Digest Number 251

>Also, nuclear rockets require a lot of reaction mass,
what will you use
and from whence will you obtain/transport it ?<

A lot of reaction mass? In comparison to what? It
would require less reaction mass than any chemical
rocket. An NTR would heat the gas up to the plasma
state, which would give a higher ISP than any chemical
reaction.

>around $ 100 billion trying to do that over the past
50 years, and have
yet to get close to mastering it.<

Well we are getting closer all the time and He-3 is
too rare on earth to try fusion with it. Hopefully we
could build fusion reactors on the moon. In the near
future I have no problem with building fission
generating plants on the moon. They could provide us
with energy and fuel.

>again the answer for me is go to the Moon and develop
the resources in
cis-lunar space. The bigger plans will take care of
them selves once
the cis-lunar infrastructure (for tourist, SPS, the
high frontier, etc.)
begins <

I agree completely.

I agree, but the activist element won't let you
launch.<

In that case Hope it's the Russians that do it because
you can be sure someone will. Just think what it would
do for the Russian economy to have the only affordable
launch vehicle. I would expect this to be reusable
like the shuttle.

>The tally of space nuclear accidents/failures is
presently six from
Russia and three from USA.<

And even with all these accidents there has been no
catastrophic loss of life or any of the terrible
things predicted by the activist element.