http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/08/16385852-nuclear-power-in-space-petition-asks-white-house-to-rekindle-project

I assume most of you here see immediately how this would advance our
cause. Please sign, and promote it as widely as you can. It has only
about a week left, and 22 thousand signatures to go.

Does anyone know how to send out an action alert through NSS or some such?

Best,
- Joe

I don't think this is a particularly good project right now. We need to focus federal dollars on projects with potential commercial legs, such as tourism and space solar power, and projects with direct benefit to those on the ground such as asteroid defense, Earth and solar observation, materials procession, and bio-medical research on the ISS. We spend plenty of money on really interesting and wonderful but not particularly useful (to the taxpayers on the ground) space projects. Given the federal gov't debts, we should assume NASA will lose quite a bit of funding over the next few years and spend what's left wisely.

On Jan 28, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Joe Strout wrote:

On 1/28/13 8:41 PM, Al Globus wrote:

> I don't think this is a particularly good project right now. We need
> to focus federal dollars on projects with potential commercial legs,
> such as tourism and space solar power, and projects with direct
> benefit to those on the ground such as asteroid defense, Earth and
> solar observation, materials procession, and bio-medical research on
> the ISS. We spend plenty of money on really interesting and
> wonderful but not particularly useful (to the taxpayers on the
> ground) space projects. Given the federal gov't debts, we should
> assume NASA will lose quite a bit of funding over the next few years
> and spend what's left wisely.

I agree with the general sentiments, but I'm not sure I agree with the
specifics. Things like asteroid defense and mining would be
dramatically easier with NTR, don't you think? If the technology were
developed by NASA, and the nuclear taboo removed, I think companies
could commercialize on it to great effect. Yes, that would take a few
decades, but that's likely to always be the case -- which is all the
more reason we should get started now.

As for budget realities, I'd be quite content to cancel NASA's current
heavy-lift launcher and put the money into NTR development instead.
There is no reason NASA should continue to be in the launch business.
If they want X tons of material in orbit Y, they should simply offer to
pay $Z to whoever gets it there safely. There are companies who will
step up to the plate, probably far more cheaply than NASA could do it
itself.

The downside of that, of course, is that it doesn't employ armies of
workers in the usual congressional districts. But perhaps some of those
workers, at least, could be repurposed to the new NTR research program.

Developing advanced new launch technologies, and nurturing them to the
point where commercial companies can take over, is the proper role of
NASA. Chemical rockets have reached that point. NTR, I think, is the
obvious next step.

I think the petition was very wise not to explicitly tie its cart to the
cancellation of any current NASA program. It's enough to demand that
the powers-that-be look into it seriously, and ask the important
question: why AREN'T we putting more into this enabling technology?

- Joe

On Jan 29, 2013, at 7:29 AM, Joe Strout wrote:

> On 1/28/13 8:41 PM, Al Globus wrote:
>
> > I don't think this is a particularly good project right now. We need
> > to focus federal dollars on projects with potential commercial legs,
> > such as tourism and space solar power, and projects with direct
> > benefit to those on the ground such as asteroid defense, Earth and
> > solar observation, materials procession, and bio-medical research on
> > the ISS. We spend plenty of money on really interesting and
> > wonderful but not particularly useful (to the taxpayers on the
> > ground) space projects. Given the federal gov't debts, we should
> > assume NASA will lose quite a bit of funding over the next few years
> > and spend what's left wisely.
>
> I agree with the general sentiments, but I'm not sure I agree with the
> specifics. Things like asteroid defense and mining would be
> dramatically easier with NTR, don't you think?
>
If it were free, yes. However, it isn't. We're pretty close to having very good electric propulsion for most asteroid mining tasks near term, it's a matter of scaling up existing systems to more power (read: larger solar arrays), around 40 KW for a vehicle that can bring a 500 ton asteroid into high earth orbit.

>
> As for budget realities, I'd be quite content to cancel NASA's current
> heavy-lift launcher and put the money into NTR development instead.
> There is no reason NASA should continue to be in the launch business.
>
> If they want X tons of material in orbit Y, they should simply offer to
> pay $Z to whoever gets it there safely. There are companies who will
> step up to the plate, probably far more cheaply than NASA could do it
> itself.
>
Leaving aside the Senate Launch System (SLS) shoved down the administration's throat, that is exactly what NASA is doing. There's the COTS program for cargo, which has funded much of Falcon 9 development, and commercial crew, which is the same basic idea but for astronauts (you need more-better abort modes and bigger safety margins, and possibly a smoother ride).