12653

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.
org/12653
Radioisotope Power Systems: An

Imperative for Maintaining U.S.
Leadership in Space Exploration (2009)
DETAILS
68 pages | 8.5 x 11 | HARDBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-38369-1 | DOI 10.17226/12653
CONTRIBUTORS
Radioisotope Power Systems Committee; Space Studies Board; Aeronautics and Space
Engineering Board; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National
BUY THIS BOOK Research Council
FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Research Council. 2009. Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for
Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12653.
Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts
All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)
This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration
Radioisotope Power Systems Committee
Space Studies Board
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National
Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report
were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study is based on work supported by Contract NNH06CE15B between the National Academy of Sciences
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agency that
provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-13857-4

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-13857-4
Copies of this report are available free of charge from:
Space Studies Board

National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
and the
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W.,
Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area);
Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in
scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general
welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to
advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy
of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as
a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members,
sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy
of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and
recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent
members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts
under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal
government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is
president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad com-
munity of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating
agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the govern-
ment, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and
the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National
Research Council.
www.national-academies.org

Other Recent Reports of the Space Studies Board and

the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Heliophysics Program (Space Studies Board [SSB], 2009)
Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions (SSB, 2009)
Assessing the Research and Development Plan for the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Summary of a
Workshop (Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board [ASEB], 2008)
A Constrained Space Exploration Technology Program: A Review of NASA’s Exploration Technology Development
Program (ASEB, 2008)
Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft: Elements of a Strategy to Recover
Measurement Capabilities Lost in Program Restructuring (SSB, 2008)
Final Report of the Committee for the Review of Proposals to the 2008 Engineering Research and Commercialization
Program of the Ohio Third Frontier Program (ASEB, 2008)
Final Report of the Committee to Review Proposals to the 2008 Ohio Research Scholars Program of the State of Ohio
(ASEB, 2008)
Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASA’s Constellation System (SSB with ASEB, 2008)
Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration (ASEB, 2008)
NASA Aeronautics Research: An Assessment (ASEB, 2008)
Opening New Frontiers in Space: Choices for the Next New Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity (SSB, 2008)
Review of NASA’s Exploration Technology Development Program: An Interim Report (ASEB, 2008)
Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA’s Constellation System: Interim Report (SSB with ASEB, 2008)
Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: A Workshop Report (SSB, 2008)
Space Science and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Summary of a Workshop (SSB, 2008)
United States Civil Space Policy: Summary of a Workshop (SSB with ASEB, 2008)
Wake Turbulence: An Obstacle to Increased Air Traffic Capacity (ASEB, 2008)
Assessment of the NASA Astrobiology Institute (SSB, 2007)

An Astrobiology Strategy for the Exploration of Mars (SSB with the Board on Life Sciences [BLS], 2007)
Building a Better NASA Workforce: Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration
(SSB with ASEB, 2007)
Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop (SSB, 2007)
Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond (SSB, 2007)
Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System (SSB with the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, 2007)
Grading NASA’s Solar System Exploration Program: A Midterm Review (SSB, 2007)
The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems (SSB with BLS, 2007)
NASA’s Beyond Einstein Program: An Architecture for Implementation (SSB with the Board on Physics and
Astronomy [BPA], 2007)
Options to Ensure the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft: A Workshop Report (SSB, 2007)
A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Astrophysics Program (SSB with BPA, 2007)
Portals to the Universe: The NASA Astronomy Science Centers (SSB, 2007)
The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon (SSB, 2007)
Limited copies of SSB reports are available free of charge from
Space Studies Board

The Keck Center of the National Academies
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001
(202) 334-3477/[email protected]
www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ssb.html
iv

RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS COMMITTEE
WILLIAM W. HOOVER, U.S. Air Force (retired), Co-Chair

RALPH L. McNUTT, JR., Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Co-Chair
DOUGLAS M. ALLEN, Schafer Corporation
SAMIM ANGHAIE, University of Florida, Gainesville
RETA F. BEEBE, New Mexico State University
WARREN W. BUCK, University of Washington, Bothell
BEVERLY A. COOK, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
SERGIO B. GUARRO, The Aerospace Corporation
ROGER D. LAUNIUS, Smithsonian Institution
FRANK B. McDONALD, University of Maryland, College Park
ALAN R. NEWHOUSE, Independent Consultant, Hollywood, Maryland
JOSEPH A. SHOLTIS, JR., Sholtis Engineering and Safety Consulting
SPENCER R. TITLEY, University of Arizona, Tucson
EMANUEL TWARD, Northrop Grumman Space Technology
EARL WAHLQUIST, U.S. Department of Energy (retired)
Staff
ALAN C. ANGLEMAN, Study Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
DWAYNE A. DAY, Program Officer, Space Studies Board
CATHERINE A. GRUBER, Editor, Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
SARAH M. CAPOTE, Program Associate, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (through November 2008)
CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Senior Program Assistant, Space Studies Board (from November 2008 through January
2009)
ANDREA M. REBHOLZ, Program Associate, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (from February 2009)

SPACE STUDIES BOARD
CHARLES F. KENNEL, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, Chair
A. THOMAS YOUNG, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Vice Chair
DANIEL N. BAKER, University of Colorado
STEVEN J. BATTEL, Battel Engineering
CHARLES L. BENNETT, Johns Hopkins University
YVONNE C. BRILL, Aerospace Consultant
ELIZABETH R. CANTWELL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
ANDREW B. CHRISTENSEN, Dixie State College and Aerospace Corporation
ALAN DRESSLER, The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution
JACK D. FELLOWS, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
FIONA A. HARRISON, California Institute of Technology
JOAN JOHNSON-FREESE, Naval War College
KLAUS KEIL, University of Hawaii
MOLLY K. MACAULEY, Resources for the Future
BERRIEN MOORE III, University of New Hampshire
ROBERT T. PAPPALARDO, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
JAMES PAWELCZYK, Pennsylvania State University
SOROOSH SOROOSHIAN, University of California, Irvine
JOAN VERNIKOS, Thirdage LLC
JOSEPH F. VEVERKA, Cornell University
WARREN M. WASHINGTON, National Center for Atmospheric Research
CHARLES E. WOODWARD, University of Minnesota
ELLEN G. ZWEIBEL, University of Wisconsin
RICHARD E. ROWBERG, Interim Director (from March 2, 2009)

MARCIA S. SMITH, Director (through March 1, 2009)
vi

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD
RAYMOND S. COLLADAY, Lockheed Martin Astronautics (retired), Chair

CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., Jack and Panther, LLC
ANTHONY J. BRODERICK, Aviation Safety Consultant
AMY BUHRIG, Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group
PIERRE CHAO, Center for Strategic and International Studies
INDERJIT CHOPRA, University of Maryland, College Park
ROBERT L. CRIPPEN, Thiokol Propulsion (retired)
DAVID GOLDSTON, Princeton University
R. JOHN HANSMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
PRESTON HENNE, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
JOHN M. KLINEBERG, Space Systems/Loral (retired)
RICHARD KOHRS, Independent Consultant
IVETT LEYVA, Air Force Research Laboratory, Edwards Air Force Base
EDMOND SOLIDAY, United Airlines (retired)
RICHARD E. ROWBERG, Interim Director (from March 2, 2009)

MARCIA S. SMITH, Director (through March 1, 2009)
vii


Preface
Radioisotope power systems (RPSs) such as radioisotope thermoelectric generators provide electrical power
for spacecraft and planetary probes that cannot rely on solar energy. To support the continued availability of the
RPSs required to power NASA space missions, Congress and NASA requested that the National Research Council
(NRC) undertake a study of RPS technologies and systems.
The NRC formed the Radioisotope Power Systems Committee to produce this report in response to House
Report 110-240 on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2008. This report
assesses the technical readiness and programmatic balance of NASA’s RPS technology portfolio in terms of its
ability to support NASA’s near- and long-term mission plans. In addition, the report discusses related infrastruc-
ture, the effectiveness of other federal agencies involved in relevant research and development, and strategies for
reestablishing domestic production of 238Pu, which serves as the fuel for RPSs. To put the discussion of RPSs in
context, the report includes some information regarding other options (i.e., solar power and space nuclear power
reactors), but a detailed assessment of these alternatives is beyond the scope of the statement of task. A complete
copy of the statement of task appears in Appendix A.
The Radioisotope Power Systems Committee met four times between September 2008 and January 2009 at NRC
facilities in Washington, D.C., and Irvine, California, and at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
In addition, small delegations of committee members and staff visited NASA’s Glenn Research Center and the
Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. A list of briefings received
by the committee at these meetings appears in Appendix F.
RPS technology has been a critical element in establishing and maintaining U.S. leadership in the exploration
of the solar system. Continued attention to and investment in RPSs will enable the success of historic missions
such as Viking and Voyager, and more recent missions such as Cassini and New Horizons, to be carried forward
into the future.
William W. Hoover
Ralph L. McNutt, Jr.
Co-Chairs, Radioisotope Power Systems Committee
ix

Acknowledgments
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical
expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research
Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist
the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional
standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft
manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following
individuals for their review of this report:
William B. Adkins, Adkins Strategies, LLC,

Carl A. Alexander, Battelle Memorial Institute,
Jimmy L. Allison, Boeing Company (technical fellow),
Mohamed S. El-Genk, University of New Mexico,
Kathleen F. Harer, NASA and DOE (retired),
Anthony K. Hyder, University of Notre Dame,
E. Philip Muntz, University of Southern California,
Zack T. Pate, World Association of Nuclear Operations (chair emeritus), and
John Spencer, Southwest Research Institute.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not
asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release.
The review of this report was overseen by Louis J. Lanzerotti, New Jersey Institute of Technology. Appointed by
the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in
accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility
for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

Contents
SUMMARY 1
1 THE PROBLEM 5
2 BACKGROUND 7
Why Space Exploration?, 7
Why Radioisotope Power Systems?, 7
Why 238Pu?, 8
NASA and DOE Roles and Responsibilities, 8
RPS Nuclear Safety, 11
References, 12
3 PLUTONIUM-238 SUPPLY 14
Foreign or Domestic 238Pu?, 14
How Much Do We Need?, 14
Plutonium-238 Production Process, 16
Immediate Action Is Required, 18
RPS Mission Launch Rate, 21
References, 23
4 RPS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 24

Program Overview, 24
Program Balance, 25
RPS System Capabilities, 26
Power System for the Outer Planets Flagship 1 Mission, 27
Development of a Flight-Ready ASRG, 27
RPS Facilities, 29
RPS Research and Development—Summary, 29
References, 30
LIST OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31
xi

xii CONTENTS
APPENDIXES
A Statement of Task 35
B Biographies of Committee Members and Staff 36
C NASA’s Projected Demand for 238Pu 40
D Comparison of 238Pu to Alternatives 43
E History of Space Nuclear Power Systems 46
F Briefings to the Committee 50
G Acronyms and Abbreviations 53

Tables, Figures, and Box
TABLES
2.1 U.S. Spacecraft Using Radioisotope Power Systems, 9
2.2 RPS Contribution to Space Science and Exploration Missions, 10
3.1 NASA’s Demand for 238Pu, 2009-2028 (as of April 2008), 15

3.2 Best-Case Estimate of 238Pu Shortfall through 2028: 238Pu Demand Versus Supply Subsequent to Launch of
Outer Planets Flagship 1, 19
D.1 Primary Emissions Produced by Radioisotopes with Half-lives of 15 to 100 Years, 44

D.2 Characteristics of 238Pu and 244Cm Isotope Fuels, 44
E.1 Radioisotope Power Systems for Space Exploration, 49
FIGURES
S.1 Potential 238Pu demand and net balance, 2008 through 2028, 3
3.1 Potential 238Pu supply, demand, and net balance, 2008 through 2028, 20
3.2 Time line for reestablishing domestic 238Pu production and NASA mission planning, 2010 through 2028,
assuming the Department of Energy starts work in fiscal year 2010, 22
4.1 Relative magnitude of key elements of NASA’s radioisotope power system program, 25
4.2 Performance of past, present, and future radioisotope power systems, 26
BOX
1.1 What Is a Radioisotope Power System?, 6
xiii


Summary
For nearly 50 years, the United States has led the world THE PROBLEM
in the scientific exploration of space. U.S. spacecraft have
Plutonium-238 does not occur in nature. Unlike 239Pu, it
circled Earth, landed on the Moon and Mars, orbited Jupiter
is unsuitable for use in nuclear weapons. Plutonium-238 has
and Saturn, and traveled beyond the orbit of Pluto and out of
been produced in quantity only for the purpose of fueling
the ecliptic. These spacecraft have sent back to Earth images
RPSs. In the past, the United States had an adequate supply
and data that have greatly expanded human knowledge,
of 238Pu, which was produced in facilities that existed to
though many important questions remain unanswered.
support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. The problem is
Spacecraft require electrical energy. This energy must
that no 238Pu has been produced in the United States since
be available in the outer reaches of the solar system where
the Department of Energy (DOE) shut down those facilities
sunlight is very faint. It must be available through lunar
in the late 1980s. Since then, the U.S. space program has
nights that last for 14 days, through long periods of dark and
had to rely on the inventory of 238Pu that existed at that time,
cold at the higher latitudes on Mars, and in high-radiation
supplemented by the purchase of 238Pu from Russia. How-
fields such as those around Jupiter. Radioisotope power
ever, Russian facilities that produced 238Pu were also shut
systems (RPSs) are the only available power source that can
down many years ago, and the DOE will soon take delivery
operate unconstrained in these environments for the long
of its last shipment of 238Pu from Russia. The committee
periods of time needed to accomplish many missions, and
does not believe that there is any additional 238Pu (or any
plutonium-238 (238Pu) is the only practical isotope for fuel-
operational 238Pu production facilities) available anywhere in
ing them. The success of historic missions such as Viking and
the world. The total amount of 238Pu available for NASA is
Voyager, and more recent missions such as Cassini and New
fixed, and essentially all of it is already dedicated to support
Horizons, clearly show that RPSs—and an assured supply of
238Pu—have been, are now, and will continue to be essential several pending missions—the Mars Science Laboratory,
Discovery 12, the Outer Planets Flagship 1 (OPF 1), and
to the U.S. space science and exploration program.
(perhaps) a small number of additional missions with a very
Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators
small demand for 238Pu. If the status quo persists, the United
(MMRTGs) are the only RPS currently available. MMRTGs
States will not be able to provide RPSs for any subsequent
convert the thermal energy that is released by the natural
missions.
radioactive decay of 238Pu to electricity using thermocouples.
Reestablishing domestic production of 238Pu will be
This is a proven, highly reliable technology with no moving
expensive; the cost will likely exceed $150 million. Previous
parts.
proposals to make this investment have not been enacted, and
The Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG)
cost seems to be the major impediment. However, regard-
is a new type of RPS that is still being developed. An ASRG
less of why these proposals have been rejected, the day of
uses a Stirling engine (with moving parts) to convert thermal
reckoning has arrived. NASA is already making mission-
energy to electricity. Stirling engine converters are much
limiting decisions based on the short supply of 238Pu.
more efficient than thermocouples. As a result, ASRGs
NASA is stretching out the pace of RPS-powered missions
produce more electricity than MMRTGs, even though they
by eliminating RPSs as an option for some missions and
require only one-fourth as much 238Pu. It remains to be seen,
delaying other missions that require RPSs until more 238Pu
however, when development of a flight-qualified ASRG will
becomes available. Procuring 238Pu from Russia or other
be completed.

RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS
foreign nations is not a viable option because of schedule and somewhere between the best-case curve and the status-quo
national security considerations. Fortunately, there are two curve in Figure S.1, and it could easily be 20 kg or more over
viable approaches for reestablishing production of 238Pu in the next 15 to 20 years.
the United States. Both of these approaches would use exist- It has long been recognized that the United States would
ing reactors at DOE facilities at Idaho National Laboratory need to restart domestic production of 238Pu in order to
and Oak Ridge National Laboratory with minimal modifica- continue producing RPSs and to maintain U.S. leadership
tion, but a large capital investment in processing facilities in the exploration of the solar system. The problem is that
would still be needed. Nonetheless, these are the best options the United States has delayed taking action to the point that
in terms of cost, schedule, and risk for producing 238Pu in the situation has become critical. Continued inaction will
time to minimize the disruption in NASA’s space science and exacerbate the magnitude and the impact of future 238Pu
exploration missions powered by RPSs. shortfalls, and it will force NASA to make additional, dif-
ficult decisions that will reduce the science return of some
missions and postpone or eliminate other missions until a
Immediate Action Is Required
source of 238Pu is available.
On April 29, 2008, the NASA administrator sent a letter The schedule for reestablishing 238Pu production will
to the secretary of energy with an estimate of NASA’s future have to take into account many factors, such as construction
demand for 238Pu. The committee has chosen to use this of DOE facilities, compliance with safety and environmen-
letter as a conservative reference point for determining the tal procedures, and basic physics. This schedule cannot be
future need for RPSs. However, the findings and recommen- easily or substantially accelerated, even if much larger appro-
dations in this report are not contingent on any particular priations are made available in future years in an attempt to
set of mission needs or launch dates. Rather, they are based overcome the effects of ongoing delays. The need is real, and
on a conservative estimate of future needs based on various there is no substitute for immediate action.
future mission scenarios. The estimate of future demand
for 238Pu (which is about 5 kg/year) is also consistent with HIGH-PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION. Plutonium-
historic precedent. 238 Production. The fiscal year 2010 federal budget should
The orange line [hollow square data points] in Figure S.1 fund the Department of Energy (DOE) to reestablish produc-
shows NASA’s cumulative future demand for 238Pu in a best- tion of 238Pu.
case scenario (which is to say, a scenario in which NASA’s
future RPS-mission set is limited to those missions listed • As soon as possible, the DOE and the Office of Man-
in the NASA administrator’s letter of April 2008, the 238Pu agement and Budget should request—and Congress
required by each mission is the smallest amount listed in should provide—adequate funds to produce 5 kg of
that letter, and ASRGs are used to power OPF 1). The green 238Pu per year.
line [solid square data points] shows NASA’s future demand • NASA should issue annual letters to the DOE defining
if the status quo persists (which is to say, if OPF 1 uses the future demand for 238Pu.
MMRTGs).
Once the DOE is funded to reestablish production of
238Pu, it will take about 8 years to begin full production of Development of a Flight-Ready Advanced
Stirling Radioisotope Generator
5 kg/year. The red and blue lines [triangular data points] in
Figure S.1 show the range of future possibilities for 238Pu Advanced RPSs are required to support future space
balance (supply minus demand). A continuation of the status missions while making the most out of whatever 238Pu is
quo, with MMRTGs used for OPF 1 and no production of available. Until 2007, the RPS program was a technol-
238Pu, leads to the largest shortfall, and the balance curve ogy development effort. At that time, the focus shifted to
drops off the bottom of the chart. The best-case scenario, development of a flight-ready ASRG, and that remains the
which assumes that OPF 1 uses ASRGs and DOE receives current focus of the RPS program. The program received no
funding in fiscal year (FY) 2010 to begin reestablishing its additional funds to support this new tasking, so funding for
ability to produce 238Pu, yields the smallest shortfall (as several other important RPS technologies was eliminated,
little as 4.4 kg). However, it seems unlikely that all of the and the budget for the remaining RPS technologies was cut.
assumptions that are built into the best-case scenario will As a result, the RPS program is not well balanced. Indeed,
come to pass. MMRTGs are still baselined for OPF 1, there balance is impossible given the current (FY 2009) budget and
remains no clear path to fight qualification of ASRGs, and the focus on development of flight-ready ASRG technology.
FY 2010 funding for 238Pu production remains more a hope However, the focus on ASRG development is well aligned
than an expectation. Thus, the actual shortfall is likely to be with the central and more pressing issue that threatens the
future of RPS-powered missions: the limited supply of
238Pu. The RPS program should continue to support NASA’s
Letter
from the NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin to Secretary of
Energy Samuel D. Bodman, April 29, 2008 (reprinted in Appendix C).
mission requirements for RPSs while minimizing NASA’s

SUMMARY
120
Pu Balance = Supply − Demand
100
Pu demand
(status quo)
80
Kilograms of Pu-238
60 Pu demand
(best case)
40
Pu balance
20
(best case)
0
Pu balance
(status quo)
-20 The Problem
-40
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Calendar Year
Pu demand, status quo: OPF 1 uses MMRTGs

Pu demand, best case: OPF 1 uses ASRGs
Pu balance, status quo: OPF 1 uses MMRTGs, with no new Pu production
Pu balance, best case: OPF 1 uses ASRGs, FY 2010 funding for Pu production
FIGURE S.1 Potential 238Pu demand and net balance, 2008 through 2028.
demand for 238Pu. NASA should continue to move the ASRG RPSs in general and ASRGs in particular would facilitate
project forward, even though this has come at the expense of S-1 the acceptance of ASRGs as a viable option for deep-space
other RPS technologies. missions and reduce the impact that the limited supply of
Demonstrating the reliability of ASRGs for a long-life 238Pu will have on NASA’s ability to complete important
mission is critical, but it has yet to be achieved. The next space missions.
major milestones in the advancement of ASRGs are to
freeze the design of the ASRG, conduct system testing that RECOMMENDATION. Flight Readiness. The RPS pro-
verifies that all credible life-limiting mechanisms have been gram and mission planners should jointly develop a set
identified and assessed, and demonstrate that ASRGs are of flight-readiness requirements for RPSs in general and
ready for flight. In lieu of any formal guidance or require- Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators in particular, as
ments concerning what constitutes flight readiness, ongoing well as a plan and a timetable for meeting the requirements.
efforts to advance ASRG technology and demonstrate that
it is flight ready are being guided by experience gained RECOMMENDATION. Technology Plan. NASA should
from past programs and researchers’ best estimates about develop and implement a comprehensive RPS technology
the needs and expectations of project managers for future plan that meets NASA’s mission requirements for RPSs
missions. While this approach has enabled progress, the while minimizing NASA’s demand for 238Pu. This plan
establishment of formal guidance for flight certification of should include, for example:

• A prioritized set of program goals. RECOMMENDATION. Multi-Mission RTGs. NASA

• A prioritized list of technologies. and/or the Department of Energy should maintain the ability
• A list of critical facilities and skills. to produce Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric
• A plan for documenting and archiving the knowledge Generators.
base.
• A plan for maturing technology in key areas, such as HIGH-PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION. ASRG
reliability, power, power degradation, electrical inter- Development. NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE)
faces between the RPS and the spacecraft, thermal should complete the development of the Advanced Stirling
interfaces, and verification and validation. Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) with all deliberate speed,
• A plan for assessing and mitigating technical and sched- with the goal of demonstrating that ASRGs are a viable
ule risk.,., option for the Outer Planets Flagship 1 mission. As part
of this effort, NASA and the DOE should put final-design
ASRGs on life test as soon as possible (to demonstrate reli-
ability on the ground) and pursue an early opportunity for
operating an ASRG in space (e.g., on Discovery 12).

The Problem
For nearly 50 years, the United States has led the world NASA is fixed, and essentially all of it is already dedicated
in the scientific exploration of space. U.S. spacecraft have to support several pending missions.
circled Earth; landed on the Moon and Mars; flown to and Reestablishing domestic production of 238Pu will be
beyond Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune; and traveled expensive; the cost will likely exceed $150 million. Previous
beyond our solar system. The spectacular images and data proposals to make this investment have not been enacted,
sent back to Earth by these spacecraft have greatly expanded and cost seems to be the major impediment. However,
human knowledge. Even so, there is much yet to learn from the day of reckoning has arrived. NASA has been making
continued space exploration. mission-limiting decisions for some time because of the
Spacecraft require electrical energy. This energy must short supply of 238Pu. Moreover, NASA has been eliminat-
be available in the outer reaches of the solar system where ing RPSs as an option for some missions and delaying other
sunlight is very faint. It must be available through lunar missions that require RPSs until more 238Pu becomes avail-
nights that last for 14 days, through long periods of dark and able. Unless and until a new source of 238Pu is established,
cold at the higher latitudes on Mars, and in high-radiation the restricted supply of 238Pu will increasingly limit both
fields such as those around Jupiter. Radioisotope power the quality and the quantity of U.S. space science in many
systems (RPSs) are the only available power source that mission areas, and continued U.S. leadership in these areas
can operate unconstrained in these environments for the will be at risk.
long periods of time needed to accomplish many missions The Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Genera-
(see Box 1.1). tor (MMRTG) is the only specific RPS currently available.
RPSs generate electricity by converting heat from the Like all prior RPSs, MMRTGs convert the thermal energy
natural decay of the plutonium-238 (238Pu ) radioisotope produced by the radioactive decay of 238Pu to electricity
into electricity. Plutonium-238 has been produced in quantity using thermocouples. This is a proven technology. RPSs
only for the purpose of fueling RPSs; unlike 239Pu, it is that use thermocouples have no moving parts and have
unsuitable for use in nuclear weapons. In the past, the United demonstrated high reliability and long life, albeit with low
States had an adequate supply of 238Pu, which was produced energy-conversion efficiency.
in facilities that existed to support the U.S. nuclear weapons The Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG)
program. The problem is, no 238Pu has been produced in the is a new type of RPS, and it is still being developed. It uses a
United States since the Department of Energy (DOE) shut Stirling engine (with moving parts) to convert thermal energy
down those facilities in the late 1980s. Since then the U.S. to electricity. Stirling engine converters are much more effi-
space program has had to rely on the inventory of 238Pu that cient than thermocouples. As a result, ASRGs produce more
existed at that time, supplemented by the purchase of 238Pu electricity than MMRTGs, even though they require only
from Russia. However, Russian 238Pu production facilities one-fourth as much 238Pu. ASRG development efforts have
were also shut down many years ago, and the DOE will soon made good progress thus far, but it remains to be seen when
take delivery of its last shipment of 238Pu from Russia. The a flight-qualified ASRG will be available.
committee does not believe that there is any additional 238Pu
(or any operational 238Pu production facilities) available any- This report focuses on large quantities of 238Pu (measured in kilograms)
where in the world. The total amount of 238Pu available for necessary to fuel RPSs. It is not concerned with small quantities of 238Pu
(measured in grams, milligrams, or micrograms) that are produced for
research or other purposes.

BOX 1.1
What Is a Radioisotope Power System?
Radioisotope power systems (RPSs) are compact, rugged spacecraft power systems that provide reliable, long-lived power in harsh
environments where other power systems such as solar arrays are not practical. RPSs are not nuclear reactors. They do not use nuclear
fission or fusion to produce energy. Instead, they produce heat through the natural radioactive decay of plutonium-238 (238Pu). All U.S.
RPSs launched to date have used solid-state thermoelectric converters to convert this heat into electricity. Such RPSs have supported
26 NASA and Department of Defense missions since 1961. Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators, which are still under develop-
ment, use a more efficient dynamic energy conversion system to generate electricity.
U.S. RPSs have an outstanding safety and reliability record. RPSs have never caused a spacecraft failure, and almost 50 years of effort
have been invested in the engineering, safety, analysis, and testing of RPSs. Safety features are incorporated into the design of RPSs,
extensive testing has demonstrated that they can withstand severe conditions associated with a wide spectrum of credible accidents,
and mission experience has demonstrated that they can operate continuously for decades.
FINDING. Production of 238Pu. The United States has not DOE roles and responsibilities, and nuclear safety. Chapter 3
produced 238Pu since the Department of Energy shut down its examines 238Pu supply and demand and the importance of
nuclear weapons production reactors in the late 1980s. immediate action to reestablish domestic production of 238Pu.
Chapter 4 reviews the performance of various RPSs, related
Chapter 2 provides background information on space research and development, and the importance of completing
exploration, the case for using RPSs and 238Pu, NASA and the development of ASRGs with all deliberate speed.

Background
Why Space Exploration? been made possible since the 1950s by harnessing several
core technologies that have enabled U.S. scientific space-
From its very beginning, the exploration of space has
craft to travel for years on end, engage in extended scientific
brought enormous gains to humanity. At one level it is about
observations, and relay critical data back to Earth. Radio
seizing the strategic initiative and using space technology
isotope power systems (RPSs) are one such technology.
for a broad array of activities that enhance our life on Earth.
RPSs convert the heat generated by the natural decay of
Indeed, weather, communications, reconnaissance, and navi-
radioactive material (specifically, 238Pu) to electrical energy.
gation satellites have revolutionized many aspects of our lives.
In a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), the heat
Spacecraft have also revolutionized our understanding of
flows through the thermocouples to a heat sink, generating
the solar system and beyond. They have investigated Earth’s
direct current (dc) electricity in the process. The thermo-
relationship to the Sun and the larger cosmological system, the
couples are then connected through a closed loop that feeds
context of Earth in relation to other planets, and the fragility
an electrical current to the power management system of the
of our planet in ensuring our continued existence.
spacecraft. All of the RPSs flown to date have been RTGs.
Understanding how and why Earth is an abode of life,
They are compact, rugged, and extraordinarily reliable, but
understanding the potential for life elsewhere, advancing
the energy conversion efficiency is low (~6 percent).
scientific knowledge of the origins and history of the solar
Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators (ASRGs) will
system, and creating a sustainable long-term human presence
have much higher efficiency (~29 percent), thereby greatly
on the Moon are vital components of the space exploration
reducing the amount of 238Pu needed to support future mis-
efforts of the United States. Why is Mars bone dry, virtually
sions. In the Stirling engine converter used by ASRGs, helium
airless, and seemingly dead? Why is Venus a hostile world,
gas oscillates in a regenerator, one end of which is heated by
hidden from view by a hot, heavy atmosphere and a dense
radioactive decay of 238Pu, while the other end is cooled by
layer of clouds? Is Titan an analogue for Earth-like meteorol-
a heat sink. This oscillating gas pushes a piston in a linear
ogy and geological processes, albeit at frigid temperatures?
alternator that generates alternating current (ac) electricity.
What causes the dynamic and violent atmospheric conditions
The ac is converted to dc electronically, and the current is fed
of Jupiter? What are the fundamental processes that shaped
to the power management system of the spacecraft. Although
the origins and evolution of the solar system? Are we alone or
dynamic energy conversion systems have long been consid-
is the universe teeming with undiscovered life beyond Earth?
ered for RPSs, only recently have technological advances—
As John Glenn remarked, “Our spirit as a nation is reflected
and the need to minimize future demand for 238Pu—justified
in our willingness to explore the unknown for the benefit of
development of RPSs with a Stirling engine.
all humanity, and space is a prime medium in which to test our
RPSs can provide power for multiyear missions to
mettle” (Glenn, 1983).
faraway places where either sunlight is lacking (e.g., mis-
sions beyond Jupiter) or solar power is unreliable (e.g., in
Why RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS? Jupiter’s radiation belts). At Jupiter, sunlight is 96 percent
Through an investment of considerable resources—
For example, the Juno mission to Jupiter will be powered by solar arrays,
e ngineering and scientific knowledge, human capital, and
but it will be in a highly elliptical polar orbit; it will not orbit near the Jovian
public funds—the United States has gained undisputed
equatorial plane where the most intense portions of the belts are located.
leadership in the exploration of the solar system. This has Thus, it will spend little time in the belts themselves.

less intense than at Earth. Continuing outward to Pluto, sun- beyond. Such missions will be severely constrained or elimi-
light is 99.94 percent less intense. RPS-powered Voyager, nated unless RPSs are ready and available (see Table 2.2).
Galileo, Cassini, and New Horizons spacecraft have enabled
the United States to explore every planet in this dark, outer FINDING. Importance of RPSs. RPSs have been, are now,
region of the solar system. Much of their success has been and will continue to be essential to the U.S. space science
due in large part to having a reliable power source that pro- and exploration program.
vides enough power to operate complex instruments at a data
rate high enough to optimize the capabilities of the scientific
Why 238Pu?
instruments they carry.
RPSs are also useful for missions to the surface of the Plutonium-238, which does not occur in nature, is created
Moon (especially during the long, cold lunar nights and in by irradiating neptunium-237 (237Np) targets in a nuclear
the permanently shadowed regions near the lunar poles); for reactor. Although many studies over the past 50 years have
missions to the surface of Mars (with its dust storms and assessed the advantages and disadvantages of using a wide
extended winters); for extended missions below Venus’s variety of isotopes as a fuel for RPSs, every RPS launched
cloud deck; and for other missions where solar power is not into space by the United States has been fueled by 238Pu.
practical, for example, because the dynamic range of solar Studies examined by the committee demonstrate that the
power would preclude the use of solar arrays. longstanding decision by the Department of Energy (DOE)
Space nuclear power reactors are another potential option and NASA to rely on 238Pu is correct and well-justified. No
for missions where solar power is not practical. However, other radioisotope meets or exceeds the safety and perfor-
the performance and reliability of space nuclear power mance characteristics of 238Pu, particularly for long-dura-
reactor systems using current technology remains unproven, tion, deep-space exploration missions (see Appendix D).
especially for missions with long lifetimes. In addition, the Plutonium-238, which has a half-life of 88 years, is the only
committee is not aware of any substantive effort currently isotope that meets all of the general criteria for RPS fuels,
under way anywhere in the world to develop space nuclear as follows:
power reactor systems. The history of space nuclear power
reactors suggests that space nuclear reactors, if success- • It generates heat for a sufficient length of time (i.e., it
fully developed, could meet the needs of some missions has a radioactive decay half-life of sufficient length).
and could enable other missions that are not now under • The type and quantity of the emissions produced by
consideration because of power limitations. For example, the radioactive decay of the fuel allow it to be handled
Project Prometheus, which was NASA’s most recent attempt safely.
to develop space nuclear power reactors, selected a nuclear • It has high specific power (heat per mass) and high
electric propulsion reactor concept that was scalable from power density (heat per volume).
20 kilowatts of electrical power (kWe) to 300 kWe. However, • It has a fuel form that is noncorrosive, water-insoluble,
history also shows that the development of a high-power, and chemically stable, and it demonstrates good engi-
long-life space nuclear power reactor would be very time- neering properties at high temperatures.
consuming and cost billions of dollars (see Appendix E). • It can be produced in sufficient quantity at an affordable
Since 1961, the United States has launched 45 RPSs cost.
on 26 spacecraft dedicated to navigation, meteorology,
communications, and exploration of the Moon, Sun, Mars, FINDING. Plutonium-238 Supply. Plutonium-238 is
Jupiter, Saturn, and elsewhere in the outer solar system (see the only isotope suitable as an RPS fuel for long-duration
Table 2.1). This critical work could not have been accom- missions because of its half-life, emissions, power density,
plished without RPSs. Current RPS-powered space missions specific power, fuel form, availability, and cost. An assured
include the Cassini spacecraft, with three RPSs, which is supply of 238Pu is required to sustain the U.S. space science
studying Saturn and its moons; and the New Horizons space- and exploration program.
craft, with one RPS, which is studying Pluto and the Kuiper
Belt. The Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft is scheduled
NASA and DOE Roles and Responsibilities
for launch in 2011 with an RPS-powered rover. Over the
longer term, RPSs are expected to support continued explora- The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Public
tion of extreme environments of the Moon, Mars, and Venus, Law 83-703, 1954), establishes comprehensive requirements
as well as the dimly lit outer reaches of the solar system and regarding the possession, use, and production of nuclear
A specific example is a solar probe mission using Jupiter for a gravity The Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP)-3 Program used both
assist in order to pass the Sun in an orbit highly inclined to the plane of the polonium-210 and plutonium-238 as nuclear fuel for RTGs during ground
ecliptic. For a mission such as this, the spacecraft experiences such a wide tests (Dieckamp, 1967). Over the years, some papers have erroneously
range of solar intensity that current technology is unable to provide the reported that SNAP-3 RTGs fueled with polonium-210 were operated in
spacecraft with a low-mass solar power system. space. That is not the case.

BACKGROUND
TABLE 2.1 U.S. Spacecraft Using Radioisotope Power Systems

Spacecraft Power Source No. of RPSs Mission Type Launch Date Location
Transit 4A SNAP-3B7 1 Navigational 06/29/1961 Currently in orbit
Transit 4B SNAP-3B8 1 Navigational 11/15/1961 Currently in orbit
Transit 5BN-1 SNAP-9A 1 Navigational 09/28/1963 Currently in orbit
Transit 5BN-2 SNAP-9A 1 Navigational 12/05/1963 Currently in orbit
Transit 5BN-3 SNAP-9A 1 Navigational 04/12/1964 Reentered; burned up
Nimbus B-1 SNAP-19B2 2 Meteorological 05/18/1968 Aborted; retrieved
Nimbus III SNAP-19B3 2 Meteorological 04/14/1969 Currently in orbit
Apollo 12 SNAP-27 1 Lunar/ALSEP 11/14/1969 On lunar surface
Apollo 13 SNAP-27 1 Lunar/ALSEP 04/11/1970 Reentered in South Pacific
Pioneer 10 SNAP-19 4 Planetary/Sun escape 03/02/1972 Heliosheath
Triad-01-1X Transit-RTG 1 Navigational 09/02/1972 Currently in orbit
Pioneer 11 SNAP-19 4 Planetary/Sun escape 04/05/1973 Heliosheath
Viking 1 SNAP-19 2 Mars Lander 08/20/1975 On martian surface
Viking 2 SNAP-19 2 Mars Lander 09/09/1975 On martian surface
LES 8, LES 9 MHW-RTG 2, 2 Communication 03/14/1976 Currently in orbit
Voyager 2 MHW-RTG 3 Planetary/Sun escape 08/20/1977 Heliosheath
Voyager 1 MHW-RTG 3 Planetary/Sun escape 09/05/1977 Heliosheath
Galileo GPHS-RTG 2 Planetary (Jupiter) 10/18/1989 Intentionally deorbited into Jupiter
Ulysses GPHS-RTG 1 Solar and space physics 10/06/1990 Heliocentric, polar orbit
Cassini GPHS-RTG 3 Planetary (Saturn) 10/15/1997 Operating at Saturn
New Horizons GPHS-RTG 1 Planetary/Sun escape 01/19/2006 En route to Pluto
NOTE: ALSEP, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package; GPHS, general purpose heat source; LES, Lincoln Experimental Satellite; MHW, Multi-hundred
Watt; RTG, radioisotope thermoelectric generator; SNAP, Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power.
SOURCES: Data from G.L. Bennett, J.J. Lombardo, and B.J. Rock, “Development and use of nuclear power sources for space applications,” Journal of the
Astronautical Sciences 29 (October-December):321-342, 1981; N.L. Johnson, “Nuclear power supplies in orbit,” Space Policy 2:223-233, 1986; G.L. Bennett,
“Space Nuclear Power: Opening the Final Frontier,” AIAA 2006-4191, p. 2, presentation at 4th International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference and
Exhibit, San Diego, Calif., June 26-29, 2006.
materials and facilities. Other federal legislation allocates because the RPSs powering those missions have far exceeded
responsibilities for regulating nuclear materials between the their design lifetimes.
DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In the United The DOE writes nuclear safety requirements applicable
States, only the DOE is authorized to own space nuclear for the operations they perform. These requirements are simi-
power systems. Therefore, NASA must team with the DOE lar to those established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
to manufacture, launch, and operate RPSs in space. sion and other agencies that regulate other types of nuclear
The DOE also owns and operates the nuclear facilities operations. For example, regulations specify that safety
that are used to develop, fabricate, assemble, and test RPS should be engineered into systems during their design and
systems and hardware that involve nuclear fuels. Although development, and systems and processes should be designed
the DOE always retains ownership of RPSs, NASA may and implemented with the goal of reducing radiation expo-
have custody. The nuclear fuel is integrated with other RPS sures to as low as reasonably achievable.
components at DOE facilities located at several DOE sites.
In addition, DOE regulations apply to the RPS storage,
handling, and checkout facility at NASA Kennedy Space
Center. Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, originally designed for a 5-year mission to the
The NASA-DOE partnership to provide RPSs for space Saturn system, are still sending back scientific data 31 years after launch.
exploration has been extremely successful, with decades of Voyager 2 became the first and only spacecraft to fly by Uranus and Neptune,
mission success (see Appendix E). Scientific results of RPS and both spacecraft are now out of the ecliptic plane. The Voyager RPSs
are projected to provide enough power for these spacecraft to operate until
missions have often greatly exceeded initial expectations approximately 2020.

10 RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS
TABLE 2.2 RPS Contribution to Space Science and Exploration Missions

Discovery New Frontiers Flagship Lunar Mars Exploration
ATHLETE
PR #1,2,3
SPABSR
S/M NET
ILN 1&2
ILN 3&4
Mercury
Major Questions and Objectives (Adapted from 2006 NASA Solar
Venus
CSSR
Moon
VISE
MSR
VME
MSL
NTE
EAL
GO
System Exploration Roadmap)
SB
EE
TE
IO
How did the Sun's family of planets and minor bodies originate?
Understand the initial stages of planetary and satellite formation
Study the processes that determine the original characteristics of

bodies in the solar system
How did the solar system evolve to its current diverse state?
Determine how the processes that shape planetary bodies operate
and interact
Understand why the terrestrial planets are so different from one
another
Learn what our Solar System can tell us about extrasolar planetary
systems
What are the characteristics of the solar system that led to the origin of life?
Determine the nature, history, and distribution of volatile and
organic compounds in the Solar System
Determine evidence for a past ocean on the surface of Venus
Identify the habitable zones in the outer solar system
How did life begin and evolve on Earth, and has it evolved elsewhere in the solar system?
Identify the sources of simple chemicals important to prebiotic
evolution and the emergence of life
Evidence for life on Europa, Enceladus, and Titan
Evidence for past life on Venus
Identify environmental hazards and resources enabling human presence in space.

Determine the inventory and dynamics of objects that may pose an
impact hazard to Earth
Inventory and characterize planetary resources that can sustain and

protect human explorers
Science Contribution RPS Dependence

Major return Not possible without RPS
Secondary return RPS use enhances science return
NOTE: ATHLETE, All-Terrain Hex-Legged Extra-Terrestrial Explorer (rover); CSSR, Comet Surface Sample Return; EAL, Europa Astrobiology Lander;
EE, Europa Explorer; GO, Ganymede Observer; ILN, International Lunar Network; IO, Io Observer; MSL, Mars Science Laboratory; MSR, Mars Sample
Return; NTE, Neptune-Triton Explorer; PR, Pressurized Rover; SB, small bodies; S/M NET, seismological/meteorological network science; SPABSR, South
Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return; TE, Titan/Enceladus Explorer; VISE, Venus In-Situ Explorer; VME, Venus Mobile Explorer.
SOURCE: T.J. Sutliff, NASA, “Space Science and RPSs, What Missions Cannot Be Accomplished without RPSs,” presentation to the Radioisotope Power
Systems Committee, January 12, 2009, Irvine, California.
Agreements between NASA and the DOE (NEPA, 1970), the DOE assesses potential environmental
impacts from activities related to nuclear material operations,
A memorandum of understanding between the secretary
transportation, and storage. The DOE also provides nuclear
of energy and the NASA administrator defines NASA’s and
risk assessments in support of environmental impact state-
DOE’s roles and responsibilities regarding research, technol-
ments that NASA prepares to comply with NEPA for the
ogy development, design, production, delivery, space-vehicle
launch of a spacecraft utilizing an RPS system. The DOE
integration, launch, and operation of RPSs (DOE, 1991).
is also responsible for specifying minimum radiological,
DOE’s responsibilities include the design, development,
public-health, and safety criteria and procedures for the use
fabrication, evaluation, testing, and delivery of RPSs to meet
of RPSs; providing safeguards and security guidance for
NASA system-performance and schedule requirements. In
NASA facilities and services; supporting NASA operational
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
plans, mission definition, environmental analysis, launch

BACKGROUND 11
approval, and radiological contingency planning; affirming 238Pu and advanced flight-qualified RPS technology under
the flight readiness of RPSs with respect to nuclear safety; the existing organizational structures and allocation of roles
participating in the nuclear launch approval process; jointly and responsibilities.
investigating and reporting nuclear incidents; and assuming
legal liability for damages resulting from nuclear incidents
RPS Nuclear Safety
and accidents involving RPSs.
NASA provides the DOE with overall system require- Safety is an integral part of any nuclear system, and it
ments, specifications, schedules, and interfaces; provides encompasses the entire system life cycle. Nuclear safety for
data to support DOE safety analyses in accordance with RPSs encompasses design, development, assembly, check-
NEPA; supports nuclear launch approval (e.g., launch- out, testing, handling, transport, storage, ground checkout,
vehicle databooks); complies with minimum radiological integration with payload, mating with launch vehicle, pre-
occupational and public health and safety criteria and pro- launch activities, launch, ascent, orbital insertion, trajectory
cedures specified by the DOE; provides adequate facilities insertion, in-flight checkout, mission operations, and final
for safe and secure storage, assembly, and checkout of RPSs disposition. RPS safety includes the protection of the public,
while in NASA custody; and provides tracking, command, the environment, workers, property, and other resources from
and data services required to monitor RPSs during and sub- undue risk of injury or harm. To achieve these goals, three
sequent to launch. objectives must be met: (1) design safety into each RPS at
The 2006 National Space Policy (OSTP, 2006) directs the outset, (2) demonstrate the safety of RPSs through testing
the United States to develop and use space nuclear power and analysis, and (3) assess the level of risk for each RPS-
systems where such systems safely enable or significantly powered space mission as required to support the launch
enhance space exploration. This policy reaffirms DOE’s role approval process.
in maintaining nuclear infrastructure as well as the ability to Processes have been established to address all of these
conduct nuclear safety analyses to support the nuclear launch objectives. The DOE has well-established rules, specifica-
approval process. tions, and procedures for the safe design, development,
Historically, the DOE or its predecessor agencies (the testing, transport, and handling of RPSs. The DOE also
Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and has developed sophisticated tools to conduct safety and
Development Administration) bore the cost of establishing risk analyses to support the flight safety review and launch
and maintaining the infrastructure to produce 238Pu and to approval process.
develop RPS technology and systems. NASA would then Because 238Pu emits alpha particles, U.S. RPSs pose a
reimburse the DOE for the incremental costs of producing biological hazard only if the 238Pu is somehow released
the 238Pu that NASA used and for the flight hardware that it into the environment and is then either ingested or inhaled.
launched. Consistent with this historic precedent, NASA is Ingestion is only plausible through the food chain, where
reimbursing the DOE for the full cost of the 238Pu that the foods contaminated with 238Pu are consumed. This requires
DOE is purchasing from Russia because all of that 238Pu is that the 238Pu be released and vaporized or pulverized into
being used for NASA missions. small particles (less than ~100 microns in diameter) and then
If the United States is to continue using RPSs for space transported through the atmosphere so they can deposit on
science and exploration, it is appropriate for the DOE to or within food stuffs. Similarly, inhalation is only plausible
continue the maintenance and operation of the nuclear facili- if 238Pu is released and vaporized or pulverized into respi-
ties required for the fabrication and testing of fueled RPS rable particles (less than ~3 microns in diameter) and then
components and systems. Because of the DOE’s statutory transported through the atmosphere where it can be inhaled.
responsibilities, it is also appropriate for the funding of these U.S. RPSs are fueled with 238Pu in the form of a ceramic
facilities to be included in the DOE budget rather than pass- oxide (238PuO2) that has a high melting point and very low
ing these funds through NASA’s budget. These facilities are solubility to (1) minimize fuel vaporization and transport in
required to operate according to DOE rules and regulations. the atmosphere and (2) minimize fuel retention within the
The DOE’s budget has funding to continue the maintenance human body, if it should occur.
and operations of the nuclear facilities required to support the RPSs are designed with multiple fuel containment barriers
fabrication of RPSs—but no funds are included for produc- (i.e., defense in depth) to prevent release and, if a release
tion of 238Pu. If the production of 238Pu is not reestablished, should occur, to limit the dispersal of 238Pu into the biosphere
these DOE facilities could be shut down after they process in credible accident scenarios that could occur during a space
the last available 238Pu. mission. For U.S. RPSs on the Galileo mission to Jupiter
(October 1989) and on all subsequent missions to date,
FINDING. Roles and Responsibilities. Roles and respon- each 238PuO2 fuel pellet is encapsulated in a ductile, high-
sibilities as currently allocated between NASA and the temperature iridium-based alloy. Two encapsulated 238PuO2
Department of Energy are appropriate, and it is possible fuel pellets are packaged within a cylindrical graphite
to address outstanding issues related to the short supply of impact shell constructed of a carbon-carbon composite. Two

g raphite impact shells are packaged within a reentry aero- independent of the mission and associated RPS develop-
shell that is also constructed of a carbon-carbon composite. ment efforts, and they have the responsibility and authority
This assembly, which is approximately 4 in. × 4 in. × 2 in., to identify and address issues at any level. Each INSRP is
is called a general purpose heat source (GPHS) module. This supported by technical experts, as needed, typically in six
is the standard RPS fuel module now used in all U.S. RPSs, working groups: Launch Abort, Reentry, Power Systems,
and it reflects many improvements in materials and packag- Meteorology, Biomedical and Environmental Effects, and
ing that have been introduced over time. Risk Integration and Uncertainty.
Testing and analysis must be performed to determine The Final Safety Analysis Report is reviewed in great
the response of all RPSs to credible accident environ- depth by the INSRP, which often performs additional
ments. Testing validates analysis models and establishes independent analyses. The INSRP then prepares a Safety
and demonstrates the level of safety built into the design. Evaluation Report. These reports identify and characterize
A tremendous amount of testing has been conducted on the credible accident scenarios, including the probabilities that
GPHS fuel, materials, and hardware since its original design 238Pu will be released and the postulated health effects for
and development in the mid-to-late 1970s. each accident scenario, to determine overall mission risk and
The efficacy of the U.S. RPS design safety approach was the uncertainties associated with that risk.
demonstrated during the launch of the Nimbus B-1 meteo- NASA uses the Final Safety Analysis Report and the
rological satellite, with two Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Safety Evaluation Report to determine whether it will for-
Power (SNAP)-19B2 RPSs on board, from Vandenberg Air mally request launch approval from the White House. If it
Force Base, California, on May 18, 1968. During this launch, does, both reports are provided to the director of the Office of
range safety destruct of the launch vehicle and upper stage Science and Technology Policy (within the Executive Office
was initiated by the range safety officer because the launch of the President), who may grant launch approval, deny
vehicle was ascending erratically. Although the launch launch approval, or defer the decision to the President.
vehicle and payload were totally destroyed by the explosion, The entire launch approval process typically takes 3 years
the RPSs were recovered intact. No release of 238Pu occurred, (including the resolution of legal challenges that are some-
and the 238PuO2 fuel was used on a later mission. times raised), although it could take as long as 8 years. The
Nevertheless, the use of RPSs does create some risk that process usually takes longer than average if a mission uses a
238Pu could be released into the biosphere, however low that launch vehicle, upper stage, launch complex, launch trajec-
risk may be. To assess this risk, the Unites States has estab- tory, and/or spacecraft combination that has not previously
lished a flight safety review and launch approval process for been characterized and analyzed. In such cases, extra effort
RPS-powered missions. This process is structured to ensure is needed to prepare the Launch Vehicle Databook, which
that the radiological risk for each mission is characterized identifies and characterizes accident sequences and environ-
in detail and independently evaluated so that an informed ments that could occur during pre-launch, launch, ascent, and
launch decision can be made, based on sound risk-benefit trajectory insertion.
considerations.
The U.S. flight safety review and launch approval process FINDING. RPS Nuclear Safety. The U.S. flight safety
for space nuclear power systems is established by Presi- review and launch approval process for nuclear systems
dential Directive/National Security Council Memorandum comprehensively addresses public safety, but it introduces
25 (PD/NSC-25, 1977). As part of this process, the DOE schedule requirements that must be considered early in the
prepares a series of increasingly detailed Safety Analysis RPS system development and mission planning process.
Reports that characterize the radiological risk for the each
mission.
References
For each NASA mission, the NASA administrator requests
establishment of an Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel DOE (Department of Energy). 1991. Memorandum of Understanding
between the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and
(INSRP) comprised of coordinators from the Department of
Space Administration Concerning Radioisotope Power Systems for
Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, and Space Missions, as amended. Signed by VADM Richard H. Truly,
the DOE, with a technical advisor from the Nuclear Regula- NASA administrator, and ADM James D. Watkins, secretary of energy,
tory Commission. The INSRP coordinators and the technical dated July 26, 1991.
advisor are appointed by senior management from within Dieckamp, H.M. 1967. Nuclear Space Power Systems. Atomics Interna-
tional. Unpublished book. September.
each agency’s safety oversight office. They are, therefore,
Glenn, J., Jr., 1983. The Next 25: Agenda for the U.S. IEEE Spectrum
(September):91.
It is possible to conceive of an RPS design that uses a different approach NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). 1970. National Environmental
to packaging the 238Pu fuel. However, any new approach would require Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 USC Sections 4321-4347. Available
demonstrating, through analysis and testing, that the new approach will be at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/Nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm.
safe during normal operating conditions and credible accident scenarios. OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy). 2006. “U.S. National
This would be very expensive and time-consuming, in part because some of Space Policy,” National Security Presidential Directive 49, unclas-
the facilities used to develop the current fuel system no longer exist. sified version released on October 6, 2006. Executive Office of the

BACKGROUND 13
President, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.ostp.gov/cs/issues/ Public Law 83-703. 1954. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended in
space_aeronautics. NUREG-0980. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
PD/NSC-25 (Presidential Directive/National Security Council-25). 1977. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/
Scientific or Technological Experiments with Possible Large-Scale staff/sr0980/ml022200075-vol1.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks&page=14.
Adverse Environmental Effects and Launch of Nuclear Systems into
Space (as amended). December 14.

Plutonium-238 Supply
This chapter addresses NASA’s plutonium-238 (238Pu) production capability. Such a move would require a major
needs and how they can be satisfied. investment in Russian production facilities—an investment
that Russia seems unlikely to make unless the United States
pays for it.
Foreign or Domestic 238Pu?
Restarting production of 238Pu in Russia would take longer
When U.S. nuclear weapons production facilities were than restarting domestic production because of the long time
shut down in 1988 and subsequently decommissioned, the it would take to negotiate an agreement with Russia and to
United States lost the ability to produce 238Pu (except for complete the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA,
very small amounts for research). The substantial cost of 1970) process, which would apply to Russian production of
maintaining those facilities could not be justified solely on 238Pu if it were funded by the U.S. government. Based on
the basis of producing 238Pu, especially given the large 238Pu prior experience, it would probably take 2 or 3 years just to
stockpile that existed at the time. That stockpile was suffi- negotiate and finalize an agreement with Russia before work
cient to support radioisotope power system (RPS) missions could begin. In addition, 238Pu obtained from Russia can be
through the 1990s and into the early 2000s. To supplement used only for civil applications and cannot be used to satisfy
the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) dwindling stockpile of U.S. national security applications, should they arise. Russia
238Pu, the DOE executed an agreement with Russia in 1992 has agreed to sell 238Pu to the United States with the limitation
to purchase 238Pu from Russia. The DOE has taken delivery that it be used only for peaceful space missions, and that same
of 20 kg to date. There are three more orders to be delivered, stipulation would presumably apply to future purchases.
totaling less than 20 kg. A similar situation would likely exist if the United States
To the best of the committee’s knowledge, 238Pu is no attempted to obtain 238Pu from a nation other than Russia: a
longer being produced in Russia (or anywhere else), and large capital investment would be needed to construct new
there is not a substantial amount of 238Pu left in Russia (or facilities and/or refurbish existing facilities; the work would
anywhere else) available to meet NASA’s needs, beyond need to comply with NEPA if it were funded by the United
that which Russia has already agreed to sell to the United States; and the long time necessary to negotiate an agree-
States. Purchasing 238Pu was intended as a stopgap measure ment, obtain funding, and start work would create a substan-
until U.S. production was reestablished, and continued tial shortfall in 238Pu available for NASA missions.
procurement from Russia cannot serve as a long-term solu-
tion to U.S. needs unless Russia itself reestablishes a 238Pu FINDING. Foreign Sources of 238Pu. No significant
amounts of 238Pu are available in Russia or elsewhere in the
world, except for the remaining 238Pu that Russia has already
Because of radioactive decay, 238Pu cannot be stored indefinitely. How-
agreed to sell to the United States. Procuring 238Pu from
ever, with a half-life of 88 years, 238Pu decays rather slowly. After a storage
period of 20 years, 85 percent of the original amount will still remain.
Russia or other foreign nations is not a viable option.
The Department of Energy did not provide an exact estimate of how much
238Pu it expects to have on hand after the deliveries of Russian 238Pu are
complete. Based on available information, the committee estimates that there

How Much Do We Need?
will be a total of approximately 30 kg of 238Pu available for NASA, including On April 29, 2008, the NASA administrator sent a letter
the 238Pu that has already been used to fuel the RPS for the Mars Science
Laboratory, whose launch date has been postponed from 2009 to 2011.
to the secretary of energy with an estimate of NASA’s future
14

PLUTONIUM-238 SUPPLY 15
TABLE 3.1 NASA’s Demand for 238Pu, 2009-2028 (as of April 2008)
238Pu (kg) Mission Launch Date Watts Type of Radioisotope Power System
3.5 Mars Science Laboratory 2009a 100 MMRTG
1.8 Discovery 12/Scout 2014 250 ASRG
24.6 Outer Planets Flagship 1 2017 600-850 MMRTG
3.5 Discovery 14 2020 500 ASRG
5.3 New Frontiers 4 2021 800 ASRG
14 Pressurized Rover 1 2022 2000 High-performance SRGb
14 ATHLETE Rover 2024 2000 High-performance SRG
1.8-5.3 New Frontiers 5 2026 250-800 ASRG
3.5 Discovery 16 2026 500 ASRG
14 Pressurized Rover 2 2026 2000 High-performance SRG
5.3-6.2 Outer Planets Flagship 2 2027 700-850 ASRG
14 Pressurized Rover 3 2028 2000 High-performance SRG
105-110 Total demand for 238Pu, 2009-2028 (kg)
5.3-5.5 Annual demand (20-year average in kg/year)
NOTE: ASRG, Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator; ATHLETE, All-Terrain Hex-Legged Extra-Terrestrial Explorer; MMRTG, Multi-Mission Radio-
isotope Thermoelectric Generator; SRG, Stirling radioisotope generator.
aThe launch date for the Mars Science Laboratory mission is currently 2011.
bA high-performance SRG is a yet-to-be-developed concept that would use ASRG technology to meet the high power requirements of the lunar rovers.
SOURCE: Letter from the NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin to secretary of energy Samuel D. Bodman, April 29, 2008 (reprinted in Appendix C).
demand for 238Pu. The committee has chosen to use this for 12 missions during the 20-year period from 2009 to 2028.
letter as a conservative reference point for determining the These missions have electrical power requirements ranging
future need for RPSs (see Table 3.1). However, the findings from 100 to 2,000 watts (see Table 3.1).
and recommendations in the report are not contingent upon The amount of 238Pu required to meet the needs of these
any particular set of mission needs or launch dates. Rather, 12 missions will depend upon the type of RPS used to
they are based on a conservative estimate of future needs. convert the thermal energy of the 238Pu fuel to electrical
The estimate of future needs is also consistent with historic energy. The Mars Science Laboratory is equipped with
precedent. For example, the mission set described in the a Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator
administrator’s letter is consistent with the mission set in the (MMRTG), and the MMRTG is also currently baselined
current Agency Mission Planning Model, although the latter for use on the Outer Planets Flagship (OPF) 1 mission. As
includes three additional RPS-powered missions: two Inter- Chapter 4 describes in more detail, this is the only type of
national Lunar Network missions (that could be launched RPS that is currently available, and it has a low energy-
in 2013 and 2016) and a Mars Lander mission (that could conversion efficiency (of just 6.3 percent). The Advanced
be launched in 2016). These additional missions are not Stirling Radioisotope Generator’s (ASRG’s) energy conver-
included in Table 3.1, but the total amount of 238Pu required sion efficiency is predicted to be 28 to 30 percent, and an
to fuel these additional missions is estimated to be 3.6 kg ASRG will produce more electricity than an MMRTG even
or less. As noted below, even if the 238Pu required by these though it will be powered by just two general purpose heat
missions is not considered, the DOE should take immediate source (GPHS) modules instead of the eight modules used
action to reestablish domestic production of 238Pu. Including by an MMRTG.
the International Lunar Network and Mars Lander missions The ASRG or some other type of Stirling radioisotope
in the demand estimate would only increase the projected generator is baselined for all other missions listed in the
238Pu shortfall. administrator’s letter. All 12 missions will require a total
The administrator’s letter requests that the DOE maintain of 105 to 110 kg of 238Pu, which is equivalent to an average
the capability to provide NASA with fueled RPS assemblies production rate of 5.3 to 5.5 kg per year for 20 years.
Letter from the NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin to secretary of

energy Samuel D. Bodman, April 29, 2008 (reprinted in Appendix C). Dur- As described in Chapter 4, the International Lunar Network missions,
ing the late 1980s and early 1990s, NASA periodically sent similar letters to if they take place, would likely be powered by a third type of RPS: a yet-
DOE to update DOE regarding NASA’s requirements for 238Pu. to-be-defined “Small RPS.”

PLUTONIUM-238 Production Process as a process improvement, would increase the yield, perhaps
as high as 5.8 kg/year. A yield of 3 to 4 kg/year would allow
Production of 238Pu is a complex process. At the top level,
ATR to produce 238Pu while still supporting the Office of
this process involves the following steps:
Naval Reactors as well as other users, such as the National
Scientific User Facility.
1. Processing of materials prior to irradiation.
Like the ATR, HFIR also has multiple positions where
a. Purify neptunium-237 (237Np).
targets can be irradiated. The DOE’s Office of Science is
b. Fabricate 237Np targets.
HFIR’s primary user. Assuming that HFIR will continue
to support its primary mission of neutron science, HFIR
2. Irradiation of targets in a nuclear reactor to transform
237Np into 238Pu.
can create, at most, about 2 kg/year of 238Pu using standard
target designs and reactor operating conditions. However,
this would reduce the amount of support that it can provide
3. Processing of materials after irradiation.
to secondary activities, such as production of medical and
a. Extract, separate, and purify 238Pu and the remain-
industrial isotopes.
ing 237Np from the irradiated targets.
Some test positions tend to produce unacceptably high
b. Recycle the extracted 237Np so that it can be used
concentrations of an unwanted Pu isotope (236Pu) in irradi-
to make more targets.
ated targets. Unlike 238Pu, the natural decay of 236Pu pro-
c. Process the 238Pu so that it can be used to fabricate
duces significant gamma radiation, which makes handling
RPS fuel pellets, which are then assembled into
and processing of irradiated targets much more difficult and
GPHS modules.
hazardous. Because 236Pu has a half-life of just 2.9 years, if
irradiated targets are determined to have too much 236Pu, they
The capabilities of existing facilities and the expertise of
are stored until the 236Pu decays sufficiently so that radiation
existing staff at the DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
levels are within acceptable limits.
and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) make them the
Ultimately, the total amount of 238Pu that the United States
best places to carry out the above steps. In particular, there
can easily produce is limited by the availability of 237Np.
are just two operational reactors in the United States that can
Trace amounts of 237Np occur naturally in uranium ores,
enable the production of large amounts of 238Pu (on the order
but as a practical matter, 237Np used for 238Pu production
of kilograms per year) in a timely fashion: the Advanced Test
must be artificially produced. 237Np is not currently being
Reactor (ATR) at INL and the High Flux Isotope Reactor
produced in the United States, and it would not be easy to
(HFIR) at ORNL.
restart production. (The existing stockpile was created as
The ATR and HFIR reactors are light-water fission reactors
a byproduct of Cold War production of nuclear weapons
that use enriched uranium as fuel. Both have numerous cylin-
material.) However, the United States has enough 237Np in
drical voids at various locations in and around the reactor core
storage at INL to produce 5 kg of 238Pu per year for more
where targets can be inserted and irradiated. The rate at which
237Np is transformed into 238Pu will vary greatly according to
than 50 years.
the location of the 237Np targets in the reactor.
There are nine primary test positions (flux traps) in the Programmatic Options for Domestic Production
ATR. Six of these are dedicated full-time to the DOE’s
There are four primary options for initiating domestic
Office of Naval Reactors. This office is responsible for
production of 238Pu in a timely fashion. All of these options
developing reactors to power submarines and aircraft carriers
(1) rely exclusively on existing reactors (ATR and/or HFIR)
for the U.S. Navy. Naval Reactors is the primary customer
to irradiate 237Np targets, (2) would require new or refur-
for the ATR and the primary source of funds used to sustain
bished processing facilities to fabricate 237Np targets and
the ATR.
extract 238Pu from the irradiated targets, and (3) would ship
There are also many other usable positions in the ATR
extracted 238Pu to Los Alamos National Laboratory for
where 237Np targets could be irradiated, although the outer
encapsulation in fuel pellets.
positions have neutron and gamma fields that are an order
of magnitude lower than the positions nearest the center of
the core. If 237Np targets are placed in all of the core posi-
tions except for the six flux traps that are dedicated to Naval
Reactors, ATR is thought capable of creating up to 4.6 kg
of 238Pu per year using proven, cylindrical 237Np targets and
The 238Pu encapsulation facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory are
standard reactor operating conditions. Advanced targets with
currently operational and have been used to prepare fuel for past missions
a more complex geometry, which could be introduced later as well as the Mars Science Laboratory. All four programmatic options for
domestic production of 238Pu assume that 238Pu encapsulation facilities will
Flux traps are areas with high levels of thermal neutron radiation, which remain at Los Alamos National Laboratory because it would not be cost-
is ideal for converting 237Np to 238Pu with minimal impurities. effective to relocate them to another location such as INL.

Option 1. Use HFIR alone to irradiate 237Np targets, parison to the negative consequences of continued inaction
with processing of targets primarily at ORNL. to implement either option.
The major cost of implementing either Option 3 or 4
The HFIR, as currently configured, could yield 1 to 2 kg
would be for capital improvements at the site where most
of 238Pu per year and still accommodate current, high-priority
of the processing operations would take place. For both
customers for that facility. If the HFIR were wholly dedicated
approaches, previous, preliminary estimates by the DOE
to support 238Pu production—and if it were configured with
indicate that capital costs at the primary laboratory would
a new beryllium reflector—the DOE estimates that it could
be about $150 million over 5 to 7 years. The cost of capital
yield at least 3 kg of 238Pu per year. However, like the ATR,
improvements at the supporting center was estimated to be
the HFIR is a unique facility, and it is not realistic to expect
approximately $10 million to $12 million. The DOE will
that the DOE would displace all current users of that facility
undoubtedly update these estimates as part of its site selec-
in order to dedicate the HFIR wholly to 238Pu production.
tion process. A reliable estimate of the incremental cost of
producing each new kilogram of 238Pu, after capital improve-
Option 2. Use ATR alone to irradiate 237Np targets, with ments are completed, is not available.
processing of targets primarily at INL. Option 4 would allow fabrication of 237Np targets to start
earlier than with Option 3. Thus, Option 4 would allow test-
It may be technically possible to get 5 kg/year from just
ing of targets in the ATR and HFIR reactors to start sooner
the ATR, but only at the cost of displacing virtually all other
than with Option 3. This testing is necessary to validate
users except for the Office of Naval Reactors, and at the cost
predictions regarding the yield of 238Pu and the presence of
of production flexibility when the ATR is out of service for
undesirable isotopes in targets irradiated at various locations
routine or corrective maintenance.
in the reactors.
From 1998 to 2000, the DOE prepared a broad Envi-
Option 3. Use ATR and HFIR to irradiate 237Np targets, ronmental Impact Statement (EIS) concerning its nuclear
with processing of targets primarily at INL. facilities that included reestablishing 238Pu production in the
United States. This EIS, entitled Final Programmatic Envi-
If both the ATR and HFIR reactors are used to support
238Pu ronmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded
production, a yield of 5 kg/year could be achieved
Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and
without displacing the primary customers of either facility,
Isotope Production Missions in the United States, Including
and 238Pu production would continue even when one of the
the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility, is commonly referred
reactors is shut down for routine or corrective maintenance.
to as the Nuclear Infrastructure Programmatic Environ-
Under this option, 237Np targets would be fabricated at INL.
mental Impact Statement (NI PEIS) (DOE, 2000). This EIS
Irradiation of 237Np targets would occur at both INL and
established the need to produce 5 kg/year of 238Pu to meet
ORNL. Plutonium-238 recovery and purification would
national needs for RPSs. A record of decision was issued that
occur at INL.
approved the NI PEIS (Federal Register, 2001). To date, no
Administration has requested and Congress has not provided
Option 4. Use ATR and HFIR to irradiate 237Np targets, funds necessary to implement the work described in the NI
with processing of targets primarily at ORNL. PEIS. The DOE could implement Option 3 or Option 4 using
(1) a modification of an existing EIS for INL and (2) a sepa-
This option is the same as Option 3, except that the
rate existing EIS for ORNL (without modification).
processing of targets before and after irradiation would be
In addition to the four options described earlier, other,
conducted primarily at ORNL. With this option, INL would
less practical options also exist. For example, building a new
continue to store the existing stockpile of 237Np, shipping it
reactor similar to HFIR or ATR would enable production rates
to ORNL as needed for fabrication of 237Np targets.
substantially higher than 5 kg/year. This could completely
eliminate 238Pu availability as a constraint on NASA missions
If and when the DOE is funded to reestablish 238Pu
and RPS designs. However, this approach would probably
production, the DOE’s first task will be to decide which of
cost on the order of a billion dollars—much more than the
the above options to use. The committee believes that both
cost of using existing reactors. In addition, it would probably
Options 3 and 4 are viable approaches for initiating domestic
take 10 to 15 years to complete the necessary reviews and
production of 238Pu, and the differences between these two
construct a new reactor—too long to satisfy NASA’s future
options, in terms of cost, schedule, and so on, pale in com-
needs without a long hiatus in RPS-powered missions.
Most of the neutrons produced in fission reactors appear as high-energy

(“fast”) neutrons. The beryllium reflector increases the rate at which fast Options 3 and 4 would both require existing facilities to be upgraded.
neutrons slow down, thereby increasing the level of low-energy (“thermal”) Option 3 would also require some new construction at INL before 237Np
neutron radiation in the reactor. targets could be fabricated.

Another approach would be to build multiple, large The committee believes that it is reasonable to establish
TRIGA (Training, Research, Isotopes, General Atomics) 5 kg/year as the goal for domestic production of 238Pu for
reactors, but the effectiveness of this approach has not been several reasons:
demonstrated. In any case, this option would take much
longer than any option that uses the existing HFIR and ATR • The NI PEIS established that a production rate of
reactors, and it may not be possible to generate neutron 5 kg/year would meet national needs for 238Pu.
flux levels in a TRIGA reactor high enough for useful 238Pu • NASA’s need for domestic production of 238Pu through
production rates. 2028 is on the order of 5 kg/year.
It is also possible to produce 238Pu using a commercial • It would be difficult to produce 238Pu at a rate substan-
light-water reactor (CLWR) operated by an electric utility. tially higher than 5 kg/year using existing reactors (i.e.,
Such a reactor could yield 5 kg of 238Pu/year while still pro- the ATR and HFIR) because of technical factors and
ducing electricity. However, aluminum-clad 237Np targets, because these reactors meet currently subscribed and
which have been used in the past and could be used with ATR funded needs by other users.
and HFIR, would not be suitable for the high operating tem-
peratures of a CLWR. Thus, this option would require devel- Even so, over the longer term, the national need for 238Pu
opment of new 237Np targets with Zircaloy or stainless steel could exceed 5 kg/year, and long-term efforts to enhance
cladding (DOE, 2000). It would take years to develop, test, 238Pu production capabilities should consider the need for
and validate the performance of new target designs in specific higher production rates, perhaps in concert with an assess-
locations in a particular commercial reactor. The Record of ment of long-term national needs and capabilities for the
Decision for the NI PEIS notes that CLWR options for pro- production of key radionuclides.
ducing 238Pu “were not selected because of uncertainties in
the target design, development and fabrication. The design FINDING. Domestic Production of 238Pu. There are two
and fabrication technology of neptunium-237 targets for viable approaches for reestablishing production of 238Pu,
irradiation in ATR and HFIR is much more mature” (DOE, both of which would use facilities at Idaho National Labora-
2001, p. 7887). Given that nothing has been done to address tory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. These are the best
these uncertainties since the Record of Decision was issued options, in terms of cost, schedule, and risk, for producing
in 2001, CLWRs are not a viable option for addressing the 238Pu in time to minimize the disruption in NASA’s space
need to reestablish 238Pu production as soon as possible. science and exploration missions powered by RPSs.
If funding becomes available, the DOE could issue a
university solicitation to consider innovative concepts for FINDING. Alternate Fuels and Innovative Concepts.
238Pu production. This research would be directed at pos- Relying on fuels other than 238Pu and/or innovative con-
sible improvements over the long term, but it would not cepts for producing 238Pu as the baseline for reestablishing
mitigate the need to provide an assured supply of 238Pu in domestic production of 238Pu would increase technical risk
the near term. and substantially delay the production schedule. Neverthe-
In summary, there are many different options that, in prin- less, research into innovative concepts for producing 238Pu,
ciple, could be used to restart domestic production of 238Pu. such as the use of a commercial light-water reactor, may be
Given enough time and money, many approaches could a worthwhile investment in the long-term future of RPSs.
likely be made to work. But given NASA’s ongoing need for
RPSs; given the technical, cost, and schedule uncertainties
Immediate Action Is Required
associated with other approaches; and given the schedule
and budgetary constraints that exist, the only timely and The DOE’s inability to produce 238Pu and its limited
practical approaches for restarting domestic production of ability to sustain its 238Pu stockpile using foreign sources is
238Pu involve the use of the DOE’s ATR and HFIR reactors. inconsistent with NASA’s current plans and future ambitions.
These are also the lowest-risk approaches because they rely Because of the short supply of 238Pu, NASA has baselined
on proven processes and technologies to a much larger extent future space missions with an RPS that has yet to be flight
than any other option. qualified. In addition, NASA has been making mission-
limiting decisions based on the short supply of 238Pu. NASA
has been eliminating RPSs as an option for some missions
TRIGA [Training, Research, Isotopes, General Atomics] reactors, a class
and delaying other missions that require RPSs until more
238Pu becomes available. For example, the New Frontiers 3
of small nuclear reactors designed and manufactured by General Atomics,
are pool-type reactors that can be installed without a containment build- Announcement of Opportunity is not open to RPS-powered
ing, and they are designed for use by scientific institutions and universities missions (NASA, 2009). This will likely eliminate from
for undergraduate and graduate education, private commercial research, consideration some of the missions described in the report
nondestructive testing, and isotope production. General Atomics has built Opening New Frontiers in Space: Choices for the Next
TRIGA reactors in a variety of configurations and capabilities, with steady
state power levels ranging from 20 kilowatts to 16 megawatts (GA, 2009).
New Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity (NRC, 2008)

TABLE 3.2 Best-Case Estimate of 238Pu Shortfall through 2028: 238Pu Demand Versus Supply Subsequent to Launch of
Outer Planets Flagship 1
Mission 238Pu (kg)
Discovery 14 3.5
New Frontiers 4 5.3
Pressurized Rover 1 14.0
ATHLETE Rover 14.0
New Frontiers 5 1.8-5.3
Discovery 16 3.5
Outer Planets Flagship 2 5.3-6.2
75.4-79.8 Total 238Pu demand subsequent to OPF 1
−13.0 Remaining inventory of 238Pu after OPF 1 (with ASRGs)
62.4-66.8 Best-case estimate of 238Pu production needed
−58.0 Total 238Pu production if work starts in FY 2010
4.4-8.8 Best-case estimate of 238Pu shortfall
NOTE: ATHLETE, All-Terrain Hex-Legged Extra-Terrestrial Explorer; FY, fiscal year; OPF, Outer Planets Flagship.
because solar power is not feasible for some of the missions baselined, even if the DOE starts work immediately to restore
described in that report. its 238Pu production capability, there will be a substantial
The report The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal shortfall in meeting NASA’s needs for 238Pu through 2028.
Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics (NRC, 2003) While it remains to be seen whether ASRGs can and
describes the solar probe mission as the highest priority in the will be flight qualified in time for OPF 1, if ASRGs can be
large mission category, with implementation recommended used, NASA estimates that there will be 13 kg of 238Pu left
as soon as possible. The Solar Probe mission, now scheduled from the available stockpile (including future deliveries of
for launch in 2015, has been rescoped to eliminate the need Russian 238Pu) to power missions after OPF 1. Those mis-
for an RPS. The rescoped mission will spend more time near sions (through 2028) and their demand for 238Pu are listed in
the Sun, but the closest point of approach will be 8.5 solar Table 3.2. They will require a total of 75.4 to 79.8 kg of 238Pu.
radii from the surface of the Sun instead of 3 (JHU, 2008). Thus, the required production from now through FY 2028 is
Similar considerations affect other missions. The mission at least 62.4 to 66.8 kg.
planning teams for OPF 1 have been directed to minimize Assuming that the DOE begins work in FY 2010 to
power and consider the use of ASRGs. The use of a mixed establish the capability to produce 5 kg of 238Pu per year, it
package of RPSs has also been considered. For example, will be able to produce 1 kg of 238Pu in 2016, 2 kg in 2017,
MMRTGs could be used to provide a basic level of power, and 5 kg in 2018 and in each year thereafter. This amounts
and ASRGs could be used for additional power for full mis- to a total production of 58 kg through the end of FY 2028.
sion capability. For the OPF 1 mission, concurrent science The net result is a shortfall of 4.4 to 8.8 kg. Thus, even in
operations will have to be limited unless there are at least 4 or a “best-case” scenario that minimizes 238Pu demands and
5 MMRTGs (or the equivalent number of ASRGs). maximizes 238Pu supply—which is to say, even if it is opti-
The decadal survey for solar and space physics identi- mistically assumed that (1) NASA’s future RPS mission set is
fies the interstellar probe as another high-priority mission, limited to those missions listed in the NASA administrator’s
although it has been deferred until necessary propulsion letter of April 2008,10 (2) the 238Pu required by each mis-
capabilities are available (NRC, 2003; 2004). Given the sion is the smallest amount listed in that letter (for missions
demise of Project Prometheus (NASA’s space nuclear reactor with a demand for 238Pu that is listed as a range of values),
power and propulsion program), the interstellar probe is not (3) ASRGs are flight qualified in time to use them instead of
possible without RPSs (which are far less expensive than MMRTGs on OPF 1, and (4) funds for 238Pu production are
space nuclear reactors). included in the DOE’s budget for FY 2010—it would not be
The DOE’s budget does not currently include funds to possible for the DOE to meet NASA’s total demand for 238Pu.
reestablish production of 238Pu. Yet, even if funding does Immediate action is required to minimize the mismatch
become available in fiscal year (FY) 2010, full-scale pro- between NASA needs and the DOE capabilities and to avoid
duction of 238Pu (5 kg/year) is unlikely to be possible until
2018, and that will be too late to meet all of NASA’s needs. 10Letter
from the NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin to secretary of
In fact, if the OPF 1 mission uses MMRTGs, as is currently energy Samuel D. Bodman, April 29, 2008 (reprinted in Appendix C).

a potential hiatus in U.S. capability to launch RPS-powered 238Pu—and uncertainty about the future supply of 238Pu—is
spacecraft. Continued inaction will force NASA to make now a major constraint on planning the future of the U.S.
additional, difficult decisions to reduce the science return of space program. In recent years, each time a proposal has been
some missions and to postpone or eliminate other missions made to restore production of 238Pu, action has been deferred.
until a source of 238Pu is available. However, the day of reckoning has arrived, and continued
It has long been recognized that the United States would delays in taking action to reestablish domestic production
need to restart domestic production of 238Pu in order to of 238Pu will exacerbate the effect of current shortfalls, as
continue producing RPSs. The problem is that the United detailed in Figure 3.1.
States has delayed taking action to the point where the situ- The top part of Figure 3.1 shows three options for future
ation has become critical, and the dwindling inventory of 238Pu supply: (1) funding for 238Pu production is included in
100
Pu supply with FY 2010 funding
Kilograms of Pu-238
80
Pu supply with FY 2012 funding
60
Pu supply with no new Pu production
40
20
Pu Supply
0
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
120
100
Kilograms of Pu-238
ATHLETE
Pressurized
80 Pu demand if OPF 1 uses MMRTGs Rover 1
Rover
OPF 2
Discovery Pressurized
60
Pu demand if OPF 1 uses ASRGs New Frontiers
16 Rover 3
Discovery 14
Pressurized Rover 2
40 Pu Demand OPF 1 New Frontiers 5
Discovery
20 12
MSL
0
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
40
30
20
Kilograms of Pu-238
10 Pu Balance Best Case

0
-10
-20 The Problem

-30
Status Quo
-40
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Calendar Year
Pu balance if OPF 1 uses ASRGs, with FY 2010 funding for Pu production

Pu balance if OPF 1 uses ASRGs, with FY 2012 funding for Pu production
Pu balance if OPF 1 uses MMRTGs, with FY 2012 funding for Pu production
Pu balance if OPF 1 uses MMRTGs, with no new Pu production
FIGURE 3.1 Potential 238Pu supply, demand, and net balance, 2008 through 2028.

the DOE’s FY 2010 budget (red line [square data points]), New Frontiers 4, and the first pressurized lunar rover) to pro-
(2) funding for 238Pu production is included in the DOE’s ceed on schedule. However, a delay of one year could force a
FY 2012 budget (orange line [triangular data points]), or delay in the New Frontiers 4 schedule, and delay of two years
(3) no 238Pu production (black line [circular data points]). or more could force a delay in the schedule of Discovery 14,
The middle part of Figure 3.1 shows two options for future the first lunar rover, and subsequent missions.
238Pu demand: (1) OPF 1 uses MMRTGs (green line [square
data points]) or (2) OPF 1 uses ASRGs (blue line [triangular FINDING. Current Impact. NASA has already been
data points]). This plot assumes that 238Pu must be available making mission-limiting decisions based on the short supply
1or 2 years before a mission launch date. It also assumes that of 238Pu.
missions are launched in accordance with the administrator’s
letter. Of course, mission launch dates are always subject to FINDING. Urgency. Even if the Department of Energy
change. For example, the best estimate for the OPF 1 launch budget for fiscal year 2010 includes funds for reestablish-
date is now 2020, not 2017 as indicated in the administrator’s ing 238Pu production, some of NASA’s future demand for
letter. Although changes such as this will change the shape of 238Pu will not be met. Continued delays will increase the
the middle portion of the demand and balance curves, they shortfall.
do not change the end result, which is that NASA is facing a
shortfall in 238Pu that will be difficult to overcome. HIGH-PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION. Plutonium-
The bottom part of Figure 3.1 shows the future 238Pu bal- 238 Production. The fiscal year 2010 federal budget should
ance for several combinations of 238Pu supply and demand. fund the Department of Energy (DOE) to reestablish produc-
The blue lines [triangular data points] depict combinations tion of 238Pu.
where OPF 1 uses ASRGs. The green lines [square data
points] depict combinations where OPF 1 uses MMRTGs. • As soon as possible, the DOE and the Office of Man-
Every possible combination of 238Pu supply and demand, agement and Budget should request—and Congress
including those not shown in the figure, results in a future should provide—adequate funds to produce 5 kg of
shortfall of 238Pu. 238Pu per year.
A continuation of the status quo (no production of 238Pu • NASA should issue annual letters to the DOE defining
and OPF 1 uses MMRTGs) results in the largest shortfall, the future demand for 238Pu.
with all available 238Pu consumed by 2019. The best-case
scenario has the smallest shortfall. However, it seems unlikely
RPS MISSION LAUNCH RATE
that all of the assumptions that are built into the best-case
scenario will come to pass. MMRTGs are still baselined for Late in the study process—after the committee had com-
OPF 1, there remains no clear path to fight qualification of pleted all scheduled meetings—a new issue was raised about
ASRGs, and FY 2010 funding for 238Pu production remains the DOE’s ability to support the high launch rate for future
more of a hope than an expectation. Thus, the actual shortfall RPS missions that NASA currently anticipates.
is likely to fall somewhere between the best-case curve and The United States has launched a total of 26 RPS mis-
the status-quo curve, and it could easily be 20 kg or more sions since 1961, but only 4 have been launched since
instead of the 4 to 9 kg calculated in Table 3.2. 1977 (Galileo, Ulysses, Cassini, and Pluto/New Horizons).
Continued inaction is also a problem because of schedule The NASA administrator’s letter of April 2008 anticipates
requirements. Space science and exploration missions and 12 RPS missions in the next 20 years, with 9 of those mis-
spacecraft design vary according to the type of power sys- sions launched during the 9-year period ending in 2028.11
tems available for use. Mission planners require assurance, Current DOE facilities used for fueling, processing, testing,
early in the planning process, that the 238Pu required by a and shipping RPS units—as well as the DOE workforce
prospective mission will be there when it is needed. All avail- needed to conduct radiological contingency planning—can
able 238Pu will be essentially consumed by the Mars Science accommodate the relatively low RPS launch rate of recent
Laboratory, Discovery 12, and OPF 1 missions (assuming decades, but some improvements may be needed to accom-
MMRTGs are used for OPF 1, in accordance with NASA’s modate a sustained launch rate of one mission per year.
current plans). NASA is unlikely to initiate competitive To address this issue comprehensively, it would be use-
procurements or develop additional RPS-powered spacecraft ful to identify all constraints that the DOE and NASA must
until the DOE begins construction of the facilities required overcome to increase the launch rate for RPS missions, and
to produce the 238Pu needed by those additional missions. As how those constraints could be overcome. Relevant informa-
shown in Figure 3.2, if the DOE receives funding in FY 2010 tion would include a comparison of historic and future launch
for 238Pu production, the DOE should be able to begin con- rates for space nuclear systems and missions. For example,
struction of new facilities and/or modification of existing
facilities, as necessary, by the end of FY 2013, which would 11Letterfrom the NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin to secretary of
enable the next set of RPS-powered missions (Discovery 14, energy Samuel D. Bodman, April 29, 2008 (reprinted in Appendix C).

2008
2010
2011
2012
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Calendar Year
2009
2013
Pu
DOE
production 0.00 kg 0.00kg 0.00 kg 0.00 kg 0 .00 kg 0.00kg 0.00 kg 0.00 kg 0 .00 kg 0.0 0kg 0.00 kg 1.00 kg 2 .00 kg 5.0 0kg 5.00 kg 5.00 kg 5.00 kg 5.0 0kg 5 .00 kg 5.00 kg 5.00 kg
NASA ESMD (Lunar
Pressurized Rovers
(Lunar Surface)
Operations)
#### 7.00 kg ## ## 7.00 kg #### 7.00 kg
7.00 kg 7.00 kg
MSL
Disc-12/
Scout
OPF-1
NASA SMD (Planetary Science)
Disc-14
NF-4
NF-5
Disc-16
3.50 kg
OPF-2
Key
DOE facility construction begins
DOE facility preparation and NEPA compliance
DOE
DOE production ramp-up

238
DOE at full production (5 kg Pu/yr)
Mission pre-phase A ( 238 Pu commitment required for RPS use)
Competitive proposal period for NASA completed missions
NASA
Spacecraft development (Phases A-D)

NEPA Compliance
FIGURE 3.2 Time line for reestablishing domestic 238Pu production and NASA mission planning, 2010 through 2028, assuming the Depart-
ment of Energy starts work in fiscal year 2010.
15 RPS missions were launched during a period of 8½ years National Security Council Memorandum 25 (PD/NSC-25,
from April 1969 through September 1977. Those missions 1977) should also consider the demands of additional mis-
included 31 RPSs of four different designs (see Table 2.1). It sions that use radioisotope heater units but not RPSs (e.g., the
would be useful to know what it took to accomplish this feat Mars Pathfinder mission and the Mars Exploration Rover A
in terms of staff, facilities, and facility usage at the DOE and and B missions).12 Also, not all launch reviews are equal.
at NASA, especially at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the
Kennedy Space Center. 12Radioisotope heater units (RHUs) provide small amounts of heat (on the
Assessments of workforce issues related to radiological order of 1 W) to keep selected spacecraft components warm. They are used
contingency planning associated with the Safety Review when mass and electrical power are at a premium for providing spacecraft
thermal control. RHUs produce heat from the natural decay of radioactive
and Launch Approval Process under Presidential Directive/ material, but they do not produce electricity.

Although Galileo and Ulysses were launched one year DOE. 2001. Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental
apart, and even though both used the same launch system and Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear
Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions
the same RPS design, the Ulysses review was just as involved in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility.
as the Galileo review because the Ulysses GPHS-RTG was Federal Register 66(18): 7877-7887. Available at http://www.epa.gov/
oriented 90 degrees from those on the Galileo spacecraft. EPA-IMPACT/2001/January/Day-26/i2271.htm.
In contrast, for the Apollo missions the first safety review GA (General Atomics). 2009. TRIGA Research Reactors. Available at
was exhaustive, but subsequent Apollo safety reviews were http://triga.ga.com/45years.html.
JHU (Johns Hopkins University). 2008. Solar Probe+ Mission Engineering
abbreviated, focusing on mission and system differences. Study Report. Laurel, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
Pioneer 10 and 11 were reviewed together, as were Viking 1 Laboratory.
and 2, LES 8 and 9, and Voyager 1 and 2. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). Announcement
Although the committee did not have the time or informa- of Opportunity: New Frontiers 2009. NNH09ZDA007O. Release date
tion necessary to assess launch rate issues, the committee is April 20, 2009.
NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). 1970. National Environmental
confident that the short supply of 238Pu is by far the most Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 USC Sections 4321-4347. Available
urgent issue that must be addressed to carry out NASA’s at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/Nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm.
plans for RPS missions. Still, a detailed investigation of NRC (National Research Council). 2003. The Sun to the Earth—and
launch rate issues would be advisable because inattention Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics.
could eventually allow them to become a mission-limiting Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2004. Exploration of the Outer Heliosphere and the Local Inter
factor. stellar Medium: A Workshop Report. Washington, D.C.: The National
Academies Press.
NRC. 2008. Opening New Frontiers in Space: Choices for the Next New
REFERENCES Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: The
DOE (Department of Energy). 2000. Final Programmatic Environmental National Academies Press.
Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear PD/NSC-25 (Presidential Directive/National Security Council-25). 1977.
Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions Scientific or Technological Experiments with Possible Large-Scale
in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility. Adverse Environmental Effects and Launch of Nuclear Systems into
DOE/EIS-0310. December 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department Space. December 14, 1977 (as amended).
of Energy.

RPS Research and Development
Assuming that there will be an ongoing supply of 238Pu • Advanced Stirling Converter (ASC) technology matu-
for NASA missions, NASA will also need an ongoing ration is led by GRC and supported by JPL. An ASC
supply of radioisotope power systems (RPSs) to power those developed by Sunpower, Inc., lies at the heart of the
missions. ASRG. The ASRG is projected to have a higher specific
power and a higher system energy conversion efficiency
than prior RPSs.
Program Overview
• Sustaining launch-approval-engineering capabilities, as
NASA’s RPS Program Office operates as an extension of well as related capabilities necessary to comply with
the Planetary Science Division of the Science Mission Direc- National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1970),
torate of NASA Headquarters. The program is a multicenter, is led by JPL and supported by the Kennedy Space
multiagency effort that supports strategic investments in Center.
RPS technologies, validation of flight systems, and produc- • Small RPS development is intended to provide mission
tion, certification, and delivery of flight hardware for NASA planners with more power options. The International
spacecraft. The program manages technology portfolio Lunar Network has been suggested as an initial mis-
investments by determining priorities for future RPS mission sion for a small RPS. The anticipated power level for
needs in concert with NASA’s Planetary Science Division the International Lunar Network is about 40 W, with
and the larger science community. The program funds the an initial launch date of 2013. This means that there is
development of mission-generic, engineering-model system no time for technology development. In fact, it would
hardware and, if warranted, prototype model hardware. be difficult for the DOE, NASA, and industry to design,
This latter function is particularly critical for those missions assemble, test, and certify a new RPS and have it ready
that require RPS development activities to be started long to go in time for a launch in 2013 even without technol-
before NASA determines what organization will manage a ogy development. Looking beyond the International
particular mission. Lunar Network, NASA is still in the process of setting
The RPS program consists of six major elements: specific goals for a small RPS. NASA anticipates that
power requirements will be on the order of 10-60 We,
• Program Management is led by Glenn Research Center mission length will be 3 to 10 years, system mass will
(GRC) and supported by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory be less than 15 kg, and the heat source will be a single
(JPL) and the Department of Energy (DOE). Primary general purpose heat source (GPHS) module. This
responsibilities include management of program scope, effort is to be led by the DOE. NASA has yet to decide
budget, schedule, and risk; studies and long-range plan- which of its organizations will support this effort.
ning; and education and public outreach. • The technology portfolio supports, at a low level,
• Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) research and development for additional converter
flight system development is led by the DOE and sup-
ported by GRC. Lockheed Martin Space Company is This is comparable to the initial requirements of the Surveyor program
the ASRG system integration contractor. The focus of of the 1960s that were to be accommodated by the Systems for Nuclear
this effort is on reliability improvement, risk reduction, Auxiliary Power (SNAP)-11 project and for the same reason: to survive the
14-day-long lunar night. This requirement was abandoned on the Surveyor
and flight readiness. program, and a SNAP-11 unit was never flown.
24

RPS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 25
technologies with an eye toward future generations of by a single GPHS module would produce at least
RPSs, subsequent to the ASRG. This includes advanced 38We at beginning of life.
thermoelectrics research, led by JPL with support from
GRC, and thermophotovoltaics (TPV) research, led by
Program Balance
GRC. The technology portfolio also includes funding
for outside organizations through NASA Research Figure 4.1 shows the relative magnitude (in terms of
Announcements. NASA’s budget) of each element of the RPS program. Until
— The goal of advanced thermoelectric research is 2007, the RPS program was a technology development effort.
to develop thermoelectric materials that are much At that time, the focus shifted to development of a flight-
more efficient than traditional thermoelectric mate- ready ASRG, and that remains the current focus of the RPS
rials. Success in this area could ultimately lead to program. The program received no additional funds to sup-
the development of an advanced thermoelectric port this new tasking, so funding to develop a Brayton-cycle
converter, which could then be used in an advanced converter and a milliwatt-scale thermoelectric converter was
RTG. eliminated. In addition, the budget for the remaining RPS
— A TPV RPS would be a relatively simple device technologies (advanced thermoelectrics and TPV) was cut.
that uses an array of photovoltaic material adjacent As a result, the development of new generations of RPSs that
to a GPHS to generate electricity. The basic device use these technologies has been delayed.
(without the cooling fins) is not much larger than the With the development of the Multi-Mission Radioisotope
GPHS itself. The converter efficiency is expected to Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG), the manufacture of
be at least 15 percent, so that a TPV RPS powered GPHS RTGs was discontinued, and it would be very difficult
Figure 4-1
Tech Portfolio
Small RPS
Sustaining LAE
ASC Technology
Maturation for ASRGs
ASRG Development
Management
Actual Budget Budget Request
FIGURE 4.1 Relative magnitude of key elements of NASA’s radioisotope power system program. NOTE: Actual budget shown for fis-
cal year (FY) 2008 and 2009. Budget shown for FY 2010 to 2014 not yet enacted. ASC, Advanced Stirling Converter; ASRG, Advanced
Stirling Radioisotope Generator; LAE, launch approval engineering. SOURCE: Modified from L.A. Dudzinski, NASA, “Radioisotope Power
Systems. Power Systems Program. Historical Overview and Current Content,” presentation to the Radioisotope Power Systems Committee,
September 18, 2008, Washington, D.C.

and expensive to manufacture new GPHS RTGs (although budget is doubled, and funding for other RPS technologies is
it may be possible to build two or three GPHS RTGs using expanded. The planned development of a small RPS would
leftover thermocouples). The RPS program is now focused be a good first step toward the goal of establishing a suite
on development of ASRGs; the current budget has no funding of RPSs with capabilities optimized for different mission
set aside to retain the ability to produce MMRTGs, although scenarios.
NASA has asked the DOE to determine what it would take to
keep MMRTG production capabilities active for two years. FINDING. Programmatic Balance. Balance within NASA’s
The central issue that threatens the future of RPS-powered RPS program is impossible given the current (fiscal year 2009)
missions is the short supply of 238Pu. Accordingly, RPS budget and the focus on development of flight-ready ASRG
research and development should strive to meet NASA’s technology. However, NASA is moving the ASRG project
mission requirements for RPSs while minimizing NASA’s forward, albeit at the expense of other RPS technologies.
demand for 238Pu. In addition, a balanced program would
develop RPS technologies and systems suitable for various
RPS System Capabilities
applications, and it would support development of RPS
technology for near- and far-term use. Figure 4.2 compares the performance of past, present,
Because the RPS program is focused on advanced and future RPSs. The technology development cycle for new
development of a single RPS design for near-term applica- RPS technologies is typically 15 to 20 years long, and it is
tion, the RPS program (in FY 2009) is not well balanced. driven by perceived mission needs (rather than actual mis-
However, this imbalance is appropriate given that (1) the sion requirements) because, even for very large spacecraft
FY 2009 budget is insufficient to sustain a well-balanced and very important missions, it is impossible to predict with
program and (2) the focus on ASRGs is well aligned with certainty what mission requirements will be 15 to 20 years
current programmatic priorities. The balance of the program in the future. Over such a long time span, space exploration
would improve under the current out-year funding scenario priorities often change as changes occur in the leadership of
(if enacted), as ASRG development is completed, the RPS the Administration and Congress.
GPHS-RTG MMRTG ASRG ARTG TPV

Past Present In Development Future Future
Electric Output, BOM, We 285 125 ~140-150 ~280 to 420 ~38-50
Heat Input, BOM, We 4500 2000 500 3000 250
RPS System Efficiency, BOM, % 6.3 6.3 ~28-30 ~9-14 ~15-20
Total System Weight, kg 56 44.2 ~19-21 ~40 ~7
Specific Power, We/kg 5.1 2.8 ~7-8 ~7-10 ~6-7
Number of GPHS Modules 18 8 2 12 1
GPHS Module Weight, kg 25.7 12.9 3.2 19.3 1.6
238Pu Weight, kg 7.6 3.5 0.88 5.3 0.44
FIGURE 4.2 Performance of past, present, and future radioisotope power systems. NOTE: ARTG, Advanced Radioisotope Thermal
Generator; ASRG, Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator; BOM, beginning of mission; GPHS, general purpose heat source; MMRTG,
Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator; RTG. radioisotope thermal generator; TPV, thermophotovoltaic. SOURCE: Modified
from S. Surampudi, NASA, “Radioisotope Power Systems Technology Programs,” presentation to the Radioisotope Power Systems Com-
mittee, November 18, 2008, Washington, D.C.

POWER SYSTEM for the OUTER PLANETS to more than 3 years of domestic production of 238Pu at the
FLAGSHIP 1 mission highest anticipated rate of 5 kg/year.
Nevertheless, as already noted, ASRGs are not yet ready
Studies of four possible Outer Planets Flagship (OPF) 1
for flight. NASA has yet to determine, for example, (1) what
mission concepts began in 2007. The last two mission
must be done to demonstrate that ASRGs are ready for use on
concepts under consideration are the Titan Saturn System
OPF 1 and (2) if those requirements can be accomplished in
Mission (TSSM) and the Europa Jupiter System Mission
time to meet the OPF 1 mission schedule. In general, project
(EJSM) (JPL, 2009). The EJSM would consist of two parts:
managers for long-life missions rely on proven technologies
NASA’s Jupiter Europa Orbiter, which would be powered by
and redundant subsystems for mission-critical functions such
RPSs, and the European Space Agency’s Jupiter Ganymede
as avionics and power. NASA’s Science Mission Directorate
Orbiter, which would be powered by solar arrays. Saturn is
generally expects new technology to advance to technology
almost twice as far from the Sun as Jupiter, and the TSSM
readiness level 6 or beyond before the mission’s preliminary
mission would last 13 years, somewhat longer than the EJSM
design review. With regard to ASRGs, NASA is responsible
mission (9 years).
for defining (1) the specific criteria that ASRGs must satisfy
In February 2009, NASA and European Space Agency
prior to flight and (2) a strategy to satisfy those criteria. The
officials determined that EJSM is more feasible techni-
problem is complex because accelerated life tests for the
cally, and it is now planned to go first as OPF 1 (NASA,
ASRG as a system are not possible, and the life-limiting
2009). NASA will ultimately decide whether OPF 1 will
failure modes and overall reliability of the ASRG as a system
use MMRTGs, ASRGs, or a combination of both. (Mission
remain to be determined. Toward that end, a study team with
studies indicate that all three options would work, assuming
members from JPL, GRC, and the DOE has been assessing
ASRGs are ready in time.)
what they believe would need to be done to qualify ASRG
The ASRG is projected to have a specific power of
for the OPF 1 mission. As of February 2009, the results of
7 We/kg, compared to just 2.8 We/kg for the MMRTG and
this effort were not available.
5.1 We/kg for the best previous RPS. This improvement in
The committee believes it is unlikely that NASA would
specific power is a significant consideration for deep-space
baseline an ASRG for a major mission (such as a OPF mis-
missions for which mass and launch-vehicle capability are
sion) until it first operates successfully on another mission to
typically significant system drivers. In addition, ASRGs are
validate launch survivability and performance in space. The
projected to have a system energy conversion efficiency more
Discovery 12 mission is the earliest potential opportunity to
than four times higher than MMRTGs at beginning of life,
fly an ASRG, and that mission is not scheduled for launch
and the projected power output of ASRGs decreases over
until 2014. NASA plans to make a final decision on whether
time by only 0.8 percent per year, which is half the rate of
to use MMRTGs or ASRGs for OPF 1 no later than 2012.
decrease of MMRTGs.
Thus, it seems unlikely that NASA will decide to use ASRGs
The electromagnetic interference produced by both sys-
on OPF 1 unless (1) a flight-ready ASRG is developed in
tems is expected to be within tolerance levels for all OPF 1
time for the Discovery 12 mission and (2) the current mis-
instruments. Vibration measurements on the ASRG engi-
sion schedule for OPF 1 is delayed enough to allow NASA
neering unit are nearly an order of magnitude lower than the
to postpone the selection of the OPF 1 power system until
nominal vibration specification. Even so, vibration levels
after Discovery 12 is launched and ASRGs demonstrate the
will require close attention and detailed analysis during
ability to operate in space for some period of time.
spacecraft development. Regardless, the use of ASRGs on
OPF 1 would not be driven by spacecraft design or opera-
tional factors. The primary motivation for using ASRGs on Development of a Flight-Ready ASRG
OPF 1 is to conserve 238Pu for other missions. For NASA as
Demonstrating the reliability of ASRGs for a long-life
a whole, this is an important consideration, given the large
mission is critical—and it has yet to be achieved. RTGs
number of RPSs to be used on OPF 1. Using ASRGs on
and SRGs both begin to operate as soon as they are fueled,
OPF 1 would save 16 to 19 kg of 238Pu. That is enough to
and they operate continuously thereafter. The design life of
power RPSs for several other missions, and it is equivalent
both MMRTGs and ASRGs is 17 years. This is intended to
cover 3 years of storage (between the time they are fueled
The Titan Saturn System Mission would include an orbiter, a lander, and
and mission launch) and 14 years of mission time after
a Montgolfière balloon, which would be filled with the atmospheric gases launch.
present on Titan and then maintained aloft using the heat from an RPS to heat
the gas inside the balloon. This balloon would use an MMRTG regardless
NASA plans to freeze the system design specification
of which RPS is chosen to power the orbiter, because an ASRG would not for the ASRG in April 2009. This is a critical and necessary
produce enough waste heat to keep the balloon aloft.
Only part of the decay in power output in RPS systems flown to date is
due to the half-life of the 238Pu fuel; the rest is caused by degradation of the NASA defines technology readiness level 6 as a “system/subsystem
thermoelectric converters in the RTGs. Expectations are that ASRG power model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or
output would degrade at a lower rate than RTGs. space)” (Mankins, 1995).

step for assessing ASRG reliability and technical risk and for that (1) no ASC failures have thus far been experienced and
producing a flight-qualified ASRG. (2) space-qualified, Stirling engine cryocoolers have operated
The RPS program’s risk mitigation effort is using risk successfully in space for 12 years or more. Still, the reliability
identification, characterization, and mitigation to reduce risk of ASCs and ASRGs over a 17-year design life remains
to a level that is acceptable for a flight mission. As part of its unknown, in part because of design differences between ASCs
ongoing reliability improvement and risk reduction efforts, and most cryocoolers with long-life experience in space.
the RPS program has produced five ASC models. Two NASA intends to extensively test every pair of ASCs that
more development models are planned before the construc- have been built. In some cases, ASC units have been tested
tion of ASRG operational flight units. The progression of in the laboratory and then subjected to vibration testing to
models has featured improvements in many areas, including simulate a launch before being returned to testing. Even so,
materials that allow higher operating temperatures, thereby no individual ASC unit has accumulated more than 2 years
increasing conversion efficiency and/or increasing reliability of testing. Until (1) the ASRG design specification is fro-
for a given operating temperature. zen, (2) hardware manufactured according to that design is
The primary life-limiting mechanisms for Stirling heat tested as a system, and (3) extensive testing is completed in
engines, in general, are wear, fatigue, creep, permeation of conditions that simulate the operational environment, there
helium out through the containment vessel, radiation effects will remain substantial uncertainty as to whether all failure
(when used in a high radiation environment), and contami- modes of the flight design have been identified and how
nation. The design of the ASC is intended to avoid each of useful existing component tests will be in predicting the
these pitfalls. Wear is not generally considered an issue for reliability of ASRG flight hardware, as a complete system,
Stirling engines used in ASCs because they use gas bearings for a particular mission and for the full design lifetime of
in which the moving piston is centered by pumped gas. As a 17 years. In particular, even if the ASRG design specification
result, no moving parts are in contact with each other (unless is frozen on schedule in April 2009, and even if subsequent
the gas bearings fail for some reason). testing detects no problems with the design, it remains to be
The ASC materials testing program is assessing material seen if extended tests will be able to accumulate enough time
fatigue and creep. In particular, an analytical model using to justify making a switch from MMRTGs to ASRGs as the
accelerated life testing data for the ASC heater head (which baseline RPS for OPF 1.
is the component most susceptible to creep) has predicted The initial ASC testbed demonstrated 36 percent conver-
a reliability of 0.999 for the design lifetime of 17 years at sion efficiency. Subsequent devices have continued to meet
817°C. Testing of ASCs in a simulated space environment (in or exceed performance expectations. The most advanced
vacuum and at temperature) has shown that loss of helium model (the ASC-E2) has demonstrated 38.4 percent effi-
via permeation is not a problem, and assessments of likely ciency (with a hot temperature of 850°C and a heat rejection
radiation environments have not forced a change in the selec- temperature of 90°C). These high levels of efficiency will
tion of any materials. allow the ASRG, as a complete system, to meet or exceed
The ASC risk mitigation effort also includes long-life its goal of 28 to 30 percent conversion efficiency. The high
tests of magnets, analyses of electromagnetic interference levels of demonstrated efficiency have also allowed the
(EMI), and analysis and testing of organic materials used ASC and ASRG development efforts to focus on enhancing
for electrical insulation and potting, structural bonding, reliability and manufacturability rather than improving effi-
and the surface finish of moving parts. Ongoing, long-term ciency beyond that which has already been achieved.
tests of magnets are scheduled to accumulate 2 years of test An ASRG quality assurance program plan has been for-
data. Current levels of EMI seem to be generally satisfac- mally implemented. This plan includes DOE requirements
tory. Options to reduce EMI have been identified and could for nuclear systems as well as relevant NASA requirements.
be implemented, if required. All organics in the current The quality assurance effort encompasses all of the organiza-
ASC design have been identified, evaluated, and approved.
Additional tests are planned, for example, to verify that the Stirling-engine cryocoolers developed the technology that is the founda-
organics will perform as expected at operating temperatures tion for ASCs. Cryocoolers are used in instruments operating in the infrared,
and in a radiation environment. gamma-ray, and x-ray spectrum. Long-life cryocoolers are widely accepted
ASRG development has included a great deal of compo- as a reliable spacecraft technology; more than 20 long-life Stirling cryo
nent testing and analysis. ASC converters have cumulatively coolers have been used on spacecraft manufactured in the United States,
undergone more than 200,000 hours (23 years) of testing at Europe, and Japan. One cryocooler operating in space (the Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory 80K Integral Stirling cryocooler in the Along Track
GRC, but that testing has been accumulated by many different Scanning Radiometer [ATSR-2] payload on the European Remote Sens-
devices, manufactured to various different design specifica- ing 2 spacecraft) accumulated 12.8 years of continuous operation with no
tions, and the testing has been conducted under various envi- degradation before the instrument was shut down. Six others have accu-
ronmental conditions. Most important, the longest test time mulated half that lifetime with no degradation that affected mission life.
that any single ASC has to date experienced is still a relatively However, all but one of these non-wearing, long-life Stirling cryocoolers
use flexure-supported gas bearings rather than the pumped gas bearings used
small fraction of the 17 year design life. It is encouraging by the ASRGs (Ross, 2008).

tions involved in developing the ASRG. In addition, the RPS The MMRTG will fly on the Mars Science Laboratory, but
program is continuing to work on a configuration manage- this is the only mission that is firmly committed to using the
ment plan and other related plans and processes. MMRTG. As this work is completed, the industry teams that
A failure mode, effects, and criticality assessment of the developed and built the MMRTG are expected to disband,
ASRG engineering unit identified 51 single-point failures and the industry facilities are expected to be reconfigured for
(SPFs). By comparison, the design of the RTG-GPHS (the other purposes. It remains to be seen if NASA will sustain
standard RPS used prior to the MMRTG) has only 17 SPFs. work on MMRTGs to keep the MMRTG industrial teams
However, a numerical comparison of the number of SPFs and facilities intact and related infrastructure in place until a
does not provide a good understanding of the relative reli- final decision is made on what system will power OPF 1. If
ability of the two types of devices. The likelihood of the SPFs the ability to manufacture MMRTGs is not sustained at least
must also be understood. For example, about 80 percent of until (1) the ASRG is demonstrated to be flight ready and
the SPFs on the ASRG engineering unit are structural in (2) NASA commits to using ASRGs (or another comparable
nature, and the designers believe that the likelihood of these RPS) for long-life, deep-space missions, then even with an
failures has been reduced to very low levels through the use adequate supply of 238Pu, the United States could lose the
of conservative structural designs. In any case, the issue is ability to manufacture any RPSs, at least for a time.
not whether an ASRG will be as reliable as historic RTGs;
the issue is whether mission managers can be convinced that FINDING. Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric
an ASRG is sufficiently reliable to meet engineering and Generators. It is important to the national interest to main-
programmatic requirements for a given mission. tain the capability to produce Multi-Mission Radioisotope
NASA has used fault tree and probabilistic analysis tech- Thermoelectric Generators, given that proven replacements
niques to estimate that system-level reliability is 0.967 for an do not now exist.
ASRG at full-power operation over the entire 17-year design
life. System electronics (i.e., the electronics required to con- RECOMMENDATION. Multi-Mission Radioisotope
trol and synchronize the ASCs and to convert the electrical Thermoelectric Generators. NASA and/or the Department
output from ac to dc) have been identified as the major con- of Energy should maintain the ability to produce Multi-
tributor to the estimated probability of failure. System-level Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators.
reliability at half-power operation (that is, the probability that
an ASRG will have at least one of its two converters func-
RPS Research and Development—Summary
tioning and producing power at the end of the 17-year design
life) has been estimated to be 0.984. Extended life tests will The next major milestones in the advancement of ASRGs
provide additional data regarding reliability, but there is not are to freeze the design of the ASRG, to conduct system test-
enough time or money to build enough ASRGs and then test ing that verifies that all credible life-limiting mechanisms
them for long enough to determine rigorously what level of have been identified and assessed, and to demonstrate that
reliability they will have over a 17-year lifetime. However, ASRGs are ready for flight. However, neither the DOE nor
this has been the case for earlier RPSs—and for other critical NASA have formal guidance or requirements concerning
spacecraft hardware as well. There has never been a numeric what constitutes flight readiness for RPSs. In general, RPSs
reliability requirement specification for an RTG, and NASA (and other systems) on spacecraft for deep-space missions
does not intend to establish one for the ASRG. are flight ready when the project manager for that mission
says they are flight ready. Given this situation, ongoing
efforts to advance ASRG technology and demonstrate that
RPS Facilities
it is flight ready are being guided by experience with past
NASA appears currently to be well positioned with regard programs and researchers’ best guess about the needs and
to key RPS research and development facilities. These facili- expectations of project managers for future missions. While
ties are located at GRC and JPL. The facilities at greatest this approach has enabled progress, the establishment of
immediate risk are those associated with advanced RPS formal guidance and processes for flight certification of
research (e.g., advanced thermoelectric and TPV research RPSs in general and ASRGs in particular would facilitate
facilities). NASA has not yet lost any critical RPS facilities, the acceptance of ASRGs as a viable option for deep-space
and the projected budget seems adequate to sustain neces- missions and reduce the impact that the limited supply of
sary research and development facilities. However, there are 238Pu will have on NASA’s ability to complete important
concerns related to other facilities that are necessary for the space missions.
production of flight systems.
FINDING. Flight Readiness. NASA does not have a
broadly accepted set of requirements and processes for
This section deals with facilities associated with development and fabri-
demonstrating that new technology is flight ready and for
cation of RPS technologies and RPS converters. DOE 238Pu production and
RPS assembly and testing facilities are addressed in Chapter 2.
committing to its use.

RECOMMENDATION. Flight Readiness. The RPS pro- HIGH-PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION. ASRG

gram and mission planners should jointly develop a set Development. NASA and the Department of Energy should
of flight-readiness requirements for RPSs in general and complete the development of the Advanced Stirling Radio-
Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators in particular, as isotope Generator (ASRG) with all deliberate speed, with the
well as a plan and a timetable for meeting the requirements. goal of demonstrating that ASRGs are a viable option for
the Outer Planets Flagship 1 mission. As part of this effort,
RECOMMENDATION. Technology Plan. NASA should NASA and the Department of Energy should put final design
develop and implement a comprehensive RPS technology ASRGs on life test as soon as possible (to demonstrate reli-
plan that meets NASA’s mission requirements for RPSs ability on the ground) and pursue an early opportunity for
while minimizing NASA’s demand for 238Pu. This plan operating an ASRG in space (e.g., on Discovery 12).
should include, for example:
References
• A prioritized set of program goals.
• A prioritized list of technologies. JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory). 2009. Outer Planets Flagship Mission.
Available at http://opfm.jpl.nasa.gov/.
• A list of critical facilities and skills.
Mankins, J.C. Advanced Concepts Office, Office of Space Access and
• A plan for documenting and archiving the knowledge Technology, NASA, Technology Readiness Levels, A White Paper,
base. April 6, 1995.
• A plan for maturing technology in key areas, such as NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 2009. NASA and
reliability, power, power degradation, electrical inter- ESA Prioritize Outer Planet Missions. Available at http://www.nasa.
gov/topics/solarsystem/features/20090218.html.
faces between the RPS and the spacecraft, thermal
NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). 1970. National Environmental
interfaces, and verification and validation. Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 USC Sections 4321-4347. Available
• A plan for assessing and mitigating technical and sched- at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/Nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm.
ule risk.,., Ross, R.G., Jr. 2008. Cryogenic Cooling in Space: 50-years of Lessons
Learned. Second meeting of the Radioisotope Power Systems Commit-
tee, Pasadena, Calif., October 28.

List of Findings and Recommendations
Given below is a complete list of the committee’s findings FINDING. Domestic Production of 238Pu. There are two
and recommendations, in the order in which they appear in viable approaches for reestablishing production of 238Pu,
the report. both of which would use facilities at Idaho National Labora-
tory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. These are the best
FINDING. Production of 238Pu. The United States has not options, in terms of cost, schedule, and risk, for producing
produced 238Pu since the Department of Energy shut down its 238Pu in time to minimize the disruption in NASA’s space
nuclear weapons production reactors in the late 1980s. science and exploration missions powered by RPSs.
FINDING. Importance of RPSs. RPSs have been, are now, FINDING. Alternate Fuels and Innovative Concepts.
and will continue to be essential to the U.S. space science Relying on fuels other than 238Pu and/or innovative con-
and exploration program. cepts for producing 238Pu as the baseline for reestablishing
domestic production of 238Pu would increase technical risk
FINDING. Plutonium-238 Supply. Plutonium-238 is and substantially delay the production schedule. Neverthe-
the only isotope suitable as an RPS fuel for long-duration less, research into innovative concepts for producing 238Pu,
missions because of its half-life, emissions, power density, such as the use of a commercial light-water reactor, may be
specific power, fuel form, availability, and cost. An assured a worthwhile investment in the long-term future of RPSs.
supply of 238Pu is required to sustain the U.S. space science
and exploration program. FINDING. Current Impact. NASA has already been
making mission-limiting decisions based on the short supply
FINDING. Roles and Responsibilities. Roles and respon- of 238Pu.
sibilities as currently allocated between NASA and the
Department of Energy are appropriate, and it is possible FINDING. Urgency. Even if the Department of Energy
to address outstanding issues related to the short supply of budget for fiscal year 2010 includes funds for reestablish-
238Pu and advanced flight-qualified RPS technology under ing 238Pu production, some of NASA’s future demand for
the existing organizational structures and allocation of roles 238Pu will not be met. Continued delays will increase the
and responsibilities. shortfall.
FINDING. RPS Nuclear Safety. The U.S. flight safety HIGH-PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION. Plutonium-
review and launch approval process for nuclear systems 238 Production. The fiscal year 2010 federal budget should
comprehensively addresses public safety, but it introduces fund the Department of Energy (DOE) to reestablish produc-
schedule requirements that must be considered early in the tion of 238Pu.
RPS system development and mission planning process.
• As soon as possible, the DOE and the Office of Man-
FINDING. Foreign Sources of 238Pu. No significant agement and Budget should request—and Congress
amounts of 238Pu are available in Russia or elsewhere in the should provide—adequate funds to produce 5 kg of
world, except for the remaining 238Pu that Russia has already 238Pu per year.
agreed to sell to the United States. Procuring 238Pu from • NASA should issue annual letters to the DOE defining
Russia or other foreign nations is not a viable option. the future demand for 238Pu.
31

FINDING. Programmatic Balance. Balance within RECOMMENDATION. Technology Plan. NASA should
NASA’s RPS program is impossible given the current (fiscal develop and implement a comprehensive RPS technology
year 2009) budget and the focus on development of flight- plan that meets NASA’s mission requirements for RPSs
ready ASRG technology. However, NASA is moving the while minimizing NASA’s demand for 238Pu. This plan
ASRG project forward, albeit at the expense of other RPS should include, for example:
technologies.
• A prioritized set of program goals.
FINDING. Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric • A prioritized list of technologies.
Generators. It is important to the national interest to main- • A list of critical facilities and skills.
tain the capability to produce Multi-Mission Radioisotope • A plan for documenting and archiving the knowledge
Thermoelectric Generators, given that proven replacements base.
do not now exist. • A plan for maturing technology in key areas, such as
reliability, power, power degradation, electrical inter-
RECOMMENDATION. Multi-Mission Radioisotope faces between the RPS and the spacecraft, thermal
Thermoelectric Generators. NASA and/or the Department interfaces, and verification and validation.
of Energy should maintain the ability to produce Multi- • A plan for assessing and mitigating technical and sched-
Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators. ule risk.,.,
FINDING. Flight Readiness. NASA does not have a HIGH-PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION. ASRG
broadly accepted set of requirements and processes for Development. NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE)
demonstrating that new technology is flight ready and for should complete the development of the Advanced Stirling
committing to its use. Radioisotope Generator (ARSG) with all deliberate speed,
with the goal of demonstrating that ASRGs are a viable
RECOMMENDATION. Flight Readiness. The RPS pro- option for the Outer Planets Flagship 1 mission. As part
gram and mission planners should jointly develop a set of this effort, NASA and the DOE should put final design
of flight-readiness requirements for RPSs in general and ASRGs on life test as soon as possible (to demonstrate reli-
Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators in particular, as ability on the ground) and pursue an early opportunity for
well as a plan and a timetable for meeting the requirements. operating an ASRG in space (e.g., on Discovery 12).

Appendixes


Appendix A
Statement of Task
The Space Studies Board, in conjunction with the Aero- • Importance to the national interest of maintaining and/
nautics and Space Engineering Board, will appoint a study or reestablishing needed infrastructure at field centers,
committee to prepare a report that addresses the following laboratories, and the private sector R&D base, given the
issues regarding the development and use of radioisotope recent curtailment of RPS program content and ambi-
power systems (RPSs) for NASA space missions: tious national goals in space exploration;
• Strategies for reestablishment of 238Pu domestic pro-
• Technical readiness and programmatic balance of duction versus the likelihood of continued procurement
NASA’s RPS technology portfolio to support NASA of Russian-produced material in view of potential com-
near- and long-term mission plans; petition for 238Pu fuel from other space-faring nations
• Effectiveness and ability of U.S. Government agency and the critical shortage of U.S.-owned inventory; and
management structures, including participating organi- • Identification of any actions that could be taken in
zations, roles, and responsibilities, to meet stated goals the context of the overall RPS program to meet stated
and objectives of U.S. programs for RPS capabilities science and exploration goals.
within the current statutory and policy framework;
35

Appendix B
Biographies of Committee Members and Staff
WILLIAM W. HOOVER, Co-Chair, is a consultant for avia- Defense Agency), including the SP-100 and Topaz programs.
tion, defense, and energy matters. He is a former Assistant He served as a member of NASA’s Lunar Surface Fission
Secretary, Defense Programs, U.S. Department of Energy, Power System Study in support of the Exploration Systems
where he was responsible for the U.S. nuclear weapons Architecture Study (ESAS) in 2005, as a member of NASA’s
development program, including production, research, test- Nuclear Strategic Roadmap committee in 2004-2005, and as
ing, safety, and security. He is also a Major General, USAF a member of an NRC thermionics study committee in 2000.
(retired), and a former chair of the NRC’s Aeronautics and He was awarded AIAA’s Aerospace Power Systems Award
Space Engineering Board. for career achievements in space power in 2008.
RALPH L. McNUTT, JR., Co-Chair, is a senior space SAMIM ANGHAIE is a professor of nuclear and radiological
physicist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics engineering at the University of Florida, where he also is
Laboratory. Dr. McNutt is currently the Project Scientist and director of the Innovative Nuclear Space Power and Propul-
a Co-Investigator on the MESSENGER Discovery mission sion Institute (INSPI). He has been a professor at Florida
to Mercury, a Co-Investigator on the New Horizons mis- since 1986, before which he was an assistant professor at
sion to Pluto, and a Co-Investigator on the Voyager Plasma Oregon State University for two years. His research interests
Science (PLS) and Low-Energy Charged Particles (LECP) include thermal hydraulics, computational fluid dynamics
experiments. He is also a member of the Ion Neutral Mass and heat transfer, high temperature nuclear fuels and mate-
Spectrometer Team for the Cassini Orbiter spacecraft. He rials, inverse radiation transport methods, advanced reactor
has worked on the physics of the magnetospheres of the design, direct energy conversion, and space nuclear power
outer planets, the outer heliosphere (including solar wind and propulsion.
dynamics and properties of VLF radiation), Pluto’s atmo-
sphere, pulsars, high current electron beams, the physics of RETA F. BEEBE is a professor in the Astronomy Depart-
active experiments in the mesosphere/thermosphere (arti- ment at New Mexico State University. She is a leading
ficial aurora), and the solar neutrino problem. Dr. McNutt expert in the study of the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn,
previously served as a member of the NRC Committee for and in particular, studies of cloud motion and development
the Study of the Next Decadal Mars Architecture (2006), in Jupiter’s atmosphere. She undertakes her studies using
the Committee on Priorities for Space Science Enabled by a variety of techniques including ground- and space-based
Nuclear Power and Propulsion: A Vision for Beyond 2015 telescopic observations and remote-sensing studies using
(2004-2006), the Committee to Assess Solar System Explo- spacecraft. Most recently, she has served as an associate
ration (2007-2008), and the Committee to Review New member of the Galileo imaging team and has led the team
Opportunities in Solar System Exploration (2007-2008). of astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope to provide
context images for the Galileo project. Dr. Beebe currently
DOUGLAS M. ALLEN, the General Manager of Schafer serves as the program scientist for the Planetary Data System
Corporation’s Dayton operations, has 28 years experience (PDS). Dr. Beebe has also been extensively involved in the
in aerospace technology, with an emphasis on space power management and implementation of the research and analy-
technology. He formerly was the program manager of nuclear sis programs that provide basic research funding to planetary
power system development for SDIO (now the Missile scientists.
36

APPENDIX B 37
WARREN W. BUCK, an internationally known theoretical systems and the risk of software-intensive space systems,
physicist, is professor of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences and he has served on NRC committees as an expert panelist
and chancellor emeritus at the University of Washington, for space systems risk assessment. He has authored and has
Bothell (UWB). He is also adjunct professor of physics at been the co-editor of technical textbooks and has published
the Seattle campus of the University of Washington. Prior to close to 80 papers in refereed journals and conference pro-
joining UWB, Dr. Buck was professor of physics and direc- ceedings. His latest work in the area of mission assurance is
tor of the Nuclear/High Energy Physics Research Center of documented in The Aerospace Corporation Mission Assur-
Excellence at Hampton University. He was also a member ance Guide, which is currently being published and distrib-
of the team that established the scientific program at the uted across the Company. Dr. Guarro’s direct nuclear power
Department of Energy’s Jefferson Laboratory in Newport expertise was applied in jobs with the Nuclear Regulatory
News, Virginia. Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
(NRC/ACRS) and with the Lawrence Livermore National
BEVERLY A. COOK has over 30 years’ experience in Laboratory, where he was a project leader in the nuclear
nuclear safety, materials research, facilities operations systems safety program. He is still currently a consultant
and management. She is currently the Jet Propulsion to the NRC/ACRS. At Aerospace, he started his career as
Laboratory’s Planning and Integration Manager for the Deep an Engineering Specialist and then carried several ETG
Space Network (DSN) Program. Prior to joining the DSN management positions, including that of Manager of the
team, she supported the JPL development and use of space Reliability and Risk Assessment Section and then, before
nuclear power systems in NASA missions. In her prior work his current appointment, of Director of the Risk Planning
for the Department of Energy, she was responsible for the and Assessment Office.
fabrication and delivery of the radioisotope thermoelectric
generators (RTGs) for the Cassini mission as well as delivery ROGER D. LAUNIUS is senior curator in the Division of
of RTGs to other DOE customers. She also interacted with Space History at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air
Congress, OMB, and NASA on issues related to funding and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. Between 1990 and
and support for continued development of nuclear power 2002 he served as chief historian of the National Aeronautics
systems for space applications. Prior to joining JPL in 2004, and Space Administration. He has written or edited more
Ms. Cook served as the Assistant Secretary of Energy for than 20 books on aerospace history, including Critical Issues
Environment, Safety, and Health. Other positions at the DOE in the History of Spaceflight, Space Stations: Base Camps to
included Manager of the Idaho Operations Office and Deputy the Stars, and Frontiers of Space Exploration. He has also
Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy. completed a study of the history of radioisotope thermo
electric generators.
SERGIO B. GUARRO is a Distinguished Engineer in
the Engineering and Technology Group (ETG), Systems FRANK B. McDONALD (NAS) is a pioneer and leader in
Engineering Division (SED) of the Aerospace Corporation. cosmic-ray astrophysics and high-energy astronomy in gen-
He applies multi-decade expertise in systems engineering, eral. He is also well known in the areas of solar wind and
risk assessment, and risk management disciplines onto the planetary magnetospheres. He is currently a senior research
development, coordination, and implementation of mission scientist in the Institute for Physical Science and Technology
assurance processes in National Security Space (NSS) and at the University of Maryland, College Park, and formerly
NASA programs. He provides leadership in the development served as NASA chief scientist. Dr. McDonald has been
and establishment of risk management and mission assurance involved in the study of energetic particles in the heliosphere
best practices within Aerospace by assisting NSS programs for many years. His energetic particle experiments on the
in the setting and execution of their risk management and Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft continue to be a resource for
mission assurance goals and activities. He also supports studying the dynamics of the outer heliosphere and the prop-
the corporate Aerospace Corporation Chief Engineer and erties of low-energy galactic and anomalous cosmic rays.
Systems Engineering organizations in the development Dr. McDonald is a former NAS section 16 liaison and was
of risk management and mission assurance guidance and chair of the NRC Panel on Space Sciences. He also served on
implementation tools for use in all NSS programs supported the NRC Committee on Solar and Space Physics and Com-
by Aerospace. In the course of his career Dr. Guarro has mittee on NASA Astrophysics Performance Assessment.
developed risk assessment methodologies for both space
and nuclear power systems, such as the one adopted for ALAN R. NEWHOUSE is a consultant in the field of
the launch approval of the NASA Cassini nuclear-powered space nuclear power and related technologies. In 1995, he
mission, and the Dynamic Flowgraph Methodology (DFM) retired from the Department of Energy where he served as
for the risk analysis of dynamic systems. He is the author the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Space and
of the chapters of the NASA Probabilistic Risk Assessment Defense Power Systems. As such, he was responsible for the
Procedures Guide that address the risk modeling of physical management and execution of programs to provide nuclear

power systems for space and national security applications, research involves the study of the origin of mineral deposits
for Cassini RTG production, for development of the SP-100 and the distribution and location of mineral and mineral
space nuclear reactor, and for several classified programs. fuel resources. His research has also included the study of
He initiated technical development of new energy conversion chemical baselines of trace elements in rocks and ores for
technologies for space and terrestrial applications. During environmental purpose.
2002, Mr. Newhouse was a consultant to NASA’s Office of
Space Science on the Nuclear System Initiative (later Project EMANUEL TWARD is a consultant to Northrop Grumman
Prometheus). In 2003 he joined NASA and was in charge of Space Technology, an organization from which he retired in
Project Prometheus. In late 2004 he was appointed as the 2006. At the time, he was the cryogenics business area man-
Program Executive for Radioisotope Power Systems in the ager and project manager for a number of flight cryocooler
Science Mission Directorate and as a senior technical advisor development projects (13 in orbit) and for development of a
to the Development Division of NASA’s Exploration Sys- thermoacoustic Stirling power converter. Dr. Tward has also
tems Directorate. He retired again from government service worked at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Low Temperature
at the end of 2004. Physics Group, where he was active in the development of
long-lived cryocoolers for spacecraft. Dr. Tward was previ-
JOSEPH A. SHOLTIS, JR., Lt Col, USAF (retired), is a ously an associate professor of physics at the University
nuclear and aerospace engineer with 38 years of experience of Regina, where he was developing a gravitational wave
with advanced nuclear systems and programs for a variety detector.
of applications. Areas of particular focus include space
and advanced terrestrial nuclear systems and their safety, EARL WAHLQUIST worked in the Radioisotope Power
and risk assessment of space missions employing nuclear System program for the Department of Energy for more than
systems or materials, including preparation and delivery of 20 years, and he was the program director for the program
formal studies and analyses to middle and top management for the last 8 years before he retired in 2006. In that role
in the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy Mr. Wahlquist managed the development of the RTG for the
(DOE), NASA, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Pluto spacecraft that was launched in 2006. This included
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the White responsibility for the contractors producing the RTG and
House, and Congress. Mr. Sholtis is the owner and principal the DOE facilities and infrastructure that processed the 238Pu
consultant of Sholtis Engineering and Safety Consulting. into heat sources and assembled the heat sources into the
Current and prior customers include Sandia National Labo- generators. It also included directing the review and assur-
ratories, Rocketdyne, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Los ance of the safety of the systems, including interfacing with
Alamos National Laboratory, the New Mexico Office of the interagency review group that independently reviews the
Space Commercialization, and the joint DoD, DOE, NASA, safety. Mr. Wahlquist also managed efforts to centralize all
EPA, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Interagency of the DOE RTG processing and assembling facilities at a
Nuclear Safety Review Panel. Areas currently being inves- single location. He also directed several studies looking at
tigated include Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric either purchasing 238Pu from foreign sources or producing
Generator (MMRTG) safety, Mars Science Laboratory mis- the material within the United States.
sion risk, as well as assessment and advancement of coated
particle fuel for future radioisotope power systems. During
Staff
his career, Mr. Sholtis has worked at Sandia National Labo-
ratories (on advanced reactors), the Defense Nuclear Agency ALAN C. ANGLEMAN, Study Director, has been a senior
(on research and test reactors and radiation sources), and program officer for the Aeronautics and Space Engineering
DOE Headquarters (on the joint DOE/DoD/NASA SP-100 Board (ASEB) since 1993, directing studies on a wide variety
Space Reactor Power System Development Program). He of aerospace issues. Previously, Mr. Angleman worked for
has been involved in the nuclear safety and risk assessment consulting firms in the Washington, D.C., area providing
of every U.S. nuclear-powered space mission launched since engineering support services to the Department of Defense
1974; i.e., Viking 1 and 2, Lincoln Experimental Satellites and NASA Headquarters. His professional career began with
(LES) 8 and 9, Voyager 1 and 2, Galileo, Ulysses, Mars the U.S. Navy, where he served for nine years as a nuclear-
Pathfinder, Cassini, Mars Exploration Rover (MER) A and trained submarine officer. He has a B.S. in engineering
B, and Pluto-New Horizons. physics from the U.S. Naval Academy and an M.S. in applied
physics from the Johns Hopkins University.
SPENCER R. TITLEY (NAE) is a professor in the Depart-
ment of Geosciences at the University of Arizona. He previ- DWAYNE A. DAY, a program officer for the Space Studies
ously worked on NASA’s Lunar Orbiter program and was Board (SSB), has a Ph.D. in political science from the
also a member of the Apollo Field Geology Investigation George Washington University and has previously served
Team, serving on Apollo missions 16 and 17. His current as an investigator for the Columbia Accident Investigation

APPENDIX B 39
Board. He was on the staff of the Congressional Budget studies that concern oil spill dispersants, nonnative oysters
Office and also worked for the Space Policy Institute at the in the Chesapeake Bay, mitigating shore erosion, explor-
George Washington University. He has held Guggenheim ing the seas, a science plan for the North Pacific Research
and Verville fellowships and is an associate editor of the Board, coastal zone mapping, vehicles in deep submergence
German spaceflight magazine Raumfahrt Concrete, in addi- science, and a review of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan.
tion to writing for such publications as Novosti Kosmonavtiki She is currently a research associate for the Air Force Studies
(Russia) and Spaceflight and Space Chronicle (United Board. Ms. Capote earned her B.A. in history from the Uni-
Kingdom). He has served as study director for several NRC versity of Wisconsin-Madison in 2001.
reports, including Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision
for Space Exploration (2006), Grading NASA’s Solar Sys- CELESTE A. NAYLOR was a senior program assistant
tem Exploration Program: A Midterm Review (2008), and for SSB from November 2008 through January 2009. She
Opening New Frontiers in Space: Choices for the Next New is currently SSB’s information management associate.
Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity (2008). Ms. Naylor joined the SSB in 2002 and has worked with the
Committee on Assessment of Options to Extend the Life of
CATHERINE A. GRUBER is an editor with the Space Stud- the Hubble Space Telescope, the Committee on Astronomy
ies Board. She joined SSB as a senior program assistant in and Astrophysics, and the Task Group on Research on the
1995. Ms. Gruber first came to the NRC in 1988. She was International Space Station. Ms. Naylor is a member of the
a research assistant (chemist) in the National Institute of Society of Government Meeting Professionals and has more
Mental Health’s Laboratory of Cell Biology for 2 years. than 10 years of experience in event management.
She has a B.A. in natural science from St. Mary’s College
of Maryland. ANDREA M. REBHOLZ joined the Aeronautics and Space
Engineering Board as a program associate in January 2009.
SARAH M. CAPOTE was a program associate for the ASEB She began her career at the National Academies in Octo-
through November 2008. During her time with the ASEB, ber 2005 as a senior program assistant for the Institute of
she worked on a variety of studies pertaining to space radia- Medicine’s Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and
tion, wake turbulence, assessing the research and develop- Translation. Prior to the Academies, she worked in the
ment plan for the next generation air transportation system, communications department of a D.C.-based think tank.
NASA aeronautics research, NASA’s exploration technology Ms. Rebholz graduated from George Mason University’s
development program, as well as an assessment of NASA’s New Century College in 2003 with a B.A. in integrative
National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (NAOMS) studies–event management and has over 7 years of experi-
Project. Before joining ASEB, Ms. Capote worked for the ence in event planning.
Ocean Studies Board for several years. She assisted with

Appendix C
NASA’s Projected Demand for 238Pu
NASA’s projected demand for 238Pu is documented in a letter from NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin
to Secretary of Energy Samuel D. Bodman, dated April 29, 2008. A copy of this letter appears on the following
pages.
40

APPENDIX C 41


Appendix D
Comparison of 238Pu to Alternatives
Numerous studies have been conducted over many years tially reduce power density and specific power. Of more than
to determine the optimum isotope for use in radioisotope 2,900 known radioisotopes, only the 22 listed in Table D.1
power systems (RPSs). After reviewing many of these have half-lives in the range of 15 to 100 years.
studies, it is clear that plutonium-238 (238Pu) is the only
technically credible isotope for powering RPSs.
Radiation Emission Considerations
Selection of a suitable RPS fuel focuses mainly on three
areas: radioactive decay half-life, radiation emissions, and An RPS fuel should produce radiation that can easily be
power density/specific power. Secondary considerations shielded to minimize shielding weight, to reduce worker
include fuel form and availability/cost. exposure, to minimize risk of exposure to the general popula-
tion in the event of a launch accident, and to avoid interfer-
ence with sensitive particle and photon detectors used on
Half-life considerations
the spacecraft.
Radioisotopes decay in a predictable and unalterable The first seven isotopes listed in Table D.1 decay purely
process that emits particles and/or photons, including alpha, by gamma radiation emissions. This is a highly penetrating
beta, and gamma radiation. When this radiation is absorbed form of radiation, and therefore these isotopes can be elimi-
by the fuel or the fuel container, it is transformed into useful nated from consideration as an RPS fuel source.
heat. The half-life of the fuel should be at least as long or Although beta particle emissions are easily shielded,
longer than the mission lifetime. If the half-life is too short, some of the beta particle energy is converted to bremsstrah-
the fuel decays too quickly, and a large amount of excess lung radiation (x rays), which is difficult to shield. Beta
fuel is required at the beginning of life to provide adequate decay also produces less heat energy than decay by highly
power at the end of life and to provide mission scheduling energetic alpha emissions. This eliminates the nine beta emit-
flexibility. However, if the half-life is too long, radioactive ting radioisotopes listed in Table D.1.
decay occurs so slowly that a large amount of fuel is required The five remaining radioisotopes are alpha emitters.
to provide adequate power throughout the mission. For pro- Gadolinium-148 (148Gd) is ideal in terms of emissions
jected NASA missions with lifetimes of 15 to 25 years, a because it decays directly to a stable nuclide (samarium-144)
half-life over 100 years is not required, and it would substan- and emits no secondary radiation. However, 148Gd can be
produced only by using a proton accelerator, rather than a
The results of these studies are summarized in the following correspon- reactor. Even if an accelerator were devoted full-time to the
dence available from the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy, production of 148Gd, the output would be only a few grams
Science, and Technology, Washington, D.C.: Information memorandum per year. There is no known or projected method for making
and associated transmittal memorandum to S-1 from NE-1 on the subject kg quantities of this isotope in a year’s time. Curium-243
of “Alternatives to Plutonium-238 for Space Power Applications,” dated
August 4, 1992, including the attachment “Radioisotope Fuel Selection for
(243Cm) and the daughter products of uranium-232 (especially
Outerplanetary Missions” prepared by Fairchild Space Company; and a
letter from Arthur S. Mehner, Department of Energy, to Ronald F. Draper, Jet Information on gadolinium-148 was provided for the committee by
Propulsion Laboratory, dated February 14, 1989, including attachments pre- Emil Skrabek, Orbital Sciences Corporation, in a paper “Gadolinium-148
pared by the Fairchild Space Company, “Alternative Fuel Considerations” as a Potential Fuel for Radioisotope Power Systems. A Synopsis for the
and response to the question “What radioisotope fuels can be used for space National Research Council Radioisotope Power Systems Study Commit-
missions if Pu-238 can no longer be produced or procured?” tee,” October 1, 2008.
43

TABLE D.1 Primary Emissions Produced by TABLE D.2 Characteristics of 238Pu and 244Cm Isotope
Radioisotopes with Half-lives of 15 to 100 Years Fuels
Half-Life Plutonium- Curium-
Isotope (years) Type of Primary Emissions Isotope 238 244
Promethium-145 (Pm-145) 18 gamma Half-life 87 18.1
Halfnium-178m (Hf-178m) 31 gamma Type of emission Alpha Alpha
Bismuth-207 (Bi-207) 33 gamma Activity (curies/watt) 30.73 29.12
Europium-150 (Eu-150) 37 gamma Fuel form PuO2 Cm2O3
Titanium-44 (Ti-44) 47 gamma Melting point (°C) 2,150 1,950
Platinum-193 (Pt-193) 50 gamma Specific power (watt/g) 0.40 2.42
Terbium-157 (Tb-157) 99 gamma Power density (watt/cc) 4.0 26.1
Actinium-227 (Ac-227) 22 beta, some alpha Radiation levels
Niobium-93m (Nb-93m) 16 beta, gamma Gamma dose rate (mR/hr @ 1m) ~5 ~900
Lead-210 (Pb-210) 22 beta, some alpha Gamma shield thicknessa (cm of uranium) 0 5.6
Strontium-90 (Sr-90) 29 beta Fast neutron flux @ 1m (n/cm2sec) 260 116,000
Cesium-137 (Cs-137) 30 beta, gamma
NOTE: mR, milliroentgen.
Argon-42 (Ar-42) 33 beta a Gamma shielding to reduce dose rates to ~5 mR/hr @ 1m (equivalent to
Tin-121m (Sn-121m) 55 beta
Pu-238)
Samarium-151 (Sm-151) 90 beta
SOURCE: Department of Energy, information memorandum and associated
Nickel-63 (Ni-63) 100 beta transmittal memorandum to S-1 from NE-1 on the subject of “Alternatives to
Curium-244 (Cm-244) 18 alpha, spontaneous fission Plutonium-238 for Space Power Applications,” dated August 4, 1992, Office
Curium-243 (Cm-243) 29 alpha, gamma of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology, Washington, D.C., Table 2.
Uranium-232 (U-232) 72 alpha, spontaneous fission
Gadolinium-148 (Gd-148) 75 alpha
Plutonium-238 (Pu-238) 88 alpha, spontaneous fission
SOURCE: Department of Energy, information memorandum and associated

transmittal memorandum to S-1 from NE-1 on the subject of “Alternatives
to Plutonium-238 for Space Power Applications,” dated August 4, 1992,
Power density/Specific Power
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology, Washington, D.C., Considerations
Table 1, updated.
The power density (watts/cubic centimeter) and specific
power (watts/gram) of radioisotope fuel is directly pro-
portional to the energy absorbed per disintegration and is
inversely proportional to half-life. (As shown in Table D.2,
thorium-228) emit a significant level of gamma radiation, 244Cm has a higher specific power and power density than
resulting in dose rates that are higher than either 244Cm or 238Pu, because the former has a shorter half-life, but the
238Pu heat sources of comparable size. This leaves 238Pu and
244Cm as the only isotopes worthy of further consideration. selection of RPSs powered by 238Pu to power many impor-
tant missions has demonstrated that its specific power and
Table D.2 compares the characteristics of 238Pu and
244Cm. Both produce gamma radiation (although the amount power density are acceptable.) Higher power density leads to
smaller volume heat sources for comparable power levels and
produced is much smaller than the amount from isotopes that
higher specific power leads to lighter weight heat sources.
produce gamma radiation as a primary emission). As shown,
244Cm produces much more gamma radiation than 238Pu. Both characteristics are highly significant for space power
heat sources. For radioisotope fuels with comparable half-
Also, the fast neutron radiation level from 244Cm is nearly
lives, a beta emitting heat source will be larger and heavier
450 times that of 238Pu. These high gamma and neutron radia-
than an alpha emitter.
tion levels would require shielding during handling and use
of the 244Cm heat sources to protect personnel and sensitive
components. The shield weights would most likely be too Fuel Form Considerations
heavy for deep-space applications.
The radioisotope fuel must be used in a fuel form that
Nearly all of the gamma dose from 238Pu is attributable
has a high melting point and remains stable during cred-
to the decay chain of the 236Pu isotope impurity in the fuel,
ible launch accidents and accidental reentries into Earth’s
which is limited to very small amounts by 238Pu fuel quality
atmosphere. The fuel form must also be noncorrosive and
specifications.
chemically compatible with its containment material (metal-
lic cladding) over the operating lifetime of the power system.
It is desirable that the fuel form have a low solubility rate
Four additional alpha emitters have half-lives between 100 and 500 years
in the human body and the natural environment. Daughter
(polonium-209, americium-242m, californium-249, and americium-241). In
products and the decay process must not affect the integrity
addition to the problem of low specific power (caused by their long half-life),
all four also emit significant amounts of gamma rays. of the fuel form. All of the alpha emitting isotopes listed in

APPENDIX D 45
Table D.1 form very stable, high-melting-temperature oxides new fuel is very costly and time-consuming. To qualify a new
which are acceptable for space applications. fuel form and heat source for flight use is also a large effort in
terms of cost and time. More than $40 million has been spent
on safety qualification of the 238Pu-fueled general purpose
Availability and Cost Considerations
heat source. Similar work has not been done for 244Cm oxide
Any radioisotope fuel selected for space power appli- fuel form, heat source, or power system.
cations must be producible in sufficient quantities and on Also, 244Cm is more difficult to produce than 238Pu
a schedule to meet mission power needs. As a practical because the former requires extended irradiation of 239Pu
matter, this means that it must be possible to produce the or americium-241 (241Am), with more neutron captures per
radioisotope of interest by irradiation of target materials in gram than are required to produce 238Pu from neptunium-237
a nuclear reactor, rather than using a particle accelerator. In (237Np). Ultimately, 244Cm would cost more and be less ben-
addition, appropriate types and amounts of target materials eficial to NASA for long-duration, deep-space missions.
and facilities for processing them are needed. Chemical
processing technology to produce the power fuel compound
Summary
is required, as well as fuel form fabrication processes and
facilities. In the final analysis, no other radioisotope is available that
The proposed fuel form must be extensively tested to sup- meets or exceeds the safety and performance characteristics
port launch safety approvals. The fueled heat source and power of 238Pu, particularly for long-duration, deep-space explora-
system must undergo an extensive analysis and test program tion missions. Plutonium-238 stands alone in terms of its
to qualify them for use in space applications. Development half-life, emissions, power density, specific power, fuel form,
of a fuel production and fuel form fabrication capability for a availability, and cost.
The availability of target materials is not a key discriminating factor.

The Department of Energy already has a large supply of 237Np on hand,
and 241Am, which is commonly used in smoke detectors, can be produced
in kilogram quantities.

Appendix E
History of Space Nuclear Power Systems
Introduction Origins of Nuclear Power Systems

for Spaceflight
Through an investment of considerable resources—
e ngineering and scientific knowledge, human capital, and Beginning in the late 1940s several threads converged
public funds—the United States has gained undisputed to make it possible to develop and use RPSs. In particular,
leadership in the exploration of the outer solar system, that the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) began to inves-
part of the system beyond the orbit of Mars. This has been tigate production and use of radioisotopes in connection
made possible since the 1950s by harnessing several core with nuclear weapons. This prompted scientific research to
technologies that have enabled the nation’s scientific space- understand the radioactive decay and chemistry of various
craft to travel for years on end, engage in extended scientific isotopes that are not found in nature. Second, scientists
observations, and relay critical data back to Earth. Radio and engineers began to experiment with the development
isotope power systems (RPSs) are one such technology. of small nuclear power generators for a variety of uses on
RPSs generate heat from the natural decay of a radioac- Earth, especially in extreme locations and environments
tive isotope, or radionuclide. This heat is transformed into (e.g., at the poles and under the seas), where scientific instru-
electricity with some level of efficiency, depending upon the ments could be placed and left alone for months at a time.
converter design. A variety of converter approaches have Third, advances in thermoelectricity and semiconductors
been, and continue to be, investigated. In all flight systems made RTGs feasible.
used to date, the heat flows from a radioactive heat source, In 1946 the newly established RAND Corporation
through an array of thermocouples, and to a heat sink, gen- explored the viability of orbital satellites and outlined the
erating electricity in the process. These systems are called technologies necessary for their success (RAND, 1946). By
radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs). RTGs are 1949 a full-scale analysis by RAND had sketched out the
the preferred method for supplying the power needs of U.S. large-scale use of nuclear power sources for satellites in
deep-space probes to the outer solar system and beyond, and Earth orbit (Gender and Kock, 1949). Beginning in 1951,
they have also been used for some Earth-orbiting spacecraft at the request of the Department of Defense (DOD), the
and to support missions to the Moon and Mars. All U.S. RPSs AEC sponsored research into nuclear power for spacecraft
launched into space have been powered by 238Pu. They have to support the development of a reconnaissance satellite.
provided power ranging from 2.7 watts on the very early sys- The AEC pursued two related avenues: a small nuclear
tems to 500 watts on more recent flights (Lee, 1994). RPSs reactor and an RTG. These Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary
have powered many types of spacecraft, including orbiters Power (SNAP) were numbered such that the odd numbers
and landers. They allow spacecraft operations in extreme designated RTGs and the even numbers designated reactor
environments that rule out the use of other power systems power systems.
(e.g., solar arrays). By June 1952, an early classified study of the effort
reported there were no insurmountable technical hurdles,
and a year later, in May 1953, U.S. Air Force Headquarters
authorized development of a nuclear power source for satel-
The Seebeck effect. lites. The first bench-test RTGs emerged from the Mound
Cassini had more than 800 watts of electrical power at launch using Laboratory (operated for the AEC by the Monsanto Research
this approach.
46

APPENDIX E 47
Corp.) in 1953 and quickly found application in Antarctica to fications. Instead, it was terminated in 2005, after it became
power scientific research stations (Jordan and Birden, 1954; clear that it would have cost at least $4 billion to complete
Morse, 1963). SNAP-1 (an RTG) was built at the Mound development of a spacecraft reactor module, and a total
Laboratory under AEC supervision in 1954 (Anderson and of at least $16 billion to develop the entire spacecraft and
Featherstone, 1960). This was followed by the use of nuclear complete the mission, not counting the cost of the launch
power systems on spacecraft in the early 1960s. vehicle or any financial reserves to cover unexpected cost
The possibilities of space nuclear power first entered the growth (JPL, 2005).
public sphere in January 1959 when President Dwight D. The performance and reliability of space nuclear power
Eisenhower posed with a SNAP-3 RTG in the Oval Office of reactor systems using current technology remains unproven,
the White House. Ultimately, the Transit 4A and 4B naviga- especially for missions with long lifetimes. In addition, the
tion satellites were provided with SNAP-3B power sources committee is not aware of any substantive effort currently
from the AEC. They were the first satellites to operate in under way anywhere in the world to develop space nuclear
space with RPSs. Both satellites were also equipped with power reactor systems. The history of space nuclear power
solar panels that supplied 35 W of power (Dassoulas and reactors suggests that space nuclear reactors, if successfully
McNutt, 2007). These and subsequent missions proved the developed, could meet the needs of some missions and
feasibility of using RPSs for space missions. could enable other missions that are not now under consid-
eration because of power limitations. However, history also
shows that the development of high-power, long-life space
Space Nuclear Reactor Systems
nuclear power reactors would be very time-consuming and
Space nuclear power reactors are another potential option expensive.
for missions where solar power is not practical. However, the
United States has launched only one space nuclear power
Vehicle Accidents and Malfunctions
reactor (SNAP-10A), and that took place in 1965. That early
system was designed to produce 40 kW of thermal power and Three U.S. spacecraft with RPSs on board have inadver-
500 W of electricity for an operating life of just 1 year, and tently returned to Earth. In all cases, the RPSs performed
the failure of a voltage regulator caused the system to shut as designed; the cause of the mission failure lay with other,
down after 43 days (Wilson et al., 1965). nonnuclear systems.
Beginning in 1983, NASA, the DOD, and the Department The Transit 5BN-3 spacecraft with one SNAP-9A RPS
of Energy invested approximately $500 million in the SP-100 on board broke up and burned up on reentry after a launch-
space nuclear power reactor. This system was intended to vehicle upper stage failure. The design philosophy at that
generated 2 MW of thermal power and 100 kW of electricity, time was to require that the 238Pu oxide fuel totally burn up
but because of high costs, schedule delays, and changing during reentry into Earth’s atmosphere, which it did.
national space mission priorities, the SP-100 program was As a result of that accident, the RPS design philosophy
suspended in the early 1990s and later canceled. The Soviet was changed to require full containment of the fuel (i.e., no
Union launched dozens of short-lived space nuclear power fuel burn up) during an inadvertent reentry from or to Earth
reactors during the 1970s and 1980s, and several unfueled orbit. This design philosophy is still in effect.
Soviet systems were purchased by the United States in the The Nimbus B-1 weather satellite, the first NASA satellite
early 1990s. These systems were extensively ground tested to use an RPS, was intentionally destroyed during launch
by a joint team of U.S., British, French, and Russian engi- due to the erratic ascent of the launch vehicle. The launch
neers using electrical heaters in place of the nuclear cores. vehicle, upper stage, and payload were totally destroyed by
Although the test program was successful, the United States the explosion initiated by the destruct action, and the debris
did not use the Soviet equipment or technology in a flight fell into the Santa Barbara Channel off Vandenberg Air Force
program (NRC, 2006). Base. The two SNAP-19B2 RPSs were recovered intact (i.e.,
Project Prometheus was the most recent U.S. attempt to no 238Pu oxide fuel release occurred), and the fuel was used
develop space nuclear power reactors. This project began on a later mission.
in 2002, and it’s initial focus was on the Jupiter Icy Moons The last accident involving a U.S. RPS was the Apollo 13
Orbiter mission. The project selected a nuclear electric mission, which has been well documented. The SNAP-27
propulsion reactor concept that was scalable from 20 kWe heat source assembly was stowed in the Lunar Excursion
to 300 kWe. A nuclear electric propulsion system for a Module, which returned to Earth after the mission was
deep-space mission would need to be validated for reliable aborted. It reentered over the South Pacific Ocean. Air and
operation for a mission lifetime of 10 to 20 years, with no water sampling detected no 238Pu oxide fuel, indicating that
maintenance or repair. However, as with the SP-100 pro- the SNAP-27 heat source assembly survived reentry intact
gram, Project Prometheus did not proceed to the point of (as designed) and came to rest at the bottom of the Tonga
demonstrating the ability of system designs or available Trench under more than 7,000 feet of water, where it still
technology to meet required performance or lifetime speci- remains.

Space Nuclear Power and Voyager 1, which is traveling faster than Voyager 2, is
Outer-Planet Missions now farther from Earth than any other human-made object.
Now traveling out of the solar system, both Voyager 1 and
A major shift in the use of RPSs came with NASA’s
Voyager 2 have passed the “termination shock” of the solar
decision to pursue outer-planet exploration. This initiative
wind and continue to send back the first information ever
was driven by the discovery of “grand tour” trajectories
received from the outer boundary of our solar neighborhood.
that could enable relatively short missions to the planets of
The Voyagers are expected to return scientific data until
the outer solar system by using multiple planetary gravity
the RPSs can no longer supply enough electrical energy to
assists. This planetary configuration is rare, occurring only
power critical systems. With the adoption of power sharing
about every 176 years, but it was due to occur in the late
among the still-operating instruments, the final transmission
1970s and led to one of the most significant space explora-
is expected to occur in about 2020. Whether Voyager 1 will
tion efforts undertaken by the United States (Dethloff and
reach the heliopause, the “boundary” between the shocked
Schorn, 2003).
solar wind and interstellar plasma, by then is unknown.
The nearly identical Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft were
NASA has continued to use RPSs on missions to the
launched in 1972 and 1973, respectively, to make the first
outer planets and on selected long-term missions closer
trips through the asteroid belt to Jupiter and beyond. Both
to the Sun when necessary to enable the mission. In 1989,
relied on RPSs to provide power far from the Sun. Pioneer 10
NASA deployed the Galileo spacecraft from a space shuttle
flew past Jupiter in late 1973. It transmitted data about the
and sent it on a 6-year, gravity-assisted journey to Jupiter,
planet and continued on its way out of the solar system.
where it became the first spacecraft to orbit the giant planet
Pioneer 11 provided scientists with an even closer view of
(Launius and Johnston, 2009). The flight team for Galileo
Jupiter, whose gravity was used to send Pioneer 11 to Saturn
ceased operations in 2003, and the spacecraft was deorbited
before it, too, departed the solar system. Pioneer 11 ended its
by command into Jupiter’s atmosphere to guard against any
mission in 1995, when the last transmission from the space-
potential future contamination of Jupiter’s moon Europa by
craft was received. NASA continued to receive signals from
an uncontrolled spacecraft impact.
Pioneer 10 until 2003, when the spacecraft was 7.6 billion
Galileo carried two newly developed general purpose
miles from Earth. The success of the Pioneer missions would
heat source (GPHS) RTGs. These units produced 300 W of
not have been possible without the four SNAP-19 RTGs that
electricity at beginning of life and had a total mass of 55.9 kg,
each spacecraft carried as their sole source of power. Each
giving these devices the highest specific power of any RPS
Pioneer spacecraft also had a dozen radioisotope heater units
the United States had ever flown.
(RHUs), each generating 1 W of thermal energy, to heat
The Ulysses spacecraft was also launched from a space
selected components (Wolverton, 2004). A third spacecraft,
shuttle in 1990 with one GPHS RTG to undertake a sustained
the flight spare Pioneer H, is displayed in the National Air
exploration of the Sun. To enable a trajectory nearly over
and Space Museum.
the Sun’s poles, the spacecraft was sent to Jupiter to use a
After the success of the Pioneer missions, two Voyager
gravity assist to rotate the heliocentric orbital plane of the
spacecraft were built to conduct intensive flyby studies of
spacecraft by almost 90°. Ulysses made the first and only
Jupiter and Saturn, in effect repeating on a more elaborate
observations of fields and particles in interplanetary space
scale the flights of the two Pioneers. These spacecraft were
out of the ecliptic plane. It recently fell silent because of
scaled back versions of the proposed Grand-Tour space-
problems with its telecommunications system.
craft, which was rejected at the time for budgetary reasons.
Cassini became the first mission to orbit Saturn. It is an
Voyager 1 and 2 were launched in 1977, each with three
international program involving the United States, the Italian
Multi-Hundred Watt (MHW) RTGs. With the successful
Space Agency, and the European Space Agency. Conceived
flyby of Saturn’s moon Titan by Voyager 1 in November
in 1982, Cassini was launched in October 1997 with three
1980, Voyager 2 was targeted for one of the grand-tour
modified GPHS RTGs and multiple RHUs. Cassini arrived
trajectories. Voyager 2 subsequently had close flybys of
at Saturn and began orbiting the planet in July 2004. It also
Saturn (August 1981), Uranus (January 1986), and Neptune
sent a probe (Huygens) to the surface of Saturn’s moon Titan
(August 1989), providing the bulk of all human knowledge
early in 2005. Huygens is the first outer-planet mission built
about the latter two “ice giant” planets (Dethloff and Schorn,
by the European Space Agency. Now in extended mission,
2003).
Cassini continues to make fundamental discoveries in the
Saturn system (Launius and Johnston, 2009).
A gravity assist is used to speed up or slow down the speed of a space- New Horizons is the most recent mission to employ RPS
craft by a close flyby of a planet that exchanges momentum between the generators. It will be the first spacecraft to visit Pluto and
spacecraft and the planet. Prograde approaches to planets in the outer solar the Kuiper Belt. Launched in January 2006, New Horizons
system increase spacecraft speed, enabling them to reach planets farther conducted a Jupiter flyby 13 months later to increase speed.
from the Sun faster than they could otherwise. New Horizons will make its closest approach to Pluto on
As the backup for Voyager 1, Voyager 2 would have been targeted to
Titan if Voyager 1 had failed.

July 14, 2015. The half-ton spacecraft contains scientific

APPENDIX E 49
TABLE E.1 Radioisotope Power Systems for Space Exploration

Maximum Output
Name and Model Used on (Number of RTGs per User) Electrical (W) Heat (W) Maximum Fuel Used (kg) RPS Mass (kg)
SNAP-3B Transit-4A/B (1) 2.7 52.5 ~0.2 2
SNAP-9A Transit 5BN-1/2/3 (1) 25 525 ~1 12
SNAP-19 Nimbus B1 (2) 40.3 525 ~1 14
Nimbus III (2)
Pioneer 10/11 (4)
Modified SNAP-19 Viking 1/2 (2) 42.7 525 ~1 15
SNAP-27 Apollo 12-17 ALSEP (1) 73 1480 3.8 20
MHW-RTG LES-8/9 (2) 470 2400 ~4.5 38
Voyager 1/2 (3)
GPHS-RTG Galileo (2) 285 4500 7.6 56
Ulysses (1)
Cassini (3)
New Horizons (1)
NOTE: ALSEP, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package; GPHS, General Purpose Heat Source; LES, Lincoln Experimental Satellite; MHW, Multi-hundred
Watt; SNAP, Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power.
SOURCES: Data from G.L. Bennett, “Space Nuclear Power: Opening the Final Frontier,” AIAA 2006-4191, pp. 12-13, presentation at 4th International Energy
Conversion Engineering Conference and Exhibit (IECEC), San Diego, Calif., June 26-29, 2006; G.K. Ottman and C.B. Hersman, “The Pluto-New Horizons
RTG and Power System Early Mission Performance,” AIAA-2006-4029, 4th International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, San Diego, Calif.,
June 26-29, 2006; R.D. Cockfield, “Preparation of RTG F8 for the Pluto New Horizons Mission,” AIAA-2006-4031, 4th International Energy Conversion
Engineering Conference, San Diego, Calif., June 26-29, 2006; R.R. Furlong and E.J. Wahlquist, “U.S. Space Missions Using Radioisotope Power Systems,”
Nuclear News, April 1999, p. 29.
instruments to map the surface geology and composition of JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory). 2005. Project Prometheus Final Report.
Pluto and its three moons, investigate Pluto’s atmosphere, 982-R120461. Available at http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/
bitstream/2014/38185/1/05-3441.pdf.
measure the solar wind, and assess interplanetary dust and Jordan, K.C., and J.H. Birden. 1954. Thermal Batteries Using Po-210.
energetic particles. After it passes Pluto, NASA plans to MLM-984. Miamisburg, Ohio: Mound Laboratory.
fly the spacecraft by one or two Kuiper Belt objects. Since Launius. R.D., and A.K. Johnston. 2009. Smithsonian Atlas of Space
sunlight at the Kuiper Belt is more than 1,000 times less Exploration. New York City: HarperCollins. In press.
intense than at Earth, New Horizons relies on a GPHS RTG Lee, J.H. 1994. Aerospace Nuclear Safety: An Introduction and Historical
Overview. International Topical Meeting: Advanced Reactor Safety,
for power (Ottman and Hersman, 2006). Pittsburgh, Pa., April 17-21.
Table E.1 lists key parameters for U.S. RPSs that have Morse, J.G. 1963. Energy for Remote Areas: Generators fueled with radio
been used in space, the missions on which they were used, nuclides are supplying power in small terrestrial and space systems.
and the fuel, mass, and output. All have been fueled by Science 139:1175-1180.
238Pu. NRC (National Research Council). 2006. Priorities in Space Science
Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion. Washington, D.C.: The
National Academies Press.
References Ottman, G.K., and C.B. Hersman. 2006. The Pluto-New Horizons RTG
and Power System Early Mission Performance (AIAA-2006-4029), 4th
Anderson, G.M., and F.H. Featherstone. 1960. The SNAP Programme: International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, San Diego,
U.S. AEC’s Space-Electric Power Programme. Nuclear Engineering Calif., June 26-29.
5:460-463. RAND Corporation. 1946. Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-
Dassoulas, J., and R.L. McNutt, Jr. 2007. RTGs on Transit. Space Tech- Circling Spaceship. SM-11827. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND
nology and Applications International Forum, Albuquerque, N.M., Corporation.
February 11-15. Wilson, R.F., H.M. Dieckamp, and D. K. Cockeram. 1965. SNAP 10A
Dethloff, H.C., and R.A. Schorn. 2003. Voyager’s Grand Tour: To the Outer Design, Development, and Flight Test. AIAA Second Annual Meeting,
Planets and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. San Francisco, Calif., July 26-29. AIAA Paper No. 65-467.
Gender, S.L., and H.A. Kock. 1949. Auxiliary Power Plant for the Satel- Wolverton, M. 2004. The Depths of Space: The Pioneers Planetary Probes.
lite Rocket: A Radioactive Cell-Mercury Vapor System to Supply 500 Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
watts for Durations of up to One Year. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND
Corporation.

Appendix F
Briefings to the Committee
COMMITTEE MEETING 1 September 19, 2008

The Keck Center of the National Academies Integrated Mission Planning Scenarios: RPS Imple-
Washington, D.C. mentation Timeline, Leonard A. Dudzinski, NASA
September 18-19, 2008 Headquarters
The Problem (revised), Alice Caponiti, DOE Headquarters
September 18, 2008
Introduction and Study Expectations, W. James Adams,
COMMITTEE MEETING 2
NASA Headquarters
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
NASA Demand for DOE-Supplied Plutonium-238, Harold M.
Pasadena, California
Bell, NASA Headquarters
October 27-28, 2008
Planetary Science Division Programs, James L. Green,
NASA Headquarters
October 27, 2008
Power Systems Program Historical Overview & Current
Content, Leonard A. Dudzinski, NASA Headquarters JPL Welcome, Eugene Tattini, NASA Jet Propulsion
Radioisotope Power Systems Program Policies, Leonard A. Laboratory
Dudzinski, NASA Headquarters Introduction, Rao Surampudi, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Radioisotope Power Systems Program Organization Over- RTG Powered Legacy Missions, John Casani, NASA Jet
view, Thomas J. Sutliff, NASA Glenn Research Center Propulsion Laboratory
Current and Potential RPS Missions and Requirements, Jack- MSL Overview and RPS Implementation, David Woerner,
lyn R. Green, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Radioisotope Power Systems Technology Programs, Rao Outer Planets Flagship Mission Study Overview, Jim Cutts,
Surampudi, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure, Thomas J. Sutliff, Jupiter Europa Orbiter Study, Karla Clark, NASA Jet Pro-
NASA Glenn Research Center pulsion Laboratory
Other Information, Thomas J. Sutliff, NASA Glenn Research TSSM Overview, Kim Reh, NASA Jet Propulsion
Center Laboratory
Radioisotope Power Systems Program: NASA Summary, W. ASRG Integration/Accommodation Considerations for OPF
James Adams, NASA Headquarters Missions, John Elliott, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Department of Energy Radioisotope Power Systems Pro- Nuclear Launch Safety Approval Processes for NASA
gram, Owen W. Lowe, DOE Headquarters M issions, Reed Wilcox, NASA Jet Propulsion
Department of Energy Radioisotope Power Systems Infra- Laboratory
structure, Wade Carroll, DOE Headquarters Technology Portfolio Review, Leonard A. Dudzinski, NASA
RPS System Development, Robert Wiley and Rebecca Rich- Headquarters
ardson, DOE Headquarters Overview of RPS Technology Programs at JPL, Roger Gibbs,
Pu-238 Supply, Alice Caponiti, DOE Headquarters NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Department of Energy Summary, Owen W. Lowe, DOE Thermoelectric Radioisotope Power Conversion Technology:
Headquarters An Overview, Jean-Pierre Fleurial, NASA Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
50

APPENDIX F 51
JPL’s Contribution to the Development of SiGe RTGs Space Science and RPSs: What Missions Cannot Be Accom-
(MHW-RTG and GPHS-RTG), Jack Mondt, NASA Jet plished without RPSs?, Thomas J. Sutliff, Glenn Research
Propulsion Laboratory Center
RTG Life Model Development and Validation (Degra),
Richard Ewell, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
SITE VISIT 1
Advanced Thermoelectrics R&D, Jean-Pierre Fleurial,
Glenn Research Center
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Cleveland, Ohio
Advanced Thermoelectric Converter (ATEC) Development,
October 10, 2008
Thierry Caillat and Richard Ewell, NASA Jet Propulsion
Laboratory GRC Organization and Capabilities, George Schmidt,
JPL ASRG Support Activity, Sal Di Stefano, NASA Jet Pro- NASA Glenn Research Center
pulsion Laboratory Small RPSs: Requirements and Schedules, Thomas J. Sutliff,
Cryogenic Cooling in Space: Fifty Years of Lessons Learned, NASA Glenn Research Center
Ronald G. Ross, Jr., NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory GRC Nuclear Power Radioisotope System Development,
RPS Infrastructure at JPL, Bill J. Nesmith, NASA Jet Pro- Project 138494, David B. Ercegovic, NASA Glenn
pulsion Laboratory Research Center
ASC Converter Reliability, Dave Ercegovic, NASA Glenn Background: Free Piston Stirling for Space, Jeff Schreiber,
Research Center NASA Glenn Research Center
Advanced Stirling Convertor: Product Evolution, NRA to
ASC-E2s, Wayne Wong, NASA Glenn Research Center
October 28, 2008
ASC-E2 Design Overview, Wayne Wong, NASA Glenn
Radioisotope Power System Launch Safety and Approval, Research Center and Kyle Wilson, Sunpower, Inc.
Lyle Rutger, DOE Headquarters ASC-E2 Quality Program, Mary Anne Dunlap, Sunpower,
Exploration RPS Planning, Timelines, and Projected Utiliza- Inc., and Orie Barnes, Sest, Inc./NASA Glenn Research
tion, John Olson, NASA Headquarters Center
Science Scenarios, John Olson, NASA Headquarters Risk Mitigation Efforts at GRC, Jeff Schreiber, NASA Glenn
Research Center
ASRG Reliability Status, Rebecca Richardson, DOE
COMMITTEE MEETING 3
Headquarters
National Academy of Sciences Building
ASRG EU Performance, Test Results/Plans, Schedule,
Washington, D.C.
Plans to Completion, and System Reliability, Rebecca
December 11-12, 2008
Richardson, DOE Headquarters; and Dan Tantino, Jack
Chan, and Chuong Ha, Lockheed Martin
December 11, 2008
GRC Structures and Materials Division: RPS Support Activi-
RPS/Pu-238 Mission Closing Options, Harold M. Bell, ties, Mike Nathal, NASA Glenn Research Center
NASA Headquarters Thermophotovoltaic Technology Development Project, Eric
Integrated Schedule Action, Leonard A. Dudzinski, NASA B. Clark, NASA Glenn Research Center
Headquarters
Action Response: Exploration Functional Capabilities Enabled
SITE VISIT 2
by RPS Availability, John Olson, NASA Headquarters
Idaho National Laboratory
Idaho Falls, Idaho
COMMITTEE MEETING 4 October 15, 2008
Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the
Recap of Strategies to Restart Domestic Pu-238 Production,
National Academies of Sciences and Engineering
Alice Caponiti, DOE Headquarters
Irvine, California
Overview of Plutonium-238 Production Mission Proposal,
January 12-13, 2009
Robert M. Wham, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Plutonium-238 Production Safeguards, Robert M. Wham,
January 12, 2009
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
RPS/Pu-238 Mission Closing Options, Harold M. Bell, INL Requirements to Support ORNL Pu-238 Production,
NASA Headquarters Stephen G. Johnson, Idaho National Laboratory
Action Response: Exploration Functional Capabilities Enabled Pu-238 Production: An INL and ORNL Joint Proposal,
by RPS Availability, John Olson, NASA Headquarters R. Chase and Stephen G. Johnson, Idaho National
Laboratory; and Robert M. Wham, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory

Pu-238 Consolidation Project, Stephen G. Johnson, Idaho SITE VISIT 3

National Laboratory Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
HFIR Production of Pu-238 and Target Fabrication Con- Oak Ridge, Tennessee
siderations, Robert M. Wham, Oak Ridge National November 13, 2008
Laboratory
Introduction to ORNL, Dana Christensen and Kelly
Advanced Test Reactor Pu-238 Production Capacity, Stephen
Beierschmitt, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
G. Johnson, Idaho National Laboratory
Status of International Activities, Alice Caponiti, DOE
Headquarters
Overview of Plutonium-238 Production Mission Pro-
posal: Update, Robert M. Wham, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
Iridium Clad Vent Sets/RHU Issues, Jim King, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory

Appendix G
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ac alternating current MMRTG Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric

ASC Advanced Stirling Converter Generator
ASRG Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator
ATHLETE All-Terrain Hex-Legged Extra-Terrestrial NASA National Aeronautics and Space
Explorer (as in an ATHLETE rover) Administration
ATR Advanced Test Reactor (at Idaho National NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
Laboratory) NI PEIS Nuclear Infrastructure Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement
CLWR commercial light-water reactor Np neptunium
NRC National Research Council
dc direct current
OPF Outer Planets Flagship
DOD Department of Defense ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
DOE Department of Energy OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy
EIS environmental impact statement Pu plutonium

EJSM Europa Jupiter System Mission
EMI electromagnetic interference RHU radioisotope heater unit
RPS radioisotope power system
FY fiscal year RTG radioisotope thermoelectric generator
GPHS general purpose heat source SNAP Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power
GRC Glenn Research Center SPF single-point failure
SRG Stirling radioisotope generator
HFIR High Flux Isotope Reactor (at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory) TPV thermophotovoltaic
TRIGA Training, Research, Isotopes, General
INL Idaho National Laboratory Atomics (as in a TRIGA reactor)
INSRP Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel TSSM Titan Saturn System Mission
JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory We watts of electrical power
53


12653

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12653

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12653

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

Radioisotope Power Systems: An

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

Radioisotope Power Systems Committee

Space Studies Board

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-13857-4

Copies of this report are available free of charge from:

Space Studies Board

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Other Recent Reports of the Space Studies Board and

Assessment of the NASA Astrobiology Institute (SSB, 2007)

Limited copies of SSB reports are available free of charge from

Space Studies Board

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS COMMITTEE

WILLIAM W. HOOVER, U.S. Air Force (retired), Co-Chair

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

SPACE STUDIES BOARD

RICHARD E. ROWBERG, Interim Director (from March 2, 2009)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD

RAYMOND S. COLLADAY, Lockheed Martin Astronautics (retired), Chair

RICHARD E. ROWBERG, Interim Director (from March 2, 2009)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

William B. Adkins, Adkins Strategies, LLC,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 RPS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 24

LIST OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Tables, Figures, and Box

3.1 NASA’s Demand for 238Pu, 2009-2028 (as of April 2008), 15

D.1 Primary Emissions Produced by Radioisotopes with Half-lives of 15 to 100 Years, 44

E.1 Radioisotope Power Systems for Space Exploration, 49

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

 RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Pu demand, status quo: OPF 1 uses MMRTGs

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

 RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS

• A prioritized set of program goals. RECOMMENDATION. Multi-Mission RTGs. NASA

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

 RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

 RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TABLE 2.1 U.S. Spacecraft Using Radioisotope Power Systems

RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS

RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS

RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS

RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS