NASA to Seek Nuclear-Powered Spaceflight Alternatives

Next week, NASA will request funding for development of a space nuclear reactor. For the first time in a decade, the space agency is seeking funds to proceed with developing the power source, seen as critical to move forward on future space exploration initiatives.

According to SPACE.com sources, for numbers of months, NASA, the Department of Energy, as well as the Defense Department, have discussed ways to restart a multi-faceted space nuclear power program. The Bush White House is seeking to rekindle work in this area, an initiative that could have a dramatic ripple effect in blueprinting future robotic and human missions to Mars, establishing a lunar base, explore Jupiter's ice-covered satellite, Europa, as well as open up for exploration other outer planet destinations.

According to Steven Aftergood, an analyst at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C., "there is no question that space nuclear power could dramatically enhance the possibilities for space exploration." Among other things, he told SPACE.com, a space reactor would make it possible to undertake a multi-decade mission beyond our solar system.

"I think that would be 'uplifting' in more ways than one and I hope to see it happen in my lifetime," Aftergood said.

Boom-and-bust pattern

Space nuclear reactor technology has followed a boom-and-bust pattern of development since the 1950s, Aftergood said.

The U.S. launched one space reactor in 1965, a 500-Watt system that operated for 43 days and which remains in orbit. The last U.S. space reactor development program, a joint NASA-Defense Department effort known as the SP-100, was terminated ten years ago following the expenditure of nearly half a billion dollars.

Between 1967 and 1988, the former Soviet Union hurled spaceward some 30 reactors.

The U.S. has launched some two-dozen spacecraft utilizing plutonium-powered electrical generators -- which are not reactors -- that produce a low level of electricity. For instance, the devices energize such spacecraft as the Galileo probe now exploring Jupiter, the Ulysses probe's exploration of the Sun, and the Cassini mission, now trekking outward to Saturn. Given a funding go-ahead, the Pluto-Kuiper Belt mission will rely on a nuclear power source.

Outer planet exploration using advanced radioisotope electric propulsion has recently been evaluated by teams at the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, as well as The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland.

In a recent co-authored technical paper, lead author, Steve Oleson of NASA Glenn, said a radioisotope power source for small electrically powered orbiter spacecraft makes possible missions to Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. While a reactor-powered system would provide quicker trip times and more science payload mass and power, radioisotope electric propulsion (REP) alleviates the need for a reactor and large launch vehicles.

The use of space nuclear reactors, Aftergood said, is dictated whenever moderate levels of electrical power -- tens of kilowatts or more -- are required in space over an extended period of time.

Burden of proof

The NASA nuclear effort is a two-sided coin, Aftergood said. "By the same token, space reactors could also be used to power space weapons and other military systems in orbit, attracting the opposition of some arms control advocates and environmentalists."

"Certainly there will be public acceptance issues. The burden of proof will be on the government to show that safety risks have been minimized to an acceptable degree. Even so, some people will be categorically

opposed. But considering the other news of the day, an old fashioned controversy about space nuclear power would come as a relief right about now," Aftergood said. Funding the program will be a more immediate challenge, particularly as the country enters a new period of deficit spending, he said.

I very much agree. Anyone who reads the Sci-Fi book "Foot Fall" that shows how having the high ground in space is every bit as important as the high ground in terms of mere topography.

In that book, settlers from another star system use asteroids as a weapon. Having the high ground and controlling the orbital mechanics of large objects is a fast and dirty way to get your way in much the way you could with your examples.

They could be moved to, and staged in lunar orbit ready to slingshot Earthward. The Moon would provide security for these large masses that in turn would be able to block anything incoming from Earth.

I just speak of this as an example of how cheaply a base on a light gravity world can wreck havoc on a world where getting out of the gravity well is expensive and time consuming.

Humans are ingenious in regards to developing doctrine and new ideas for conducting war, I'm sure people will think of other things they could to to gain power over others. If a new space race develops, it could be ugly and violent of the participants are nose to nose in racing out there, the stakes are that high.

"Well, you can sign-up for the next trip to Hale-Bopp if you want to."

Thanks for your graphic display of outgassing. Usually comets do this as they reach the bottom of an eliptical orbit, but as we see by your example, humans can do it too.

"IMHO, we need more nuclear power down here on good 'ol Terra Firma first."

A disingenuous comment by you at best. What do nuclear reactors licensed and operated to create electric power, or weapons grade material have to do with space travel.

"It's time to defund and privatize NASA."

Translation: More power to the bean counters, to Hell with investing in expanding human horizons. If it were up to you, you would have "privatized" Columbus and told everyone the edge of the world or a sea monster would have eaten him if he had wasted Spain's money anyways.

Space exploration is a small investment in seed money towards more private riches then you can imagine.

"Let the Discovery Channel, National Geographic and NOVA subsidize their space dreams."

Disingenuous comment number two. That's like saying if Time magasine wants to write about news, they better go out and make some.

Want to try again. Better arm yourself with logic and facts this time.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.