Posted on 02/01/2002 10:05:52 AM PST by The_Victor
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.
We are a footnote, a species that could have been if we stay rooted to Terra. Our destiny is out there. Terraform Mars and even Venus. Explore and settle the archipelago of moons around Jupiter. And yes, grind out the word 'impossible' that is married to the nonsense that the stars are unreachable like the dirty cigarette butt it is, and dare to dream of humans falling around them in orbit looking back at Sol's tiny speck of light in the vastness of the sky.
I have long been an enthusiastic supporter of space travel. I can't watch 'Enterprise' without that themesong making my eyes misty. I remember how galvanized I felt watching men walk on our moon. I would trade anything to be out there in the solar system or beyond.
One of the most valuble intangibles about being human is the spirit to dare to challenge all limits. It isn't a matter of, "should we climb out of the egg?" It is a question of whether we collectively realize we have no choice but to do so and go out to make things happen.
As a thoroughly Biblical fundamentalist Christian, I pray for and anticipate the day when my grandkids will be pursuing their vocations for the glory of God on the moon, and Mars. Think of it this way: Christianity broke out of the confines of the Mediterranean basin, and spent a millenia developing a social order in Europe. We have since had 500 years to develop a protestant version thereof in this hemisphere. Obviously, the Creator has hung the next challenge right in front of our eyes every moonrise. For the longer run, Mars is obviously intended to be humanity's 3rd or 4th home. After all, the Martian day is just over 24 hours long!
See Pournille & Niven's novel Footfall which interestingly incorporated the Orion concept.
NASA's budget of roughly 13 billion is now seen as a ripe plum for the picking. My guess is that the circling vultures will get $8 billion. NASA will be reduced to Huntsville, Houston, Kennedy and HQ. All other centers have no choice and no future. The $5 billion left will be used to run the station and keep patching the shuttles until the next one fails (and it will eventually fail). Then the entire shuttle fleet will be mothballed.
The money will go towards 'fighting terrorism'; space is not on Bush's radar.
The U.S. has launched its last planetary probe. Existing programs will probably be allowed--selectively--to proceed. But I forsee zero new starts.
I read an hilarious short piece in Space News that said that the horrible gnome from Maryland--Mikulski-- wants to up the NASA budget to $18 billion. Yeah. That's really gonna happen.
--Boris
It is tragic the cost benefit ratio of the space program is not visible to those myopic people who would as soon salt the birds tail to keep it grounded, then eat it.
We should have a manned post on the Moon right now, growing and mining water at the poles to prepare to move to gravity wells and asteroids in solar orbit.
We need to get the observatory up and running in the sweet spot on the Moon's dark side that will revolutionize astronomy. We need to explore those fascinating moons of Jupiter and get better information of every planet from Mercury to Pluto and her moon.
I am frustrated. Life is ferociously short, and I know I will die not seeing that which I am most curious about. The 'out there.'*SIGH*
Nah. Just a power supply. The last one they launched brought out all the prophets of plutonium doom. Nuclear power is about the only thing that makes sense for deep solar system exploration and development. Nuclear motors might be interesting, but they aren't really necessary. Nuclear power supply and ion/plasma motors will do the job.
Good luck with that. Better advice is: plan to import methane from wherever.
The expansion of future manned space flight will depend on the tourist market. Unfortunately it isn't affordable for most people -- yet.
As far as exploration and expanding horizons goes, with our current technology, telescopes are unbeatable and unmanned probes are a distant second.
Since I have worked with both, I have to agree with you. However, putting telescopes on the far side of the moon will accomplish multiple objectives. Better reception and viewing, gets us back to the moon (including the required infrastructure), and will ensure the development of new technologies.
For now, I would like to see humans operating full time in space relatively independent of need from Earth. The space station and the shallow gravity well of Luna should be able to be fairly autonomous unto themselves, and create by themselves much of the infrastructure needed to do preliminary planetary exploration.
I have read the arguments concerning Moon vs., Mars as a first primary destination, and I lean towards Luna. It will give us the engineering skills and practice we need for sustained, long duration interplanetary travel.
Whatever happens with space travel, I am convinced that when we are doing it, we will wonder how we got along without it it will be so defining of humanity at it's best; when we are at the vanguard of exploration of a new frontier.
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.