While NASA appears to have shifted the direction of Project Prometheus from nuclear propulsion to nuclear power systems, there are still some, particularly in Congress, who are fighting to maintain the original orientation of the program. In a guest editorial in the July issue of the AIAA magazine Aerospace America, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) compared the development of nuclear propulsion to the development of steam-powered warships in the 19th century: “What would have happened to our Navy in 1898 if we had still been using sailboats?” Culberson does seem to recognize, though, that nuclear propulsion will not be available for a mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa, as was once planned for the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter: “For now, Project Prometheus supporters need to strongly urge NASA and Congress to focus on the decade-long task of designing, building, and launching a non-fission-powered orbiter and landers for Europa and to continue research on nuclear-powered rocket engines.”
This is not the first time that Culberson, who serves on the House appropriations subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA, has spoken out in favor of Prometheus and JIMO. Back in February he attended a session on Cassini/Huygens during the AAAS conference in Washington (at 8 am on a Saturday, no less) and during the Q&A session launched into a brief but impassioned defense of JIMO. Given that Culberson’s Houston-area district has little to directly gain from Prometheus and JIMO (little, if any, of the work will be done at JSC), his strong support is all the more unusual.
Good for Culbertson. The single biggest stumbling block to serious exploration and exploitation of the Solar System is the lack of serious propulsive technology. Those who oppose the use of nuclear power in space should be reminded how the stars work.
When O’Keefe approved Prometheus it was clear from his statements that he did not understand it very well. He confused it with nuclear thermal propulsion, when it was really a nuclear electric system. Several times he mentioned that it was “fast” when in reality it is no faster than chemical propulsion to the outer planets, and in several cases (such as reaching Neptune) it is actually slower.
I strongly suspect–I even predict–that Griffin will revive nuclear thermal in some way. He has made comments about it in the past and so I expect him to at least start some studies. I also predict that space nuclear power will not last as a NASA program for very long. It costs a lot of money and the benefits are 15-20 years away. There are better short term uses for that money in a tight budget environment.
The problem is that this stuff is expensive, and the community that would most benefit from nuclear electric propulsion, the scientists, don’t want it. They see the high costs as a direct threat to their projects. So they would prefer using RTGs and conventional spacecraft, even if that limits their power availability.
The anti-nuke crowd is unimportant. They have no effect on this at all, but space buffs love getting upset about them.
I hope someone in Washington can release NASA from future science missions that scientists don’t want. The space station provides more than enough of that; a Prometheus-based science mission would be icing on the crap.
The big programs have incredible inertia. They are like icebergs, 90% can’t be seen. As usual NASA has the cart before the horse. Let’s work on a really cool way to get from one planet to another. As we struggle to develop a reliable and reasonably effective way to get as far as low Earth orbit. It’s like planning a vacation in the Bahamas, and neglecting to buy airplane tickets.
Totally agree on his point.
I just don’t believe with the current anti-nuclear perspective it’s not going to happen in the US without outside motivation.
The US Govt. will build a nuclear craft after China or someone builds one.