Nuclear propulsion - political suicide

>
> Well, I second Ian Wollard. Nukes certainly aren't necessary, but they (once
> more, certainly) are *desirable*. Nuclear fuels could short timescales for

No, nukes are not desirable.

They have higher performance, but they are politicaly unacceptable.

Any plan which is dependent on nuclear propulsion is politicaly DOA (Dead on Arrival).

We need to devise plans which do not require nuclear power, nor nuclear propulsion.

Increased terrorist security has increase public awareness of the risks of rogue nuclear material.

> interplanetary-scale travel and possibly reduce launch costs to LEO. (As far

Nuclear rockets to LEO will not be permitted, so
let us not waste time discussing them.

How quickly people forget the lessons of history.

Have you forgotten what happened to the 1989 Space
Explorartion Initiative ?

A grandiose plan was presented to the President Bush-I in 1989 via the "Stafford Report", essentially to
send humans to Mars.

The JSC astronaut office insisted that chemical rockets
were unsafe because their low performance did not allow adequate abort modes during the long coast to Mars.
They insisted that long duration missions to Mars be based on nuclear propulsion.

This coupled with the high cost resulted in
cancellation of the whole idea.

No part of the SEI was ever approved.

It is difficult enough to get unmanned RTG's approved
for spaceflight. Nuclear rockets will not be permitted.

Cheers,

Charles R.