Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

Palomar · 2004-02-19 08:47:16

[=http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/jimo_fin_040219.html]Navy may help NASA build nuclear reactor for Jupiter mission

*Since this article specifically mentions Project Prometheus, I thought I'd post here.

In addition to the extensive info in the article, there's this tantalizing tidbit:

JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) is also mentioned...including NASA and the sci-community considering adding a Europa lander!!

A portion of the article discusses the Europa plan in some detail, including necessary (I'd say!) precautions.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: I have to admit the Europa situation does make me a bit hesitant. If there is life there, and considering the nature of the lander...they've got to ensure those precautions. Europa's integrity (especially as regards the life and ocean questions) must take precedent, IMO.

clark · 2004-02-19 08:52:50

NuclearSpace, you may wish to check the links in your posts, several of them do not lead to anything.

Palomar · 2004-02-19 09:27:35

[http://www.space.com/businesstechnology … 40219.html]Navy may help NASA build nuclear reactor for Jupiter mission

*Wow...I just re-read the "Heavyweight boost needed" section of the article (very bottom).

Good luck...

--Cindy

Tim · 2004-02-19 18:07:48

[http://www.space.com/businesstechnology … 40219.html]Navy may help NASA build nuclear reactor for Jupiter mission
*Since this article specifically mentions Project Prometheus, I thought I'd post here.
In addition to the extensive info in the article, there's this tantalizing tidbit:
JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) is also mentioned...including NASA and the sci-community considering adding a Europa lander!!
A portion of the article discusses the Europa plan in some detail, including necessary (I'd say!) precautions.
--Cindy
::EDIT:: I have to admit the Europa situation does make me a bit hesitant. If there is life there, and considering the nature of the lander...they've got to ensure those precautions. Europa's integrity (especially as regards the life and ocean questions) must take precedent, IMO.

Looks good, especially the NASA Prometheus Animation that's located on the right side about half way down. Lets hope that if just one Bush space initiative survives to fruition, that it's Project Prometheus. Nuclear propulsion will be the backbone of our efforts to explore the Solar System in the years to come.

TJohn · 2004-02-20 07:37:43

I agree, Tim. I always wondered why NASA never did talk with the Navy before about reactors.

Palomar · 2004-02-20 12:32:11

*Hi everyone:

From the article I linked to above: "First of all, a lander must undergo intensive sterilization. Moreover, there is need to assure that the lander?s energy source doesn?t warm up the moon?s icy environment, even melting through Europa?s frozen face."

I really am concerned about this. I'm not extremely knowledgeable about this sort of thing (vast understatement), so I have a few questions:

How long of an active life would the nuclear materials in such a lander have?

Can they create the lander to project itself OFF Europa once it is done, and allow itself to be flung into Jupiter for destruction there (like the Galileo probe did last year)? Of course, I suppose there'd have to be some sort of firing/ignition to get it back -off- Europa...

I'm thinking leaving the lander there isn't a good idea...especially as regards the decay of nuclear material. If that's unavoidable, then that material should be kept as minimal inside the lander as possible.

I really am concerned about contamination prospects, especially revolving around the possibility of **life** in Europa's alleged water.

As sloppy and careless as government agencies can be, etc.; well...

Europa is an especial case and deserves special consideration, IMO.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Another question: How much time is shaved off by sending a lander via nuclear power to Europa versus one without?

RobertDyck · 2004-02-20 16:29:15

Cindy asked about contamination of Europa. I have advocated terraforming Ganymede and Callisto, and using Io as an airless industrial planet, but leave Europa alone. (Yes, an Io colony would need very good radiation shielding.) Europa has less surface gravity than Luna (Earth's moon), it's about 1/8 G, which would make holding an atmosphere impossible with today's technology. Furthermore the possibility of life demands we study it before messing anything up.

I don't think we have to worry about lifting something off Europa. That would take significant engineering effort and launch mass. The nuclear material is contained with the reactor, so one of the best means of disposing it is just to leave the material within the reactor itself. The Prometheus proposal is to use a large nuclear reactor for interplanetary flight, then hop between orbit of each of the moons. The lander wouldn't need any nuclear material unless you wanted to deliberately melt into the ice. Robert Zubrin came up with one proposal to use a nuclear heater to melt through the ice layer into the (hoped for) liquid water ocean. I think he envisioned a cable to a lander on the ice surface that would relay signals to Earth. The melt subsurface thing would never get out, so it couldn't be recovered. The only other use of nuclear material for the lander would be nuclear heaters to keep the electronics warm, or an RTG for electricity. These are mildly radioactive; a spacecraft using them is assembled by humans with gloves and 'bunny suits'. The 'bunny suits' are primarily to protect the probe from germs from the workers, not to protect the workers from the probe. The nuclear material will decay in just a few decades.

The bottom line is the only dangerous radioactivity will be from the Prometheus main reactor, and that stays in space. There will be far more radioactivity in Jupiter's orbit than from the reactor itself.

Palomar · 2004-02-20 16:52:37

Cindy asked about contamination of Europa. I have advocated terraforming Ganymede and Callisto, and using Io as an airless industrial planet, but leave Europa alone. (Yes, an Io colony would need very good radiation shielding.) Europa has less surface gravity than Luna (Earth's moon), it's about 1/8 G, which would make holding an atmosphere impossible with today's technology.

*Um...actually my questions had nothing to do with terraforming Europa or colonizing it, etc.

It simply had to do with safety/environmental concerns regarding a nuclear-powered lander going there and performing tests for life, the presence of water (or not) beneath the ice, etc. And also if such a lander should stay there with the resultant nuclear decay within it or not, etc.

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2004-02-20 18:05:29

Sorry for taking the extra jump.

I think the question of liquid water under the ice on Europa is yet to be answered. Some say the cracks look like pack ice in the Arctic on Earth, but I think they also look like glaciers. The weak magnetic field could be attributed to salty liquid water, but there could be an iron core. Europa is very close to Jupiter and Europa's orbit moves it in a circular path through Jupiter's very strong magnetic field. I'm not saying there isn't any liquid water, but I am saying the evidence we have so far is not conclusive. We need to send a probe to find out. But I'm digressing from your question again, Cindy.

You asked if nuclear material on a probe to Europa would be safe. We have nuclear reactors here on Earth. The nuclear material on a probe to Europa would be less than a single research reactor hear on Earth, and Earth hasn't been poisoned. In fact we have many more reactors than that; this planet has many large nuclear power plants. That doesn't even touch on the nuclear explosion tests. I believe a nuclear explosion would poison the environment, but an RTG and marble size nuclear heaters are encased in protection designed to make them relatively safe in case of catastrophic loss during launch. I think they're safe. I wouldn't land the big main reactor of the interplanetary spacecraft, but it isn't going to land anyway. Bottom line: it'll be Ok.

Palomar · 2004-07-31 09:22:40

NASAs]http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetravel-04zr.html]NASA's new "hot rod"

*An update on Prometheus. Thought I'd put it here. The article sounds skeptical about the connection to the JIMO mission.

--Cindy

comstar03 · 2004-08-01 22:33:17

I think we look at nuclear energy as a environmental issue to much, but on the other hand we look to simplfied for a nuclear propulsion system. What we should look for is a total propulsion and system wide energy system that can function to drive the ship and power the ship.

When we look at that then also determine the crew systems, scientific instruments, navigation , and information systems power requirements. Then develop a total system , I find that we break things down to far sometimes. Within total systems look for safe sub-systems, control sub-systems and automated sub-systems.

That is what we need to focus on , not when we get to a planet or what propulsion nuclear or other but the overall process for the long term exploration and colonization of the solar system for humanity.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-03 06:26:14

Truely the use of nuclear propulsion will most likely not be from the Earths surface to orbit but rather once in orbit to our far off destination of Mars.
Moon use would only be a trial use only and not very practical for cost versus chemical rockets, since it is such a small comparitally speaking distance as compared to Mars.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-03 07:16:57

Here is a resource on scramjet
http://www.tipmagazine.com/tip/INPHFA/v … type=ALERT

SpaceNut · 2005-08-19 07:37:44

The project that will not die: Glenn hoping for hot NASA project Center may run space nuclear program

If NASA decides later this year to renew and revamp an ambitious project to harness nuclear power for space exploration, Cleveland's Glenn Research Center expects to take over leadership of the program.
The prospect, though tentative, is a glimmer of good news for the sprawling Cleveland lab and its more than 1,800 employees.
Whether or not the center assumes the reins of the nuclear project - currently held by California's Jet Propulsion Laboratory - Glenn now anticipates losing fewer than the 700 jobs that had been predicted in January

Last effort on nuclear were:

The first mission to demonstrate nuclear power's potential in space was to be an unmanned orbiter that would search for evidence of oceans on Jupiter's icy moons. Glenn engineers designed an ion engine that, coupled to a nuclear reactor, was a candidate to boost the craft to the outer solar system in 2012.

srmeaney · 2005-08-20 00:40:28

Guess they will be building their passenger cabins out of Cadmium to absorb all the stray neutrons.

publiusr · 2005-08-25 12:37:34

Prometheus was to be a nuclear electric contraption--look at the cover of the recent Ad Astra mag.

There was some talk in Infinate Energy about Un-matter--not quite anti-matter because the neutron was regular matter somehow.

Doubt it.

Nuclear airplane:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000918.html

SpaceNut · 2005-09-12 12:56:31

Looks like the funding has vanished:
NASA grounds project at Knolls laboratory End of $65 million program leaves 150 employees hired for Prometheus work with uncertain futures

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has pulled the plug on a $65 million nuclear propulsion research program at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, leaving 150 employees in limbo.
"NASA and Naval Reactors have mutually agreed to terminate their partnership to work on Prometheus," as the program was called, a Knolls spokeswoman said Friday afternoon. "NASA has been changing its priorities. I don't have many details on this," she added.

John Creighton · 2005-09-12 18:58:35

Looks like the funding has vanished:
[url=http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=397376&category=BUSINESS&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=9/10/2005]NASA grounds project at Knolls laboratory
End of $65 million program leaves 150 employees hired for Prometheus work with uncertain futures [/url]
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has pulled the plug on a $65 million nuclear propulsion research program at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, leaving 150 employees in limbo.
"NASA and Naval Reactors have mutually agreed to terminate their partnership to work on Prometheus," as the program was called, a Knolls spokeswoman said Friday afternoon. "NASA has been changing its priorities. I don't have many details on this," she added.

This doesn't sound like good news as nuclear power will be also important for supplying the power needs for a mars mission.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-12 19:03:27

If only...

1: Developing a space reactor won't be cheap
2: NASA is on the knife-edge of broke over Shuttle/ISS
3: With the plateu(s) and peaks of eternal sunlight, nuclear power will not be required for a Lunar base

Add all these up, and NASA not planning for Mars any time soon, and its very reasonably to believe that M. Griffin would shelve the Prometheous project until we start thinking about Mars in order to fund VSE today.

publiusr · 2005-09-16 13:05:30

The launch vehicles have to come first anyway. JIMO just kept getting bigger.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-02-19 08:47:16

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#2 2004-02-19 08:52:50

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#3 2004-02-19 09:27:35

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#4 2004-02-19 18:07:48

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#5 2004-02-20 07:37:43

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#6 2004-02-20 12:32:11

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#7 2004-02-20 16:29:15

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#8 2004-02-20 16:52:37

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#9 2004-02-20 18:05:29

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#10 2004-07-31 09:22:40

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#11 2004-08-01 22:33:17

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#12 2004-08-03 06:26:14

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#13 2004-08-03 07:16:57

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#14 2005-08-19 07:37:44

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#15 2005-08-20 00:40:28

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#16 2005-08-25 12:37:34

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#17 2005-09-12 12:56:31

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#18 2005-09-12 18:58:35

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#19 2005-09-12 19:03:27

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

#20 2005-09-16 13:05:30

Re: Is Prometheus a Nuclear Ramjet? - A nuclear launch vehicle. Impossible?

Board footer