New here, asteroids prefered

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
>
> > > Stan Ulam
> > > correctly deduced that a fast fission device- a bomb-
> > > would be the most effective propulsion system for
> > > spacecraft. That was in 1945 shortly after the first
> > > one was lit off. It is still the only system that does
> > > not waste almost the entire amount of energy being
> > > produced. ISP for a Nuclear Pulse Propulsion system
> > > would be in the thousands and most probably in the tens
> > > of thousands.
>
> This idea is a political non starter, no one is going to allow the setting of nuclear bombs in the atmosphere for a launch vehicle or allow the launch of vehicle with its fuel tank filled with nuclear weapons to (hopefully) go off in space.
>
> Brooks
>
I am very familiar with this theory, and it has nothing to do with atmospheric launch, BUT instead deep space use, ie like Mars missions. conventional launch systems would still be used to get craft, and equipment to space, and only after said space craft is beyond the moon would such a propulsion be used...

Second note, given that nuclear bombs have proven themselves very reliable, and that we launch them into space on ICBMs with no issues the risk is very low, but the public does act like a bunch of scared little kids assuming the worst possible out come whenever the word nuclear is used, no matter how improbably low the risk is. This irrational thinking would first have to be put at ease before such a system would be allowed.