On May 5, 3:48*am, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Given the desire to use nuclear propulsion for deep space exploration
(i.e. VASIMR, Mars 1986, Mars 1994, etc.), but the danger of
uncontrolled re-entry of radioactive materials ( see Cosmos 954),

That was not a terribly good design because the radioactive materials
weren't contained in such a way that they could remain intact during reentry
(which is done with all US RTGs and the like).

Apples and Oranges. RTG's are not reactors. The last time the US had a
space reactor was SNAP circa 1965 I believe, which subsequently
disintegrated in orbit spilling its radioactive contents.

SNAP like the russian reactors launched with the fuel already inserted
since they werent manned flights. When you say "not a terribly good
design" what would be your solution given no manned presence to insert
the fuel.

Additionally, in the 80's/90's when the US was again interested in
Space reactors they intended to use a Topaz and satisified themselves
after minor modifications that it was safe, although US
environmentalists eventually caused that launch to be cancelled.

For the sake of this argument it doesnt matter though. If you want
Nuclear power in space, Russia will sell and launch reactors for you
and is willing to develop larger power ones if required. They also
have some designs (though only preliminary) for manned reactors whose
fuels is shipped in caskets like US RTG's and inserted in space
alleviating any issues there.