Comments on: McKinney and Prometheus

By: GuessWho

GuessWho — Fri, 20 May 2005 13:49:41 +0000

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.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Mon, 16 May 2005 18:25:28 +0000

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

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Mon, 16 May 2005 18:25:20 +0000

— Donald

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Mon, 16 May 2005 18:25:18 +0000

— Donald

By: Jorge Frank

Jorge Frank — Mon, 16 May 2005 03:50:09 +0000

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.

By: GuessWho

GuessWho — Mon, 16 May 2005 02:08:44 +0000

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.

By: Paul Dietz

Paul Dietz — Sun, 15 May 2005 15:23:23 +0000

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.

By: Kevin Davis

Kevin Davis — Fri, 13 May 2005 17:47:03 +0000

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….

By: Mike Puckett

Mike Puckett — Fri, 13 May 2005 00:54:00 +0000

“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.

By: John Malkin

John Malkin — Thu, 12 May 2005 21:50:00 +0000

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.