Comments on: Fighting for nuclear propulsion http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/07/12/fighting-for-nuclear-propulsion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fighting-for-nuclear-propulsion Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: larry http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/07/12/fighting-for-nuclear-propulsion/#comment-3633 Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:46:47 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=602#comment-3633 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.

]]> By: Dfens http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/07/12/fighting-for-nuclear-propulsion/#comment-3632 Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:40:30 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=602#comment-3632 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.

]]> By: Greg Kuperberg http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/07/12/fighting-for-nuclear-propulsion/#comment-3631 Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:00:51 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=602#comment-3631 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.

]]> By: William Berger http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/07/12/fighting-for-nuclear-propulsion/#comment-3630 Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:26:19 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=602#comment-3630 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.

]]> By: billg http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/07/12/fighting-for-nuclear-propulsion/#comment-3629 Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:01:28 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=602#comment-3629 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.

]]>