NASA SMD Is Halting Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator Procurement
Important Changes in the NASA Planetary Science Division’s (PSD) Radioisotope Program
“With an adequate supply of Pu-238, and considering the current budget-constrained environment, NASA has decided to discontinue procurement of ASRG flight hardware. We have given direction to the Department of Energy, which manages the flight procurement, to end work on the flight units. The hardware procured under this activity will be transferred to the Glenn Research Center to continue development and testing of the Stirling technology.”
“An adequate supply?” Isn’t the total supply less than what was used for New Horizons? And isn’t most of that already allocated?
This is NASA saying that they don’t plan to launch any new outer solar system missions any time soon. Even once they do plan to start producing Pu-238 again, it will take years to produce enough of it just for another New Horizons-level mission (never mind something like Cassini-Huygens).
I wish the Chinese would send a nuclear-powered probe out in the outer solar system. Maybe then Congress would fund one out of national competitiveness.
How much money will this save? Compared with the J-2X debacle it is a pittance. I agree with everything you say except the idea that a Chinese probe would change anything. I do not see China going beyond Mars anytime soon, but if they did it would not be a “Sputnik” moment. I agree that it would not make sense to cancel ASRG if we have any plans to return to the outer solar system.
This is NASA saying they are okay to blow $3 Billion a year on a “exploration” budget that doesnt go anywhere, at the same time killing every and all possible seed corn project that would actually eventually enable it to go somewhere.
Yeah, I read that too. $3 billion a year estimated on the Space Launch System, which will almost certainly get canceled or shoved back yet again come 2017 when we have a new President and new Congress. And that’s the optimistic estimate.
“An adequate supply” could be 0 if you plan to conduct 0 missions! ASRG used 1/4 the Pu238 per watt generated compared to current Thermal Electric Generators. Someone tell me why it makes sense to launch 4 times more Plutonium than you need to? This decision seems like a huge step backwards.
I’m not clear on what you mean by 4x launched?
ASRG puts out 140 We with Qty(2) GPHS bricks. Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wik… MMRTG puts out 125 We using Qty(8) GPHS bricks. Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
So for about the same power nonASRG systems require 4 times the mass of PU238 to be launched. Why would we want to do this?
This may be why the ASRG was not mentioned in the SLS/Orion talk, they knew it was going to be cancelled.
“Removing barriers” to deep space explorartion, arent we.
Casey Dreier just posted about it over at the Planetary Society: http://www.planetary.org/bl…
A year ago NASA reported a joint project to generate nuclear electricity in space called DUFF. This could use uranium-235, making it a replacement for ASRG. Is DUFF (or son of DUFF) still running?
DUFF uses the Stirling engine.
http://www.lanl.gov/newsroo…
DUFF uses the same Stirling engine as the ASRG. The proposed design used 8 Stirlings to make 1kW.
This leads to what is the real meaning of the statement, “The hardware procured under this activity will be transferred to the Glenn Research Center to continue development and testing of the Stirling technology.”
The ASRG could be cancelled without cancelling the Stirling engine.
Yeah … we are loosing all competence beyond mars and even then, nuclear propulsion is being curtailed to make a mars mission shorter …and possible
The closure of the US Government is rumored to be a test to determine what government departments can be abolished or cut back. NASA shut down so it may become a prime target.
To prevent NASA from being abolished horror stories have to appear triggered by the closure and budget cuts. The ASRG may be one of these stories. Reports of lost jobs are also important.
So what exactly does this mean? Is it that they are cancelling flight hardware but are still continuing the R&D and testing program on them?
Reading the LANL article about DUFF, the last paragraph I think may explain some of the reasoning.
“Perhaps one of the more important aspects of this experiment is that it
was taken from concept to completion in 6 months for less than a
million dollars,” said Los Alamos engineer David Dixon. “We wanted to
show that with a tightly-knit and focused team, it is possible to
successfully perform practical reactor testing.”
Less than a million in 6 months vs 170 million for what the ASRG.
Hmmm, someone was really being a pig at the public funds trough.
You’re comparing apples and acorns. DUFF was a proof-of-concept experiment, not a flight ready system. ASRG is a flight unit, with 27,000 hours of qualification testing.
Yes, a proof-of-concept demonstration (piggybacked onto an existing test set-up) is cheap compared to building a flight unit.