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."
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."
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.
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.