347826 Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:24:59 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4780#comment-347826 I believe that is correct. The Russians are telling us that they have no more to sell us. Some have interpreted that to mean that they aren’t making it anymore. But I don’t believe that’s specifically what they’re telling us. In any case, the existing contract for such purchases is running out, and I suspect that a new contract, at significantly higher prices, would make more available, perhaps by restarting production capability.

]]> By: A_M_Swallow http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/15/another-push-for-pu-238-funding/#comment-347817 Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:21:28 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4780#comment-347817 Byeman wrote @ June 15th, 2011 at 7:37 pm

US Department of Energy is not a contractor and would not bid on such contract. Anyways, NASA does not procure Plutonium 238, it is DOE’s job. So the post is typical nonsense.

The US DOE already has bid on supplying the Plutonium 238, it previously has asked for a lot more money. So not including the request in the bill shows they do not want to either make or buy the metal.

When dealing with an unreliable supplier you replace them. When the supplier is protected by a legal monopoly get the law changed.

]]> By: GClark http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/15/another-push-for-pu-238-funding/#comment-347758 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:31:52 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4780#comment-347758 All that they’re willing to sell.

]]> By: Space Cadet http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/15/another-push-for-pu-238-funding/#comment-347752 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 05:13:07 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4780#comment-347752 @ Doug Lassiter

I thought we already bought all of the Russian Pu-238?

]]> By: Bennett http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/15/another-push-for-pu-238-funding/#comment-347741 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 03:34:44 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4780#comment-347741 Byeman wrote @ 7:37 pm

Why do you think that “the post is typical nonsense.”, seriously?

]]> By: Major Tom http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/15/another-push-for-pu-238-funding/#comment-347726 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:26:07 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4780#comment-347726 “In a letter, the legislators ‘told Bolden…to ‘stop studying and re-studying’ NASA’s plans for a post-shuttle spacecraft and immediately report to Congress on the roadmap ahead.’”

A letter from Sen. Shelby to Bolden argues the exact opposite:

“Where competitive concepts can be brought to bear without impacting mission schedules or compromising system performance, it is incumbent upon NASA to explore them… Designing a Space Launch System for heavy lift that relies on existing Shuttle boosters ties NASA, once again, to the high fixed costs associated with segmented solids… I strongly encourage you to initiate a competition for the Space Launch System booster. I believe it will ultimately result in a more efficient SLS development effort at lower cost to the taxpayer… I look forward to your reply outlining NASA’s plans for the SLS booster, as well as more detail on the overall SLS architecture.”

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1540

Congress doesn’t know what it wants on SLS.

FWIW…

]]> By: Byeman http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/15/another-push-for-pu-238-funding/#comment-347723 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:37:43 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4780#comment-347723 US Department of Energy is not a contractor and would not bid on such contract. Anyways, NASA does not procure Plutonium 238, it is DOE’s job. So the post is typical nonsense.

]]> By: A_M_Swallow http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/15/another-push-for-pu-238-funding/#comment-347706 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:31:16 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4780#comment-347706 OK give NASA $20 million and let it acquire the Plutonium 238 in a competitive contract. If the US Department of Energy is not interested see if the British company Amersham International is interested.

]]> By: Egad http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/15/another-push-for-pu-238-funding/#comment-347688 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:18:57 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4780#comment-347688 > In a letter, the legislators

The letter’s on Pete Olson’s website, http://olson.house.gov/index.html . The seven signatory legislators are, who could have guessed it, from TX, UT, AL, FL.

]]> By: John Malkin http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/15/another-push-for-pu-238-funding/#comment-347687 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:02:13 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4780#comment-347687 @Rhyolite: It’s not the first and it won’t be the last.

Is there any movement on a space fission reactor greater than 100kWt?

]]>