The idea is for NASA to buy Pu-238, not make it. I am not sure how much Congress micromanages their budget though, it may very well be the case that money meant for probes cannot be redirected to buy Pu-238.
> In the past, the United States had an adequate supply of 238Pu, which was produced in facilities that existed to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. The problem is that no 238Pu has been produced in the United States since the Department of Energy (DOE) shut down those facilities in the late 1980s. Since then, the U.S. space program has had to rely on the inventory of 238Pu that existed at that time, supplemented by the purchase of 238Pu from Russia. However, Russian facilities to produce 238Pu were also shut down many years ago, and the DOE will soon take delivery of its last shipment of 238Pu from Russia. The committee does not believe that there is any additional 238Pu (or any operational 238Pu production facilities) available anywhere in the world.
Full details are in "Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration", National Research Council committee report. ISBN: 0-309-13858-2, 74 pages, (2009)
> Buy it from ... whom? As the article points out, Russia "reneged on a deal to sell 22 pounds to the U.S." and might not have any left for sale.
Now, that's interesting.
The Chinese are planning to land an RTG-powered spacecraft on the moon in December 2013. That's just 3 months away. Evidently they managed to get hold of some Pu-238 to power their spacecraft with.
Either they manufactured the isotope themselves, or they outbid us for the 22 pounds that Russia was planning to sell.
> "The nuclear power system will make China the third country apart from the United States and Russia to be able to apply nuclear technology to space exploration," Ouyang said.
Various newspaper article use that quote to say it was domestic production.
Parsed carefully, that doesn't say that they created the RTG, only that they applied it.
See the end of that document for discussion of Pu-238 from the UK and France. Notably it was thought in 1993 that France could have Pu-238 production going in a period of a few years ("late 90s" from 1993). To my knowledge the Pu-238 situation in France has not changed one way or the other since then. If the situation is either no more Pu-238, or Pu-238 in several years from France, then I would say that going to the French isn't a terrible idea. We didn't pursue getting Pu-238 from the French at the time because we thought that Russia was going to have us covered.
What's the point of referring to a 1993 document when the 2009 document I pointed to says "The committee does not believe that there is any additional 238Pu (or any operational 238Pu production facilities) available anywhere in the world."
Yes, anyone with nuclear reactors is functionally able to make 238Pu. The document outlined a possible alternative method to use a 5 MW, licensed TRIGA reactor, available at various universities and in many countries.
> "If the situation is either no more Pu-238, or Pu-238 in several years from France, then I would say that going to the French isn't a terrible idea."
Why do you think that situation exists when the authors of the National Research Council report on the topic thinks it's not possible?
The document says that extensive French facility modifications would be needed, and further discussion would be needed even to establish that that option could be considered. Unlike the UK discussion, there isn't even a mention of how much France might be able to produce. That's your optimism? Is such a facility even still available some 20 years later?
So your suggestion is that the US should convince a foreign country to make extensive changes, plus do years of production? Interesting. Why is that better than making it in the US?
Certainly. And pigs may fly. But why do you think your conjecture has any basis in reality, much less is more believable than the report from the aforementioned council?
