SPACE.com, in its Astronotes section (scroll down to the May 11 entry), reports that Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) is expressing “grave concerns” about Project Prometheus, the agency’s nuclear power and propulsion program. In a “Dear Colleague” letter, she apparently is concerned about the potential environmental damage in the event of a “catastrophic nuclear accident” as well as the military applications of the technology. She wants her fellow members to support shifting funding from Prometheus to “solar and other alternative energy systems that can support our space program.” It would be a surprise if her request was taken that seriously, given that McKinney is rather much outside the mainstream compared to even her Democratic colleagues. (As a Slate article put it three years ago, “hardly a year has gone by when she didn’t make news for an outlandish accusation or a wild conspiracy theory.”) Of course, depending on who you talk to, there’s enough concern about the progress of Prometheus as it is that there’s no time to worry about a Congresswoman has to say about it.
She is a nut. I ranted on this a little last night. Darn facts always getting in the way of a good political crusade.
Some people are against anything with the word nuclear in it.
This is obviously going to push the hot buttons of a lot of red-meat Republicans who read this blog. And I see no evidence that McKinney knows what she’s talking about. Certainly the notion of “alternative” energy in space sounds like nonsense.
That said, it won’t be great for the environment if a nuclear reactor is smashed to bits during a rocket launch, or if one is incinerated on re-entry. Depending on how it happens, it’s not clear whether it would be a real crisis or merely politically unpleasant. But as Jeff says, Prometheus could be yet another NASA wild goose chase, in which case McKinney has little reason to worry.
On the other hand, someone could conceivably use Prometheus as an excuse to launch nuclear bombs into space. A nuclear detonation in space really could be a catastrophe for the environment, not to mention for a lot of satellites in orbit and for humanity on the ground.
Nuclear rockets have previously been detonated on the ground to see what happens.
The reactor produces dangerous levels of radiation only while it is operating.
Nuclear rocket reactors are not nuclear bombs, and the aforementioned test showed they explode in a fairly conventional way.
If someone wanted a nuke in space it would be fairly trivial to send up something like a w-54 warhead (23 kg) inside a conventional satellite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29
The use or lack thereof of nuclear thermal rockets is neither here nor there with regard to the issue of nuclear weapons in space.
I’m well aware that a nuclear reactor in a rocket isn’t a nuclear bomb. My point is that outside detractors like Cynthia McKinney might not be the only ones who confuse the two. Some people have wanted nuclear bombs in space in the past, and I could imagine someone seizing on the enriched uranium side of Project Prometheus to try do it. They would call it a new phase of the project.
Granted, even in current one-party climate in Washington, it’s unlikely. Given some of the other irresponsible things that politicians have done, I don’t see that it’s impossible. As you say, the technology is already there to do it. It happens to be illegal, but the terms of Project Prometheus could be useful to people who want to bend the law.
As for exploding nuclear reactors on the ground, you aren’t given any details or references to these past experiments. It certainly isn’t as simple as “we tried it once and nothing went wrong”.
The anti-nuclear groups can be influential.
Their “Cancel Cassini” campaign held protests at the White House, United Nations and Cape Canaveral, and appeared on 60 Minutes.
We’ve been using radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs) in space for 40+ years without too much trouble. There is a protest every time there is a launch carrying an RTG. I wonder why the anti-nuke protesters don’t perform the same song and dance outside of military bases every time an airplane takes off carrying nuclear weapons, or every time a submarine goes out to sea?
On the other hand, someone could conceivably use Prometheus as an excuse to launch nuclear bombs into space.
We’ve had nuclear bombs in space ever since the first ICBM‘s ballistic trajectory crossed 62 miles altitude. There’s no need for a nuclear fission-powered spacecraft ‘excuse’.
Briefly crossing the arbitrary 100km boundary line of space may be good enough for Burt Rutan, but it isn’t what the Outer Space Treaty says. It says, “States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner.”
Again, Project Prometheus doesn’t violate this, but conceivably someone who hates the Outer Space Treaty could exploit Project Prometheus to bend the law.
Schrimpsher wrote:
“I ranted on this a little last night. Darn facts always getting in the way of a good political crusade.”
I read what you wrote. Rant is the proper term. You really need to clean up your blog. It’s not very coherent. For instance, your introduction says:
“I am the Software Engineering Lead over the Common Data Link Interface for the Army’s System of Systems. He is also an Adjunct professor of Computer Information Systems at UNA.”
I assume that you are the “I” in this paragraph. Who is the “he” that you refer to? And you suggest that someone points “out to here,” when you presumably meant “out to her.” If you are going to rant about how stupid someone is, you need to make sure your own text is coherent.
As for the general discussion here, this is largely irrelevant to the important problems facing Prometheus. The program has been poorly structured and managed from the start. The fact that we are now three years into Prometheus and the project team still has not settled upon the reactor power output, and recently “deferred” their overly ambitious JIMO mission indicates that things are not in good shape.
Prometheus was ostensibly focused on the exploration of the outer planets. However, the outer planets science community does not really want it. They view it as too expensive (and therefore likely to be canceled) and not well-suited for their needs. For instance, in many situations, a Prometheus craft would actually take _longer_ to reach its destination than a chemically-propelled RTG-powered craft (like Cassini). It would arrive on site with much more power, but nobody is sure that the reactor would operate for the 7-10 years it might take to reach its destination. So if the very community that Prometheus is intended to serve does not want it, then why is NASA building it?
It is highly likely that Prometheus will be completely restructured in the near-term to better suit nearer-term goals and to satisfy a community that could actually use nuclear power (like the human Moon-Mars community). So watch for Prometheus to change from a nuclear demonstration mission for robotic spacecraft to something like ground power for a lunar base.
However, there is one aspect of Prometheus that NASA seems to be doing right: dealing with potential public opposition. NASA hired the Keystone Center to engage in public outreach:
http://www.keystone.org/Public_Policy/Featured_Projects/Space_Science/space_science.html
Part of their approach consists of meeting with environmental groups and explaining what Prometheus is. They are aware that even barely coherent groups like those that opposed Cassini–or congresspeople like McKinney–can present problems for them.
To: Mr. Berger
I appreciate you comments. I apologize for the lack of coherence, as I wrote it early this morning, groggy and angry.
It has been updated and reads (I hope) better and less “road rage”
I am pretty new at this, so I appreciate whatever comments others have. Although I am not sure why you posted it here, rather than at my blog…
I’m not surprised that Greg, who in another thread was willing to junk the VSE solely because Tom Delay is in favor of it, makes several mistakes on this issue. First, nuclear power and propulsion (except for Orion, which is not being discussed here) has nothing to do with nuclear bombs. That is just anti nuke hysteria. Second, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and not the Outer Space Treaty forbids the deployment and detonation of WMDs in space. (To my mind, the treaty ought to be modified/clarified to allow for something like Orion.)
You’re certainly wrong about the VSE, because I said that it was a delusion before DeLay said anything about it.
You’re also wrong about the Outer Space Treaty. See Article IV.
As you can see here, Prometheus is already being cut and re-focused:
Prometheus, ISS Research Cuts Help Pay for Shuttle and Hubble Repair Bills
By Brian Berger
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 12 May 2005
11:02 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON — NASA sent Congress a revised spending plan for 2005 that would significantly cut the Project Prometheus nuclear power and propulsion program, cancel a host of international space station-based biological and physical research activities, and postpone some space science missions, including two advanced space telescopes and a Mars science lander slated to launch in 2009.
[CUT]
NASA also plans to refocus Project Prometheus on the development of “space-qualified nuclear systems to support human and robotic missions” especially those needed to support NASA’s near term exploration goals. NASA started the program known as Prometheus in 2002 to develop nuclear power and propulsion systems for deep space probes like the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, a flagship-class mission that NASA deferred indefinitely earlier this year once it became clear that the undertaking would cost tens of billions of dollars and not necessarily help NASA accomplish its goal of returning to the Moon and sending humans to Mars.
Alright, Greg, I stand corrected. And I guess your catawallering about VSE stems from the fact that it was proposed by GW Bush as well as supported by Tom Delay.
No, government-funded human spaceflight is a quagmire regardless of who is president. And VSE has a good side too, the part about retiring the space shuttle by 2010. If that date hasn’t moved by the time that Bush leaves office in 2009, I will applaud him for it.
Allow me to interrupt your little spatfest with some actual information…
Griffin is currently testifying before the Senate. He has just announced that his priorities for space nuclear power are:
-surface power for the moon
-nuclear thermal propulsion for human Mars missions
-nuclear electric propulsion
Translation: JIMO and its related programs are dead.
I’ll miss JIMO, but that sounds to me like the right priorities.
— Donald
McKinney is applying 60’s & 70’s thinking and knowledge with the reality of the 21st century. I just keep thinking about planet size solar arrays (I’m sure Boeing or Lockheed would be drooling over that project) powering a voyager sized spacecraft near Pluto, it reminds me of the technology from the movie ‘Brazil’
The focus appears to be on the technology not the mission which is a good thing, so I’m sure once they have a mature technology they will use it for deep space robotic missions like JIMO. Griffin is holding NASA to its promise which is not to include technology in a spiral until it’s mature. JIMO was a big mistake and I think there is growth in recognizing that fact.
“McKinney is applying 60’s & 70’s thinking and knowledge with the reality of the 21st century.”
Please, you are giving her far too much credit by accusing her of actual thought. This is simply a ultra leftist-extremist hyper knee-jerk reaction to the words “nuclear” and “space”.
Actual high-level brain function was not a part of her decision making process anymore than you have to think consciously to digest a chicken mcnugget.
Griffin is currently testifying before the Senate. He has just announced that his priorities for space nuclear power are:
-surface power for the moon
-nuclear thermal propulsion for human Mars missions
-nuclear electric propulsion
Good….
Freeman Dyson pointed out (quoted in an article in Technology Review) that the power/mass ratio of JIMO was unacceptably low, around 3 W/kg vs. the figure he thought would be necessary to have a real impact, 200 W/kg. The low acceleration of JIMO and prolonged mission time are a function of the lousy specific power.
Nuclear thermal rockets would have much better power/mass, although their Isp might not be as high.
I find it interesting that no one has commented on who is really doing Project Prometheus. I find the association with Naval Reactors as the power system (i.e. nuclear reactor) developer troubling. While technically a DOE entity, it is wholly a navy-run organization. Why would a navy submarine reactor development organization lead a NASA space reactor development effort? It puts their entirely classified way of doing business at risk in the public environment of NASA. They have zero experience in space architectures and the challenges presented in terms of materials, autonomous operations, etc. Through various contacts I have heard comments that NR is involved because they have young engineers that do not really face design challenges because the current designs are only marginally tweaked from build to build and this offers a great opportunity for them to learn from their mistakes. Secondly, the latest design iterations on the new carrier and sub reactor designs are done and they are into production mode. Hence, a large group of reactor designers have nothing to do but track manufacturing. What better bridge-funding than NASA’s Prometheus dollars for 3-4 years until they start the next design cycle. It’s probably clear which side of the fence I come down on but I would like to hear other’s views.
Why is NASA partnering with Naval Reactors for its space reactor program? It’s simple. NASA has zero current experience with nuclear reactors. Naval Reactors has a half-century of experience and a strong record for operating their reactors safely. NASA has been bit in the past by the Not Invented Here syndrome, and this area in particular could bite them hard if they don’t seek the help of folks who know what they’re doing. Naval Reactors may have zero experience in spacecraft, but that’s what the NASA half of the partnership is there for.
I have to say that, long-term, navel technology and traditions, particularly submarine technology, makes far more sense to me in space than does aerospace technology. Think long travel times and lonely distances; large vehicles that must be capable of doing of different things well in many different environments; the large crews required to operate all that equipment; self-contained societies and life-support; remote destinations where you have to supply your own resources; et cetera.
— Donald
I have to say that, long-term, navel technology and traditions, particularly submarine technology, makes far more sense to me in space than does aerospace technology. Think long travel times and lonely distances; large vehicles that must be capable of doing of different things well in many different environments; the large crews required to operate all that equipment; self-contained societies and life-support; remote destinations where you have to supply your own resources; et cetera.
— Donald
I have to say that, long-term, navel technology and traditions, particularly submarine technology, makes far more sense to me in space than does aerospace technology. Think long travel times and lonely distances; large vehicles that must be capable of doing of different things well in many different environments; the large crews required to operate all that equipment; self-contained societies and life-support; remote destinations where you have to supply your own resources; et cetera.
— Donald
With respect to the comments by D.F. Robertson, the long-duration mission technologies were developed by the Navy and it’s industrial partners. Naval Reactors does not develop large vehicles, life-support, etc. They redesign and repackage water-cooled reactors to fit within a sub or a carrier. Further, they build nothing. Industry builds the reactors.
On a broader view I would agree with his comments that a Navy approach makes more sense for VSE. So why do we need NASA? Again, much of the design and ops resides in industry. Partner industry with space experience with a Navy approach to long-duration missions. NASA has shown yet again, vice ISS, that they cannot be relied upon to complete what they start.