Greg2003

Bush is set to endorse the use of nuclear, sorry, that's nuckuler, powered space flight according to the BBC. (p.s. I am increasingly disappointed with CNN's website news coverage) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2684329.stm

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it is almost certainly true that nuclear power would allow faster travel. On the other hand, this whole thing is almost certainly an excuse for the USA to build up its stockpile of nuclear weapons grade uranium and plutonium, and to get us dependant on nuclear power.

Any thoughts?

Greg2003

The Orion Project in the 50's was ambitious and just a little insane. If you actually used nuclear explosions in the launch phase and something went wrong with the pusher plate you would probably set off an arsenal of nuclear bombs stored behind the plate resulting in a multi-kiloton explosion that would kill the crew, the ground personnel, everybody watching the launch and contaminate the area for years. I don't know that Orion ever offered any gaurantee against this happening. Those scientists always assumed that safer bomb technology would be built, but it never was.

Abacus

For space exploration, it would be a wonderful thing. But I fear earthly political concerns could kill it.

Greg2003

But it could kill us. And aren't you the least bit suspicious about why Bush, who could give a fig about funding NASA, is now suddenly committed to the biggest funding they've seen since Appollo, as long as it involves Nukes?

Abacus

It should be noted that you don't have to detonate nuclear bombs for space propulsion any more than you have to detonate bombs to generate electricity. A reactor will generate a tremendous amount of heat. Use that heat to create some steam, and away you go.

Edited for spelling.

August Spies

but steam travel isn't whats being propossed is it?

Abacus

Yes, I'd be suspicious too. Especially from this administration. But, even if they do have ulterior motives, it probably isn't unprecedented. Afterall, the Saturn moon rocket was probably a nice spin-off of the development of ICBM technology.

Besides, I'm not so sure we need this excuse to produce nuclear material. Afterall, we already have a Navy that uses nuclear power for propulsion.

Greg2003

Not into orbit you don't. Nor escape velocity for that matter. We need a lot of power to acheive escape velocity. The only propulsive alternative to multistage rockets that I am aware of is the Orion Project, which required exploding bombs under a pusher plate. It is far more efficient than rocketry. But you have to set off a series of bombs as you ascend in order to acheive escape velocity.

Abacus

So you use chemical rockets to get to earth orbit. Assemble the deep-space ship there. Launch the Mars or Saturn spacecraft from earth orbit. This would be superior to launching a chemical rocket from the earth's surface to the final destination.

Mageth

The only propulsive alternative to multistage rockets that I am aware of is the Orion Project, which required exploding bombs under a pusher plate. It is far more efficient than rocketry. But you have to set off a series of bombs as you ascend in order to acheive escape velocity.

Umm, that's not what NASA is proposing:

space.com article

"Savage said that the term "nuclear rocket" is not what NASA is developing. Rather, reactor technology is being pursued.

Nuclear rocket is a term that's very easily misconstrued in the public, Savage said. "In their mind, they see the spewing out of radioactivity from the back end of a rocket. That's not what is being talked about in any of the programs we're looking at," he said."

As Abacus said, conventional chemical launch vehicles would be used. The reactor technology would be used on the interplanetary vehicle.