Comments on: Tweaking the NASA budget

By: John Malkin

John Malkin — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:03:41 +0000

In the NASA update meeting today, O’Keefe and Ready talked about how Prometheus is moving forward but they didn’t talk about JIMO but that they are looking at ways to use the technology in different applications. They were very vague.

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:30:13 +0000

I’m not trying to win people to some particular side of the debate here, but I do believe that – for better or worse – an unvarnished historical perspective is important in forming sound and useful opinion.

By: Dwayne Day

Dwayne Day — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:45:06 +0000

Mr. Parkin wrote:
“Even back in 1986 there were about 50 nuclear reactors in orbit and 8 had reentered, including one that spread its core over parts of Canada.”

How, exactly, is that an argument that will win people to your cause?

By: John Malkin

John Malkin — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:54:42 +0000

Many of those vocal groups aren’t interested in fact but rather anything that would move their cause forward. This is where strong politicians standing against the noise can progress America in the right direction.

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:00:55 +0000

Those groups should read the history books. Even back in 1986 there were about 50 nuclear reactors in orbit and 8 had reentered, including one that spread its core over parts of Canada:

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/spacedeb/canadapl.htm

By: Dogsbd

Dogsbd — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:07:44 +0000

>>>> There’s no danger of having a reactor in orbit until the reactor is activated,

Maybe not an actual danger, but a perceived danger in the minds of some. And in this case, a perceived danger is enough to cause incalculable hindrance to the program. Were NASA to announce plans to park a nuclear reactor in Earth orbit, regardless of the safety protocols used, the outcry from certain groups would be deafening and certain members of Congress would listen. And that could very easily kill the program.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:19:07 +0000

What was this requirement (no orbiting nuclear reactors) based upon? Was it a safety concern?

No.

(By extension, a public relations concern.)
Yes, but one that could have been circumvented with some education (just as occurred with RTGs).

Why do you feel that it was an illegitimate requirement?

Because it’s not a safety concern. There’s no danger of having a reactor in orbit until the reactor is activated, and that can wait until after the system is assembled in LEO and boosted to a C3 of zero with an upper stage (though it would be much better, and also perfectly safe, to activate in orbit and use it to boost itself to escape). A heavy lifter is not necessary.

By: Dwayne Day

Dwayne Day — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:19:18 +0000

Mr. Simberg wrote:
“Desire, not need.”

What was this requirement (no orbiting nuclear reactors) based upon? Was it a safety concern? (By extension, a public relations concern.) Why do you feel that it was an illegitimate requirement?

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:38:21 +0000

…this was due to two things: the weight, and the desire/need to boost the reactor out of orbit as quickly as possible to avoid placing a nuclear reactor in earth orbit.

Desire, not need. Apparently their desire for this overcame their desire for the program.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:25:51 +0000

Who would have thought