Slashdot Mirror
Update on Project Prometheus
Aglassis writes "It appears that NASA is not backing down from their nuclear space initiative. Project Prometheus has recently started a new web page (under JPL) and NASA is finishing up a period of public comment (last session today). Currently Northrop Grumman is contracted to begin preliminary design of the spacecraft until 2008 for NASA (the reactor will be built by the Department of Energy's Division of Naval Reactors--the folks who control all US submarine and aircraft carrier nuclear reactors). Early specs are that it will be 60 meters long, have a 30,000 kg mass, use a 100 KW reactor using Brayton cycle gas turbines, be powered by ion thrusters with a 7000 second specific impulse, and have a science payload of 1500 kg. Early mission plans for Prometheus 1 (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter) indicate that the spacecraft would orbit Callisto, Ganymede, and Europa individually, and perhaps have a lifespan of about 20 years."
For a large space and aviation company- just awarded a $400 million contract- you'd think they could afford to hire a copy editor.
:)
That was terrible. Cool project though
Finally, we can make some real space vehicles. Fission is the most energy dense technology we have.. it's what we should be using in space. When fusion comes along we may well have something better, but until then we should use what we have.
How we know is more important than what we know.
http://prometheus.jpl.nasa.gov/contentImages/Blimp _over_Titan211_br.jpg
If that above picture happens in my lifetime, I will drop a load.
I hope they start with something more resonable than this. A big project will get bloated and is less likely to happen. Instead of going to Jupiter, how about getting to Mars with a little more reliability, with people?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Wait, then what's all the JIMO stuff on NASA's Prometheus site for? Did they just forget to take it all down? Or haven't gotten to it yet?
http://prometheus.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm?pageL1
That's right. If Iran and North Korea decide to build a nuclear-based space program, then that would be a problem for the U.S. since Radical Islamists and Crazy Commies can now terrorize space instead of their neighbors. China is a different story as long as U.S. companies get contracts to build subcomponents at a hefty profit.
I don't know the ins and outs but I'd imagine that if you have a nice chirpy nuclear-reactor to generate power, taking photovoltaics (solar panels) with you too would be rather pointless. - PVs would cost extra to put into space to start with and would also need trickery to align them with the sun.
Having glanced at the picture, I'd suggest it is more likely that the big flat panels are heat dissipators (heat-sinks) to get rid of the excess heat from the nuclear reactor. I presume that in space there is no conduction of heat away from the vehicle, only radiation. And that you improve the radiation of heat by increasing the surface area.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Don't blame NASA. I guarantee you there are a shitload of NASA scientists and engineers who are chomping at the bit to build this thing, and have been for decades. It's the politicians who make the spending decisions you should blame, and more generally, the voters who elect those politicians; if it weren't for our general loss of national will as regards space exploration after we beat the USSR to the Moon, we'd have a fleet of nuclear-powered spacecraft moving both cargo and people all over the Solar System by now.
It simply amazes me how we have so many business geniuses, but not one of them has even considered space as the next new continent.
Because the vast majority of businessmen, "geniuses" or not (mostly not) are incapable of thinking past next quarter's results. The potential ROI on space travel is huge, but it's also very long-term. Interesting that you mention "new continent" as an example -- it's worth remembering that the early voyages of the Age of Exploration were done on government funding. I think the lesson here is pretty obvious.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Given that this mission is still in the conceptual design phase it's highly unlikely that they've spec'ed either a microcontroller or an OS at this point. Besides, JPL typically favors VxWorks as its RTOS (for example, both Pathfinder and MER use VxWorks). Do you happen to have a link to support your assertion about uCLinux?
Space development is the same old problem. As soon as you know enough technical information to make informed decisions about space travel you have lost the ability to think like a business man. If you could get a 500% return on a 10 year investment with minimal risk I guarentee that you would see private efforts to acheive that. As we don't, it is clear that no-one has come up with a business plan that can deliver that kind of return as of yet. Even a similar return over a 25 year period would be acceptable to some investors.. 50 years is somewhat more pie-in-the-sky and looks even more risky.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Mmmm... Ion drive goodness.
That's right. All your base.
Because this reactor will be designed to be in a rocket explosion. It will be launched before it goes critical. it wont even be turned on, and cant be turned on, until it is safely in orbit. Beyond that, there is alot more nuclear material in your nighborhood reactor than there will be in this thing.Not only that, but NASA launches over the ocean, water is a very good radiation shield. Thats why there are several nuclear submarines lying on the ocean floor that you arent worried about.
I don't know where you live grozzie. But I do know that your world is better because of those US nuclear weapons built by us hypocritical pots.
Second of all, a propulsion system has little to do with interstellar travel. Even if this thing worked (it's designed to stay in the solar system), we would still be unable to travel to other solar systems. The problems of time, distance, and physics as we understand them will almost certainly keep us in this solar system forever.
Thirdly, I think you underestimate the immediacy and gravity of the problems facing us. Making it through the looming problems of global warming, fossil fuel depletion, overpopulation, terrorism, et al has to come before bankrolling the research of private technology interests--which is all this really amounts to in the first place. If Northop Grumman wants to pursue this technology and they can do it safely, let them do it. But our economy already stands on the verge of collapse. Are we supposed to suddenly believe that the organization that lacks the funding to complete the Voyager project now suddenly has the money to undertake this much more expensive mission? Are we supposed to assume they have the competence, after two shuttle explosions and a backwards mirror in a multibillion dollar telescope, not to detonate the reactor in the atmosphere? I want my tax dollars going to more practical use, and so should we all--unless we hold stock in the contractors behind this massive scam, the same sort of people who keep insisting we need a missile shield in this world of suitcase bombs.
We aren't getting off this rock anytime soon, regardless, so we might as well try to buy a few more years here until we have the technology to terraform and settle Mars. That technology will emerge without pointless exercises in lunar exploration.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
dude.. exploring the solar system sets us up to learn how to traverse space!!! how the fuck do you think we are going to figure out how to go to other solar systems if we do not figure out how to safely travel in out solar system?
where the fuck would we be if some cave man said he was not going to let any other caveman go anywhere until they figured out a way to travel 30 miles a day? we would be no where!!!!
practice makes perfect dumbass!!!!
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
#1 - Not immediately no. The technology that is developed to do this is of significant value to future attempts at living in other environments - or space.
#2 - This propulsion system has everything to do with getting us to planets within our solar system. Up until the announcement of this project we have had chemical rockets to push us around the solar system. They are not suited to prolonged flights. This development is exceedingly important for getting us to destinations outside of lunar orbit.
#3 Consider your words more carefully. But our economy already stands on the verge of collapse. This is not, in anyway a true statement. It's an alarmist over exaggeration of what's going on. Things have a way of sorting themselves out when it comes to the economy. Given the level of data available and the fact that people are managing the markets on a day to day basis - a "collapse" is not likely.
As far as threats to the world:
Global Warming - perhaps by the end of this century this will become a problem. The reality is that it's not just a U.S. problem - thus it's not truly "fixable". Fixing global warming has very little to do with money and everything to do with policy. As far as events that pose a threat to humanity this is certainly one - however a migration to say mars, could be realistic within the time frame of this event actually causing a great deal of trouble for us.
Overpopulation is another interesting one. Did you know that densely populated areas are showing a decline in the birth to death ratio? That is more people are dying than being born. The evidence is starting to indicate that at least in urban areas populations are self limiting. Good news. Obviously this doesn't help in Africa where there just isn't enough food, and no contraception available. Again with global warming - the U.S. throwing money at this problem isn't going to fix anything.
Terrorism? How is that an immediate threat? Yes, it's a concern but as far as having the ability to destroy our civilization. Terrorism is at its worst a "new" form of combat, that isn't liked by those (G8) who play by "rules". Either way - it's not going to bring down the house. Money might help this problem - but I'm not sure that it's any more important than ensuring we (humans) survive.
The one thing that you touched on that has some validity is fossil fuel depletion. Depending on how badly the Saudis have depleted their oil fields (no one really knows) - the next 30 years could be very rough. The overarching problem with "Fossil Fuels" is not the fossil fuels but the lack of innovation in energy technology. Ideally the replacement for oil is a combination of Fusion and Hydrogen. We might have to suffice with Nuclear and Hydrogen, but the world needs to start now - and from what I can tell that is not happening. Wind, Solar, Tidal is great but it's not going to supply heavy industry with the regular and massive amount of power that is needed to run our economy. Money might actually help here - but we're not spending it.
I want my tax dollars going to more practical use, and so should we all
Who are you to tell us what we should endeavor to do with our tax dollars? In reality - "tax dollars" and actual budgets have very little in common.
Are we supposed to suddenly believe that the organization that lacks the funding to complete the Voyager project now suddenly has the money to undertake this much more expensive mission?
No my friend, they lack the desire. If they wanted to save it - they would. Apparently, like you they want to stay focused on projects that have immediate value. Those are missions within our solar system. The Great Unknown and what we could learn from it seems to be less attractive. As far as I can tell the probe is expected to continue transmitting until the 2030's but there seems to be no reference to the actual "mission" lifetime. The probes have both completed their primary mission and it would seem are fair game for discontinuation.
Nuclear fuel from a high altitude spacecraft explosion (side note, what would explode anyways?) would be spread out over an area of a square metre or two at most, as it will be in a container that can survive re-entry and crash landing, much as the "black boxes" that survive airplane crashes.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
While we're at it, why don't we shoot all the oil and coal and natural gas into space, too? After all, they're what power all those tanks and jet fighters that fight our wars...
How about all the steel in the world, too, to keep people from making knives?
Seriously--did you ever stop to think about the fact that nuclear fission might be a useful thing?
Some of us happen to think that nuclear fuels will help PREVENT wars over dwindling fossil fuel resources. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, hippie!
Hai. Arigatou gozaimasu, Aisanhawaa-sama.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
We're missing an opportunity here. This isn't about nuclear space propulsion, this is about:
Permanently removing nuclear material from the Earth
Look at what a wonderful service is being provided, nuclear material is being made to Go Away Forever. The minor factor that it opens up exploration of the solar system is a minor side-effect, we don't need to talk about that. Just think of the nuclear material elimination aspects.
The hurdle is to convince skeptics that it's "Challenger-proof", not "Columbia-proof". Remember that this stuff is never intended to re-enter, only launch and leave, forever. From a materials durability point of view, that's quite a difference. Much more of Challenger was recovered than Columbia, and in better shape. That suggests that nuclear containment might well better survive a launch problem than a reentry one.
I don't know if this is meant as humor, or not.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Who will develop the reactor? The Naval Reactors (NR) program.
Will they release the design to public examination? No. NR spent several months arguing with NASA and even with some engineers within NR about classification. In the end much of the reactor design will be secret. Therefore the public will have an insufficient basis on which to question the safety of the system. Instead safety for launch and flight will be determined by a panel whose conclusion will be public, but whose basis for conclusion will be secret. This is no way to run a civilian space program.
When energy (heat) goes from here to there, that's called a transfer. It doesn't really matter what it gets transferred to (call it "dark matter" if it helps).
As for solar gain, that's simple... position your radiator so that it's parallel with the sun's rays. Let the sunshine hit the edge of the radiator, which would have a much smaller profile and would not be part of the heat transfer surface. You could even build a small sheild or use the craft itself to create a shadow.
=Smidge=