[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
POWERING EXPLORATION:
AN UPDATE ON RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION
AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM CASSINI
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 4, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-177 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky AMI BERA, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia JERRY MCNERNEY, California
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana PAUL TONKO, New York
DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
------
Subcommittee on Space
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California AMI BERA, California, Ranking
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma Member
MO BROOKS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
BILL POSEY, Florida DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois
JIM BANKS, Indiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
October 4, 2017
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Ami Bera, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Mr. David Schurr, Deputy Director, Planetary Science Division,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Ms. Tracey Bishop, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
Infrastructure Programs, Office of Nuclear Energy, Department
of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 20
Dr. Ralph L. McNutt, Jr., Chief Scientist for Space Science in
the Space Exploration Sector, The Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Ms. Shelby Oakley, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management,
Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Discussion....................................................... 55
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. David Schurr, Deputy Director, Planetary Science Division,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................. 70
Ms. Tracey Bishop, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
Infrastructure Programs, Office of Nuclear Energy, Department
of Energy...................................................... 73
Dr. Ralph L. McNutt, Jr., Chief Scientist for Space Science in
the Space Exploration Sector, The Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory..................................... 76
POWERING EXPLORATION:
AN UPDATE ON RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION
AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM CASSINI
----------
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Babin [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. The Subcommittee on Space will now come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time. Welcome to today's
hearing titled ``Powering Exploration: An Update on
Radioisotope Production and Lessons Learned from Cassini.'' I
now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Exploration of our solar system continues to amaze and
inspire us all. From rovers on the surface of our neighbor,
Mars, to spacecraft visiting the distant reaches of Pluto, and
the recent completion of the extraordinary Cassini mission to
Saturn, their discoveries are truly awe-inspiring. The
exploration and science achieved by these missions is enabled
by the production of Plutonium-238, or Pu-238, and the
radioisotope power systems, or RPS, that turn fuel into
electricity for spacecraft. RPS are necessary for missions that
go beyond Jupiter where the sun's energy is simply not strong
enough to power solar arrays and for rovers that have unique
mission requirements.
Unfortunately, America's stockpile of Pu-238 is low,
despite efforts to reestablish production. This hearing allows
us to review NASA and DOE's efforts to reconstitute Pu-238
production and better understand how critical it is to enabling
scientific discovery and exploration. The Cassini mission was
enabled by Pu-238 and its RPS system.
Over the last 50 years, NASA has relied on RPS to power
many of its missions into deep space. This was made possible by
a ready supply of Pu-238 that was derived from weapons
production. After the U.S. ended the production of nuclear
weapons in the 1980s, Pu-238 was less plentiful. And so America
has had to purchase Pu-238 from Russia. We no longer purchase
Pu-238 from Russia and now find ourselves in a quandary. The
existing stockpile of Pu-238 is all but gone. The
infrastructure necessary to produce Pu-238 is being
reconstituted, but, as GAO will highlight, challenges remain.
NASA funds the entire enterprise, but DOE owns and operates
the facilities. Not all of the reactors involved in the
production are currently active. Future missions to the outer
planets will undoubtedly require Pu-238. Current assessments of
the volume of Pu-238 that DOE can produce each year and NASA's
assessment of its needs for future missions remain uncertain.
For instance, when NASA assumes how much Pu-238 it needs,
does it assume the fuel will be used in legacy multi-mission
radioisotope thermoelectric generators, or MMRTGs, or in future
advanced sterling radioisotope generators, ASRGs? ASRGs are
much more efficient and use less Pu-238, but the program was
cancelled a few years ago. Are NASA's estimated needs based on
systems that are no longer being developed?
NASA is also exploring plans to blend fuel to stretch its
supply. Does this impact the quality of the supply and the
missions that it can support? Since NASA is wholly dependent on
DOE for isotope production, how will DOE's future management of
its laboratories and reactors impact NASA missions? Is NASA
planning missions based on low production rates or are DOE's
production rates determined by a lack of requirements from
NASA?
The recent completion of the Cassini mission offers us an
opportunity to reflect on the amazing science and discoveries
that were enabled by Pu-238. Stunning images and findings still
stream in from the Curiosity rover on Mars, which is also
enabled by Pu-238. NASA currently has roughly 35 kilograms of
fuel left. NASA and DOE plan to produce 1.5 kilograms a year by
2025. A single MMRTG uses 4.8 kilograms of fuel. To put that
into perspective, Cassini used 33 kilograms in one mission.
I look forward to your insightful testimony about the
future of exploration and how we can ensure that we continue to
push the envelope of discovery. Thank you to our witnesses and
their staff. You were able to accommodate a compressed schedule
to appear today. Your service to the Committee and the nation
is greatly appreciated.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. And now I'd like to recognize the Ranking
Member, the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
calling this hearing. Good morning and welcome to the
distinguished panel.
You know, part of the reason why I like these hearings is,
you know, I'm a simple doctor, a physician, and I get to
interact and listen to the scientists. I would not have thought
I would be talking about Plutonium-238.
But in truth, this is an exciting time for space. It's an
exciting time for space exploration. Just thinking about how
we're going further and further into space, you know, the
dramatic discoveries of Cassini, looking at the Moon and
Enceladus and you know, perhaps harboring the ingredients of
life. And the more we want to go further and further--we're
starting to recapture the imagination of the public with these
discoveries.
But that then comes in, as we go further, what are our
energy sources going to be in terms of communicating with us?
And I think that's why this is such an important hearing. When
Cassini was operated, the radio power systems were operated by
Plutonium-238 and we stopped producing that a while ago. I
think the Chairman's highlighted the challenges there and the
big questions that we have that we look forward to hearing from
all of you about.
A couple questions that I have is, is the DOE on track to
produce NASA's supply requirements of Pu-238 in the anticipated
timeframe? A second question that I would hope that you are
able to address is what impact would Pu-238 shortfalls have on
NASA's Planetary Science plans and future portfolio? A third
question would be are there mitigating actions available to
address the constraints of the Pu-238 supply? And a fourth
question that I would hope that you're able to address is have
NASA and the science community already been making science-
limiting decisions based on the Pu-238 supply constraints?
So Mr. Chairman, with that, I look forward to hearing what
the witnesses have to say and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bera follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Absolutely. Thank you. Good statement. And
I'm a simple dentist. You're a simple physician, right. Okay.
And let's see, I'd like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
Full Committee for a statement, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for calling this hearing. I look forward to hearing the
witnesses.
We hope that this hearing will assess the state of the
supply of the radioisotope power that NASA relies on to carry
out science missions in the outer regions of the solar system
and on the surface of Mars.
Today is the 60th anniversary of Sputnik launch that
ignited the space race with the former Soviet Union. In the
intervening decades, federal investment in NASA's Planetary
Science program has enabled NASA to send spacecraft to the
farthest reaches of our solar system and beyond. Thanks to
Curiosity, which landed on Mars in 2012, we know that ancient
Mars could have had chemistry necessary to support life.
Curiosity also has detected methane in the Martian atmosphere,
a possible sign of microbic activity, and evidence for ancient
water flows.
The recently completed Cassini mission spent more than a
decade observing storms in Saturn's cloud tops, probing the
planet's hidden interior, observing Saturn's rings with
unprecedented detail, and flying through the geysers of
Saturn's moon, Enceladus. The New Horizons mission became the
first mission to perform a fly-by of Pluto and subsequently
discovered that Pluto is still geologically active, has an
extensive blue atmosphere, and is home to the largest known
glacier in the solar system.
What do all of these missions have in common? All of these
missions and the groundbreaking science they enable are driven
by radioisotope power. NASA is developing future missions that
require radioisotope power as well, including the Mars 2020
rover that is currently in development. In 2009 and '11
National Academies reports sounded alarm about the supply of
material needed for radioisotope power and underscored the need
for immediate action to restart domestic production of Pu-238
and the non-weapons grade isotope that makes radioisotope power
systems work.
Mr. Chairman, it is vital that NASA is equipped with the
power resources that it needs to continue to lead in the
scientific exploration of the solar system. NASA's partnership
with the Department of Energy has been and will continue to be
essential in enabling the use of radioisotope power systems. I
look forward to a fruitful discussion on what NASA and DOE are
doing to cost-effectively ensure a sufficient supply of
materials needed for radioisotope power systems to meet NASA's
needs in the future.
I thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Now I'd like to introduce our witnesses.
Mr. David Schurr--is it Schurr or Schurr?
Mr. Schurr. Schurr.
Chairman Babin. Schurr? Our first witness today is Mr.
David Schurr, Deputy Director of the Planetary Science Division
in NASA. He received a bachelor of science degree in aerospace
engineering from the University of Notre Dame and a master's of
science degree in process control from the University of
Houston. He also received a master's of business administration
degree from the University of Houston. Thank you. Good to have
you today.
Ms. Tracey Bishop, our second witness today, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Infrastructure Programs at the
Office of Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy. She holds
a bachelor's of nuclear engineering degree from the Georgia
Institute of Technology and a master's of business
administration degree from the University of Maryland. Welcome.
Dr. Ralph L. McNutt, Jr., our third witness today. He's
Chief Scientist for Space Science in the Space Exploration
Sector at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
Laboratory. He received his bachelor of science and physics at
Texas A & M University and his Ph.D. in physics at MIT. Welcome
to today's hearing.
And Ms. Shelby Oakley, our fourth witness today, Director
of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the GAO, Government
Accountability Office. She earned her bachelor of arts degree
in both psychology and sociology from Washington and Jefferson
College as well as a master's degree in Public Administration
from the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public
and International Affairs. And we welcome you as well.
I'd like to now recognize Mr. Schurr for five minutes to
present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DAVID SCHURR,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
PLANETARY SCIENCE DIVISION,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Schurr. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Bera, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss how NASA's Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Program
enables our planetary exploration portfolio.
My office pursues NASA's goal to ascertain the content,
origin, and evolution of the solar system and the potential for
life elsewhere. For many destinations in the solar system,
solar power is not effective for powering our spacecraft, and
we rely on the use of radioisotope power.
NASA, in partnership with the Department of Energy, has
deployed radioisotope power on 22 of our space missions since
1969. Use of radioisotope power has enabled many first-time
missions, including the first visits to Jupiter and Saturn with
Pioneer 10 and 11; the first landings on Mars with Viking 1 and
2; the first visits to Uranus and Neptune during the Grand
Tours of Voyager 1 and 2; the first rovers on Mars with
Pathfinder, Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity; the first
mission to orbit Jupiter with Galileo; the first mission to
orbit Saturn with the just-completed Cassini; and the first
visit to Pluto with New Horizons.
These missions would not have been possible without using
the heat generated by the natural radioactive decay of
Plutonium-238 to generate electrical power. To ensure that NASA
is capable of conducting these missions, NASA and DOE work
together to sustain and improve the technology to convert heat
into electrical power, and the processes for producing
Plutonium-238 and preparing it for flight.
NASA funds the implementation of the DOE-led Plutonium-238
production and the associated infrastructure needed to fuel and
test radioisotope power systems to fulfill NASA mission
requirements. Progress in re-establishing a Plutonium-238
production capability has been good, with initial batches
already produced and shipped to Los Alamos National Laboratory,
for mixing with existing inventory and pressing into fuel clads
for NASA's upcoming Mars 2020 mission.
NASA's mission requirements for Plutonium-238 are driven by
the mission priorities established in the Planetary Science
Decadal Survey, as well as other potential NASA missions. At
this time, the Mars 2020 mission represents the only firm NASA
requirement for radioisotope power needing one multi-mission
radioisotope thermal generator requiring 4.8 kilograms of
plutonium dioxide.
NASA has also offered mission proposers the option to use
radioisotope power for the current New Frontiers 4 Competition
for possible launch in 2025 and has forecast the potential to
offer radioisotope power for New Frontiers 5 or to a potential
flagship mission launching around 2030.
With the current allocation to civil space of approximately
35 kilograms of plutonium and with new production ramping up to
1.5 kilograms of plutonium dioxide per year, DOE will have
sufficient material for fabrication into heat sources for
expected Planetary Science missions through 2030. In addition,
NASA and DOE have been begun exploring options to increase
production rates above if needed to support any increased
future demand.
NASA also conducts basic and applied energy conversion
research to advance state-of-the-art performance in heat-to-
electrical-energy conversion. Both static and dynamic energy
conversion projects are underway. All missions to date have
used a static conversion system based upon thermocouples.
Dynamic conversion can achieve higher efficiency, but the
moving parts introduce challenges that must be addressed before
committing to flight development. The goal of these investments
is to provide higher conversion efficiency and improve
performance for future missions. Increased efficiency would
benefit the program by enabling more capable missions or
extending the effective use of the Plutonium-238 supply.
With the 2016 New Horizons flyby of Pluto, humankind has
completed its initial survey of our solar system. Through the
use of radioisotope power, the U.S. remains the first and only
nation to reach every major body from Mercury to Pluto with a
space probe. With your continued support, we will use these
capabilities to continue to explore the solar system through
more capable orbiters, landers, and sample return missions in
the years to come.
I look forward to responding to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schurr follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Schurr. I appreciate that.
I now recognize Ms. Bishop for five minutes to present her
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MS. TRACEY BISHOP,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS,
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Ms. Bishop. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Bera, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
today to discuss the Department of Energy's efforts to ensure
radioisotope power systems are available for NASA use.
The Department is committed to its partnership with NASA to
provide radioisotope power systems for space exploration. This
successful partnership has extended over 50 years and 22
missions. Radioisotope power systems have a proven track record
with no failures and long power lifetimes, making them a
continued viable technology option for NASA missions.
In October 2016, the Department and NASA renewed a
memorandum of understanding to work together on future
development and deployment of radioisotope power systems. This
arrangement updated agency responsibilities to reflect funding
authority changes and to provide more emphasis on aligning and
integrating work to ensure and enable future space exploration
missions.
In the same month, the Office of Nuclear Energy realigned
responsibilities to the Office of Nuclear Infrastructure
Programs elevating interface with NASA to the Deputy Assistant
Secretary level.
Upon approval of the new memorandum of understanding, the
agencies initiated discussions to assess current activities and
to determine options to support for NASA mission goals. In
early 2017, the Department and NASA agreed to transition
delivery of radioisotope power systems from a mission-driven
approach to constant-rate production strategy. Constant-rate
production establishes clear deliverables, as defined by annual
average production rates for Plutonium-238 and fueled clads
allowing the Department to level-load work, ensuring that the
capability is fully exercised, technical proficiency of the
workforce is maintained, and opportunities to maintain and
refurbish equipment in a systematic approach are available to
support NASA mission requirements.
Measurable progress has been made to realign activities to
directly address identified risks to achieving plutonium
production rates. The Department completed its first campaign
of new, domestic Plutonium-238 in 2015, and the new material
met NASA mission specification requirements. The Department and
NASA agreed to continue efforts to reconstitute the plutonium
supply chain by utilizing this material as part of the Mars
2020 mission. I am pleased to report that as of August 2017,
the Department successfully fabricated two fueled clads
utilizing new plutonium for the Mars 2020 mission. A second
campaign of new plutonium is scheduled to complete this fall,
taking into account lessons learned from the first campaign.
The Department is actively working to address and mitigate
risk to establishing domestic Plutonium-238 production.
Additional funding was made available as part of the Fiscal
Year 2017 Omnibus. The Department is utilizing those funds to
further reduce risk and accelerate the schedule. For example,
the Department is accelerating work to expand the capability to
ship larger quantities of Plutonium-238 heat source oxide
between its sites. The Department is also accelerating research
and testing on production target design with a goal of
recommending a standard target design for both the advanced
test reactor at Idaho National Laboratory and the high flux
isotope reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory by 2019.
The Department has an existing inventory of Plutonium-238
that is able to meet NASA's current demands through a notional
mission in 2025 plus additional plutonium that is currently out
of specification.
The Department recognizes there is a need to develop long-
range projections of plutonium to support space exploration
planning activities beyond 2025 and is initiating several
activities to begin this work.
The Department accelerated an experimental campaign to
verify an approach for irradiation in underutilized positions
in the advanced test reactor that would yield sufficient
quantities of very high assay plutonium which can be blended
with the existing larger quantities of out-of-specification
inventory to support overall heat source production rates while
minimizing impact to existing irradiation customers.
The Department is also assessing options to support
redesign of the high flux isotope reactor's beryllium reflector
to optimize it for Plutonium-238 production with the potential
to increase total yield and assay so that it could also be
blended with larger amounts of out-of- specification plutonium.
The Department remains committed to partnering with NASA to
ensure continued availability of radioisotope power systems for
space exploration missions. Thank you for the opportunity to
share the Department's progress, and I look forward to
addressing any questions you may have in this area.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bishop follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Ms. Bishop. I now recognize Dr.
McNutt for five minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. RALPH L. MCNUTT, JR.,
CHIEF SCIENTIST FOR SPACE SCIENCE
IN THE SPACE EXPLORATION SECTOR,
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY APPLIED PHYSICS LABORATORY
Dr. McNutt. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Bera, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for providing this
opportunity for me to discuss some of the things that we've
been able to do with these radioisotope power supplies over the
years and some of the challenges that have been going on in
order to be able to actually make a lot of these discoveries.
Of course, it's already been remarked that 60 years ago today
Sputnik was launched. It was powered by a battery. It was not
until the fourth mission, Vanguard I that was launched by the
United States, that there were actually solar cells that were
used.
Solar cells were a problematic technology at the time.
We've come an incredibly long way since then. But at the time
there were issues about whether that they would actually be
able to be useful. And so the development of radioisotope power
supplies was begun early. The first use was on the Transit 4A
satellite launched in 1961 as part of the Navy's communications
system. And since then, the United States has poured a great
deal of effort and money into maturing the radioisotope power
system supplies that we've been using until today.
And of course, things like the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes,
the first ones beyond the asteroid belt, the Viking 1 and 2
landers, the first landers on Mars, and now even the venerable
Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 space probes, which have celebrated
more than 40 years in space and are still broadcasting from
beyond the edge of the solar system new data about our
surroundings, none of these would have been available if it had
not been for these power supplies.
It's also been remarked about the Cassini mission, of
course, and I think I've got a graphic and that is indeed is
up.
[Slide]
Of course, trying to describe everything that's been done
with Cassini over the last 13 years in orbit is something that
would take considerably more than five minutes. But certainly,
our discoveries at Titan, our discoveries about Saturn, its
rings, the magnetosphere, how similar and different the
magnetic fields of Saturn and the Earth are, as well as looking
at Enceladus of course, and the plumes which have already been
talked about, is perhaps places where there might actually be
life are all things that would not have been possible without
those power supplies on board the spacecraft. And if we'd go to
the next slide, please?
[Slide]
Of course, also with New Horizons, on the left-hand side is
the best Hubble image of Pluto, and in the middle is what we
were able to get with New Horizons, after 9-1/2 years of
flight. And the final image is actually looking back toward the
sun with the New Horizons spacecraft.
[Slide]
And you can see the haze around the edge. This is a movie.
This is actually put together from actual data that was
gathered by the New Horizons spacecraft showing you what the
glaciers look like made out of nitrogen ice, water mountains,
very young features, all geologically active. This has also
been already remarked about, basically an incredible world out
at the edge of the solar system. And again, if it had not been
for having these radioisotope power supplies, none of this
would have been possible.
Of course, one of the things that has also been noted is
that at the time of the Academy report in 2009, it looked like
we were into a going-out-of-business sale with being able to
actually have plutonium supplies to be able to do these kinds
of missions. The good news is that we were able to actually
recover from that, as has already been noted by my other
colleagues here at the table. We seem to have turned the corner
on that.
At the same time, this is a difficult business, and the
converters that NASA has been investing in, DOE has been
investing in, these have been technically hard problems. It's
been elusive in trying to raise the types of efficiencies that
one would like, and indeed the type of radioisotope power
systems that are on board Cassini and on board New Horizons
right now are technologies that right now we cannot
reduplicate. We cannot rebuild those supplies.
It's been a difficult, difficult time trying to come up
with a sort of a power supply where that one supply will fit
all. And that has particularly remained elusive. Of course,
it's limited by the amount of funds that are out there, but
nonetheless, there are other steps that perhaps could be taken
in order to enable us to keep moving forward. Certainly within
the scientific community, a great deal of interest in the
decadal surveys with future missions that cannot be done any
other way, and I look forward to being able to answer any
questions that you might have about some of those missions or
any of the other aspects of these supplies and what they've
been able to do for us. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McNutt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Dr. McNutt. I recognize Ms.
Oakley for five minutes to present her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MS. SHELBY OAKLEY, DIRECTOR,
ACQUISITION AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Oakley. Good morning, Chairman Babin, Ranking Members
Johnson and Bera, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased
to be here today as the simple analyst on the panel to discuss
the current status of radioisotope production to enable future
exploration.
As you know, radioisotope power systems, or RPS, have
enabled many of our most ambitious exploration missions such as
Curiosity and of course, Cassini. DOE has been providing RPS to
NASA for over five decades. However, our continued capability
to produce RPS is dependent on a ready supply of Pu-238, the
highly radioactive isotope used to power RPS.
From the late '80s until recently we haven't produced any
Pu-238 in the U.S., and our national stockpile that can be used
in RPS is about 17.5 kilograms, about half of what was used in
Cassini.
With one mission expected to use RPS, Mars 2020, and one
that may potentially use RPS, New Frontiers 4, the Pu-238
stockpile could be exhausted as early as 2025.
In 2011, NASA began funding DOE's efforts to develop new
Pu-238 through its Supply Project. Timeframes and costs for the
Supply Project have shifted and increased since 2011, and it
will be 2025 at the earliest until DOE expects it can reach its
full production goal of 1.5 kilograms per year. Until it does,
questions will remain about NASA's ability to plan for and
execute scientific missions that rely on RPS as an enabling
technology.
With this information as a backdrop, today I will discuss
our recent work looking at how NASA selects RPS-powered
missions, what factors affect such demand, and the progress and
challenges DOE faces in meeting NASA's demand. Regarding
mission selection, NASA officials acknowledge that the
availability of Pu-238 has been a limiting factor for selecting
missions that require RPS, particularly prior to the
establishment of the Supply Project in 2011. For example, NASA
did not offer RPS up for New Frontiers #3. Based on DOE's
progress, NASA has now indicated that it is currently not a
limiting factor but one of several factors it considers in
mission selection. These other factors include scientific
priorities and objectives, costs and timeframes, and policy
direction.
NASA officials indicated they prioritize mission selection
based on the decadal survey which represents the highest
priorities of the scientific community and includes many
missions that may require RPS.
According to NASA, it can only do two to three RPS missions
using RPS per decade. Traditionally, RPS have been used on what
NASA refers to as flagship missions. Flagships typically cost
$2 billion or more and as our previous work has shown
frequently experience cost overruns and schedule delays. As a
result, the projected rate of these kinds of missions, due to
their high cost, has allowed the demand for RPS to be met, at
least in the near term. For other less expensive missions, the
cost and time it takes to produce RPS makes their use a little
more challenging. Finally, it is important to note that
consistent with National Space Policy, NASA uses RPS for
missions when it enables or significantly enhances the mission
or when alternative power sources would compromise mission
objectives. Sometimes it's evident that RPS is the only option,
but other times more work is needed to determine if there's an
alternative source available, such as solar, as was the case
with the Europa Clipper mission.
Regarding supply, DOE is making progress toward producing
new Plutonium-238. So far DOE has produced approximately 100
grams of new Pu-238 and has initiated efforts to ensure it has
sufficient equipment and facilities to meet NASA's demand.
However, DOE faces challenges in hiring and training the
necessary workforce, perfecting and scaling up chemical
processing, and ensuring the availability of reactors. That
must be addressed or its ability to meet NASA's needs could be
jeopardized.
Addressing these challenges will take careful planning and
coordination. However, we've found that DOE and NASA could do
more in this regard. For example, we found that DOE doesn't
have a long-term plan in place that identifies interim steps
and milestones to allow it to show progress in meeting
production goals or how risks are being mitigated. We also
found that DOE's prior approach to managing the work doesn't
allow it to adequately communicate systematic risks to NASA and
their potential on programmatic goals. Having such information
would allow DOE and NASA to make adjustments to the program, if
necessary, and better plan for future missions.
We made recommendations to DOE aimed at better planning and
communicating risk. DOE concurred and has identified actions
it's taking.
Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Bera, and members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my remarks. I'm happy to answer
any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Oakley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Ms. Oakley. I thank the witness
for your testimony and all of the witnesses. The Chair
recognizes himself for five minutes, and I'm going to ask a
question of Mr. Schurr. But I would like to--answer it as
briefly as you possibly can but cogently, of course, and then I
want to try to get in as much as I possibly can from some of
the rest of you folks.
Mr. Schurr, your testimony states that NASA has
approximately 35 kilograms of plutonium dioxide. You also
stated that NASA expects DOE to begin initial operations of Pu-
238 production in 2019 with a goal of producing 400 grams of
plutonium dioxide annually and ramping up to 1.5 kilograms per
year by 2025. Finally, you stated that this production rate
would satisfy expected NASA Planetary Science mission
requirements through 2030. Of the 35 kilograms of Pu-238
allocated to NASA, how much of that is viable for use in an RPS
system for spaceflight?
Mr. Schurr. Currently about 17 kilograms of the 35 meets
the specifications for our use for spaceflight. So what's
valuable to us is as we start ramping up the initial production
of the new plutonium which will be at a higher assay, a hotter
material, we'll be able to blend that with the remaining 18
kilograms or so that is not to specification.
So in the short term, the missions that we've got with Mars
2020 and a potential mission in 2025, we have all the materials
that we need for a mission in the 2030 timeframe when we'll
rely upon the new production to blend with the rest of the
material that's in inventory that's not up to specification.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. Does your assessment that
planned production will meet NASA requirements assume the use
of multi-mission radioisotope thermoelectric generator
technology or advanced sterling radioisotope generators
technology?
Mr. Schurr. At the moment, we're assuming the MMRTG is the
baseline since the ASRG does not exist and it's not in our
inventory. But we are looking at alternatives and improvements
to the basic MMRTG technology. But right now we assume that's
our baseline.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. How much Pu-238 does an
MMRTG require versus an ASRG?
Mr. Schurr. The MMRTG uses 4.8 kilograms of plutonium
dioxide, and the ASRG is 1/4 as much for the same amount of
power.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Just wondering if we need more Pu-238
than we're thinking. Does your assessment that planned
production will meet NASA requirements also factor in the
potential needs of the human exploration community?
Mr. Schurr. At this point, we're not making any assumptions
about needs for human exploration, Mars or elsewhere. If for
human spaceflight we determine that there's a value for Pu-238
in their activities, it would likely require an increase in
production. And that's part of what we're working with DOE,
what are our options to do a higher rate of production if
needed.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. And lastly, if some
portion of NASA's existing stockpile of 35 kilograms of Pu-238
is not currently flight worthy and NASA's assessed need for
future missions is based on systems that are more efficient
than we currently produce, does NASA only need 1-1/2 kilograms
per year for Pu-238 from DOE to meet its existing demands or
could it use more? And also, what are we losing by not
employing RPS for human missions?
Mr. Schurr. There's a lot in there. We certainly could do
more missions at a higher rate, but the number of missions that
we can go do in, you know, a decade for instance, is also
constrained by how much budget we have for the missions of that
scale as well as the other activities that we're doing in the
Planetary Science.
So what we've been trying to do is get a balance right
between what we think is a reasonable forecast in making sure
that we've got the capability and the plutonium available to
meet that forecast.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Tracey, based on the
National Nuclear Security Administration's Global Threat
Reduction Initiative, DOE committed in 2012 to convert all
research reactors to a low-enrichment fuel for non-
proliferation concerns. The high flux isotope reactor at Oak
Ridge National Laboratories is approaching 60 years of age and
uses highly enriched fuel. What is the certainty of continued
use and availability of HIFR, H-I-F-R?
Ms. Bishop. Thank you for the question. The mission for
HIFR is continuing on within the Department. My organization,
along with other elements in the Department, continue to work
with the National Nuclear Security Administration regarding
efforts to convert the research reactors from highly enriched
uranium to low-enriched uranium fuel. At this time I do not
have any indications regarding impact to future missions or the
ability to impact NASA's goal to produce Plutonium-238.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. I have a lot more, but my
time has expired. So we will go to the gentleman from
California, Mr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We currently have 35
kilograms of Pu-238. Is that our current stockpile, Mr. Schurr?
Mr. Schurr. That's correct.
Mr. Bera. And there was a time where we were purchasing Pu-
238 from Russia, but Russia has now indicated they either don't
have the supplies or is it that they don't want to sell us
supplies, Mr. Schurr?
Mr. Schurr. I have to admit, all those activities pre-dated
me and have been closed down for a while.
Mr. Bera. Okay.
Mr. Schurr. I don't know if Tracey, if you've got anything
to add to that.
Ms. Bishop. Those discussions also pre-dated my
involvement.
Mr. Bera. Okay. So regardless, they may have supplies but
they don't want to sell them to us or they no longer have
supplies.
Mr. Schurr. We currently have no negotiations or discussion
going on with the Russians regarding Pu-238.
Mr. Bera. And it's reasonable to assume that there are no
other countries currently capable of producing Pu-238 that we
know about?
Mr. Schurr. That's correct.
Mr. Bera. In thinking about what our needs are by 2025,
we've got the 35 kilograms. What would you say our needs are
between now and 2025, Mr. Schurr?
Mr. Schurr. The most that we can envision that we would use
between now and 2025 is about the 17 kilograms that's within
specification. Through 2030, we could possibly use that full
35, but we would have to bring the rest of it up within
specification. And that's where the new production is required.
Mr. Bera. Okay. And we would--I think the chairman asked
questions if there are missions we'd consider without the RPS?
But it wouldn't make sense I think if we're going to deeper
space not to have that ability to collect and communicate.
Mr. Schurr. That's correct. We have now demonstrated we can
do missions as far away from the sun as Jupiter. The Juno
mission is currently there, the Europa Clipper mission will be
going there. I've seen proposals that can go as far as Saturn
for fairly limited missions, but beyond that, solar power is
not really going to be useful and we need an alternative
source, such as RPS.
Mr. Bera. Okay, and we'd certainly want to have some
certainty that we're not, you know, sending a mission pretty
far out and not certain whether solar power--
Mr. Schurr. Correct. And we have high-priority missions
that are out to Uranus and Neptune that are part of our decadal
survey that we want to maintain the ability to service.
Mr. Bera. Great. Is there any science going into other
alternative fuel sources or is it Pu-238 that is the source
that we have to be using? And is all the science on improving
conversion, blending it, making it a bit more efficient?
Mr. Schurr. There's been a lot of work historically looking
at what are the best isotopes to use for power conversion. Pu-
238 tends to come up on top for many reasons as one of the
best. And the infrastructure is in place today. So as far as
isotopes go, we wouldn't really look at a different
radioisotope. There's possibility that fission might be
developed in the future, and we'll look at what missions a
fission system could possibly support. But likely it's not
everything we're trying to do with planetary exploration. We're
also looking at what are the different power conversion
technologies. How can we advance thermocouples to be more
efficient than what we've got right now? We have a technology
project underway today to improve thermocouple efficiency, and
we're also continuing to explore dynamic power which is the
basis for the ASRG to see if we can come up with a more
efficient system there.
Mr. Bera. Dr. McNutt, would you have some thoughts on this
as well?
Dr. McNutt. Well, I think that David put the case fairly
well. Certainly the idea of being able to have a dynamic
converter is something that we've been talking about for a
long, long time. And the problem is these have always fallen
short. There are technical reasons. There's a lot of concern
about whether that if one had a dynamic power system, is that
something that you really want to rely upon, having the moving
parts? And there's a great deal of debate back and forth in the
community about that.
So as I mentioned, certainly the GPHS, RTGs, these are the
ones that were used on Cassini, Galileo, Ulysses, New Horizons.
Those were sort of the top-level power supplies we were able to
put together which will work in a hard vacuum. They won't work
on the surface of Mars for technical reasons. And again,
they're the sort of thing that we've sort of backed away from,
partially because we were looking for the one-size-fits-all
kind of a unit.
With respect to other isotopes, David is actually
absolutely right. That sort of thing has been examined over and
over and over again, a great deal in the 1950s, the 1960s
especially, and for all sorts of technical reasons, Plutonium-
238 in the dioxide form is the only thing that really makes any
sense.
Mr. Bera. So if we're projecting into the future past 2025
and further, we know more of the international community is
getting involved and thinking about space exploration as we go
into deeper and deeper space. It is my perspective that we will
be doing that in partnership with the international community.
You know, if we do more human space exploration, whether it's
human exploration of Mars, et cetera, we'll also need reliable
energy sources, et cetera. It's not easy to produce Pu-238
obviously. We potentially become the only supplier of Pu-238
with missions that are beyond what we're just thinking about
within NASA and our own scope. And I'm not sure we want other
countries producing Pu-238 or encouraging that. That wouldn't
necessarily be a good thing.
So one thing that I would urge us to also think about as
we're ramping up production beyond 2025 is how do we meet the
international community's needs potentially as well? Am I
thinking about this correctly? Because again, I don't think we
want other countries exploring Pu-238 production.
Dr. McNutt. Well, certainly one of the things that's
happened in the United States, if you look at inflation-
adjusted dollars, there's been about $6 billion that went into
developing these supplies. And of course, we've already had
that kind of an international partnership because the Ulysses
spacecraft was actually built by the European Space Agency but
we provided the GPHS-RTG that actually enabled that mission.
And there have been other discussions with other space
agencies, notably with--VESA, about trying to duplicate that or
replicate that, having similar things go ahead in the future.
But the bottom line is as David was saying is that once you
get beyond Jupiter and especially with some of the things you'd
still like to do with Jupiter, you just simply cannot do them
without this. And the United States is the premier developer of
the technology, the owner of the technology, the owner of all
of the intellectual property. We're the ones that know how to
do this. It's been a very hard-fought battle getting to that
point, and it's something that I think most members of the
Science Committee would hope that we don't lose.
Mr. Bera. I would hope so as well. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. The gentleman's time has expired.
Now let's go to the gentleman for California, Mr. Knight.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to go in a
little bit different direction, probably to Mr. Schurr or Dr.
McNutt. Are ASRGs, are they already assumed in deep space
explanation, NASA is already taking them into effect or into
account?
Mr. Schurr. The ASRG project itself, the flight project was
cancelled back in 2013. So right now we don't build it into any
of our forecasts for future needs as a system that would be
available to us. We're still investing in the technology to see
if we can develop the technology from that. But we don't build
it into any of our forecasts.
Mr. Knight. Okay. So if we go down the road of going to
Mars in the next 16 or 17 years as the bumper sticker says--if
my good friend from Colorado would be here, Ed Purlmutter, he
would have his bumper sticker out there. If we assume we're
going to make it there in the next 16 years, a lot of these
efforts have got to be or a lot of these problems have got to
be fixed. One of them is the propulsion. Obviously the number
one is the radiation, to make sure that our astronauts get
there and they get back safely. That's always the number one
mission.
If we are going to get there a little faster to make sure
that the radiation impact is lessened because of less travel
time, is that going to be a part of a new propulsion system or
is that going to be a propulsion system that might be nuclear
powered?
Mr. Schurr. I don't believe there's a relationship between
the Stirling power conversion and the NTP, Nuclear Thermal
Propulsion. So you see, the sterling gets involved when you
want to convert the heat that comes out----
Mr. Knight. Right.
Mr. Schurr. --of the reactor into electricity.
Mr. Knight. Right. Okay. But again, if I just follow that
question or that line of thinking, we're going to need that
kind of propulsion system to get us there quicker, is that
correct?
Mr. Schurr. I actually have to admit that's not my field of
expertise. So in the Planetary Science, our focus is on the
power conversion. And I know we have folks in our space
technology organization that are working on NTP.
Mr. Knight. Okay. And now I'm going to go back to what the
Chairman said, about the 35 kilograms. If we have enough to
make sure that we're going through 2025 or 2030 and the
conversion of this 35 kilograms is proper, we have enough,
wouldn't the ASRGs be a part of that at some point to make sure
that we have the burn rate or the conversion rate or some other
technology? It could be something else.
Mr. Schurr. If we're able to develop a dynamic technology
that is four times more efficient, we'd be able to stretch the
supply to conduct four times more missions or larger missions.
So it is something we are investing in to see if we can make it
work.
It is technology that would also be applicable to any
human-based usage with a fission-based system, if one were
developed. So the technology has multiple uses, any heat source
conversion to electricity. So it is an area that we're going to
continue to invest in. Whether it makes sense for planetary
missions or not, we have to solve some of the issues that Dr.
McNutt was referring to. A dynamic power system with moving
parts that can't be maintained for 20 years, you have to make
sure there's enough reliability in the system. But those are
the things that we're investigating.
Mr. Knight. Okay. Very good. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Nobody down there. The gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Questions for
each member of the panel. Are you aware of any destruction of
the United States' supply of Pu-238 in the past?
Mr. Schurr. I'm going to defer to my colleague from the
Department of Energy.
Ms. Bishop. Sir, I'm not aware of any destruction of Pu-
238.
Mr. Posey. Anyone else hear any rumors of it at all? Okay.
In 2004 we had Dr. Jim Green, Director of NASA's Planetary
Science Division here, and he indicated there was absolutely no
problem whatsoever with future supplies of Pu-238. And Mr.
Schurr, you've kind of indicated the same thing, but the
Inspector General leads me to believe there might be a problem
with it. What's the deal here?
Ms. Oakley. I think what we were trying to convey in our
report was more that there was a limiting factor, the Pu-238
was a limiting factor in the early part of this decade. That
coupled with a lot of really significant overruns on Planetary
Science missions I think limited even the number of missions
that Planetary Science could undertake, let alone the ones that
would need Pu-238.
Right now based on the development of new Pu-238 blended
with the old, the needs are met in the near term. Our report
tries to convey the fact that if this new supply of Pu-238
isn't established and the goals aren't met by DOE, then it
could become a limiting factor again in the future.
Mr. Posey. Well, I would think, and it's common sense, that
if we know we're going to need more in the future, we would
have some plan, some coordination between NASA and DOE to
furnish a supply or produce a supply. And the information that
I seem to be getting is there really is no firm coordination or
agreements or efforts to do that at this point.
Mr. Schurr. I think I'd say it a little bit differently. In
2012 we kicked off with the Department of Energy a restart of
the plutonium production project. So we've been investing since
2012.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Now, bring me up to date on that. Where's
that progressed to? At what point are you in now?
Mr. Schurr. We've now produced up to 200 grams?
Ms. Bishop. We've produced 100 grams----
Mr. Schurr. 100 grams.
Ms. Bishop. --of new material. We have a second campaign
underway that should end this fall that's going to produce
approximately the same amount of material. And we are
continuing our efforts to reestablish our infrastructure and
our pipeline to produce the rates that NASA requires to support
their mission activities.
Mr. Posey. And does NASA's request take into consideration
maybe a loss of a launch and might need to replace that?
Mr. Schurr. Not specifically, but since the only firm
mission that's on our books right now is the Mars 2020 mission,
we clearly would have the ability to replace one MMRTGs' worth
of fuel if we were asked to do so.
Mr. Posey. Well, I've heard the 35 that we have now
potentially being utilized by 2025, is that correct?
Mr. Schurr. About half of that could be used by 2025. The
other half needs the blending of the new material and would
cover our needs through at least 2030.
Mr. Posey. And beyond 2030?
Mr. Schurr. We would need the new production that's coming
on line which should be to full operational capability by 2025.
And at that point, we're already starting the discussions about
whether we want to raise the rates if we need it for future
forecasts.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you. I'd like to call on
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dunn.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me start
if I may with Mr. Schurr and Ms. Bishop. How does NASA
communicate their needs regarding the RPS for Pu-238? How do
you communicate with each other, and do you feel like you've
got enough lead time on that?
Mr. Schurr. I mean, we have regular processes. We have a
monthly management review where we sit down and look at all of
the progress in their activities as well as talk about any
changes in our activities. Then we have a formal process. It's
part of the annual budget cycle where----
Mr. Dunn. You feel like you're interconnecting well, both
of you?
Mr. Schurr. Yes, I would say so.
Ms. Bishop. Yes, I would agree.
Mr. Dunn. Okay. For Ms. Oakley, does DOE have an assessment
of the total cost requirements to upgrade the facilities to
undertake the Plutonium-238 production? And who pays for that?
Ms. Oakley. Well, the bottom line is that NASA will bear
the cost, most of the cost, to upgrade the facilities and
prepare all of the----
Mr. Dunn. That's not spread over any of the other users of
238?
Ms. Oakley. No.
Mr. Dunn. Pu-238.
Ms. Oakley. Not that I understand. No, and NASA is the
primary user right now, and NASA is responsible for
reestablishing the capability for the United States. So they've
been providing the funding to DOE through the Supply Project
since 2011.
And so I think that if you want to talk about costs, this
is one of the criticisms in our report that we had is that
prior to recent changes that Ms. Bishop discussed, the Supply
Project was being managed in a very segmented, short-term
approach because of uncertainties about funding that would be
available in any given year. So it was really difficult to
project how much this was going to cost overall.
So in the beginning we were being told it was about $85 to
$125 million to reconstitute this effort. Now it's looking like
it's going to take a little bit longer and be more upwards of
about $235 million. That being said because of the way the
project was being managed before, we don't know exactly if this
is a realistic accounting of risks that are involved in
reestablishing that project.
Mr. Dunn. Do I misunderstand, does DOE--you're producing
this Pu-238 also or 239 for weapons?
Ms. Bishop. That's not my area of----
Mr. Dunn. Not yours but DOE is the one doing it, right?
Ms. Bishop. The Department of Energy is producing
Plutonium-238 to support the mission requirements.
Mr. Dunn. So are those two parts of DOE talking to each
other? I mean, we're making the stuff, so maybe they can get
some--NASA doesn't have to start all over?
Ms. Bishop. No, we coordinate very closely with NASA
regarding mission needs as well as their requirements for
plutonium. Also with our arrangement with NASA, the Department
employs full-cost recovery. So we go forth and look at the
infrastructure that NASA needs. If it is shared infrastructure,
for example at Los Alamos National Laboratory where the
infrastructure is shared with other national security
customers, there is a cost-sharing arrangement. So the----
Mr. Dunn. Have you now reprocessed all of the Russian
plutonium we got from the warheads at the end of the Cold War?
Ms. Bishop. No. The Russian material is still part of the
stockpile that we currently have available.
Mr. Dunn. That 17.5 or 35 whatever----
Ms. Bishop. The 35 kilograms, yes.
Mr. Dunn. Okay. So that's the last of it?
Ms. Bishop. Yes.
Mr. Dunn. That's it? Okay. Just turn for a moment there. I
think this is a Mr. Schurr question. Please compare the
relative development levels. Which is ready first, the MMRTG,
the ASRG, and the kilopower fission system? Which one can we
expect to be on line first?
Mr. Schurr. Well, the MMRTG is active today on the Mars
Science Lab that's on Mars. So we started developing that one
back around 2001 or so, and it's operational. We've got two
more copies of that that were built at the same time. One of
those will go on the Mars 2020 mission that will launch in
2020. So that's the system that we have in hand. It's ready to
go. We can build more copies of that, and DOE builds those for
us. We are making technology investments in potential
enhancement----
Mr. Dunn. I understand you're stalling the ASRG, right?
Mr. Schurr. The ASRG, we are just looking at the
technology----
Mr. Dunn. Okay.
Mr. Schurr. --basic conversion technology itself right now.
Mr. Dunn. How about the kilopower?
Mr. Schurr. Kilopower is investigation that other parts of
the agency are looking at for potential fission systems.
Mr. Dunn. Purely investigational at this point?
Mr. Schurr. It's still technology development.
Mr. Dunn. So I'm going to try to squeeze one more question
in here if I may, Mr. Chairman. So is there any chance that we
can make this plutonium power available to commercial partners,
the commercial sector? And is that legal, going for other
missions----
Mr. Schurr. We haven't spent any time working on that.
Ms. Bishop. Yeah, I don't have information.
Mr. Dunn. So that's a novel idea to you?
Mr. Schurr. We certainly haven't had any asks for it.
Mr. Dunn. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. I now recognize the gentleman
from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and we
get a great education here. You know, this is a--I feel like
I'm talking to the greatest experts in the world, and for us to
have hired people like this individually would be just
impossible. So thank you very much for your testimony.
And with that said, I sort of look at myself as a student
that hasn't done his lessons yet on this particular issue. So
let me ask this. Solar power is one way of promoting and
actually providing the energy that we need at least for closer
in space exploration missions but solar power will not work
further out in space, is that correct?
Mr. Schurr. Correct. The further away you get from the sun,
the less power you can get off the same solar panels. So if you
go to Jupiter, it's only four percent of what you can get from
Earth from the same solar panels.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So we are going to--with anything
that goes beyond Mars--this will not affect any calculations as
far as for a Mars mission, is that correct?
Mr. Schurr. Mostly correct. There are uses where the
environment is--if you look at the rovers on Mars, they're not
always in the sunlight because of the way the sun changes as
Mars goes through its seasons. So on MSL and Mars 2020 actually
having the RTG makes it operational year round as opposed to
having to stop during the winter.
Mr. Rohrabacher. How about on the far side of the Moon?
Mr. Schurr. The far side of the Moon? One of the problems
you have with the Moon is you get two weeks of darkness no
matter what part of the moon you're going to be on. And these
can enable missions, possibly rovers or landers, to survive
that lunar night at well.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, so this does have some application
other than just deep space?
Mr. Schurr. That's correct. It's not just distance. It's
also any place that may be dark or dusty and not have enough
sunlight.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, and I understand Japan has a large,
how do you say, storage? Not storage but they possess a large
amount of plutonium left over from their reactors?
Mr. Schurr. I'm not familiar with that at all.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Is anyone familiar with that and the
possibility that that could be used to produce the Plutonium-
238 that we need?
Ms. Bishop. Congressman, I'm not aware of any inventory.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Now what about Russia? Is
Russia--I understand they actually produced this at one point,
is that right?
Ms. Bishop. Yes, that's correct, and previously the United
States purchased material from Russia. And that's what we have
in our current inventory. But there's no plans at this point to
purchase additional material.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So is it possible that we could, if we
could get our relations back together again as they were a few
years ago, we might have--this could be some area of
cooperation between Russia and the United States in providing
this material and perhaps joint deep space projects?
Dr. McNutt. Can I----
Ms. Bishop. Yes.
Dr. McNutt. So I was actually the co-chair of the 2009
report, and we looked at the situation with Russia at the time.
And apparently, from what we could tell, they pretty much had
sold or were planning to sell to the United States everything
that they had left. There were discussions that they brought up
suggesting that if we wanted to fund a plant in Russia, that
they would be interested in taking our money and producing
plutonium for us. It was not going to be cheap, and at least at
the time talking with the people that were at DOE, they did not
think that that would be an appropriate thing to do, nor were
really the funds there in place to do that.
So there are--of course, the Chang'e 3 lander that the
Chinese landed on the moon not too many years ago did have
radioisotope power supplies on board. They're very small. From
what one can tell from the open literature, those probably did
come from the Russians, perhaps some leftovers of what they
had. But as far as there's anything out there that is available
in open literature, the majority of this material that's left
in the world is in the United States, and it's that 35
kilograms.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And it has to be produced. This is
something--you have leftover plutonium from nuclear power
plants but that plutonium needs to be worked on and produced
through another process.
Dr. McNutt. So that's actually a different kind of
plutonium. That's the same thing that one uses in weapons. It's
Plutonium-239.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Dr. McNutt. The power supply is 238. That one difference
makes all the difference in the world. It turns out that
Plutonium-238 gives off power by actually decaying. Half of it
goes away after about 87 years, and that's the reason that the
Voyagers will be going off-line sometime in the mid-2020s
because their nuclear batteries effectively are winding down.
So you do indeed have to make it. You make it out of
Neptunium-237----
Mr. Rohrabacher. And that comes from where?
Dr. McNutt. Well, the Neptunium-237 was left over from the
United States weapons program. There's about 300 kilograms of
the material that's left under storage at Idaho National
Laboratories in Idaho, and the United States no longer has the
capability of making that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, but none of that comes directly from
leftover material from nuclear power plants?
Dr. McNutt. Not in the United States, sir, no.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But over in perhaps in Russia----
Dr. McNutt. There are some processes that one can use, but
again, one has to do a lot of processing of material. And of
course, we haven't been reprocessing material for the
commercial world in the United States since the Ford
Administration. It's been a security issue.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I understand that, but we're looking at
just reprocessing for this specific 238. That will come from
plutonium that is not in any way related to what's left over
from a nuclear power plant. Is that correct?
Dr. McNutt. Right.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. McNutt. It is the----
Mr. Rohrabacher. This is not reprocessed plutonium----
Dr. McNutt. Right.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --from a nuclear power plant?
Dr. McNutt. No, it is not.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And where does that plutonium come from
that the 238 comes from? It's just processed.
Dr. McNutt. So again, the Plutonium-238 is material that we
actually made out of the neptunium that we've had as heritage
material that's been left over from other programs in the
United States. Again, once you make it, half of it goes away in
about 87 years. And so that's one of the reasons that part of
that 35 kilogram inventory is not currently up to specs because
it's old enough that it has decayed away. And so that's the
reason for needing to up-blend it with new material in order
for it to be used in future missions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And for long term, any long-term strategy
that would have us in deep space, this is an issue that we must
deal with because some day we're just going to reach a brick
wall and can't go any further. I hope by then perhaps we will
have not just Russia but other international partners that
could work with us on this so the total cost isn't the American
taxpayer. But who knows? We'll see. But in the meantime, I'm
pleased that you are alerting us to this long-term need that
should be there on one of our considerations as we're looking
through our budget. So thank you very much for your testimony
today.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. There was just
a couple other issues that I wanted to address. Dr. McNutt,
NASA indicates that a production rate of 1.5 kilograms per year
is sufficient to meet its needs, and that is based on the use
of MMRTGs. The 2009 National Academy of Science Report that you
chaired included an attachment which was a letter from NASA to
DOE expressing Pu-238 production needs, and it states the Mars
Science Lab and the Outer Planet Flagship 1 are designed to use
the multi-mission radioisotope thermoelectric generator
technology. The rest of the missions assume the use of advanced
sterling radioisotope generator technology, significantly
reducing the quantity of Pu-238 required to meet the power
requirement. Is there a more recent letter from NASA to DOE
that might clear some of the seemingly incongruencies or
whatever you'd want to call it here?
Dr. McNutt. Right. So to the best of my knowledge, there's
only been one letter that at least has been made public since
then, and that was issued in 2010. I was on the Planetary
Decadal Survey that came out in 2011. We had access to that.
That was the letter that had reduced the need to the 1.5
kilogram per year level. The reason for that reduction from the
5 kilogram per year level that had been issued in the previous
letter in 2008 by Administrator Griffin was because that
included elements of the Constellation Program that required
pressurized rovers for human excursions on the surface of the
Moon. Once the Constellation was cancelled, that need went
away. And that was reflected in the letter of 2010.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no series of
letters that has been interchanged between NASA and the
Department of Energy since then. And one of the items that we
flagged in the 2009 report is that having a publically
available assessment of need on a yearly basis or so was
actually something that perhaps should be reinstated.
Chairman Babin. One other thing. Now that SLS and Orion are
back on line so to speak, is it a possibility that we might
need more than 1.5?
Dr. McNutt. Yes, there could be. So one of the exercises
that we went through in the 2014/2015 timeframe was putting
together of what's called the Nuclear Power Assessment Study.
We had a variety of people from all of the DOE labs from a lot
of the NASA centers as well trying to look, again look forward
at what sort of needs there might be, look forward at what sort
of a role fission might play, and also look forward at what
sort of needs that there might be for human exploration
missions. We had representatives from HEOMD, from NASA, on the
panel that did the work. Their words to us as we were putting
that report together was that there were no current
requirements within human mission exploration for NASA and that
there really wasn't any way of coming up with a number because
those requirements did not exist and it's something that would
be studied in the future.
And so that's one of the reasons why that all of this
discussion is really hinged on the 1.5 kilograms per year, and
as Mr. Schurr said, a lot of this is also reflected in the
actual cost of the individual missions. And it's sort of a
delicate balance of how much money you have for the missions
that would need the material, and then you don't want to
overproduce this stuff because it does start decaying away once
you've produced it.
Chairman Babin. Right. Okay. Thank you very much.
Dr. McNutt. Certainly.
Chairman Babin. And then I'm taking a chair's privilege
here. I want to ask another question of Ms. Bishop. How will
projected production rates be affected when the advanced test
reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory undergoes the year-
long scheduled maintenance shutdown beginning in 2020? And has
the ATR been qualified for Supply Project work?
Ms. Bishop. Thank you for the question.
Chairman Babin. Okay.
Ms. Bishop. Currently, our activities supporting the
advanced test reactor, we are doing a lot of planning
activities right now to ensure that we are ready to produce Pu-
238 in the reactor when we finish the core internal change-out
activities in 2020. Currently we have completed a trade study
with the advanced test reactor to identify optimum positions
within the reactor and develop that initial plan for how we
would go about producing the material with some additional
funding that was provided in Fiscal Year 2017. We are
accelerating an experimental campaign to verify those
calculations regarding our projected output of material.
Chairman Babin. Okay.
Ms. Bishop. And with that, we're also focused on developing
and finalizing a standard target design that we would utilize
for both the advanced test reactor and the high flux isotope
reactor by 2019 with the goal when ATR is completed its core
internal change-out, we would be ready in 2021 to insert
targets and start producing Plutonium-238.
Chairman Babin. Great. Okay. Thank you very much. And I
have a request of you, Mr. Schurr. Dr. McNutt's testimony
states an assessment was made of the true cost impacts, and a
final report was transmitted from NASA to the Office of
Management and Budget in the fall of 2013. Would you please
provide a copy of the report that Dr. McNutt referenced in his
testimony, from NASA?
Dr. McNutt. You were on the panel with me. It was the zero-
based review----
Mr. Schurr. Okay.
Dr. McNutt. --study.
Mr. Schurr. We'll take that action.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Great. Well, this concludes our
Subcommittee hearing this morning. I want to thank every one of
you witnesses and all the members, although I'm the only one
left standing up here and those of you who came to listen. We
really appreciate it. Very interesting. And I'd like to adjourn
the meeting.
[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. David Schurr
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Ms. Tracey Bishop
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[
Responses by Dr. Ralph L. McNutt, Jr.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]