Nuclear Powered Spacecraft

[Scott Kenny]

Aha!

https://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/510Maise.pdf

Dang, that's from 20 years ago!

 

[Byeman]

A. Apollo Telescope Mount began its development from LM hardware.
B. Obviously. As does SR-1 and Nancy Grace Roman. Your point?
C. Some work, some fail. As with everything. You need to be more specific - what exactly do these missions have to do with my claim, what do they have in common, and which claim? That is not a refutation. Please look up the meaning of the word and explain your points more clearly.

Nope, wrong again.
a. When Skylab went to a dry workshop, all LM hardware and design was eliminated.
From "Skylab, A Chronology". "Termination of the letter contract with Grumman, since the LM would no longer be required to house the ATM".
B Wrong, SR-1 uses the complete PPE spacecraft. RST is not a frankensat. The instrument reuses hardware and not the spacecraft.
c. Most kludge missions fail or have major problems. Skylab, Psyche, Mars Observer, and the list goes on. Anytime a spacecraft repurposes hardware there have been issues. Micrometeoroid panel on Skylab, Loral SC bus commercial construction and documentation practices led to more to a year delay while the spacecraft was at the launch site and a reduction in ion thruster efficiency, Use of LEO/GEO hardware led to Mars Observer demise.

 

[Byeman]

Have a look at the transit times and allowable masses modelled for outer planet missions, such as Tianwen-4's Uranus component - launch from Earth - proposed - 2029, Uranus flyby (no stopping), 2045.

Irrelevant since it is not braking.

JIMO was cancelled because of its massive cost but considering Webb's insane overruns, all of that new technology loaded into one big spacecraft would doubtless have also come in at multiples of its already unfeasibly high cost estimates. Since NASA has studied nuclear-electric crewed missions to Mars and they've apparently pulled back from nuclear-thermal as a policy (DRACO was cancelled), then SR-1 would do a good job in developing the technology. That wouldn't be nothing.

It doesn't really reduce the time since it has to spiral out of early orbit.

 

[Byeman]

You can do better than that, in terms of both content and tone.

If you did, I'd be grateful to be informed. After all, I am only speculating.

I started with providing facts that disproved some your statements

 

[publiusr]

I'm still waiting for someone to propose a nuclear-ramjet atmospheric probe for the outer planets.

The problem is that planetary scientists are just hostile to any funding of engineering projects for tomorrow when they'd rather have its funds for the also-ran craft of today.

They won't admit it of course.

Scott, my guess is that--had Falcon Heavy been a MSFC build-- you could rest assured they would have wanted to raid it's budget and flown it (instead) on a D-IV on an even more leisurely path.

We have Congress and DARPA actually eager to fund nuclear propulsion--and folks who should be happy with that would rather poor-mouth it.

 

[Byeman]

The problem is that planetary scientists are just hostile to any funding of engineering projects for tomorrow when they'd rather have its funds for the also-ran craft of today.

Unsubstantiated statement. Show your proof.

Scott, my guess is that--had Falcon Heavy been a MSFC build-- you could rest assured they would have wanted to raid it's budget and flown it (instead) on a D-IV on an even more leisurely path.

wrong guess again.
a. MSFC would have had to raid the planetary budget just like it did for shuttle propulsion and SLS.
b. Also, there would have been no need to raid any budget if a Delta IV was used
c. Regardless, still going to be a leisurely path on Falcon heavy.

We have Congress and DARPA actually eager to fund nuclear propulsion--and folks who should be happy with that would rather poor-mouth it.

DARPA pulled its funding.

 

[blackstar]

You can do better than that, in terms of both content and tone.

If you did, I'd be grateful to be informed. After all, I am only speculating.

I was a study director on the last two planetary science decadal surveys. Go read them. You'll start to understand this better.

For example, with the last one, a goal for the Uranus orbiter and probe was to make the mission as affordable as possible while maximizing the science. No need to invent new technologies, no need to load it up with anything exotic or expensive. The attitude of the community was that they want the mission to happen as soon as possible, and a big part of that is keeping the cost as low as possible and not requiring new technologies that take time to develop.

Simply put, the planetary science community doesn't want nuclear electric propulsion for their top priority mission, the Uranus orbiter and probe.

The same applies to almost everything else you wrote in that post--the planetary science community has not stated a requirement for these things. This is a technology demonstration mission, but it will demonstrate technologies that the planetary science community has not indicated they require.

Some of this technology may be useful for other applications. Nuclear fission power could be valuable for a lunar base. But this proposal is for a micro-g application, not on the lunar surface, so it is a bit of a stretch to argue that SR-1 is directly applicable to a lunar application. Similarly, the multiple helicopters on Mars won't do much science, but they could support a human landing. A key issue for technology demonstration missions is how likely is the technology to be used by the intended user? There should be a more direct requirement and path to use.