Will Columbia Disaster Embolden Nuclear Protesters

Didn't mean to cause offense, Al, and I hope I can be forgiven. My comment
was really more directed at the kind of anti-nuke advocate who says
irresponsible things like "plutonium is the most deadly substance on Earth"
(that would actually be the botulism toxin), and that if there had been an
accident on the Cassini flyby that half the globe would have developed
cancer as a direct result.

But someone who looks at the facts and decides that they can't support
nuclear due to real-world concerns, I have the utmost of respect for. (In
fact, I think I might be there myself. I was somewhat pro-nuclear in my
youth, but Chernobyl certainly cooled my support.) And of course every
point you make below is unassailable.

One thing that I always liked about the O'Neill plan was its exclusive
reliance on solar power. I always felt that nuclear in space was a
non-starter, politically speaking. And NASA's wishes notwithstanding, I
don't see much near-term political support for Prometheus with the current
imagery fresh in everyone's mind.

I don't even think it would be excessively paranoid to legislate that
nuclear engines can only be used in space if they are never on a potentially
Earth-intersecting trajectory. Which would mean that nuclear propulsion
would not be part of the picture until we were well into the era of space
resource use.

Regards,

Mike Combs