[AntiKev]

It’s great to say that. But that’s the same sort of statement as saying “We need better politicians.” It gives no possible solutions, nor does it give value to the difficulty of what it proposes.

We have a better propulsion system that is available near-term. The Gas Core Nuclear Rocket (one type of which is the Nuclear Lightbulb) can in principle create very high specific impulses at very high thrust levels. But let’s see if the vocal environmental lobby would ever let this happen.

We need to expand into space as a society in order to survive. As to the topic at hand, this engine was developed for the original ESAS-specified Orion crew vehicle. The Orion crew vehicle was to have “Mars-forward” technologies such as methane propulsion. But in his infinite wisdom Mike “Shafter” Griffin has decided that hypergolics are better. He’s wrong.

I hope XCOR succeeds in developing this engine further and getting it on the business end of the CEV.

[skinkinthegrass]

Kewl..Thanks.
...Due to the much higher temperatures achievable by the gaseous core design, it can deliver higher specific impulse and thrust than most other conventional nuclear designs. This translates into shorter mission transit times for future astronauts or larger payload fractions. It may also be possible to use partially ionized plasma from the gas core to generate electricity magnetohydrodynamically, subsequently negating the need for an additional power supply.

[wastedyears]

But rockets actually do something positive 95% of the time.

;)