The rumors are a flying about a push from President Bush to spark development in the field of advanced nuclear powered propulsion systems. A Los Angeles Times interview with NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe says "Project Prometheus" would pump $1 billion over the next five years into design and development of a new nuclear rocket. A Space.com story seems to confirm the push, but official word is not expected until Bush submits his 2004 budget request to Congress. NASA officials are upset with the LA Times story's allusion that Bush may announce Project Prometheus in his Jan. 28th State of the Union address, but they did not deny the existence of the project. Using a Mars missions as a technology driver is one way to force the development of non-nuclear energy conversion technologies that will have immediate and widespread benefits on the Earth, and I think it’s exciting that this technology might be explored, but why do we need nuclear rockets? Are there any technologies that could be pursued that would free us from nuclear power altogether? :m: Peace.
Yes: FUSION = totally clean (only Boron+H fusion would produce no ionizing radiation), Very Cheap (once again only Boron+H would be cheap D+T and D+He3 are not) and nothing but helium as waste. The problem is that research has been expensive and people see this as a pipedream and won’t fund it! So it becomes a catch 22: it never will become possible simple because people are not willing to waste the time and money to make it possible. NASA has been working on one but a working engine would be 200 meters long, and at present they are only funding for 4 meters!
There are plenty of nuclear submarines on earth, and as far as I know none of em have exploded. But if one of these Prometheus rockets did explode on cape canaveral, well, then they'd probably pull the funding pretty quick... On another thread I thought I saw something about this technology being able to be used as a weapon, but I guess that's the way it goes with all technologies. It'll definitely make everything cheaper and faster. I'd say, though, that a mission to Europa would be a great deal more lucrative scientifically for NASA, because of the huge chances of real, tangible life (like fish) instead of dried up proteins and amino acids. Plus, living on Europa, if you could stand the radiation, would be just unbelievably cool, with the Jovian sunset and everything...yeah, if I had a chance I'd go. No question.
I have nothing against nuclear powered plasma propulsion in deep space but a Earth-to-LEO rocket? thats going to get enviormentlist cooking! In fact I don't think anyone wants a nuclear reactor open and shooting out tons of "hot" gas into open air.
