Plutonium_pellet

Will NASA Ever Recover Apollo 13′s Plutonium From the Sea?

The Query: Will NASA ever recover the 3.9 kg of plutonium from Apollo 13’s SNAP-27 nuclear RTG* from the depths of the South Pacific Ocean.

The Response: “Houston, we’ve had a problem,” said astronaut Jack Swigert on April13, 1970. But the problem wasn’t as simple as three astronauts potentially trapped in the void of space, 200,000 miles from Earth. The catastrophic risk came from the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), a small nuclear power source* that contained Plutonium 238. The RTG, which was in the lunar module, was intended to be placed on the moon to power experiments. As luck would have it, NASA had experience losing RTGs – a navigation satellite failed to reach orbit in 1964 and scattered small amounts of plutonium over the Indian Ocean. The SNAP-27 had been engineered to make it back to Earth intact in such an incident. The plutonium, like the astronauts, apparently survived reentry and came to rest with what remained of the lunar module the Tonga Trench south of Fiji, approximately 6-9 kilometers underwater (its exact location is unkown). Extensive monitoring of the atmosphere in the area showed that no radiation escaped.

Apollo 13's lunar module, which contained the RTG. Courtesy NASA

But with a new breed of submarines from the U.S. and China pushing deeper into the ocean’s deepest depths, is NASA interested in recovering this toxic material?

“I don’t think that anyone has seriously considered that,” said Leonard Dudzinski, a NASA program executive who deals with radioisotope power systems. The plutonium was in an oxide form ** contained in fuel capsule, which itself was inside a graphite and ceramic fuel cask. “The cladding would not be compromised over time by the seawater,” Dudzinski said. The current expectation is that the cladding will survive for 10 half lives of the Plutonium, close to 870 years. If anything, the Apollo 13 disaster proved that NASA nuclear safety engineering worked.

The more pressing issue for NASA and PU-238 is where they can get some more, Dudzinski said. The manmade element is necessary to power systems on deep space satellites that travel too far from the sun to rely on solar. The Mars rover, Curiosity, which launched Saturday, will be powered by about 4 kg of PU-238.

The U.S. Department of Energy has to purchase the PU-238 from Russia since the U.S. stopped producing it in the late 1980s because of nuclear weapons treaties. But dwindling supplies in Russia coupled with contract disputes mean that the material is increasingly difficult to source. NASA is seeking funding for a program (PDF) with the Energy Department to create PU-238 domestically, but the program is awaiting Congressional approval.

*Corrected to remove term “reactor.” RTG produces power from the natural decay of plutonium and is not the same as a reactor.

** Corrected to note that the plutonium oxide pellets were larger than one-tenth of a millimeter. Pellets in current reactors are “marshmallow-sized.”

Top image: A pellet of PU-238. Courtesy U.S. Department of Energy

Matthew Van Dusen is the editor of Txchnologist.

Related Txchnologist Articles

Comments

  1. Bob Steinke

    Sadly, this author doesn’t know the difference between a nuclear reactor (causes fission) and an RTG (uses only radioactive decay).

    • Matthew Van Dusen

      Bob,
      You’re absolutely correct. I used reactor as a catchall term for power source, but RTGs are not reactors. I will correct this but note the error.
      Ed,

  2. Graham Ermatters

    Sadly, the author also doesn’t proofread.

    ” The catastrophic risk came from the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), a small nuclear power source* that was going to be placed on the moon to power experiments, carrying Plutonium 238 Apollo 13’s lunar module.”

    Allow me to direct your attention to the last clause. I assume that this situation was created, or at least worsened, by the “reactor” updates cited, but it certainly doesn’t make sense in its current state. Perhaps the following would be an appropriate replacement:

    “The catastrophic risk came from the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) carried aboard Apollo 13′s lunar module. Within the RTG was Plutonium 238, a radioactive isotope whose emissions were to be captured and converted into electrical power by the device.”

    • Matthew Van Dusen

      Fixed! Thanks
      ed.

    • toll

      U ain’t talk gooder

    • rob2tall

      Cute name-but why so critical over an authors quick note? I think its amazing how many chose to attack an author over any thing they write. I guess it shows that many of us never took spelling and grammar quite so seriously in simple text-if we were going to operate on someone-yes-its critical-if we are building something it could be critical. I’d love to see a Bible fixed with all its errors -you could be a multi~ billionaire if you restructured the Bible so it actually made any sense at all…
      Ok-I feel better-feel free to check my grammar and reply-I probably slept through a majority of those classes-Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn- I was just trying to enjoy the article

      • Tim

        Remember that the Bible was written by people 2000 years ago, who thought the World was flat.

  3. Shem

    The fact that the comments are just focusing on the writers errors of text n meaning tells me a lot about the psychology of commenters… maybe folks u need to just read the article and get on with it huh?

    • Matthew Van Dusen

      No, it’s fine. If people want to point out grammatical errors or missteps in terminology, I’ll correct them.
      The article was just an offhand thought experiment that I took to NASA. Nothing more.

      • Tim

        Good article Matthew.

  4. Steven Rappolee

    also it might be correct to cite those who have suggested this in the past as in the URL above and if I remember correctly also over on unmanned spaceflight.com as well. The idea we kicked around a number of years ago was to recover and to reuse in another flight opportunity.
    my thoughts now are that some of the costs could be defied by selling television rights to the search effort much like the WHOI /Ballard National geographic ocean exploration television productions. NASA could be an anchor tenant and to agree pay a finders fee. Space act agreement anyone? :)

    • Matthew Van Dusen

      Steve,
      I searched around before I posted the story and couldn’t find any previous mention of this idea.
      But I’d be curious to see who else has discussed it over the years.
      Ed.

      • Mike Havenar

        Well, we know where there is no shortage of Pu-238: Each of the 8,500 nuclear weapons which the US possesses has plenty of the poisonous (but beautiful) stuff. Decommission the weapons (we are supposed to anyway), retrieve the plutonium, and then put it in rockets and shoot it off to the Sun, which likely will consider it a sort of vitamin pill. Using it for space fuel probably isn’t such a good idea. One might crash on a distant star’s planet, making our poison their problem. We all are One.

        • Matthew Van Dusen

          Mike,
          Nukes don’t use the 238 isotope, that’s what makes it a bit harder to source.
          Ed.

        • John C

          If I remember my Naval Reactors wall chart right, Pu238 decays naturally and is not fissionable until it captures neutrons and becomes Pu239.
          Pu239 is in weapon pits, and the US and Russia are building Pit Decommissioning facilities to take them apart and make the Pu239 harder to build into bombs.
          The PDCF in the USA is being built at the Savannah River Site. Next door to it is the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility. In the MFFF, the Pu-oxide will be blended with U-oxide to make mixed oxide fuel to be burned up in reactors for electricity. Once in MOX fuel, the Pu is difficult to extract to make bombs with.

        • PolishKnight

          Mike, don’t worry about planets surrounding distant stars. It would be great if nuclear fuel had an almost infinite lifespan, but they don’t. In a few thousand years, the material would be intert and the time for a probe to reach another star is measured in the hundreds of thousands of years much less one that it would be unfortunate enough to crash land on.

          There’s a scene in Star Trek where Klingons are playing target practice with a voyager probe. In 400 years or so, the probe would barely be out of the solar system.

        • rovid

          give it to me i will deal wit the rest while having life long supply of energy …

        • ConcernedBYIgnorance

          Why is everyone so quick to disarm the US when so much of rest of the world is building up. Do you really believe Russia and China will disarm. They are waiting for us to do so so they can dictate the terms of our surrender!

          You probaby voted for Obama and his UN anti-US buddies didn’t you?

  5. steven rappolee

    I posted it here under a assumed name,

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16912.90 the responce then was the RTG has lost some half life, still I think it might serve a porpoise on a mission of short duration such as a lander or orbiter

    and over on unmannedspaceflight.com around the same year and time, this post is hard to find.

    • Matthew Van Dusen

      Interesting.
      I think, per a commenter on Slashdot (maybe?), that they should sell the TV rights and go down with a submersible to see if it’s there.
      Like Al Capone’s vault…

    • HB

      In the spirit of all the spell checkers on this thread, I would have to note that I doubt that porpoises have any need for an RTG. Further, they can only dive to about 200 meters, not deep enough to retrieve the Plutonium.

      • Vinny

        Fuggetaboutit! He’s from Joisey, he did it on porpoise!

  6. Calli Arcale

    It might be worthwhile to recover the RTG. There was at least one RTG recovered after a launch accident and then reused; the stuff’s expensive enough to make it worth the while. Usually. The Tonga Trench is pretty damn deep, and the search area would have to be quite large. It took many years to find the Titantic, and it’s position was fairly well known — and it’s pretty big. I think trying to find Apollo 13′s RTG would be the proverbial needle in a haystack. It took multiple expeditions to find Liberty Bell, and not only is it much bigger, but it’s position was known before it sank, reducing the search area.

    Still, I could see an oceanographic research team deciding to do their research in the area with the bonus objective of hopefully finding and recovering the RTG. If it’s not encrusted with sea life, attracted by its warmth. ;-)

    I do object to the implication that the RTG presented the biggest catastrophic risk of the mission. It might have presented the biggest public relations risk, if enough people knew about it (and I don’t think that many did), but even then they knew it was unlikely to present a serious threat to the public. The biggest risk to the public of a reentering SNAP-27 RTG is being hit in the head with it. It’s heavy, after all, heavy enough to be lethal at terminal velocity. The biggest risk to the public of the Apollo 13 mission was an uncontrolled reentry bringing debris down over populated areas, mostly due to impact concerns, though there are some toxic components (more on that later).

    The biggest risk to the *mission* was still the explosion, both because of the extreme constraints it imparted to their electrical budget by killing the fuel cells but also because they had no way of knowing how extensive the damage was. There was a very real worry that it had compromised the heatshield, which would make all of their efforts to that point worthless — if that had happened, they were as doomed as the crew of STS-107. When they separated from the SM before reentry, they saw for the first time that the damage was indeed extensive, going right up to the heatshield. You can imagine how terrified mission controllers must have been — they saw that, and then they got to wait through an abnormally long period of radio silence during the entry before a helicopter pilot spotted the parachutes.

    As far as direct toxicity goes, plutonium is pretty toxic, but it was not the only toxic thing on board. Built into a ceramic as it was, the plutonium was pretty safe — it’d be impossible to absorb or inhale it, the pellets themselves have a pretty good chance of surviving reentry intact even if they’re completely exposed, and this particular isotope mostly produces alpha radiation, which is less damaging. The biggest toxicity risk came from the hypergolic propellants powering the service module and the lunar module — and the service module had a substantial surplus of those, as it never had to make the transearth injection burn, and as the power loss meant they couldn’t vent it properly. It reentered the Earth’s atmosphere with a fairly significant load of hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. To get some perspective on that, frozen hydrazine and N2O4 was the US military’s justification for blowing up that defunct satellite a few years ago, and the space community is concerned about the impending reentry of Phobos-Grunt, not only because it’s a pretty hefty spacecraft but also because its attached Fregat upper stage has tons of hypergolic propellant still on board.

    • Matthew Van Dusen

      The argument here is that, while nothing did go wrong, there certainly was the potential for it.
      Physicists and emergency officials have been worrying about this for decades. See the below story about the Galileo probe.
      http://movies.nytimes.com/library/national/science/090897sci-nasa-saturn.html

    • Dan

      In regards to people knowing about the retuning RTG at the time it happened: It was mentioned several times on the TV news coverage (either NBC or CBS) just before the astronauts re-entered the earth’s atmosphere. Although only 12 at the time, I still remember the announcer saying the RTG was enclosed in a granite (graphite?) flask, and it would survive the re-entry and land in the ocean.

  7. benseghir mohamed

    i have a mesage to people over the world no nuclear weppans no nuclear engines and no nuclear energie ande power not for us but 4 next generations have good navigation by

    • Pete0097

      Nothing like being shortsighted. For any long distance interplanetary exploration or colonization, nuclear power is pretty much required. Other fuels take up too much room and have insufficient bank for the buck to get us much further than the moon. Nuclear power can be made safely and used safely.

      • SunnyGuy53

        There is no need for interplanetary travel — this planet has the potential for intelligent life; we should work on that great challenge, and we’d be plenty busy enough for a lifetime.

  8. John

    If they needed to remove it to its threat I’m sure they would have done it now but since that time we didn’t have the technology to extract it due to how deep in the ocean is but is it wise to mess with it because it has been sitting inside the module and I’m sure the metal has deteriorated if we move it it could have the plutonium exposed or is it already exposed in the water? on the other hand do we even know for sure it even survived reentry according to the article their not sure I would send a team to make sure if it did or not and what the condition of the module is before we do anything with it because the module is probably so rusted it could crumble and affect the plutonium maybe but this is something they need to check out

    • Marshall

      John, read the article a little more closely for an answer to your own question. The container isn’t metal – it’s ceramic. They used heavy ceramic containment specifically because in the event of ending up in the ocean, the saltwater would not corrode the material. Full containment is likely to continue for at least 870 years. The knee-jerk response is, “Well, what about the people 870 years from now who have forgotten it even exists?” And while that could be a legitimate concern, I doubt that it is: Look at the rate of technological advancement (and the speed of increase in that rate) over the past 50 years. 900 years from now I’m quite certain we’ll have either wiped ourselves out or advanced to the point where finding and dealing with this thing is extremely trivial. In fact, with the way our stewardship of this planet is going, it’s liklely our planet will be uninhabitable by then anyways, and a trifling amount of PU-238 will be the least of our concerns.

  9. Dave Mann

    3.9 kg is a nice chunk to use as the dirty material in a hybrid fuel air explosive. Let’s assume for our own peace of mind that somebody hasn’t gotten there already.

    • GT

      Hasn’t gotten there in their nuclear submarine, you mean?

  10. Jesse Graham

    Nice idea about going down to get this.Wonder what others like ,China,Korea, or some others would do with something like this.I think we need to be more careful about picking up our mess.

    • GT

      Much as I’m not a fan of nuclear power, it is (currently) essential for any useful amount of electrical power out of Earth orbit.

      Also, I imagine anyone with a sub that goes to 3km can also get their own Pu already.

      Nevertheless, a good engineer cleans up his/her messes before anyone figures out or proves the details of what makes them so bad.

  11. Clem Kadiddlehopper XIV

    While this is VERY interesting reading, I don’t know enough about this to make any type of comment OTHER THAN:

    The comments (by readers AND the author) have been so polite, as opposed to what one can read on other news sites, etc.

    It’s absolutely refreshing to read comments without profanity, AND also that the readers have shown common courtesy to not only the author, but also the other readers!

  12. Michael

    I use a nuclear reactor to power my laptop. I use an RTG to make cassarole dishes. Jeesh!!

  13. Bobby

    Recovery should be attempted. A sort of low level persistent, hey we will keep trying, kind of endeavor. Ultimately as a population, we need to be confident about sending RTGs and perhaps even active fission reactors in space. By having a 100% accountability/recovery rate; this would go a long way in silencing critics with respect to nuclear power in space.

  14. Marie Curie

    We hooked our RTG to the cat box….works great

  15. M.F. Luder

    There would be no reason to recover it. At the depth that the plutonium is resting (presumably on the ocean floor at great depth, approx >3000m), even if the container had spilled open. It’s apparent that few people have ever been in a reactor containment building, where used fuel rods rest in pools covered only by 6 or 7m of water. Looking directly into these pools, one can view the Cherenkov light emitted as the radiation is slowed by the surrounding water.

  16. fred

    maybe i missed the mention somewhere….but theres only a limited amt of plut 238, and it will decay in 890 years so much that retrieval is not worth it, no?
    not for the energy, not for the isotope leftover (“p0llution”) not for curiosity, not for good stewardship. interesting would be how well the ceramic container held up….judging by the prehistoric ceramic jugs full of wine quite well….oops these were made of clay. well then how about the ceramic pipes we recover from ancient sites….one can still smoke them.

    typical afterthought: how about all those ceramic commodes in dumps?

    oh well, sidetracked, crashed

  17. j

    I know that the US stoped producing PU-238, but not because of treaties. Since we are buying it from Russia, did the US once again prove it stupidity by allowing them to produce it for a signature?

  18. Ray

    Mr. Van Dusen has no idea what he’s talking about.

    • Matthew Van Dusen

      Fair enough Ray, but the rest of your comment got axed because you started cursing.
      I’d be happy to approve a critique that was free of foul language.
      Ed.

  19. Bruce Johnson

    Has no heard “Dilution is the solution”? This is a non-problem. Plutonium is a heavy metal; therefore poisonous. In all the cubic miles of the Tonga Trench, the dilute oxide of Plutonium would defy detection. If the failed attempts to recover items from the deep is are any indication, doing nothing is safer and wiser.

  20. H. Le

    Hi,
    Very interesting article. Any ideas how much $$$ does 3.9kg of PU-238 cost?
    Thank you,

    • Matthew Van Dusen

      You’re not from the CIA are you?
      It’s a good question for the DoE, but they never got back to me.
      Ed.

  21. Jeff

    Maybe we should explode several nuclear weapons along the bottom of the Tonga trench to make sure the RTG is destroyed and the ocean is safe. That makes sense.

  22. David

    Such a mission to the bottom to recover the RTG will be disallowed. A few people in high places know what a few deep dives from Trieste to the present found that hasn’t become public. Trieste’s time on the bottom of the Marianas Trench wasn’t really truncated due to a crack, it was to escape from what they saw. It appeared hostile, and has been assumed to be willing to leave us alone as long as we stay relatively near the surface (Gulf of Mexico oil rigs only reaching about a mile down). Chances are that the RTG is already in use, and that the primary reason to restart Pu-238 production is to provide more to satisfy what’s in the deep, space use by humans being only secondary. Stories of UFO coverups by the USAF are generally encouraged, since they distract the public from the organization that really has the secrets, the USN, which has been trying to figure out how to weaponize what they found ever since 1960. BTW, the GLOMAR Explorer only recovered part of the Soviet sub because of interference during the raising. As a result, much of the radioactive material was returned to the bottom, while unwanted “junk” like top secret radio and SONAR gear was allowed to be recovered by the GLOMAR’s team. In addition, the Scorpion’s desctruction wasn’t an accident, it was sabotage, and not by the Soviets, either. Evidence goes back further, too. The Nazis had actually isolated some U-235 by early 1945. Along with other materials, it was sent by UBoat to Japan for “safekeeping.” None of it, however, has ever been found aboard the sunken UBoats on super secret missions en route to the Far East, and all of them were sunk before arrival, with all hands lost. Lucky for us, currently the only apparent interaction with what’s down there is the messages sent to us as sick whales, who appear on our shores with damage consistent with what one would expect from the Navy’s use of very high energy SONAR. Some probably have suffered directly from the sound pulses, but most were made to look that way to convince us to stop this activity which disturbs several miles deep into the oceans. Now we’ll see whether you’re part of the coverup or decide to allow this post.

    • george smythson

      sounds like a great premise for a scienc FICTION novel…

  23. Kevin Hunt

    Maybe Doc Emmett Brown will find a way to retrieve it so he can fuel the DeLorean. His Libyan supply was cut off due to the war.

  24. David Andrew Crosby

    I think the people of Colorado and Utah should secede and declare war on the Union if these idiots ever start really producing plutonium again…It means mining uranium..which is extremely dangerous for us…let them devastate their own Eastern environment..and bury their toxic radioactive soup in Virginia preferably close to Langley or the Pentagon….

  25. Expert Scientist

    Actually we can use a maituds 605 to retrieve the capsule. It is the most effective way. Im tired of all the government wasting money. Legalize it for the rasta man. Ron paul for president.

  26. Lou

    I’m much more worried about those nuclear powered submarine and carriers being sunk by enemies…

  27. RHO

    They cannot locate a whole thermonuclear bomb which is lying in shallow water off the coast of Savanna, Georgia. It is absurd to think a small amount of plutonium in oxide form, encased in ceramic in extremely deep water would be a priority.

  28. Jon

    While 3.9 kg is likely just shy of what might be needed to produce a fission weapon it would allow production of many “Dirty” weapons. Couldn’t it be cheaper and easier for a small country to retrieve this material than try to produce their own? I’m more concerned about proliferation and terrorism than leakage into the environment.

  29. Tim

    A really great article, I was not aware this even existed.. a couple of things I don’t fully understand, is this the kind of plutonium that is (or can be processed) into weopons grade fission? Doesn’t it seem like a security risk to leave it for a rogue nation to retrieve.. granted, it would take the efforts and plot of a James Bond movie due to the depth and tech required to get there. But billions of dollars could buy that kind of access for countries that could never refine nuclear fuel in the first place. My guess is the U.S watches this area of water constantly

  30. Cowcharge

    Sadly, the author apparently still hasn’t learned to proofread, but since after several hints it appears hopeless, I won’t bother to list the remaining errors. It’s not really so much this author in particular, but as a former journalism major, it bothers me that it’s almost impossible to find a correctly-written article anywhere online these days. No one takes pride in their writing any more. I suppose I should be happy he didn’t write the whole thing in text-speak.

    The article brought some questions to mind, though. If they had a portable nuclear power source onboard, why did Gary Sinise have to spend all that time calculating power consumption down to the last amp? And if they thought the radiation posed a threat, why didn’t they dump the thing while in lunar orbit, so it would end up on the moon where it was supposed to be?

    • Space Guy

      The plutonium is stored on the outside of the descent stage of the lunar module so it would only be accessible via an EVA either on the moon’s surface or in this case a space walk. Given all the issues with resources taking an unplanned, untried spacewalk would be foolish. Added to this the plutonium would have been useless anyway as it generates heat to power instruments once inserted into the surface experiment unit also mounted in the descent stage.

  31. Toadnabber

    Is this the same stuff Bugs Bunny stole from Marvin the Martian?

  32. ron

    The author fails to mention the fact that helium pressure build up from alpha emission will eventually blow the capsule open. A satellite bearing one of these capsules went down during launch off the coast of Santa Barbara in the late 60′s. When it was recovered after only a few weeks it was found that the helium pressure relief vent was already plugged and high pressure was found to have built up when the capsule was cut open.

  33. chris

    A fascinating article and resultant discussion. Im writing a novel that draws on this exact RTG in the Tongan Trench and have some questions that some of you may be able to answer,-
    1. Would the RTG be emitting heat and/or light down there?
    2. Approx how heavy is the RTG in total? How big?
    3. What would happen if the RTG was subjected to intense heat/fire, eg a volcano? Fire?

    Would appreciate any help with these, thank you

  34. rob2tall

    I think we need to leave it where it lies. Another thought I have is why we are not utilizing larger versions for power supplies here on earth? Granted it would need to be in secure locations.

  35. john smith

    42 years ago guys…who cares

  36. R.G. Frano, A-EMT-4-Paramedic, ACLS, (Retired)

    U-864, sunk in a previous war, (WW-2), with a load of mercury & all hands, has contaminated Norwegian fishing stocks ever since; there is now talk of attempting to life-the-remains/entomb the site with cement, now that the mercury has leaked out!

    Regardless of claims that the reactor-shielding protects the local sea bed, It is inevitable: sooner or later, years/decades even centuries post foundering, the U.S.S. Thresher & Scorpion, to say nothing of the ‘K-127’, (partially salvaged for intelligence purposes by the Glomar Explorer expedition), will corrode, necessitating removal of their reactors & remaining nuclear weapons…
    …It’s time to STOP befouling the sea!

  37. o

    how did the experiment and plutonium, which where stored on the LEM (on the outside), reach earth? the LEM was abandoned in space, as it did not have a heat shield and could not withstand re-entry. are you suggesting the astronauts took the experiment with them into the CM before returning.

  38. Michael

    Edison should not be given the credit you give him since he was only responsible for commercializing the discoveries he was credited with. Actual inventors like Nikola Tesla worked for him for very little renumeration before their inventions were credited to Edison. If a modern inventor has done well, don’t sully his name through association with such a capitalist fraud as Edison.

What do you think?

Your comment needs to be approved by the site owner before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, please read GE's Blogging Policy.