Example letter and list of useful addresses. (http://www.nuclearspace.com/letter.html)

Few people have likely noticed the recent science media frenzy over Nasa's new nuclear initiative. To sum it up briefly, Sean O'Keefe the Administrator is calling for nuclear propulsion to be given more emphasis in future NASA programming. More detail on this historic development can be read at NuclearSpace.com (http://www.nuclearspace.com). The plan is to make nuclear power systems the top priority for new missions. This is a major stride forward but not one with any certainty of success. Chemical rockets have only demonstrated very marginal improvements over the last 40 years. They have been developed nearly as far as they can be. Any further improvements we can hope for will only be slight. NASA has announced a number of bold new initiatives including new space stations and manned missions beyond the moon but these cannot be realistically implemented without reactor technology for both onboard electrical systems and propulsion. To obtain such technology will require a sizable increase in funding and resources. Congress will decide on this matter and I urge those of you with a sense of wonder to tell our leaders we want such new generation vehicles. Please help support this move for increased exploration of the solar system by sending a letter to your local representative or the senate. Details are contained in the link above.

All the best,
Wayne Smith (Founder of the Pro-Nuclear Space Movement).

Chemical rockets have only demonstrated very marginal improvements over the last 40 years.

Isn't it true that we've about hit the limit of what chemical rockets can provide? That is, the shuttle engines are at the top of what chemical will give?

It may be we need to push harder to get some real powerhouse development going.

It seems to be the week for excessive hype where space is concerned. Over the last few days, three separate stories about developments and problems in space exploration have made a considerable splash -- but on more detailed inspection, all three have been overblown.Media Hype Alone Cannot Fuel The Space Program (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03a1.html)

NASA may not have plans as grand as those who want nuclear back in space were looking for. Great for future probes, but it's going to take more than nuclear-electric propulsion to move a manned Mars mission into possibilities. While the earth to orbit might still have to be chemical unless a non-polluting nuclear method is found, to not go full speed on direct nuclear propulsion in space is simply dragging our feet even more. I hope I'm wrong...maybe GWB will announce something in his Jan 28th speech. but I'm not holding my breath, he's got bigger problems than appeasing the NASA/space groups.

Well, actually, we nukee's got pretty much everything we wanted. Speculation of a distant Mars Mission was never any more than that. Rumour without any solid evidence to back it up so far. Few of us really believed that was on the cards. It still might prove to be true though. With Bush, anything is possible. Nuclear powered missions are set to become the core of Nasa's work. That and everything else stated in the LA Times interview is true. They are requesting an increase to the billion dollars already asked for back in 2002. Prometheus is to be the name of the propulsion side of the nuclear R&D. Perhaps some day we will see this nuclear propulsion technology scaled up to manned missions.
A lot of articles have been stating flat out that a Mars Mission is on. Only reporters at Spacedaily and Space.com have questioned the validity of this. If Nasa is keeping this out of the media then only a handful of people must know about it. Hardly surprising with a concept that hasn't left paper yet. If that's the case and Bush is following in his fathers footsteps by planning a Mars Mission then the silence is perfectly understandable. It deserves a big official announcement. I tend to agree with you that there is probably nothing in the pipeline for Mars at this point but we'll have to wait and see. Strange that no firm denial has come out yet. Even the BBC is reporting on this Mars Mission like its a certainty.

I thought it would be at least twenty years before a mission to mars. Am I still right?

I think their priority should be to put a space station in orbit that looks like the one from 2001, inside and out. They'd never have to ask for public support again, and their theme song could be the Blue Danube.

My big fear is that it will all be wrapped up in a flashy package, and then a few years down the line all be cut due to unforseen problems. Look at the ISS, when it was announced by Bush Sr people were clapping their hands in glee at the promise.

The problem is, to be announced to the public, it has to be flashy. If Bush stated that NASA was being given the green light for major nuclear propulsion development without having it be part of something big, you'll have most of the public either screaming "NO NUKES" or rubbing their heads wondering why you'd want to bother. It's a catch-22...you need the package to sell the product, but I don't think we're ready for the whole product yet, only to start on how best to get there.

And of course there's my other suspicion...I don't see Bush as pro-space. So what's he want out of this deal? What's the military going to get from NASA while we get a better nuclear powered ion engine?

Well, the military effectively runs Nasa now. One of the reasons Sean O'Keefe is so supportive of Nuclear Propulsion is because he is an old Navy man. No stranger to nuclear submarine technology. He knows that men can live in a confined space cut off from the outside world for weeks and even months at a time with only a bulkhead separating them from a nuclear reactor.

The term SpaceShip is rather apt.

I have nothing against Nukes in space... in fact im very much for it! Nuclear power should be used for good things rather then making bombs and such, but still whats that chimp with puppit strings attached Bush's real goals here :bugeye:

Whatever his goals are, if they result in a more robust space program then I am fully supportive of them. Without nuclear power we are going nowhere spacewise and the political machinations of Democracy pale in significance next to the conquest of space. I want my own personal space rocket! :D

I want to see a Jovian sunrise!

:D

You know that those colours are added to the photo's? It's to create sharper definition between lines of Jupiter's surface. It's going to be a bit dark that far away. I want to see how the Saturnian Rings look up close. If need be we can set up big spotlights in orbit. With nuclear power unchained theres no limits to whats possible. Power for bases, scientific research stations and holiday resorts. Micro G sports in massive space habitats. I wonder how long it takes to high dive into a swimming pool at 0.1 G???

:m: