http://csmarts.colorado.edu/presentationpages/34_future_of_space/page_01.htm (intro-nav page)

http://csmarts.colorado.edu/presentationpages/34_future_of_space/Slide45.JPG (corporate capabilities: W-Band & power beaming etc)

See my blog for more info & also a 20 minute video presentation regarding IOSTAR’s w-band satellite communication constellation (non-profit & possesses licenced spectrum). IOSTAR claims 600 million broadband MOBILE internet connections per satellite. The communication capacity is in an order of magnitute unprecedented – not even worth considering without Nuclear Power plant in orbit.

http://weaponmasstechnology.blogdrive.com/archive/7.html

Considering that Boeing had already signaled, in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways, their intention to dump Delta and exit the launch market if ULA were not approved, the administration arguably had little choice. The alternative to a ULA monopoly offering both Delta and Atlas was a LockMart monopoly offering Atlas alone.

I really don’t see how ULA could lock out new entrants any more effectively than LockMart could by themselves, once Boeing was out of the picture.

Spurred by Jeff’s comment, I decided to do my own point-by-point comparison of the 1996 and 2006 documents. If you’re interested, it’s in podcast form here:

http://geekcounterpoint.net/files/GC044.html

Lorne

It isn’t all that odd, Jeff. The VSE is itself shallow rhetoric, even though it might sound deep to some people here. So it’s no surprise if Aftergood didn’t know or forgot that it had been said before.

Thanks for the comments. I did know about the loan guarantee provision, but I had not seen much movement on this issue since that tiem.

If this is all Iostar, I think it is pretty impressive that one commercial company persuaded the White House to create a detailed national space policy guideline that is expressly designed to enable their business case. I expect that they must have some real money behind them, and some heavy hitters involved.

In other words, I am thinking that they may have their DoD sponsor.

I also wonder if their financiers have done the comparative technical analysis you use assert that STP is a better solution. I do note that your asssertion assumes that their only (or even their primary) customer are comsat operators.

Again, what DoD-related missions might Iostar enable?

– Al

You have given the Govt. too much credit in this case. Prometheus was just beginning the EIS process for the JIMO mission. The NASA program office took the position that it would not start-up the reactor as a conservative (and likely end-game) position that allowed them to minimize the additional safety features associated with the reactor which helped minimize mass (and complexity) in the instrumentation and control of the reactor itself. The last Space Nuclear program (SP-100) fully intended to operate within Earth orbit and thus designed in the mass and complexity to operate at this altitude, even given COSMOS 954. The greatest risk is that all those additional safety systems result in a failure to start the reactor as opposed to causing and event that would bring it down. Also, Prometheus hadn’t even begun the process of establishing international liability limitations, etc. which would have to be in place prior to launch as each case is unique (any agreements associated with RTGs wouldn’t apply). Govt. liability would be limited to whatever the US Govt, the commercial entity, and international entities ultimately come to agreement on. Currently, with no other agreements in place, that liability (outside US borders) is only $1M.

Everything is politics. The U.S. government has made a decision to not operate nuclear reactors in Earth orbit. It seems unlikely that the U.S. government would then allow a commercial entity to take a risk that the government had already deemed to be too great–and for which the government would ultimately assume liability. It is hard to forget Cosmos 954.

With respect to Prometheus opting to wait until the SC was out of Earth’s orbit before starting up the reactor, that was a political/PR decision. The US (with SNAP-10) and the Russians (TOPAZ series) operated within Earth orbit. There is no law (either US or international) that precludes operating a space reactor within Earth orbit. A commercial entity would have to negotiate an international agreement that limited liability in case of the SC coming down. The bigger concern is that it lands in an unfriendly country as the amount of weapons grade uranium (HEU) that could be recovered would make put that country in the top five worldwide in HEU stockpiles.

Also, the Outer Space Treaty places responsibility for objects that fall to Earth on the launching country. So any American commercial reactor that falls to Earth is the responsibility of the U.S. government, which gets stuck with cleanup and liability costs. At the very least, the U.S. government would require very large amounts of insurance for the operator so that John Q. Taxpayer does not get stuck with the bill. It’s a totally crazy idea and would never work.