NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

nirgal · 2003-01-17 09:34:14

Great news:

NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

Agency expected to seek funding to develop way to travel 3 times faster

PETER PAE

Los Angeles Times

Hoping to pave the way for the human exploration of Mars within the next decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is expected to announce that developing a nuclear-powered rocket is its top research priority.

The space agency is expected to request "significant resources and funding" to design a nuclear-powered propulsion system to triple the speed of current space travel, theoretically making it possible for humans to reach Mars in a two-month voyage.

The Bush administration has signed off on the ambitious nuclear-rocket propulsion project, dubbed Project Prometheus -- though not specifically for the Mars landing -- and the president may officially launch the initiative during his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said.

The initiative would greatly expand the nuclear propulsion plans that NASA quietly announced last year when the agency said it may spend $1 billion over the next five years to design a nuclear rocket.

NASA and the Bush administration are keeping the lid on the details, including how much more it expects to request from Congress, but O'Keefe said the funding increase will be "very significant."

I somehow get the feeling that Dubya wants to make his daddy's dream (humans to Mars) come true...Are we in for another Space Exploration Initiative, this time with more reasonable goals and a more reasonable cost estimate?

dicktice · 2003-01-17 10:24:02

I'd better reply so you'll know you've been read and appreciated for bringing this to our attention. Thanks heaps. Comments after I follow-up....

Mark S · 2003-01-17 11:04:01

Richard C. Hoaglund had actually predicted a "Bush Mars Initiative" during the summer but said that it would be postponed until the economy had improved and Iraq was dealt with. Whether or not he was referring to Project Prometheus, I don't know. But I guess it's only natural for President Bush to pursue his father's dream of humans on Mars. That's my Bush!

Project Prometheus is less extensive than SEI and apparently doesn't place any time goals on flying the hardware. I think this is preferable to a Kennedy-style challenge to put a man on the moon. It would require much longer than a decade to build this nuclear rocket and launch the mission, and it would also cause a national embarassment if we missed our deadline for humans-to-Mars.

I do not know if Europe will be a part of Prometheus. With a few major exceptions (UK, France, Finland,) the European subcontinent is pretty anti-nuclear and would not be of much assitance. Russia's unparalleled experience with space reactors will be a major boon if we can get them on board.

dicktice · 2003-01-17 11:06:43

I'd better reply so you'll know you've been read and appreciated for bringing this to our attention. Thanks heaps. Comments after I follow-up....

Okay, this is what I turned up:

Friday, January 17, 2003
According to the LA Times, President Bush is going to ramp up funding for nuclear rockets
with possibly a State of the Union boost.
The Bush administration has signed off on the ambitious nuclear-rocket project -- though
not specifically for the Mars landing -- and the president may officially launch the initiative
during his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said in
an interview with The Times. The project, dubbed Project Prometheus, would greatly
expand the nuclear propulsion plans that NASA quietly announced last year when it said it
may spend $1 billion over the next five years to design a nuclear rocket. NASA and the
Bush administration are keeping the lid on the details, including how much more the
agency expects to request from Congress, but O'Keefe said the funding increase will be
"very significant."

[Meanwhile, the first Chinese astronaut will travel to space this October.]

nirgal · 2003-01-17 12:47:47

I can't wait for the details to be released. What type of engine do they have in mind? VASIMR? NTR? When do they expect it to be operational? How much will it cost?

nirgal · 2003-01-17 12:49:34

Yes!! Now I'm a Senior Member!

TJohn · 2003-01-17 14:33:05

VASMIR is a good propulsion system but will it take longer to develop for testing than a NTR? I don't know.

nirgal · 2003-01-17 14:45:44

This is the full article (LA Times). You have to register to read it so I post it here:

Hoping to pave the way for human exploration of Mars within the next decade, NASA is expected to announce that developing a nuclear-powered rocket is its top research priority.

The space agency is expected to request "significant resources and funding" to design a nuclear-powered propulsion system to triple the speed of space travel, theoretically making it possible for humans to reach Mars in a two-month voyage.

The Bush administration has signed off on the ambitious nuclear-rocket project -- though not specifically for the Mars landing -- and the president may officially launch the initiative during his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said in an interview with The Times. The project, dubbed Project Prometheus, would greatly expand the nuclear propulsion plans that NASA quietly announced last year when it said it may spend $1 billion over the next five years to design a nuclear rocket. NASA and the Bush administration are keeping the lid on the details, including how much more the agency expects to request from Congress, but O'Keefe said the funding increase will be "very significant."

"We're talking about doing something on a very aggressive schedule to not only develop the capabilities for nuclear propulsion and power generation but to have a mission using the new technology within this decade," O'Keefe said.

If approved, the nuclear-powered rocket project would provide a significant boost to the Southland's aerospace industry. Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory would take a major role in development of the system, and NASA is expected to ask several local aerospace concerns, including Boeing Co.'s Rocketdyne unit in Canoga Park, to help design and build the rockets.

How Congress and the public will respond to the proposal isn't clear. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush tried to generate backing for a nuclear rocket and Mars landing initiative but was derailed by congressional opposition and a lack of public support.

Some analysts question whether the president would even mention NASA in his State of the Union address, given the nation's budget woes and the potential war in Iraq.

Also, critics have long argued against the dangers of using nuclear technology in space. And NASA's plans for its new rocket system are still vague. One possibility would be to launch a spacecraft using a conventional hydrogen-chemical combustion rocket and then turn on a nuclear propulsion system once the craft is in orbit. Another suggestion is that astronauts would assemble the nuclear system in space before embarking on a long mission.

Developing a new propulsion system has been talked about for decades as perhaps the only means by which humans can truly explore the solar system. NASA spent 13 years and more than $10 billion trying to develop nuclear rocket technology in the 1950s and 1960s, but the idea was abandoned in the face of technological and political barriers.

NASA scientists believe that advances in nuclear reactors and rocket propulsion systems as well as lessons learned from past failures will give the quest for a nuclear rocket new life. Howard McCurdy, a public affairs professor at American who wrote a book about O'Keefe's predecessor, Daniel S. Goldin, said it was not unusual for presidents to launch bold NASA initiatives during a time of crisis. One of the nation's biggest space programs, the space shuttle, was launched by President Nixon during a recession as a way to jump-start California's economy. However, Nixon also rejected NASA's proposal to land men on Mars.

The new rocket proposal also represents a significant change at the agency, which has typically been driven by quests to get somewhere such as the moon, Mars or the outer planets and then developed the technologies to do so.

Instead, O'Keefe has begun shifting the agency's focus to developing so-called enabling technologies to carry out missions, whatever they may be.

"The laws of physics are the only things controlling how fast we go anywhere, what we do and whether we can survive the experience," O'Keefe said. "So until we beat the technical limitations ... you basically end up arguing about fantasy missions."

O'Keefe said NASA's goal will be to build a rocket three times faster than the current generation of spacecraft, which travel 18,000 mph. The new spaceships would have small nuclear reactors, which would give the engines greater thrust and virtually unlimited fuel supply.

If the designs succeed, spacecrafts could reach Mars in two months, compared with six to seven months using current rocket systems.

"We've been restricted to the same speed for 40 years," O'Keefe said. "With the new technology, where we go next will only be limited by our imagination."

Last year, NASA officials did not encounter the kind of political resistance they expected when they announced the initial idea for developing a nuclear rocket, which emboldened them to propose a broader initiative that might muster widespread public support.

"I've been told OMB [the Office of Management and Budget] treated NASA quite well," said John Logsdon, a space policy expert at George Washington University.

NASA will also propose boosting its research to protect astronauts from adverse conditions in space. Space station astronauts are returning to Earth with a 30% decrease in muscle mass as well as a 10% loss of bone mass. They are also subjected to harmful radiation, roughly equivalent to getting eight chest X-rays a day.

"For any long-duration human flight, we need to find a way to mitigate or shield against these effects," O'Keefe said.

One reason President Bush may support the nuclear-rocket initiative is because there is significant concern that the nation is running short on scientists and engineers, analysts said. The number of students studying science and engineering has been steadily eroding while engineers and scientists who pioneered much of the world's most advanced aerospace technologies have retired, creating a gap in the nation's technological know-how and competitiveness.

Bush "may see this as a way to propel more students to go into science," McCurdy said.

Bill White · 2003-01-17 14:57:56

Is this showing up anywhere except the LA Times? As of 3:00 pm CST on 17 Jan 03 neither space.com nor spacedaily.com have picked up the story.

Yet its still another reason to watch the State of the Union address.

Still, the cynic in me suspects budgetary cannon fodder. Propose $10 billion for nukes in space in January and in March "trade" that proposal for some other political concession.

But, we can always hope.

clark · 2003-01-17 15:01:23

I think they got an exclusive.

This is big news for California- especially So Cal.

soph · 2003-01-17 15:04:37

This is incredible news. Now we have a chance of getting somewhere.

Bill White · 2003-01-17 15:11:01

This is incredible news. Now we have a chance of getting somewhere.

Maybe we should establish a real time on line chat session to trade comments during the State of the Union - if other press supports this story.

Thoughts?

soph · 2003-01-17 15:16:09

Great idea. they have a chatroom at nuclearspace.com

im sure theyll be as excited as we are (actually, i know they are), and a big chat session will be in order.

clark · 2003-01-17 15:26:11

Other press will support this. We should see OP-eds from both sides on this issue in the next week.

It will be interesting to see how the democratic party handles there rebuttal to this. It might be in Mars supporters interest to make sure that their democratic represenatives march in step with the Pres on this, or puch further than he is proposing.

Nothing wrong with making this an election issue.

soph · 2003-01-17 15:43:16

Sent emails to both of my Senators.

GuineaPig · 2003-01-18 09:45:16

As usual the public press is clueless of how propulsion actually works.

"virtually unlimited fuel" says the L.A. times...lo.
No...Nuclear Thermal Rockets would have an exhaust velocity of up to 2.5 times that of a chemical system; not unlimited...but still very good. The Times also also say 'much higher thrust'. The thrust/weight ratio would actually be lower (slightly)...but for transfers from Leo to Mars and back this doesn't matter.

Also the L.A. Times fails to realize that speed isn't the only advantage...there is the advantage of cost. A nuclear transfer vehicle could be much smaller than a chemical based system, and would thus cost considerably less to develop and launch.

Mark S · 2003-01-18 10:49:20

It sounds like the propulsion system in question will be a hydrogen-plasma rocket based on the description. An NTR would be quicker to develop and require less mass in LEO than chemical rockets, but it doesn't significantly reduce travel time. Ion engines could be linked with nuclear power, but the xenon and krypton fuels are too scarce for frequent manned trips to Mars.

That leaves hydrogen plasma, particularly the VASIMR system. VASIMR's key advantage is the ability to trade ISp for higher thrust, enabling faster escape spirals from earth orbit. I've always thought of VASIMR as the rocket with the most potential for humans-to-Mars in my lifetime. Hopefully we will all be able to witness it.

Bill White · 2003-01-18 10:53:18

Space.com has picked up the story -

How soon this initiative will lead to a deployed propulsion system seems to be an open question. According to space.com, NASA is now saying the LA Times story is not entirely accurate.

Adrian · 2003-01-18 11:10:11

More coverage at The Guardian and Slashdot. A manned mission to Mars by 2010? I can't believe it!

nirgal · 2003-01-18 14:10:17

I think the media is hyping what O'Keefe said in this interview. There won't be a manned mission to Mars in 2010. I say we are lucky if NASA makes it before 2020.
It seems to be now that Project Prometheus is the new name for the already announced Nuclear Systems Initiatve and that the funding for this program has been significantly increased. However, I'm not sure if this new engine will be developed for manned missions.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-18 14:29:27

The nuclearspace.com chat is that crazy ezBoard Java applet, right? It'd be interesting to chat with people real time, but I think I may just stick to the forum, because that thing is very unreliable.

This is significant news, though. nirgal is of course right, NASA always has optimistic goals. I suspect we'll see in the media people speculating that Bush will make such a move at the State of the Union address. They released this info on a Friday, and seeded the idea on a Saturday. Perfect timing, really. Gives it a weekend to sink in.

Bush still hasn't decided, though. He's waiting to see public reaction. As Americans, we'd probably be behind the idea regardless, just to prove that we can get it done. So Bush, even though his ratings are low, could come right out and say we're going to Mars. I suspect he's just going to just say something about nuclear stuff and a few ?maybes? about Mars, though. (Then again, I have like $80 or something riding on it, so I could be biased!)

soph · 2003-01-18 16:32:40

the java applet works.

if anybody has irc, i can make a channel on there, using a server i know of. irc is great. anybody game?

(irc is a free download at mirc.com)

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-18 16:53:07

IRC sounds good, certainly better than the Java chat. If you set one up for that particular event, soph, let us know. You have to admit the Java thing sucks worse than IRC...

soph · 2003-01-18 17:01:46

ok, ill get back to you. if i do it, itll be done by tomorrow

soph · 2003-01-18 18:00:14

okay, join the server astrolink, and whatever anybody wants the channel name to be. anybody can create it, just type /j #name

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-01-17 09:34:14

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#2 2003-01-17 10:24:02

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#3 2003-01-17 11:04:01

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#4 2003-01-17 11:06:43

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#5 2003-01-17 12:47:47

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#6 2003-01-17 12:49:34

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#7 2003-01-17 14:33:05

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#8 2003-01-17 14:45:44

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#9 2003-01-17 14:57:56

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#10 2003-01-17 15:01:23

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#11 2003-01-17 15:04:37

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#12 2003-01-17 15:11:01

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#13 2003-01-17 15:16:09

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#14 2003-01-17 15:26:11

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#15 2003-01-17 15:43:16

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#16 2003-01-18 09:45:16

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#17 2003-01-18 10:49:20

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#18 2003-01-18 10:53:18

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#19 2003-01-18 11:10:11

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#20 2003-01-18 14:10:17

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#21 2003-01-18 14:29:27

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#22 2003-01-18 16:32:40

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#23 2003-01-18 16:53:07

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#24 2003-01-18 17:01:46

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#25 2003-01-18 18:00:14

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

Board footer