Michael Smith writes:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:18:28 GMT
(Henry Spencer) wrote:

You can start with NERVA derivatives, and pursue
more ambitious designs in parallel with the first expeditions. The
one big hassle is low-emissions test facilities, and it's one that
should yield quickly to substantial amounts of money -- no
breakthroughs are required.

Liquid-core or nuclear-lightbulb is substantially better, and gas-core
is much better, although they are longer-term options with significant
development issues.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't see anybody supporting the
development of nuclear rocket engines, given the political problems
associated with simple RTGs.

A nuclear-electric thruster system, while inefficent, can at least be
built from well understood components.


I'm not following your logic. The "political problems associated with
simple RTGs", were entirely due to A: some minor but non-negligible
safety issues pertaining *only* to RTGs and not to any other space
nuclear power system, and B: the fact that they used the N word.

"Nuclear rocket" and "nuclear electric thruster system", both use
the N word. If the political problems associated with simple RTGs
will suffice to kill the one, they will just as surely suffice to
kill the other.

In fact, the political problems associated with simple RTGs, were
overcome, and the RTGs flew. With that trail now blazed, I don't
think nuclear systems are unthinkable. But if they are, they are
*all* unthinkable.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *