Yes, Bob isn't it funny; we have two large organizations both concerned with our best. They just end up with different opinion about issues that has a definite answer. Now we need a committee to find out what is the truth. That will be a secret committee (it is about radioactive material). After long research and three to five years later we will never hear about either side of the issue. I think it ends up with a secret agreement - nobody can reveal the outcome - were NASA get enough plutonium for free as it cannot be sold or given away but the military can lend it for the next 250 years. Then NASA will have to return the plutonium:.)
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > My understanding is that there is a glut of fissionable materials > (plutonium) in the hands of the military today - both in the US and Russia > - due to the strategic arms limitation treaty and decommissioning of many > nuclear weapons. It would be surprising if either power is significantly > concerned about breeding more plutonium. > > This is in stark contrast to NASA's position on not being able to get > their hands on plutonium for their deep space probe RTGs. When I read that > the military has a glut of plutonium, how hard can it really be for NASA to > get an increased allocation? > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> wrote: >> >> I've heard about them as very safe. I understand that Russia is going >>> full on with breeder reactors - as expensive but endless power. >> >> >> I would not be surprised if the focus on breeder reactors is due to the >> ability to create fissile material for weapons. (I had not heard about >> such a focus until now.) >> >> Eric >> >> >
