Comments on: Prometheus gets nuked

By: Impossible Scissors

Impossible Scissors — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:17:12 +0000

Bearing in mind that NASA is sticking with Design Reference Mission 3.0 for Mars, nuclear thermal is still the baseline. The fight is still waiting in the wings, but it looks like it will be easier to win the longer we wait it out. Time is on the side of nuclear power in general and specifically nuclear propulsion.

By: larry

larry — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:53:01 +0000

I been watching this nuclear discussion go on since NERVA. On again/off again.

I do respect what Griffin is doing – and actually agree given all the different forces he has to deal with – but it doesn’t mean in the end it work. US Politics is to damn fickle to do long range planning. And anything with ‘nuclear’ in it is evil by public standard.

Sadly, I put my bet on China building the 1st working nuclear engine/rocket within 10-15 years.

By: GuessWho

GuessWho — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:53:43 +0000

Dave, like you I have had my share of experience with NR. I worked at BWX Technologies (formerly Babcock and Wilcox) NNFD division for 5 years. And yes their quality control and approach to safety are top-notch and head and shoulders over DOE-NE. But like every other reactor organization, they are losing people with real reactor development experience and have a lot of new faces that only have experience with paper reactors or are learning on well established designs. Thus the Prometheus program offered NR-KAPL a chance to work on a true reactor development program. Whether industry can do it is questionable. I happen to think that in the case of space reactors, industry can design and produce a safe and reliable reactor if given the chance. However it looks as if no one will be designing a space reactor anytime soon.

Another similarity we share, I worked at INEL for 7 years prior to going to BWXT although not in connection with NR.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:46:30 +0000

Dave, I’d go much further than that. Put the human space program in a civilian agency run by ex-Navy officers and crew. Only the Navy know what it’s really like to operate complex vehicles far from home in the long, lonely reaches between destinations. This is true whether your perspective is operational and logistical, technical, or even political and financial.

It is worth noting here that while space scientists are daydreaming about exploring the Solar System with complex automated spacecraft, the Navy is showing little evidence of trying to get by without rather large crews. That is one of the reasons I don’t find the crew overhead on the Space Station so dismaying: why did we expect anything else?

I’m more than half-serious about this.

— Donald

By: Dave Ketchledge

Dave Ketchledge — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:25:20 +0000

As a former US Naval Nuclear Operator, I know Naval Reactors in a very peronal way. I worked as a process control engineer at the A1W plants at DOE /NR in Idaho Falls.

Comparing DOE to NR is like morning and night. Naval Reactors has since the Nautilus has been in the lead of nuclear engineering and operations. and the quality control at NR is the best in the country. Somedays I swore at NR but after a 12 year carrier in commercial nuclear power I sincerely miss working with NR. Space nuclear power is esential if we are going to Mars and the outer planets. So I am disappointed at this news. I’ fully support the CEV program as well. But where is Congress and OMB ?

If you wonder what doomed the Shuttle go look at OMB, they forced the design we have been stuck with. But in the end we need a HLLV and CEV first.

By: GuessWho

GuessWho — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:01:54 +0000

I agree, nuclear is not necessary for lunar applications but it is needed for any mission to Mars both for propulsion and surface power. Given that if DOE were to start reactor development now (under Prometheus and for a relatively low-power class reactor) it would still be 2018 or so before the technology would be ready for launch and even that date is optimistic and based on an early and aggressive funding profile. A NTP reactor will take longer and cost significantly more due to ground test requirements and the immaturity of the fuel. This decision puts any Mars mission at risk.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:11:00 +0000

If Rick’s analysis is correct, I support this decision.

There are probably good reasons to put nuclear power on hold right now. You can just get by on the lunar surface without it; the political cost of launching reactors is likely to be high, possibly very high, and the last thing we need is to rally opposition to the VSE before it is well underway; and we can always go back and develop surface and propulsion reactors once the initial Lunar Base is deployed. Again, this is something that does not absolutely have to be in the critical path to a very near term Lunar Base, therefore it shouldn’t be.

— Donald

By: GuessWho

GuessWho — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:48:17 +0000

Rick, this is a larger development issue than you think and goes beyond just cancellation of JIMO. Naval Reactors was to be responsible for the development of space reactors as a whole and not just for NEP. The reactor concepts for NEP could equally work well for surface power applications since this is essentially what an NEP reactor would do (barring the materials considerations for surface applications that must be taken into account). Any NTP application would of course require a significantly different reactor design given the power requirements, operating temperatures and cooling fluid (now H2 and not an inert gas or liquid metal). However, DOE-NR was courted for JIMO not because it had experience in space reactors (it doesn’t) but because they have a reputation for producing highly reliable, highly safe reactors with cost and schedule credibility. DOE-NE has never done that even though they have been the DOE oversight agency for past space nuclear programs. Either NASA has given up on space nuclear systems in general or they feel that a NASA organization (GRC?) working with DOE-NE can do a better job of it than DOE-NR. I would suggest the former.

By: Rick Sterling

Rick Sterling — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:26:43 +0000

NASA has shifted priorities in Project Prometheus. The cancellation of the nuclearelectric propulsion project at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory muct be put in its proper prospective. Nuclear electric propulsion was designed for the JIMO spacecraft which has been postponed while NASA develops nuclear propulsion systems for spacecraft that will explore the inner solar system(Moon, Mars, Etc). Dr. Michael Griffin stated the new goals for Project Prometheus on May 12,2005 when he spoke before the Senate Appropriations Committee. He stated that the priorities for Project Prometheus are (1). Nuclear reactors for lunar. (2). Nuclear Thermal Propulsion for manned interplanetary Mars vehicles and(3). nuclear electric propulsion for unmanned cargo vehicles to Mars. This new emphasis on nuclear thermal propulsion is extremely important for eventual manned Mars missions. Finally it should be noted that the National research Council’s recent report on the “Priorities in Space Science Enabled By Nuclear Power And Propulsion” generally supported NTP.

By: Kevin Davis

Kevin Davis — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:47:29 +0000

It is bad in a way, but at least the money is going someplace good..