You are not logged in.
GW,
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress agreed to the cancellation of NERVA, which they viewed as potentially dangerous and wasteful. President Nixon stated that unless the measure was opposed by Congress, he intended to streamline the functions of government and to zero out funding for a number of programs that those within government and the general public viewed as questionable at the time. Congress did not wish to continue the space race with the Soviets, so they approved cancellation of funding for NERVA, because that was the propulsion system that would enable flights to Mars.
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 1 OF 1973
Message of the President
To the Congress of the United States:
On January 5 I announced a three-part program to streamline the executive branch of the Federal Government. By concentrating less responsibility in the President's immediate staff and more in the hands of the departments and agencies, this program should significantly improve the services of the Government. I believe these reforms have become so urgently necessary that I intend, with the cooperation of the Congress, to pursue them with all of the resources of my office during the coming year.
The first part of this program is a renewed drive to achieve passage of my legislative proposals to overhaul the Cabinet departments. Secondly, I have appointed three Cabinet Secretaries as Counsellors to the President with coordinating responsibilities in the broad areas of human resources, natural resources, and community development, and five Assistants to the President with special responsibilities in the areas of domestic affairs, economic affairs, foreign affairs, executive management, and operations of the White House.
The third part of this program is a sharp reduction in the overall size of the Executive Office of the President and a reorientation of that office back to its original mission as a staff for top-level policy formation and monitoring of policy execution in broad functional areas. The Executive Office of the President should no longer be encumbered with the task of managing or administering programs which can be run more effectively by the departments and agencies. I have therefore concluded that a number of specialized operational and program functions should be shifted out of the Executive Office into the line departments and agencies of the Government. Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973, transmitted herewith, would effect such changes with respect to emergency preparedness functions and scientific and technological affairs.
STREAMLINING THE FEDERAL SCIENCE ESTABLISHMENT
When the National Science Foundation was established by an act of the Congress in 1950, its statutory responsibilities included evaluation of the Government's scientific research programs and development of basic science policy. In the late 1950's however, with the effectiveness of the U.S. science effort under serious scrutiny as a result of sputnik, the post of Science Advisor to the President was established. The White House became increasingly involved in the evaluation and coordination of research and development programs and in science policy matters, and that involvement was institutionalized in 1962 when a reorganization plan established the Office of Science and Technology within the Executive Office of the President, through transfer of authorities formerly vested in the National Science Foundation.
With advice and assistance from OST during the past decade, the scientific and technological capability of the Government has been markedly strengthened. This administration is firmly committed to sustained, broad-based national effort in science and technology, as I made plain last year in the first special message on the subject ever sent by a President to the Congress. The research and development capability of the various executive departments and agencies, civilian as well as defense, has been upgraded. The National Science Foundation has broadened from its earlier concentration on basic research support to take on a significant role in applied research as well. It has matured in its ability to play a coordinating and evaluative role within the Government and between the public and private sectors.
I have therefore concluded that it is timely and appropriate to transfer to the Director of the National Science Foundation all functions presently vested in the Office of Science and Technology, and to abolish that office. Reorganization Plan No. 1 would effect these changes.
The multi-disciplinary staff resources of the Foundation will provide analytic capabilities for performance of the transferred functions. In addition, the Director of the Foundation will be able to draw on expertise from all of the Federal agencies, as well as from outside the Government, for assistance in carrying out his new responsibilities.
It is also my intention, after the transfer of responsibilities is effected, to ask Dr. H. Guyford Stever, the current Director of the Foundation, to take on the additional post of Science Adviser. In this capacity, he would advise and assist the White House, Office of Management and Budget, Domestic Council, and other entities within the Executive Office of the President on matters where scientific and technological expertise is called for, and would act as the President's representative in selected cooperative programs in international scientific affairs, including chairing such joint bodies as the U.S.–U.S.S.R. Joint Commission on Scientific and Technical Cooperation.
In the case of national security, the Department of Defense has strong capabilities for assessing weapons needs and for undertaking new weapons development, and the President will continue to draw primarily on this source for advice regarding military technology. The President in special situations also may seek independent studies or assessments concerning military technology from within or outside the Federal establishment, using the machinery of the National Security Council for this purpose, as well as the Science Adviser when appropriate.
In one special area of technology-space and aeronautics-a coordinating council has existed within the Executive Office of the President since 1958. This body, the National Aeronautics and Space Council, met a major need during the evolution of our nation's space program. Vice President Agnew has served with distinction as its chairman for the past four years. At my request, beginning in 1969, the Vice President also chaired a special Space Task Group charged with developing strategy alternatives for a balanced U.S. space program in the coming years.
As a result of this work, basic policy issues in the United States space effort have been resolved, and the necessary interagency relationships have been established. I have therefore concluded, with the Vice President's concurrence, that the Council can be discontinued. Needed policy coordination can now be achieved through the resources of the executive departments and agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, augmented by some of the former Council staff. Accordingly, my reorganization plan proposes the abolition of the National Aeronautics and Space Council.
President Nixon also established the US EPA and NOAA:
Offline
Like button can go here
One problem with NERVA is that exhaust temperatures are inevitably poorer than liquid fuelled rockets. The only reason NERVA gets high ISP is the use of low molecular mass hydrogen as propellant. This is not space storable and its overall properties make it a less than ideal propellant for any propulsion system.
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Like button can go here
For Calliban re #27
Your use of the word "inevitably" caught my eye, and in a search for evidence to support your claim, I found a piece written by someone for the Mars Society:
https://www.marssociety.ca/2021/04/08/n … l-rockets/
This is the Mars Society of Canada! The page on nuclear rockets includes a reference section at the bottom.
The piece doesn't use the word you did, but it ** does ** provide detail I've not seen before about how the NERVA rocket criticality was controlled!
My impression is that a number of liquids were considered for NERVA before Hydrogen was selected despite the difficulty of working with it, due to the high ISP that is possible.
In the course of looking for any evidence that might support your claim, I did find that both chemical and nuclear rocket temperatures are limited by materials in which they operate.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
Calliban, my understanding is nuclear thermal rocket exhaust termerature is very high. NERVA operates very hot, as hot as the material can be without melting. Heat transfer is a factor of temperature and time. The hotter the reactor, the more quickly heat can be transferred to propellant. And the longer propellant remains in the hot reactor, the closer it gets to reactor temperature. The greater the temperature difference between reactor and propellant, the faster heat is transferred. And conversely the closer propellant gets to the same temperature, the slower heat is transferred. The goal is to use gas expansion to increase exhaust velocity. The higher exhaust velocity, the higher Isp. So slowing propellant so it gains more heat is contraproductive. The study done by NASA in 1990, they had access to new materials. By increasing reactor temperature they were able to increase exhaust temperature and therefore exhaust velocity. Isp for Space Shuttle Main Engines was 453 seconds in vacuum. NERVA was 841s. Updated NERVA Gamma was 975s. That's really good! To get higher Isp you either have to melt the reactor core or boil it.
Offline
Like button can go here
Well, the reactor core must be hotter than the propulsion stream, so that heat may be transferred from the core to the stream. The bigger the temperature differences core to stream, the faster is the rate of heat transfer. If memory serves, and at my age it may not, NERVA's core runs somewhere round 3000 F. The propulsion stream was nearer 2000 F. The right numbers might be in David Buden's book.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
tahanson43206,
Steel Melting Point: 2,500°F
NERVA Core Temperature: 3,000°F
Oxygen / Hydrogen Flame Temperature: 4,820°F
Oxygen / Acetylene Flame Temperature: 5,612°F
Tungsten Melting Point: 6,192°F
Offline
Like button can go here