"A rocket with a great history" didn't prevent political protests over Cassini -- and the amount of nuclear fuel in Cassini's RTGs is minuscule compared to what a nuclear rocket requires.
It's impossible to get a license to build a nuclear power plant in the US. What makes you think getting a license to launch a reactor will be easier?
If there is an accident with lots of collateral damage, then the government has to pay for it (even commercial flights are insured by the government).
No, the FAA requires commercial launch providers to purchase insurance sufficient to cover the Maximum Probable Loss.
The government does indemnify certain losses beyond that, but that's sort of a moot point. There's never been an accident that exceeds Maximum Probable Loss, so the government's money has never been touched.
NERVA is probably impossible due to the political difficulties of launching that much nuclear fuel. At least until we start mining uranium on the Moon (not outside the realm of possibility).
Well, a CubeSat might cost $40k to launch, if you can find a ride-along as a secondary payload. More often, it costs the user nothing, since someone like NASA or NRO picks up the tab. The problem is finding a launcher that has space available. Many satellites sit on the shelf for years.
There's a watchdog system to reboot the phone in case of a glitch. Not really a problem. Most CubeSats operate the same way, since they don't use rad-hard electronics due to the cost and limited performance.
Slashdot Mirror
If there were so much demand for these types of trips, there would be a lot more private jet fighters since a few decades.
The last time I checked, the Classic Jet Aircraft Association reported over 300 jet warbirds in private hands.
Just because you aren't interested doesn't mean nobody is.
"Food fight" is a well-known metaphor for political partisans who are acting like children.
"A rocket with a great history" didn't prevent political protests over Cassini -- and the amount of nuclear fuel in Cassini's RTGs is minuscule compared to what a nuclear rocket requires. It's impossible to get a license to build a nuclear power plant in the US. What makes you think getting a license to launch a reactor will be easier?
If there is an accident with lots of collateral damage, then the government has to pay for it (even commercial flights are insured by the government).
No, the FAA requires commercial launch providers to purchase insurance sufficient to cover the Maximum Probable Loss. The government does indemnify certain losses beyond that, but that's sort of a moot point. There's never been an accident that exceeds Maximum Probable Loss, so the government's money has never been touched.
NERVA is probably impossible due to the political difficulties of launching that much nuclear fuel. At least until we start mining uranium on the Moon (not outside the realm of possibility).
Well, a CubeSat might cost $40k to launch, if you can find a ride-along as a secondary payload. More often, it costs the user nothing, since someone like NASA or NRO picks up the tab. The problem is finding a launcher that has space available. Many satellites sit on the shelf for years.
There's a watchdog system to reboot the phone in case of a glitch. Not really a problem. Most CubeSats operate the same way, since they don't use rad-hard electronics due to the cost and limited performance.
"Low Earth orbit is the equivalent of tooling around the harbor." Funny thing. None of the people who say that have even made it out into the harbor.
The launch rate from Wallops Island is not so high as to be a concern. NASA only conducted 13 sounding-rocket launches in 2011, not all from Wallops.