NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-19 11:46:16

I told you Bush wasn't such a bad guy...

soph · 2003-01-19 21:04:52

Thats a great idea, the banner exchange, both sites would benefit.

RobS · 2003-01-19 23:44:16

It will be interesting to see whether this initiative really happens. Did you all see the letter from the Space Frontier people to Congress, complaining that every shuttle initiative since 1990 has spent billions and then been canceled? They argue that the Orbital Space Plane will probably go the same way. By their logic, a nuclear rocket project is just as vulnerable. It would seem that NASA has a habit of launching grandiose plans, intentionally underestimating their costs, get caught in the contradiction, and then canceling the project.

The other political twist to remember is that this project inevitably will have a connection to the Star Wars initiative. Space-based lasers need either very large solar arrays or reactors to power. So this initiative fits in the larger context of military procurement. And that means a half-decent nuclear reactor for space use could be developed for a billion or two bucks, but no one will be willing to spend a few hundred million to build a plasma, VASIMR, or ion engine to use the power for propulsion!

-- RobS

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-19 23:58:51

The only guaranteed way it would pass, is if it was a JFK style Mars Mission Announcment or something. I don't see it happening, but it could.

Mark S · 2003-01-20 13:21:13

I'm a bit angry that various news sites, like slashdot and marsnews, are misinterpreting O"Keefe's statements as an announcement of a humans-to-Mars mission by 2010. It's much more likely that 2010 is the date for a small, unmanned test of the Prometheus engine in space. It's unlikely that any approach to humans-on-Mars will get there by 2010--even Mars Direct. Prometheus has Mars in mind, but the program will probably focus solely on the rocket technology without the applications.

clark · 2003-01-20 14:08:29

The author of the original article that appeared first in LA times quote O'Keefy the 2010.

The author stands by the article, and the quotes.

Something to think about.

Part of the back-peddling is that if Bush decides NOT to mention this in his State of The Union address, it could look bad.

Also, part of the strategy agreed to by Bush and NASA is to go quietly. They want to make sure they do this right considering all of the problems that have occured in the past due to "nuclear in space" concerns.

Perhaps the 2010 date is a Launch date for the human to mars?

Take a look at some of the links in the Free Chat section of "In it for the long haul" that I posted.

nirgal · 2003-01-20 14:37:28

Please stop day-dreaming. There won't be a humans to Mars program anytime soon. The decision whether to go to Mars or not will be made when the ISS is finished (5-6 years from now). There will still be enough time to make it before 2020 (a landing on July 20th, 2019 would be fantastic) but a mission "before this decade is out" simply isn't going to happen.
I agree with Mark; Project Prometheus is probably a nuclear powered ion or plasma engine - the first which will actually be flown in space. That will be a huge step forward but O'Keefe didn't say anything about a manned mission so I think it will be used for unmanned robotic missions first. However an upgraded version of it and the technologies which will be developed under this program could be used for a manned mission beyond LEO later on.

clark · 2003-01-20 14:49:36

US complete of the ISS is slated for this year.

There has been several studies conducted over the last two years looking at privatization of the Shuttle fleet.

Development of nuclear powered space ships has been ongoing since last year- NASA received the funding. Bush is proposing a larger increase in this budget.

Working prototypes of a nuclear reactor for space propulsion has already been created by Los Alamos.

The DOD, NASA, and several international space agencies have targeted the Moon for further exploration and possible development of fuel production technolongy.

The NSC is currently reviewing the National Space Policy, and will release their findings in Feb- which might go in step with a State of the Union address.

Humans-to-Mars was a goal of Bush Sr- Bush Jr has been shown to "finish" what his father has started.

part of Bush and O'Keefy's strategy is to return NASA to it's roots, exploration and high end R&D- the new mantra being "FASTER, LONGER"; i.e nuclear propulsion.

This stuff has been building up since 2000. Do some research, this isn't coming out of nowhere.

nirgal · 2003-01-20 15:34:33

I know the facts, clark. If I can't convince you that's fine but don't be disappointed if Bush doesn't announce a humans to Mars program in his state of the union address, that is if he mentions NASA/Project Prometheus at all. NASA spokesmen have said that O'Keefe never indicated that Bush would do so.

nirgal · 2003-01-20 15:36:48

BTW: I really hope I'm wrong on this.

clark · 2003-01-20 17:23:32

Perhaps, but here is the relevant quote from the LA times article:

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.

Perhaps you can imagine a way that Bush can get a significant increase to NASA's budget without some proclamation or real "cause", but I can't.

All of this is part of this Administrations focus on space as an integral part of maintaining US dominance in space technology, and space in general.

If you don't quite get it, take a look at our posturing for China. Look into our security concerns related to space (our current military dominance is in large part a reflection of our space assest dominance).

You need to put the seperate pieces that have been revealed through various agencies over the last 2 years. It all points to NASA being given a new head- O'keefy. He has brought some sort of fiscal restraint to NASA. Next are the studies all looking at one thing, privatizing the Shuttle, and any other parts of NASA that can be. This has been ongoing since 2000. Coupel this with the nuclear initive begun last year by NASA.
Realize that the politcal climate for nukes in space is also radically different- the Republican control the senate, Bush comes from a state that would benefit from any space initive- his brother is govenor of Florida (Hello, launch pad)- then there is California, which is in economic trouble. Three of the biggest states in the Union will benefit from this economicaly.
Read 2004 election.

Bush has repeadtly been quoted as claimign to be a "big picture" person. People around him describe how he has a "vision"- even if you disagree with this assesment, the facts are piling up.

In order to build the missle defense, space will have to be developed. the only realistic way to do it is to go nuclear. The easiest way to get the neccessary infrastructure in space for the military is to develop a civilian (and international) program that will develop the technology.

Going to the moon gave the military LEO and GEO.

Going to Mars will give the military the Moon and further establish our long term dominance of space.

Afterall, China is putting a man in LEO at the end of the year. The race is begining.

Adrian · 2003-01-20 17:30:40

Nuclearspace: I'm not all that hot on banner exchanges; it tends to clutter things up a fair bit. Plus, I probably wouldn't be allowed to since this is an official Mars Society website. But I would be happy to add the website to our links page (when I have time, which given my current horrendous workload could be any time from tomorrow to next month).

Incidentally, I am not convinced at all that electronic petitions can achieve anything. I don't want to derail this thread by going into detail (although you are free to start a new thread on it if you want), but electronic petitions are far too prone to falsification. Also, they're too easy - what does it matter if 50,000 people spend ten seconds clicking on a button?

soph · 2003-01-20 19:27:33

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology … 30117.html

according to the NASA spokesman quoted in that article, Prometheus is mainly centered on reactors (mainly RTGs) for space use, and propulsion as a minor focus. The goal is advanced robotic exploration, with no specific manned Mars mission yet. Dr. Zubrin sounded very excited though, and O'Keefe did say he didnt want to get ahead of the President-so who knows? Maybe President Bush has something in mind.

soph · 2003-01-20 19:29:47

this is from another article from space.com

http://www.space.com/busines....-1.html

High-priority in-space propulsion technologies include:

* Aerocapture:
* Using a planet's atmosphere to slow a spacecraft. A vehicle built for aerocapture can slip into orbit in one pass through an atmosphere. No need for on-board propulsion. This saves mass and permits use of a smaller, less-expensive launcher. These technique gets a vehicle to a destination quickly, hastening start-up of science operations; Next Generation
Electric Propulsion:
* Improve the performance of this technology, from ion engines to fission propulsion drives. High-throughput, lightweight, and more powerful ion engines, for example, enable a host of future space missions, including a Europa Lander, a Saturn Ring Observer, a Neptune Orbiter, and a Venus Surface Sample Return probe;
and Solar Sails:
Strong, lightweight composite materials fashioned into a large sail. Requiring no fuel, a solar sail relies on the steady push of photons from the Sun. A major challenge is how best to unfurl a thin sail in space, then control its direction. Sail propulsion is seen as the way to launch an interstellar precursor mission in the next decade.

soph · 2003-01-20 19:31:59

O'Keefe wants to get us out there-there were more mentions of VASMIR, interplanetary stuff-I think something bigger is going to come out, theyre just keeping it quiet for the moment.

Maybe theyre waiting for Iraq to be resolved? Or a big development in their research? I think Iraq will be resolved in 6 months, which really isnt a long time, and it will give NASA time to prepare for a bigger announcement.

GOM · 2003-01-20 21:59:23

I think this story got hyped a bit. I will be very surprised if Bush mentions a manned mission to Mars during his address.

We have terrorism and a huge budget deficit to deal with right now. Space is on the back burner, imo.

Hopefully I am wrong. I will watch his speech with interest.

.02

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-21 03:08:53

Well, at least I can feel a little better about my bet...

And at the same time, I can be optimistic about a good nuclear engine being built.

clark · 2003-01-21 07:22:53

Perhaps this is being over-hyped. perhaps it isn't. The further I research, the more I see a coherent picture of radical changes in NASA to accomadate a focus on the traditional mandate.

A little digging found me this:

http://www.floridatoday.com/news....ess.htm

It links to an article from Florida Today, and it notes the relationship with Bush and Tom Feeney, a republican congressman who is staunchly pro-space. It also notes the politcal importance of Florida, and how space development is an issue.

I guess Ijust don't see our President going on about some NASA project to build a nuclear engine in his State of the Union address- they have been keeping all of this quiet for years now.

Remember, Nixon and Regan both intitated ambitous space programs during weak economies- it is a way to spend money and getthe economy moving. And a concentrated space program with humans as the center piece has proven to be a way to motivate educational reforms (apollo).

In one fell swoop Bush can demonstrate he has a long term vision not predicated on oil or war. He can be a leader with a soultion and a goal.

His politcal team has been nothing if not astute at positioning Bush. Notice all of the democratic canadites for President positioning themselves now- recent Bush declarations have been given on affirmitive action and abortion, all in an attempt to maintain the Republican core for the 2004 election.

nirgal · 2003-01-21 16:23:47

Media Hype Alone Cannot Fuel The Space Program

RobS · 2003-01-21 16:34:23

SpaceDaily.com has a very good article about the entire subject, now. It appears we are talking about nuclear reactors able to make a few kilowatts of power (previous RTGs that were flown had outputs in the watt range instead) and ion engines. This combination will permit a Galilean satellite probe that could go into orbit around all the moons successively, making very low passes, collecting huge amounts of data, and it would have the kilowatt output necessary to transmit the data back to Earth at a very high rate. But the Spacedaily article notes that a billion dollar reactor of this sort automatically makes such unmanned missions too expensive for the current budget philosophy, so it is questionabnle whether they should be developed.

Apparently they are talking about uranium-235 fueled reactors because it is much safer in case of a launch failure. But plutonium reactors, it notes, would be much, much less expensive.

I suspect one of the reasons NASA and the White House were opposing the Pluto mission (which I think is funded anyway, because of lobbying by the space science community) is because it would justify development of the nuclear electric power source. But it sounds like they will commit to nuclear power without it.

Advantages for Mars exploration are two: (1) this moves us closer to the day when a 100 kilowatt reactor for powering human exploration of the moon and Mars will exist; (2) it may move us forward in nuclear-ion technology, allowing more efficient cargo flights to Mars, and possibly human flights as well. Whether it moves us toward nuclear-thermal propulsion is less clear. Perhaps it does if it breaks the opposition to flying nuclear reactors into space.

One interesting problem: this initiative and the idea of extracting hydrogen-oxygen fuel from lunar rocks are at odds. It may very well be the competition of interests between the two will be a problem for both. One probably would not want to use lunar hydrogen as an ion engine fuel because every tonne of hydrogen also produces eight tonnes of oxygen, which otherwise is wasted. It would make more sense to launch the hydrogen and oxygen from the moon and use it to refuel conventional vehicles, because one gets nine times as much fuel that way than for an ion engine.

-- RobS

soph · 2003-01-21 16:34:52

I saw that. It sounds to me like the guy is more concerned about smacking down anything than actually showing what is there. I did not see one point at which he said, "Well they said this, but this is what will be done." No, he said, they wont do this, this, and this, period. I would bet on a happy medium.

orionblade · 2003-01-24 14:45:26

why couldn't you use an NTR with hydrogen AND oxygen? In that case, i'm sure the nuclear thermal engine would heat both enough to enable combustion, so you would be adding heat to the exhaust stream, increasing the temperature by roughly 3000 degrees farenheit. In any case, I don't see why you couldn't use the oxygen for life support systems, or with other fuels as an oxidizer???

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-01-19 11:46:16

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#27 2003-01-19 21:04:52

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#28 2003-01-19 23:44:16

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#29 2003-01-19 23:58:51

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#30 2003-01-20 13:21:13

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#31 2003-01-20 14:08:29

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#32 2003-01-20 14:37:28

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#33 2003-01-20 14:49:36

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#34 2003-01-20 15:34:33

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#35 2003-01-20 15:36:48

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#36 2003-01-20 17:23:32

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#37 2003-01-20 17:30:40

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#38 2003-01-20 19:27:33

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#39 2003-01-20 19:29:47

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#40 2003-01-20 19:31:59

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#41 2003-01-20 21:59:23

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#42 2003-01-21 03:08:53

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#43 2003-01-21 07:22:53

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#44 2003-01-21 16:23:47

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#45 2003-01-21 16:34:23

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#46 2003-01-21 16:34:52

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

#47 2003-01-24 14:45:26

Re: NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket

Board footer