[ fire crackling ]
[ music ]
>> In 1777,
a band of British Redcoats
and Loyalist volunteers
wreaked havoc upon the towns
and farmland
of colonial Connecticut.
Their mission:
to set fire to countless homes
and stores of goods
in an effort to weaken
the American resistance.
By 1792,
after years of appeal
to the State,
these farmers and their children
were given reparations
in the form of land
in the distant
Connecticut Western Reserve.
These families,
known as the Fire Sufferers,
made the long journey
to this remote area,
which today makes up
a sizable portion
of northwest Ohio
and has come to be known
simply as The Firelands.
Oddly, the area they settled
had at one time been burned
by the Native Indians
on an annual basis
to rejuvenate the prairie
in which they lived.
For more than 100 years,
the settlers of the area
would reap the benefits
of this fertile soil.
But as the U.S. involvement
in World War II
appeared imminent,
the government would turn
to this American heartland for
a matter of national defense.
Thousands of acres,
countless men,
and millions of gallons of water
were going to be needed.
And within one year,
the families thriving
on the land would be gone,
setting into motion
a cycle of beginnings
and endings
that would come to define
the land where they once lived.
[ music ]
[ thunder crashing ]
[ birds chirping ]
[ music ]
In early 1940,
the United States government
began making preparations
to enter World War II.
As part of this effort,
they were to purchase
over 44 million acres
across inner America
for the creation
of ordnance facilities.
>> The U.S. Department
of Defense realized
that they could not produce
enough Trinitrotoluene,
TNT high explosive,
to wage the kind of war
that was on the horizon.
>> Once operable,
these facilities would provide
desperately needed munitions
to the boys overseas.
By January of 1941,
9,000 contiguous acres
of private farmland
of the Firelands were earmarked
to become one such site,
the Plum Brook Ordnance Works.
>> Singing: Dig your hand
In the land
Touch the toil and sorrow
In the soil
Where the greenbacks
Never grow on what I borrowed
Dig down and tell me
Where's my seed for tomorrow
>> Representatives from
the War Department
descended on the area
and began to round
of stiff negotiations
with over 150 local families
for their property.
>> No. I'm not selling now.
>> Now that's not common sense.
>> I remember
how the people came.
They treated
the land owners very rudely,
and most land owners
were not as upset about the fact
of selling the land as the fact
of how they were treated.
>> Despite appeals
from the community,
the government agents
left the farmers
with few options.
>> It was my father
that protested
the amount of money he got.
He didn't get very much
for the piece of property.
And a government guy took
the money, threw it on the floor
and said, "That's what
you're going to get."
>> The residents were ordered
to vacate the land
by April 15th, 1941.
Houses were razed.
Livestock were slaughtered,
and 500 bodies from
the local cemetery were exhumed
and buried elsewhere.
>> It's a remarkable thing.
In April or May, you can
drive down the back roads,
and where
the old farmhouses were,
the only thing left
60 years later
are the daffodils,
and you see
the little beds of daffodils,
and there was a family once
who gave up their life
at NASA Plum Brook
for the Allied War Effort.
[ music ]
>> Within months,
lush fields were replaced
with three TNT plants,
one Pentolite plant,
99 storage bunkers
for the explosives,
and a host
of support facilities,
over 700 buildings in all.
Yet despite its massive size,
the Plum Brook Ordinance Works
became a close knit community,
holding dances, movie nights,
and even bond drive events,
such as this one
with Abbott and Costello.
Good old fashioned pride
and patriotism
united the workers
and spurred them on to break
several production records.
During its four year life,
the Works would go on
to produce a staggering
near 1 billion pounds of powder.
And yet, the chemical reaction
of TNT was no match
for a new type of reaction
being studied
under the top secret
Manhattan Project.
For centuries,
philosophers had debated
the fundamental building blocks
of all matter,
from the basic elements
to the very substance
of human beings.
Recent scientific developments
had defined
those building blocks as atoms
and given rise to a method
of splitting them apart.
This nuclear fission released
tremendous amounts of energy
that could be harnessed
for use as power
or unleashed
for other purposes.
On July 16th, 1945, the world's
first nuclear test explosion
was executed at
Alamogordo, New Mexico.
Less than a month later,
atomic bombs were dropped
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The horrors of the atomic age
had become real.
>> Uncontrolled nuclear
reactions are mean.
You have to control 'em.
That's all there is to it.
>> Japan surrendered.
World War II
had come to an end.
An end to the War brought about
an immediate closure of
the Plum Brook Ordnance Works.
>> Word simply came down.
Trojan powder works,
you're done.
Everyone just put
their pencil down,
grabbed their hat,
and left and closed the doors.
Just as the farmers
had once been forced
to leave the very same land,
so, too, had the employees
of the Ordnance Works.
They could have had no idea
that this pattern would
one day repeat itself yet again.
Nor could they have known
that the controlled
nuclear fission process
would breathe new life
into the fields of Plum Brook.
The workers gone,
the once bustling city
became a ghost town.
[ music ]
As the men and women
of the Ordnance Works
found new lives elsewhere,
the grounds remained
fenced and protected,
giving rise
to a unique natural preserve.
[ music ]
The peace brought on
by the end of the War
was short lived,
for the Soviet Union
had developed
its own atomic weapons.
The rival superpowers
faced off in a Cold War.
>> Let us face without panic
the reality of our times,
the fact that atom bombs
may someday be
dropped on our cities,
and let us prepare for survival
by understanding the weapon
that threatens us.
If you are at home
when a surprise attack occurs,
crawl beneath the table
if it is very near,
or drop to the floor
with your back to the window.
The immediate danger is over
in about a minute.
>> In an effort to introduce
some positive benefits
from this frightening
nuclear age,
President Eisenhower presented
his Atoms for Peace Invocation
before the United Nations
in 1953.
In addition
to atomic powered automobiles,
trains, and aircraft,
nuclear energy promised
to benefit medicine,
agriculture and manufacturing.
The Philip Morris Company
even hailed an atomic mechanism
that weighed
and measured cigarettes
as they came off
the production line.
The possibilities
for the New Age seemed endless.
Of course, the military
remained a primary player
in the nuclear field.
In 1954, the Navy launched
the world's first
nuclear powered submarine,
the Nautilus.
>> The Nautilus,
first atomic submarine,
launches a new era
in Naval history.
Mrs. Dwight Eisenhower arrives
for the ceremonies.
The first lady,
momentarily distracted,
must swing quickly to
christen the underseas giant.
Majestically,
the fabulous submarine
slides down the waves.
Built at a cost of $50 million,
she will be able to circle
the globe in 29 days
without resurfacing
on a few nuggets of uranium.
The age of atomic navies
is born.
>> At the same time,
the U.S. Air Force and
the Atomic Energy Commission,
or AEC,
had begun development
of a nuclear powered aircraft.
The project was named
the Aircraft Nuclear
Propulsion Program,
or ANP, for short.
Spurred in large part by rumors
of a Russian nuclear aircraft,
the ANP Program promised
a plane that would one day
stay aloft for weeks at a time
and still have the power
to make a brisk bombing run
over Russia.
This B-36 bomber
carried a reactor
for non-propulsive tests
over Texas and New Mexico
from 1955 to 1957.
However, a nuclear powered
airplane had yet to fly.
Before a plane could be powered
by a nuclear reactor,
there were many
technological roadblocks
to be overcome,
including the weight
of the massive shielding needed
to protect the in-flight crew
and to contain the reactor
should there be a crash.
In addition,
engine components
suffered a breakdown
in the nuclear environment.
The AEC efforts were aided
by studies being performed
at an NACA facility
in Cleveland, Ohio.
The National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics
established the Cleveland Center
in 1941.
Originally named the
Aircraft Engine Research Lab,
it eventually would
come to be known as
the NACA Lewis Research Center
after Dr. George Lewis,
NACA Director
of Aeronautical Research.
As early as 1951,
the engineers at Lewis
were studying the feasibilities
of nuclear propulsion.
These efforts were spearheaded
by Lewis Associate Director
Dr. Abe Silverstein.
Those who knew him
would credit him
with being a true leader.
>> I have to say,
I think he was
an outstanding leader.
Very sensitive to significant
technical issues.
He had just an automatic feel
for technology.
>> Brilliant and visionary,
Silverstein would go on
to one day assist
in the formation of NASA,
lead the build up
to Project Mercury,
and help establish
the Apollo program.
>> I'm at the foot
of the ladder.
>> A program which he was
credited with having named.
Prior to these events,
Silverstein embarked on
a massive reorganization
of the Lewis team in 1956,
disbanding an entire division
to focus their attention
on nuclear research.
He then selected
the brightest engineers
and scientists
to attend a nuclear school
taught by a handful
of Lewis researchers
who had been performing
nuclear studies
since the late 1940s.
>> What he did was he went to,
primarily, as I recall,
it was a compressor
and turbine division,
and he selected some of
the best people over there.
>> And that's exactly
what happened.
I got into that school
with about 20 other people
and worked as a student.
>> Basically, it was like
learning from scratch.
Yes. Oh, yes.
Top secret.
>> In 1955,
an NACA nuclear test reactor
was proposed to the AEC.
While actual development
of the nuclear aircraft
would be performed elsewhere,
this facility
would support the ANP Program
through a study
of radiation's effects
on nuclear aircraft materials.
>> The nuclear environment,
of course, can cause
a variety of changes
to these materials and devices,
and it was very important
to know how they would perform
when they were actually
integrated into the--
the nuclear hardware.
>> Abe Silverstein wanted
to make sure that
Lewis would secure
a significant position
in the ANP nuclear research.
By landing
the test reactor facility,
he could secure that position
well into the future.
>> We were the aircraft
engine people at Lewis.
there was no question
about that.
And therefore, we felt
we ought to be able
to get involved
with any application
of nuclear energy
related to aircraft propulsion.
>> The competition
for the facility was stiff.
NACA examined 19 possible sites
for the reactor
across Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Because of the existence of much
of the required infrastructure
and its proximity
to both Lake Erie
and the Lewis Lab,
the Plum Brook Ordnance Works
was chosen.
Lewis sent a crew of men
up to the old Ordnance Works
to ascertain its condition.
>> There was a group of us
who came up here to go over
the various facilities
that were here
to see what might be used
and could be used
in equipment and facilities
of the old TNT plant.
>> They would find
a sleeping city
of 700 buildings,
untouched since the end
of World War II.
>> They opened up these wooden,
uh, all-wooden buildings,
and it was time frozen
in the summer of 1945.
The calendars all said
June, July, or August,
or whatever it was.
Coffee cups were there.
The coffee had evaporated.
It was frozen history,
frozen time.
>> NACA decided to retain
41 of the 700 buildings,
all of the 99 TNT bunkers,
and the two water pumping
stations in Lake Erie.
The rest of the buildings
would have to go because
of dangerous contamination.
When NASA took this over
in the 1950s,
common to the time,
those had to disappear,
and those were set on fires,
in conflagrations
the early NASA people say
were spectacular beyond belief,
because there was TNT
laying all over.
TNT, when it burns,
does not explode,
but it flames up
in great big orange flames.
>> And basically how they
got rid of the buildings,
they put straw and oil in them,
heavy oil,
and burnt them to the ground,
because it was too dangerous
to try to go in
and tear 'em down.
>> It was quite, uh,
quite a sight,
an end of an extremely important
period of history.
[ music ]
>> And so the flames
that were so much
a part of the area's history
returned once more.
The Ordinance structures
were burned to the ground,
taking with them
the last vestige of
a proud group of men and women
who had worked around the clock
to support the needs
of their country.
Soon, the embers would cool
and the ground
would be turned over once more
for the benefit of the nation.
Meanwhile, in Cleveland,
a group of men
who had never designed
a nuclear research reactor
were busy doing just that.
But would their
innovative design measure up
to its $10 million price tag?
Would the atomic plane
it was designed
to support ever fly?
And perhaps most importantly,
would their reactor
make a significant
and lasting contribution to
the field of nuclear propulsion?
NACA leaders
and local officials spoke
at the groundbreaking ceremony
of 1956.
Abe Silverstein said,
"Nuclear power is
"the shining hope for increasing
"the range of aircraft
"at high speeds."
He continued,
"A long-range bomber
"may carry 100,000 pounds
"or more of fuel.
"A piece of uranium-235 with
"the same amount of energy would
"weigh less than an ounce."
At Lewis,
Sam Kaufman and Ted Hallman
were busy working
on the design of the facility.
Hallman had a doctorate
in nuclear engineering,
but Kaufman
and many of the others involved
in the design had little
formal nuclear training.
In order to grasp
the nuclear physics needed for
the project, the engineers
studied textbooks and visited
other nuclear facilities
at Oak Ridge in Tennessee
and Argonne West in Idaho.
[ music ]
They would go on to design
a facility that included
a 60 megawatt test reactor,
a 100 kilowatt research reactor,
a seven cell hot lab complex,
and an office building
with chemistry labs.
The facility would rest
on 30 acres
and also consist
of a host of support buildings,
including a service equipment
building, a fanhouse,
and a waste handling building.
>> It was a research reactor,
so you can't compare it
to a power reactor at all.
>> Power reactors
are significantly larger
than a research reactor
and designed to produce energy.
>> That utility
is in the business
of producing electric power,
not advancing
the state of the art.
We were advancing
the state of the art.
>> Test reactors
are much smaller,
operate at lower power levels
and do not generate heat
for use as energy.
Instead, the focus
is on providing access
to just enough radiation to
conduct nuclear experiments.
>> And actually,
the fuel was patterned
after the MTR reactor in Idaho.
MTR stood for
Materials Testing Reactor.
>> The Plum Brook reactor
improved upon
the design of the MTR.
However, what set
the Plum Brook reactor apart
from the competition
was that its core mission
was that of a true research
and testing facility,
whereas the MTR, for instance,
was used primarily
for training purposes.
High levels of neutron flux
and flexibility of design
would greatly enhance
the research opportunities
at the Plum Brook
Reactor Facility.
>> Neutron flux
is simply a measure
of the density of the neutrons
that are being created.
How many neutrons per
cubic centimeter are created.
>> In addition to
high levels of neutron flux,
the Plum Brook Reactor
would come to have
the unique ability to
conduct cryogenic experiments
at temperatures
hundreds of degrees below zero.
Up to that point,
there had never been
a reactor facility
that could determine
the combined effects
of both radiation
and cryogenic temperatures.
Reactor construction
started in the fall of 1956.
> They told me that many times,
they would dig a hole here
and get a surprise.
The surprise might be some pipes
or pumps or whatever leftover
from the old ordnance works,
and then they would have
to stop what they were doing
and analyze what this is
and what to do about it.
>> So I was able to watch
a good part of the construction
of the reactor facility
and the hot laboratory.
This was an advantage for me,
because I could see
portions of the facility
that would be later
be closed over, for example,
concrete shielding and so forth.
>> I seen them pouring
high-density concrete
with the barite concrete
and the stone
and eight- and ten-,
12-foot thickness.
I just wondered
what we were getting into.
I mean, I had never
seen facilities with
that type of thickness in walls.
[ music ]
>> A bus took specialists
in electrical, water flow,
materials, and stress work
from Lewis to Plum Brook
on a daily basis.
These engineers were handed
a roll of prints and a hard hat
and given the responsibility
of bringing the reactor
through construction.
[ music ]
>> I was told to, uh, plan on
coming out here to Plum Brook
to run the test on the reactor,
to make sure that
the cooling water distribution
in the reactor was adequate.
And at that time,
I didn't know a nuclear reactor
from an auto engine,
and I had to learn.
>> Many of these individuals
considered it to be one of
the most rewarding periods
of their career.
>> It was a very challenging
experience.
I was not in the line of fire.
I had people
looking over my shoulder.
I was told that Congress
was interested in getting
that reactor started.
>> While construction of the
Plum Brook reactor proceeded,
the technological front
of the Cold War
was heating up.
>> So we realized
we had a competitor.
But I-I don't think
I kept it very forward
in my mind.
But it was clear that
we had a competitor out there.
[ beeping ]
>> On October 4th, 1957,
the Russians launched Sputnik,
a beach-ball-sized satellite
that would strike fear
in the hearts of Americans
and leave them feeling
technologically inferior
to the Russians.
>> Russia had put Sputnik
in space when I was in the Army,
and all of a sudden, why,
I heard reactions in the Army
and from public as well is,
"Gee, they beat us.
"What are we going to do?"
And I saw a tremendous momentum
in this country
as to try to do something
and that-- so that we wouldn't
fall behind.
>> One response
to this realization
was the creation
of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration
on October 1st, 1958,
by President Eisenhower.
>> It was going to
make a large change,
because we were now
a political--
under a political appointee
rather than a neutral,
very carefully
nonpolitical connection
for the NACA.
>> In March of 1961,
before the reactor
could become functional,
the Aircraft Nuclear
Propulsion Program
was canceled by JFK.
>> The concept
of having an airplane containing
a nuclear reactor that was
full of fission products
having that plane crash
was more than people
could, uh, could stand, I think.
>> In addition to
the unresolved design issues,
the military's need
for an atomic aircraft
had been sharply diminished.
>> Well, it was canceled
because two things:
intercontinental
ballistic missiles,
which could deliver a warhead
many thousands of miles away
and the hydrogen bomb
helped, too.
So you didn't have to hit
quite as close as with a--
a fission bomb.
>> ...three, two, one!
>> The nearly completed
$10 million Plum Brook
Reactor Facility
was suddenly left hanging
without a focus.
>> We go into space
because whatever
mankind must undertake,
free men must fully share.
[ applause ]
I therefore ask the Congress...
>> Around the same time,
President Kennedy gave
a major push to the space race.
>> ...to provide the funds
which are needed to meet
the following national goals:
First, I believe that
this nation should commit itself
to achieving the goal
before this decade is out
of landing a man on the moon
and returning him safely
to the earth.
>> And of course,
that really mean
that everybody had
their marching orders,
and we were serious about this.
And the thing
that was exciting about that is
that the public was behind it.
>> President Kennedy was looking
for ways to really accelerate
the U.S. program.
>> Secondly,
an additional $23 million,
together with $7 million
already available,
will accelerate development
of the Rover nuclear rocket.
This gives promise...
[ applause ]
...of someday providing a means
for even more exciting
and ambitious exploration
of space,
perhaps beyond the moon,
perhaps to the very end
of the solar system itself.
>> Nuclear powered rockets had
been discussed theoretically
since the days
of Robert Goddard,
in particular toward
interplanetary travel.
>> It was at the AEC's
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
that the first steps
were taken.
Scientists set about
to determine
if nuclear energy
really could be used
to provide rocket propulsion.
Theoretical studies
and early experimental work
revealed many problems
that would have to be solved.
>> Los Alamos was ready
to make the leap
from research to development.
Under a new project
named the KIWI program,
they planned to design and test
working nuclear rocket engines.
A much safer testing area
was needed.
All eyes turned
to the west.
[ music ]
They obtained a space
at the Nevada test site.
>> Nevada, USA.
This is the valley
where the giant mushrooms grow.
More atomic bombs
have been exploded
on these few hundred
square miles of desert
than on any other spot
on the globe.
>> Everyone knew nuclear testing
was acceptable there.
After all, our weapons testing
had been done there.
So this was an adjacent area
called Jackass Flat,
and not because
we were that way, but...
>> Today's missions
are being accomplished
with rockets that burn
chemical fuels.
But chemical fuels are heavy,
and the cost of putting
each pound into Earth orbit
is very high.
Nuclear rockets--
>> In theory,
nuclear propulsion
is similar to conventional
chemical propulsion.
The major difference
between the two
is that nuclear propulsion
uses a nuclear reactor
to heat liquid fuel,
in most cases, hydrogen.
>> All rockets work
on the purpose and principle
of exhausting a high speed,
high temperature propellant.
>> And hydrogen was
the best possible propellant
of any kind because it had
the lowest molecular weight.
And a low molecular weight
means you get higher velocity
when you go through
a jet and a nozzle.
>> It would have to be carried
in liquid form
and go through the reactor--
the reactor, and be heated up,
>> And then it would be
blasted out the back end
and produce thrust.
>> Comes out giving
a specific impulse
at least double
what you can get in any--
in the best chemical rocket.
And the specific impulse
is really the measure of,
you might say, efficiency
and performance capability
of the engine system itself
in a rocket.
It's basically the thrust
divided by the propellant
per second.
And the higher that is,
the higher the efficiency
of that propulsion system.
Chemical rockets may be 400,
could be a little bit higher
in some cases.
Nuclear rockets, at least 800,
could go to a 1,000
and even higher
if you use some advanced
nuclear rocket concepts.
>> Project Rover had launched
its most ambitious endeavor
in the first half of 1961.
The Nuclear Engine
for Rocket Vehicle
Application Program,
or NERVA for short.
This program expanded
on the Kiwi work
and would perform ground tests
of full scale
nuclear rocket engines.
The surge in nuclear
rocket development
across the country
had breathed new life into
the Plum Brook Reactor facility.
Plum Brook would soon
play a role in the nation's
nuclear rocket development.
With the heightened competition
between the U.S. and Russia
came a massive
recruiting effort by NASA.
>> The space effort
is extremely interesting
and it is an area
in which there will be
considerable growth
for the future.
I think the young men
of this country
who have been properly trained
in the sciences and technology
are, in many cases, eager
to get into the program,
and that's will afford them
the opportunity.
>> Working for NASA,
the space agency, was such
a tremendous goal of mine.
It was very appealing
at the time.
>> The challenge
of working for NASA
in a nuclear capacity attracted
a contingent of extremely
competent engineers.
>> I was interested
in what I considered to be
a limitless power.
>> Oh, I was excited
about coming to work here.
Hey, this was indeed
a great place to work.
The technology was so high.
>> NASA officials could have
easily chosen to forgo
filing for a license with
the Atomic Energy Commission.
However, to ease the minds
of the nearby community
and to maintain safety,
NASA officials decided
to work through the commission.
>> We-we were amongst the first.
You know, they did not have
a lot of set procedures.
They got very rigid
later on, but--
>> One of the most daunting
tasks was the publication
of a three volume document
called The Final Hazard Summary.
This report considered
every possible accident
at the reactor,
including an airplane
crashing into it.
>> But it basically--
the document itself
basically went through
the various systems
in the reactor and looked
at the hazards associated
and determined that the place
could safely operate
according to the license
they were going to get.
>> When AEC officials visited
the Plum Brook Reactor Facility,
Abe Silverstein worked out
the final licensing issues.
It is said that Silverstein told
AEC director Glenn Seaborg
that the officials
could not return to Washington
until an agreement was reached.
[ music ]
Construction of the Plum Brook
Reactor Facility
was completed in March of 1961.
Before the reactor
could be put online,
every system and component
would have to be
formally tested.
>> Some of these tests
last many, many days,
weeks, sometimes months.
[ music ]
[ helicopter blades whirring ]
>> Just as the reactor
was completed,
the facility held a media day,
opening their doors
for the first time
to the public.
Excitement was in the air.
[ music ]
>> On June 14th, 1961,
Harold Geisler took
the Plum Brook Reactor critical
for the very first time.
>> No whistles, no bells,
no bands.
In the middle of the night.
>> We'd been working real hard
for three or four years
to bring the thing online,
and we finally succeeded
in doing that.
>> The fellows that were
in charge and that were
taking the reactor
up to critical point,
I kept thinking,
"They are so cool."
Nothing showed,
on the outside anyway,
that they were excited
or whatever.
>> 'Cause you have to understand
what's going on
in the bowels of that reactor,
and all you're watching
is a graph,
a chart, a red line.
And the red line could represent
many, many, many things.
So you really had to know
what-what you were looking at.
>> Let's slow down that fission
a million or so times.
A single particle
starts the reaction,
splitting the uranium atom.
Here now is the release
of energy as heat and blast.
Here are powerful rays
being given off,
similar to x-rays.
But here,
here are free neutrons
driven out with tremendous speed
and provided there is
sufficient U-235 present,
what science calls
a critical mass,
those neutrons bombard
other uranium atoms,
causing them to split
and split still others,
keeping the chain
reaction going.
>> So a nuclear reactor
is nothing more
than a method for controlling
those nuclear fissions.
Once you learn how to make
those fissions produce energy,
you can regulate
the amount of energy
and how you use it.
>> The reactor operators
were responsible
for all of the monitoring
and controls
in the control room.
They were in control
of the fission process
and answered only
to the shift supervisor.
30 years since
their last shutdown,
these operators are still able
to discuss just how
they used to run
the Plum Brook Reactor.
>> This console right here
is the console
that we control the--
what we call the shim rods.
This is where the-the uranium
was added to the core.
Might want to mention
the-the slant panel up here
with our alarms.
If I remember right,
these 100 radiation alarms
were in and about the facility,
and I believe those were in
and about the experiments.
>> Come over here.
You had the controls
for regulating rods.
These for two rods
on the outside.
Well, we shape the flux
in the nuclear core
using these reg rods.
We had all types of indicators
that indicated
the position of valves
that were shown on
the reactor water system
up above.
>> The reactor control room
was state of the art.
>> Our reactor control
was the first solid state
electronic control room
in the country,
and it was so automated
that it would almost
run itself,
although we very seldom
ever run it in that mode.
We always had
the human factor involved.
>> I'm a former pilot,
and you never rely
upon one instrument
when you're flying an airplane,
and that's the same
as operating a reactor,
that you look at
all the instruments
to exactly tell you exactly
what's happening and why.
>> And that was the key
to a good operator.
If he would see more
than one instrument
trending one way or another,
then with his background
and training,
he could probably
make a correction
and bring the reactor
right back on course.
>> Each reactor operator
had to be licensed
by the Atomic Energy Commission.
In order to be licensed,
each operator went
through six months
of extensive training,
an eight hour written exam,
a four hour walk around,
and testing
on the reactor controls.
[ music ]
Once the reactor
was up and running under
normal operating conditions,
the work settled
into a routine.
[ music ]
And when the reactor
is operating
and-and all systems
were normal,
it was kind of boring.
>> 90-some percent routine
and maybe 2% or 3% panic
when something goes wrong
and you better fix it.
>> When you got alarm
or panic struck,
the remote control room
had to be cleared because
now, you know, it's serious.
>> Shutdowns and scrams
were relatively common
and did not necessarily mean
that there was
a major danger present.
>> If anything was anomalous,
indicators indicated
that something wasn't right
and it was a critical parameter,
we had here in the middle,
the red scram button.
So-- and what you do is
you push this button
and all the control rods
would immediately
fall by gravity
into-into the core.
>> The term scram
dates back to the early
days of nuclear science,
>> And actually that term
stands for safety
control rod axe man.
The story of that came back
from the very first reactor.
>> Enrico Fermi and his staff
was starting up
the first nuclear reactor.
They had a man that had a rope
attached to the control rod,
and the man was standing there
with an ax.
And what he would do
is when they said, "Scram,"
he was to take the ax,
cut the rope,
and everybody would run
from the reactor
if something went wrong.
>> Should all other measures
fail, the reactor
was equipped with
a poison injection system
to shut down the reactor.
>> There was a tank
and it was hooked up
directly to the reactor.
>> We actually had this system
made up of what's called
gadolinium nitrate.
>> Poison to
a critical reactor.
>> It will absorb the neutrons,
basically before
they get to the uranium.
>> When you sprayed that
inside the core,
it shut it down instantly.
>> We know the system works
because it happened accidentally
a couple of times.
>> I think I was cleaning,
just had a rag or something
and saw some dust there,
and I accidentally
pushed that button
and my next announcement was,
"The reactor has scrammed,
the reactor has scrammed."
People came running
and, "What happened?"
I said, "Well, I pushed
the button, the gadolinium--
the poison button accidentally."
All I could do was hang my head
in shame for a few days,
and then everybody
patted me on the back
and said, "Jim,
it could happen to anybody."
And I said, "Yeah,
but I'm an operator."
[ music ]
>> To fully understand the value
of the Plum Brook Reactor,
one must understand
how a reactor works.
>> This reactor used
highly enriched--
the 93% U-235 fuel.
>> That fully enriched
uranium-235 would then be
put into these fuel elements,
aluminum clad.
14 plates in an element.
And we had, I think,
27 fuel elements
in the reactor.
>> When they brought
the fuel elements in
in these cases,
it was stored in the vault,
in the reactor office
and the laboratory building,
and all the new fuel elements
were kept in that vault.
[ music ]
>> We were limited
to 1,200 grams
of U-235 in that core.
That's a lot of uranium.
>> The heart of
the Plum Brook Reactor
was the core, which consisted
of 22 fuel elements
placed in a 3x9 lattice.
This core was surrounded
by 44 beryllium
reflector plates
and moderated with water.
>> In using water as a coolant,
it provides what was known
as a negative
reactivity coefficient,
and that automatically lowers
the power of the reactor
if the temperature
of the coolant
starts to increase.
>> Despite the presence
of the reflectors, some neutrons
do escape the core.
In this case, water, steel,
and concrete shielding
is used to prevent radiation
from spreading out
to the environment.
[ music ]
>> The reactor area
was located within
an all metal containment vessel.
>> Everything was painted white.
It was always spotless
and always white.
Even a home would never
be that clean.
It was just part
of the aura of the whole thing.
Squeaky clean,
I guess you'd say.
>> Surrounding the core itself
was a reactor tank
built to provide
maximum experiment access
while the reactor was running.
>> The research reactor
was built to provide
an unusual amount of access
right inside the reactor
or very close to it,
so that you can get
as high a level
of the neutron environment
as possible.
>> Maybe I should pull out
this rabbit I have in my pocket,
since it's-it's pertinent
to your question.
>> One method
for experiment insertion
was the rabbit system.
>> The rabbits.
The rabbits were small,
maybe about three--
three inches long,
and they were aluminum.
>> Little capsules
which fitted in a pipe.
>> The rabbits were these
metal containers
that the tops screwed on them,
and then they would put
a weld seal around it,
and the material
that was to be irradiated
was inside of this,
and it usually contained
a certain amount of water.
>> Those rabbits are,
you know, very similar
to what you'd see at a bank
which is run by pneumatics.
Well, I'm talking hydraulics
where basically
we use the water
to basically push the rabbit
into the reactor core area.
>> And then it was
usually irradiated
for a certain period of time.
It might be 10 minutes,
it might be 10 months.
>> And after a certain time,
we'd reverse the flow
of that water
and it brought
the rabbit back out.
>> And then you analyze
this radioactive material
by the-- by sophisticated means.
>> Water was
an essential element
to the Plum Brook Reactor.
The reactor required one million
gallons of water daily
for both shielding and cooling.
>> Plum Brook
had two pumping stations
to obtain raw water
from Lake Erie.
Divers had to flush the intakes
and clear them of silt
and debris on a regular basis.
>> It took lake water
and purified it
into deionized water.
Pure, very pure water.
>> The reactor was surrounded
by four 25 foot deep quadrants,
which provided both
shielding and coolant.
[ water running ]
[ music ]
>> All of the experiments
could be inserted remotely
into various positions
in the reactor,
and this could all be done
under 25 foot
of water shielding.
>> When the experiments were
brought in the reactor facility,
of course, they were
cold and clean.
You could hold them
in your hand.
Once they were exposed
to neutron radiation,
they became highly radioactive.
Highly radioactive.
>> After being irradiated
in the core, the experiments
were transferred through
a series of underwater canals
to the adjacent
hot lab building.
Technicians worked
from a movable bridge
that allowed them to continually
guide the objects
with long poles as they moved
through the canal system.
>> And the 25 feet of water
provided the radiation shield
to us that were
moving those experiments
under that water.
>> Radioactive materials
were moved underwater
to the hot lab for handling
and inspection.
An 80 ton lead door separated
the hot handling room
from the controlled work area.
>> It's a long process
about even getting in there.
Talk about time consuming.
The individual technician
would have double coveralls on,
surgeon's cap, full face mask
so that he didn't
breathe any particulate in,
and he would have a fella
standing behind him
to make sure that, you know,
he wasn't getting
too much radiation.
And to eliminate
any-any contamination
or radiation problems,
everything was done behind
three-three foot glass.
Each cell was equipped
with two manipulators,
so the guy could use
his left hand and right hand
to do all these functions
and experiments
inside the cell.
Each window had two
master slave manipulators.
Whatever we did out here--
If I squeezed it like this,
two fingers inside
were-were coming together.
>> They were very,
very proficient,
could do very minute operations
with mechanical manipulators.
>> We were completely amazed
that those operators
and technicians who could
thread a needle
with those manipulators.
>> At first,
it was a little bit difficult,
but after some practice,
uh, it was easy.
>> When we went to sideshows
or Cedar Point,
he was able to manipulate
those little grabbers
to get prizes.
[ music ]
>> These windows are
essentially leaded--
a leaded glass window.
There are alternate layers
rotated so that you get
a pure undistorted image
when you lock through
that amount of glass.
The glass is also filled
with mineral oil
to help maintain
the optical clarity
from one panel to another.
>> Each of the seven cells
had its own purpose,
from dismantling experiments
with power tools,
to conducting tensile testing
and chemical analysis.
>> Specimens could be
prepared and mounted,
radio chemistry
could be performed,
metallographic tests
could be performed,
various mechanical tests
like tensile tests and hardness
and so forth, you know,
could all be performed
to determine
what the effects
of radiation were.
These were then compared
to non irradiated specimens
that had been very
carefully characterized,
and they could detect
very subtle changes
or extreme changes in materials
as a result of various
radiation or form.
[ helicopter blades whirring ]
>> In mid 1962,
President Kennedy was slated
to tour Los Alamos
and the Nevada test site.
>> I think he was
fundamentally interested
in seeing what was being done
to achieve the goal
that he had already established,
to land people on the moon
and try to indicate
the very strong leadership
of the United States.
He enjoyed seeing
the equipment.
He actually played with
some of the remote manipulators,
and I can tell you,
he was beaming
as he was doing it.
>> At one point
during the visit,
President Kennedy
asked the direct question,
"What is the function
of the nuclear rocket
in achieving the lunar landing?"
>> And that's when the question
was turned to me, and I said,
"Mr. President,
we are not depending
on achieving that goal
with nuclear rockets.
However, we aren't sure yet
what it's going to take
in terms of payload requirements
and other requirements
to achieve a lunar lander--
lunar landing mission,
and therefore, the importance
of the nuclear rocket
is that if we need more
than the chemical rocket
being developed is capable of,
then we have a nuclear
upper stage that could be
added to it."
>> By the mid 1960s,
NASA and the AEC
had spent an accumulated
$584 million for research
into nuclear applications
for space.
The work going on
at the Nevada test site
was supported
by the Plum Brook Reactor.
>> There was a reactor
with very high capability
to do materials test work
with exposure
to high levels of radiation,
and we did have materials work
going on there.
>> Well, many of these
experiments were centered
around gathering data
in order to support
that program, and this--
and many were developed
and initiated
by Lewis Research Center,
as well as under contract.
>> So there's no question
that the Plum Brook Reactor
provided a very significant
science base of knowledge.
>> The reactor could hold
many experiments
and run many experiments
at one time,
sometimes 20 to 30 experiments
at one time,
some continually,
year after year,
>> There were four basic
types of experiments conducted
at the Plum Brook Reactor.
They included experiments
for the nuclear rocket program,
energy conversion experiments,
basic radiation
effects studies,
and basic physics experiments.
These experiments
consisted of irradiating
various materials,
components, and devices
to determine how
their properties had changed
as a result
of being irradiated.
>> We analyzed samples
from the various
coal burning power plants.
>> We irradiated fuel specimens
that were to support
the commercial
nuclear power business.
>> We analyzed oil samples.
>> We did control drum
actuator irradiations
for the nuclear rocket program.
>> We analyzed fly ash
that came out of the stacks
of power plants.
>> We irradiated
electronic components again
for general space application.
>> So we did a lot
of samples like that.
We ran thousands
of samples a year
over a two or three year period.
>> We did a lot of analyses,
but one of the things
that-that stands out
after the first Apollo shot
that brought back
the moon rocks,
we were one of the labs
chosen to do the irradiation.
>> We irradiated it
to make it radioactive,
and this was part
of the process known as
neutron activation analysis.
We had done so much work
in pushing the state of the art
in other areas that
irradiating moon rocks
didn't seem that-that critical
or that interesting
from the other things
that we were doing.
>> NASA's scientists wanted to
examine the effects of radiation
on components
in an outer space environment.
In order to do this properly,
they created temperatures
hundreds of degrees below zero.
A $1.4 million
cryogenic facility was built
that could chill materials
to cryogenic temperatures
while they were being exposed
to the high neutron flux levels
of the core.
>> Not only did you have
a radiation environment,
but you had a very low
temperature environment.
>> Testing down
to liquid helium temperatures,
which is about -455
or something like that,
a few degrees
above absolute zero.
>> So while that thing
was in the reactor
getting neutron bombardment
after it attained a certain
amount of neutron flux,
we had helium
flowing around that thing.
And then while it was
in that little head,
we broke that sample.
I mean, the technology
that was involved in that
was outstanding.
>> High tech stuff.
[ music ]
>> Experiments were planned
months in advance.
>> The experiment,
as conceived,
would have to go for review
to the safeguards committee.
>> And then whenever
we did the test,
the engineer was always on hand
to see what the data
was looking like
when it was coming out.
>> Yes, the data would then
be available to the sponsor.
He was often present,
at least off and on
during many of the irradiations.
>> Maximum online time
for the reactor
was a top priority.
As such, the reactor
operated 24 hours a day,
seven days a week.
>> We operated better than
80% of the time
that was available to us,
and that-that was--
my understanding is
it was a record in the industry
for a researcher reactor to be
online as much as we were.
>> Christmas, New Year's,
Thanksgiving, the reactor ran
around the clock.
[ music ]
>> A close sense of community
and family quickly enveloped
the Plum Brook employees.
It was natural,
since many had relocated
in order to take the job,
many of them were the same age,
and had similar
family situations.
>> We were basically
all young guys
right out of college,
having graduated within
a year or two of one another.
>> We were all young,
just starting families,
and because we were
not from this area,
the-the family was the people
that we worked with.
[ music ]
>> And, you know, it was
just like one big happy family
for quite a while.
>> They worked hard
and partied hard.
In the process, they formed
lifelong friendships
[ music ]
>> We were more
than professionals.
We were friends.
>> Yeah.
>> Mm-hmm.
[ music ]
>> Of course,
when you're running a reactor,
radiation safety
is your primary focus,
because you don't want
anybody to get hurt.
>> Almost every job
performed at the reactor
first came through
the Health Physics Office.
The office would verify
the safety of the work,
write a safe work permit,
and make sure the proper
personal protection equipment
was used.
It would then monitor the work
as it was being performed.
>> So we had
time keepers on jobs.
We'd pulled people out
when they received
a predetermined dose limit.
>> All personnel were monitored
for radiation exposure by
utilizing film badge dosimetry.
>> It was really
almost impossible
to get yourself into trouble
unless you really violated
some of-- some of the standing
regulations that they had.
>> Personnel decontamination
was occasionally necessary.
>> The decontamination
of personnel
was basically a shower.
So you'd have the man shower
and then you'd monitor his skin
for both direct radiation
and for contamination.
>> Through remote
area monitoring systems,
the reactor operator
could monitor radiation levels
throughout the facility.
If necessary, the reactor could
shut itself down automatically
if the detectors discovered
any sudden irregularities.
Radioactive waste
was carefully packaged,
monitored, and disposed of.
>> The routine
radioactive materials
were low level,
and they were put
in 50 gallon drums.
The more highly
radioactive materials, um,
casks were provided.
And these were lead lined
heavy casks.
>> The AEC visited the facility
on a regular basis
to ensure compliance
of the facility
and the abilities
of the employees.
>> We were inspected about
every six months, probably,
by the Atomic Energy Commission
and later by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
And I must say,
we had a safe facility.
We were never cited
by either of these agencies
for noncompliance
with their regulations.
>> To ensure community safety,
NASA had extensive air,
water, sewage, and vegetation
monitoring systems,
both on the Plum Brook Station
and throughout
the surrounding community.
In addition to protecting
the surrounding environment,
NASA had an ongoing effort
to educate the community.
>> Well, I'm old enough
to remember "duck and cover."
>> Singing: There was a turtle
By the name of Bert
And Bert the Turtle
Was very alert
When danger threatened him
He never got hurt
He knew just what to do
He ducked and covered
>> So, you know, we hid
under our desks and we had
nuclear reactor drills.
Yes.
Because the reactor was here.
>> Singing: And you and you
And you
Duck and cover
>> Here's Tony going
to his Cub Scout meeting.
Tony knows the bomb can explode
any time of the year,
day or night.
He is ready for it.
Duck and cover!
Atta boy, Tony.
That flash means act fast.
>> The presence of
a nuclear reactor had
heightened Cold War concerns.
>> And the first time
I heard of it
was probably the news media
scared the kids and they said,
"Well, there's a reactor
"there in Sandusky,
"and Castro says he's going
"to set his missiles
"at places like those
"that have the reactors."
And so the kids
suddenly were afraid,
and they'd never
even thought about it before.
And I told them that
I had a history teacher
in high school
who said he could prove to us
that God loved America,
and I said, "I've never
"mentioned God as a teacher,
"because we're not
"allowed to do that.
"But I think that there's
"a lot to be said for it.
"I don't think
"we need to worry."
>> A few cases
of irrational fear did arise.
Reactor employee Myrna Steele
was left with a head full
of wet, soapy hair when
the local beautician found out
she worked at the reactor
and fled from her side.
>> There was a--
a farmer in the area
that kept complaining
in the local newspaper
that Plum Brook was
putting something into the air,
because every time a storm
would come through here,
it would hit Plum Brook
and then it would just split
and divide.
And he was on the east side
of the facility,
and he wouldn't get the rain
necessary for his crops.
>> He says, "No, that reactor
"that you have over there
"is really doing something
"to the weather,
"and I don't get any rain.
"So it has to be you."
>> I can assure you,
Plum Brook was putting
nothing into the air
that caused the rain to split
when it hit Plum Brook.
>> In order to prevent
the spread of misinformation
and to inform the community
of its activities,
NASA invited the community in
to tour the facility.
>> It's not like
we closed the place down
and kept it secret.
We had a lot of open houses
over there at the facility
where the public could come in
and we'd set up tours
where they could walk through
and look at everything.
>> Each year,
we had approximately 8,000
to 10,000 people go through
the various facilities.
We opened the reactor hatch
so that people
could go out onto
what's known as the lily pad
and actually go out
and look down into
the reactor vessel itself
and see the core
of the reactor.
[ music ]
[ insects chirping ]
[ music ]
[ eagle calling ]
[ engines rumbling ]
>> 17-Houston,
you are a go for orbit.
Go for orbit.
>> On December 11th, 1972,
the Apollo 17 lunar module
touched down safely
on the surface of the moon.
>> Singing: I was strolling
On the moon one day
>> During the next 75 hours,
Eugene Cernan
and Harrison Schmitt
would explore over a distance
of 30 kilometers
on the moon's surface.
What would have been viewed
as a rousing success
just a decade before
was now lost on many Americans,
for America was being consumed
by the war in Vietnam.
>> Three, two, one, ignition.
We're on our way, Houston!
>> On December 18th,
as the astronauts sped through
the silent vacuum of space
toward home,
a fiery bombing campaign
was beginning somewhere
on the planet below them.
Named the Christmas Bombings,
the campaign would
carpet North Vietnam
with over 100,000 bombs
in just 12 days.
Amidst the horror,
Apollo 17 returned
with but a quiet splash.
It was December 19th, 1972,
and the U.S. manned program
to the moon
had come to an end.
Back at the reactor,
the spirit of the holidays
was in the air.
Despite what could be
a difficult work schedule,
the reactor workers
put a positive spin on things.
>> If I remember right,
I think we had a, uh,
a small Christmas tree
somewheres in here
around Christmastime and, uh,
had played Christmas carols
in the background.
This was our home.
>> Christmas came to Sandusky.
[ music ]
On December 26th of 1972,
just one day after Christmas,
a memo seen here
was drafted in Washington, DC.
Within a few days,
this memo was proofed,
carefully typed,
and sent on its way
to various sites
across the country.
One version of the memo would
be sent to Bruce London,
the Center Director
at NASA Lewis.
>> January 5th, 1973.
Was that it?
>> January 5th, 1973. Yes.
>> There were a lot
of stunned people that day.
>> And after seeing this,
working with the folks
in Washington,
I can understand this
and can therefore
accept the rationale
for this decision.
It's one I don't agree with.
I don't think that
it's exactly right
to do it just this way.
But I can understand it
and accept it.
And that's what all of us
have to do now.
>> I can recall sitting in that,
um, that-that room
when Bruce London,
the director of Lewis
walked down the aisle
and by the expression
on his face,
we all knew
this was not good news.
>> This means, of course, that
the reactor here at Plum Brook
will be closed down
during the remainder
of this current fiscal year.
>> And the announcement was,
We're closing this facility.
We've got six months
to put it to bed,
and then everybody's gone.
>> And it was a shock.
>> Speechless.
>> Very somber,
very sad feeling.
>> You know, it was not
a happy day by any means.
>> And we went back
to the reactor,
and nobody seemed to know
what to do.
>> The announcement came
probably around 1:00,
or something like that, or 1:30,
that the reactor would undergo
its final shut down
at 2:00 that day,
and everybody gathered around.
>> I happened to have
a Polaroid camera handy.
And I took--
I snapped the picture
the moment that
the reg rod was locked
for the final shutdown
of the reactor.
>> That day was an experience.
There was a lot
of sad eyes, really.
>> In fact,
you could look at people,
and you'd wonder if there
were tears in their eyes.
>> And at some point in time,
thereabouts,
the comment was made,
I believe, by Bill Fecych
that old reactors never die.
They just decay away.
>> At the end of the day,
as we left
the reactor facility,
there were people from
newspapers and other media
waiting to talk to us
and I, for one,
was not interested
in talking to anybody.
Some people did volunteer.
Most of us did not.
We just walked to our cars.
>> Most of the people
went to the local bar
and drank quite a bit.
>> The nuclear propulsion work
across the country
had come to an end
with a shock wave
felt from the Plum Brook reactor
to the Nevada test site
thousands of miles away.
And with it, the cycle
of beginnings and endings
that had long defined the area
had come to the employees
of the Plum Brook reactor.
Each would have to find
his or her own way
to cope with the surprising
and defeating news.
>> I had to call my wife.
It was our anniversary day,
January 5th,
the day that I found out
I would no longer have a job,
and I had to call her
and tell her.
That's a hell of a thing
to tell a wife
on an anniversary.
And she was silent
for a minute.
She said,
"What are we going to do?"
And I said, "We're going to do
"the same thing we always do:
"Take the ball
"and run fast as we can."
>> From a personal standpoint,
it was a big shock,
because we're not sold
the home in Sandusky yet.
We owned a home in Milan,
and I had a wife
and five children
and they said, "In six months,
"you're out of a job."
So that made it
rather interesting times.
>> After quickly recovering
from the initial jolt,
the Plum Brook team
worked diligently to meet
the June 30, 1973
shutdown deadline.
>> We became absorbed our work.
It got rid of a lot of
the outside problems.
>> I did not see
a bunch of people moping around
wondering what was going
to happen to their jobs.
I saw everyone continuing on
with a new schedule,
putting together
a new schedule for shutdown.
It was a very
ambitious schedule
to try to get the facility
shut down by July 1st.
>> It was a job,
and we were NASA trained,
so we did it just exactly
like we did our other jobs
while we were with NASA,
and I'm proud of the fact
I didn't break down
and start crying.
[ laughing ]
Although, I felt like it.
>> During the spring of 1973,
the nuclear fuel
and wastes were removed
and the still-radioactive
equipment was placed
into the hot cells.
The rest of the facility
was decontaminated and placed
in safe, dry storage.
Initially, it was thought
that the reactor
would be used again
as Mars missions developed
in the 1980s.
In the meantime,
other possible uses
for the reactor were sought.
However, few suggestions
were forthcoming.
>> We can have
a mode of operation
at about a tenth the power that
have about a tenth the cost,
and this being around
a half million dollars a year
should be available
for many universities
in a combined operation.
>> The NASA officials
primarily were interested
in talking with
the representatives
from the 17 universities
that were here
about this $15 million
nuclear reactor,
a 60,000 watt facility
that will be closed down
as of the end of June,
the first of the Plum Brook
Station facilities
to be phased out.
For TV3 Newsday,
this is John Herrington.
>> And I think ev--
everybody thought that
it was going to shut down.
Yeah, we're going to go
someplace else for--
work for someplace else
for a while,
and then come back
and we're going to
start this thing back up again
and run some more
experiments in it.
But, of course, as we know,
that never did happen.
>> We had to fire good people
because there was
no other kind of people
to get rid of.
[ chuckles ]
So that was a tough job
and very painful.
I can still remember that.
It brings tears to my eyes
to remember
how we had to tell people
they had to leave
when they were doing
such great work,
but it had to be done,
and we had to do it.
>> I certainly
didn't want to leave.
I ultimately ended up
doing some of the same type
of work at Lewis,
but it wasn't quite the same.
>> NASA did everything
in their power
in contacting industries
and telling what
these people were like,
helping all the people
get a position.
I'm satisfied
with the way they did it.
I hated it that they did it,
but I'm satisfied.
>> I don't think, uh,
from what I've been able to see
that there's a lot
of bitterness,
but it's hard to tell.
Reactions change
as time goes by.
>> I think there are--
there are certain logical,
uh, aspects to-to cutting back,
but I think the, um, there--
there is a mistake in it.
There's mistake in--
in cutting back the--
the research that-that produces
new technologies
for our country,
which, in my
way of looking at things,
is really the only thing
that we've got to sell
to the rest of the world.
Now if we-- if we don't continue
to produce new technologies,
what are we going to market
ten years from now?
Ten years from now?
[ audio distorts ]
>> In the end,
the Plum Brook reactor was
closed for a number of reasons.
The U.S. had proven
its technological superiority
to the Soviet Union,
and the space program
was fading away from
the public's list of priorities.
The nuclear rocket program
had been very successful
in its efforts
and exhibited the ability
to adapt from
its early beginnings
as a weapon system
to later consideration
as a booster to the moon
or Mars.
And yet,
with no clearly defined mission,
it was hard pressed
to justify the continuation
of its huge expenditures.
Had the program been able
to adapt towards a smaller,
more easily managed effort,
it might have survived.
A workforce and knowledge base
could have been maintained.
Instead, they would be lost.
Finally,
the struggle with Vietnam,
a rise in anti-nuclear sentiment
and the burgeoning field
of robotic explorers
were eclipsing support
for the nuclear program.
[ music ]
>> Coming back to the reactor
for the filming of
this documentary
has been difficult for some
and not so difficult
for others.
>> Boy, I started right
with every nut and bolt
and went right through that.
And to see it all,
just the paint falling in
and all that.
It's not good.
Not good.
>> You go back,
and you don't recognize
where you are, really.
>> It was like
you were on the moon.
It was real strange
and not a very good feeling,
because you always remember
what it was like.
>> As I walked through
the reactor today, certainly,
a tear comes to my eye
that, you know, that all of
those great facilities,
you know, weren't kept up.
But on the other hand,
as I look at the, uh,
as I look at the controls,
I realize that that was
basically 1950s
and 1960s technology.
And we're a long way--
we've come a long way
since then.
>> I think I was let down
to think that
there were so many
well-trained,
young engineers,
technicians here
with a lot of potential
that I really feel
did not get a chance
to really prove themselves
in their-- in their work.
[ music ]
>> It is sad,
because so much hope
and so much expertise
and so many intelligent people
worked so hard
to build that reactor,
the only one that NACA
or the NASA has ever had.
>> And when I walked
in the control room
and saw on Panel B and C
all of the holes left
by the instruments,
that hit me
like a mule kicking me,
I felt very, very,
very sad.
>> It's always difficult
to see it that way.
Back in 1974,
it was difficult to see it.
You almost feel like
the place is haunted.
[ telephone ringing ]
[ music ]
[ typewriter clicking ]
And you go into
some of the offices,
where there are blackboards
and they--
the occupants of the offices
had written down various things
about the shutdown,
how they felt about it
and so forth.
And those blackboards
are still there.
[ music ]
>> We still had to maintain
controls at the reactor
facility, and we still did
a lot of environmentals
over there.
We checked all the rad zones
on a periodic basis,
took samples, water samples,
air samples.
And we also had to
ensure the maintenance
of the facility.
>> I went to Washington, DC
many times to try
to get the, uh,
the funds necessary
to dismantle
and decommission the reactor.
And again, everyone felt
that it should be done someday.
But there were other priorities
within NASA at that
particular time.
>> In 1996, NASA requested
the renewal of its possess,
but do not operate license
from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
The NRC instead asked NASA
to reconsider decommissioning.
>> Decommissioning is best
thought of as a phrase we use,
but it really sums it up.
It's construction in reverse.
It's a very careful,
well-thought-out,
well-planned, strategic
taking it apart--
almost surgically taking apart
this facility.
>> The decision to proceed
with the decommissioning
was made based on escalating
future cost estimates,
availability of waste
disposal licenses,
and the fact that
natural radioactive decay
had decreased the levels
of radiation in the plant,
thereby making it easier
to decommission.
NASA's decommissioning plan was
approved on March 20th, 2002,
>> The total budgeted cost
for the entire work, including
what we've done to date,
plus what we've yet to do
is $160 million.
NASA approved the funds
necessary to complete
the decommissioning by 2007.
>> We have a competent crew
that is one of the best
I've ever worked with.
They pick the best of the best,
and I feel this project is
going to definitely show that
in the end, and it shows it now.
>> We're all on the same path
trying to get to that goal.
It just-- it takes time
to get there.
There's steps and procedures
that have to be followed.
>> The most difficult task
has been with the cranes,
and that was the lifting
of the shrapnel shields
off the reactor tank.
This is probably the heaviest
lift we'll make
during the project.
And we were able to
accomplish this, again,
safely and successfully.
>> And really what we're doing
with this decommissioning
is writing the final chapter
of what to this point has been
a very proud story.
And I feel personally committed
to making sure that
we do it right.
We have, luckily,
a community here
of the retirees who have been
incredible.
>> I've used the retirees
as consultants in
on the project.
I've used the retirees
to train us on systems
and I'll continue
to keep them engaged
throughout this project.
The word I would use
to describe them is a gold mine.
[ machine hums ]
[ metal crashes ]
[ chickens clucking ]
>> What's that, Pa?
>> What's all the racket?
>> Everybody in the community
knows that UFOs have landed here
and very strange things
that no one can explain happen.
>> The fact of the matter is,
the gate is there for safety
and the public can't come in.
And so everyone wonders.
>> There were many people
that had concerns about
what was going on out here
behind the fence.
It seemed secretive.
I didn't feel that
the government would be
forthright with us
and, that if there was
any contamination involved,
that we wouldn't know.
>> We began over three years ago
with Community Work Group,
which is a group made up
of volunteers from the local
community.
We have educators,
we have local businesspeople.
We have some representatives
of the local government,
some of the safety forces.
>> We are part of a team.
We feel like we are
part of a team.
>> I think that being able
to go through the facility,
help them better understand
some of the things
we'd been talking about.
>> What a delight.
It was just stunning.
It just looked just oozed 1958.
>> So I made the comment
when I took the tour
that it's a shame we can't
figure out a way to use it.
It looked that good.
>> It was important for us
to actually see that.
It's one thing to show pictures
and that people tell us
it's going to happen.
To stand there and actually
run our hands across
the non-radioactive parts,
to stand there and see it
was poignant and helpful.
>> Once we've achieved
the necessary cleanup levels,
then we'll have the demolition
of all the buildings
down to three foot below grade.
That material will be removed
from site.
The remaining hole will be
backfilled with clean fill
and we'll end up with
a clean green field.
>> The ultimate goal
of the decommissioning project
is to return the land
back to what's called
a resident farmer scenario.
You could plant tomatoes
in the soil underneath
what is now the reactor,
eat the tomatoes and have
no more radiation than
you would if you had planted
your tomatoes in any other
Perkins township garden.
>> I think when the reactor
is gone and I stand on
an open field that I will have
a lot of good memories.
>> Mm, I'm going to be
very dreary.
>> I would consider it
a real waste because
I always felt that the reactor
should have continued.
>> I would think that's
the way it should be.
I mean, it's over.
It's done with.
Put it away.
>> But you see, we didn't get--
we didn't live out our lifespan.
We were cut short.
>> So we never had
an opportunity to find out
what the long term impact
of our work was.
>> A lot of the experiments
that were working
were taken from here
and run somebody else
someplace else and...
well, anyway.
>> We...
should have been able
to continue the testing
that we had already started.
>> But as you say,
it'll be an open field
and that's not the reactor
facility anymore.
>> On October 15, 2003,
the reactor's unique double
water tower was brought down
by a series of explosive
charges at its base.
Although much of
the decommissioning work
had already begun,
for many this would be the most
dramatic evidence today
that the reactor would soon
be reduced to a green field.
>> I didn't think they would
ever go that far,
but they did.
The fact that we had
that test reactor here--
it'll appear like a dream
to me.
>> From a green field
home to Indian tribes
to the farmers making
their way west in hopes
of starting over,
from the ordnance employees,
working for the benefit
of their country,
to the reactor personnel,
doing much the same as the U.S.
made its first steps into space,
All had come to this
very same land for a reason,
and all had been abruptly
asked to leave.
Bringing us back
to a green field in
the middle of the farmlands
with just a spirit of
their times remaining.
[ door latches ]
>> Nothing lasts forever.
So when you think
and you work in a place
and you think you've got
steady work
and you see yourself
going through to retirement
at a place,
that could be a dream.
You can't predict
the cycles of life.
>> What then, will be
the legacy of the NASA
Plum Brook reactor facility?
[ music ]
The U.S. Nuclear Propulsion
Program has been dormant
for 30 years.
In that time, reactor science
has advanced by leaps
and bounds.
Even so,
one would expect much
of the basic materials research
conducted at Plum Brook
to still be of scientific
significance.
And yet,
no central clearinghouse
ever existed for all
the data gathered.
Much to the frustration
of the men who once ran
the reactor,
an unknown portion of that data
has been lost throughout
the passage of time.
>> And I'm always concerned
about how do we retrieve that?
For that matter,
how do we retain it?
Because the people
who worked on it
are disappearing.
>> Is there any hope then,
for the Plum Brook reactor
facility to have made
a significant and lasting
contribution to space
nuclear propulsion?
>> We had a worthwhile
operation going,
but Congress cut back money
and the purpose of
our being there
and we thought was a pretty
short sighted thing to do.
Now Congress is looking at
doing the same thing
all over again.
>> Early in 2003,
NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe
announced that NASA would be
making a concerted effort
to get back into
nuclear propulsion type work.
>> Perhaps you should say
we were ahead of our time
because if we want to continue
to be serious about
the exploration of outer space
or explore Mars, for example,
we're going to need
something with the life
and the specific impulse
of a nuclear rocket.
>> And therefore, we'll have to
pull back all we learned before
in order to try to apply
what we learned in the Rover
and NERVA programs.
>> Perhaps then the real value
of the Plum Brook
reactor facility will lie in
the lessons it can teach us
for this future work.
Basic research takes time.
Towering achievements are built
atop myriad designs
and dead ends.
Yet a long term
financial commitment
and a clearly defined set
of objectives will shore up
the foundation for the long run.
[ music ]
Protect the knowledge base.
The U.S. Nuclear Propulsion
Program was incapable of being
scaled back to a smaller,
more easily financed
and managed effort.
As a consequence,
the program was abruptly
canceled during a time of
political and financial crisis,
putting the widely scattered
materials research knowledge
base at risk.
Had a central clearinghouse
for the data existed,
that work would be
better available to inform
current and future efforts.
>> We choose to go to the moon
in this decade
and do the other things
not because they are easy,
but because they are hard...
>> Challenge the workforce
to reach new heights,
be it a national call to action
or an organizational directive,
the men and women
of this country will excel
when called upon to pioneer
new technologies.
The NASA Plum Brook reactor
facility was designed by men
who had little experience
in the discipline.
And yet, through hard work
and persistence,
these extremely capable
engineers were able to design
a state of the art facility.
With its bright and energetic
young staff,
the facility went on to achieve
an incredible 80% online time,
a near-perfect operation
and an exemplary safety record.
Much of the research
conducted at the facility,
including cryogenic nuclear
research, remains unique
through today.
[ music ]
As we look forward toward a day
when nuclear rockets are used
for space travel,
we would do well to remember
the men and women that laid
a portion of the groundwork
for this very same efforts
30 years ago.
Many have passed on.
Of the remainder,
a good portion have scattered
far about the country.
Yet despite the distance,
this nuclear family
remains close.
And while the reactor
they once called home
will soon be gone,
their legacy of pride,
hard work and accomplishment
will live on.
[ music ]
[ door closes ]
[ water droplets ]
[ garage door rustles ]
NASA has decided to name
their new nuclear program
Project Prometheus.
It is encouraging to find
that the name means forethought.
And it is oddly poetic
to find that the legend
of Prometheus tells the story
of the Greek titan
who gave the gift of fire
to humanity.
[ flames crackling ]
[ music ]
>> I believe that this nation
should commit itself
to achieving the goal
before this decade is out
of landing a man on the moon
and returning him
safely to the earth.
We'll accelerate development
of the Rover nuclear rocket.
This gives promise of someday
providing a means
for even more exciting
and ambitious exploration
of space,
perhaps beyond the moon,
perhaps to the very end
of the solar system itself.
[ music ]
>> And so we have come
full circle back to fire.
It can destroy
or it can rejuvenate.
Blazing a new trail
to the heavens.
The choice we make will define
the next generation
of space travel
and light the way
for the family of men and women
who will take us there.
[ music ]