09-21-2015, 07:52 AM
Or at least, they have a "road map" for how to resume such work:
(Viewing the article above requires free registration, after which they'll send you a news email now and then — but it's all interesting stuff like this, so I recommend it.)
This is very exciting news. Nuclear propulsion is far more practical than chemical propulsion for getting around the solar system. Any time you need to move a large mass, or get somewhere quickly — or both — you want a nuclear engine doing most of the work.
![[Image: PHz40.jpg]](http://i.snag.gy/PHz40.jpg)
But R&D on these was abandoned in the 60s when the public reaction to anything "nuclear" turned sour. (This was around the same time that NMR was rebranded MRI so that patients would be willing to get into the machine!) So it's great to see some official attempts to restart it.
Of course I'm not sure public opinion is any more flexible now... one can hope, though. If not, we might need to conduct our "ground" testing of these new engines somewhere else, such as on the Moon. I'm still hopeful we'll see Bigelow landing Moon bases within the next 10-20 years, at which point, I guess NASA could rent some space to do their tests!
(Viewing the article above requires free registration, after which they'll send you a news email now and then — but it's all interesting stuff like this, so I recommend it.)
This is very exciting news. Nuclear propulsion is far more practical than chemical propulsion for getting around the solar system. Any time you need to move a large mass, or get somewhere quickly — or both — you want a nuclear engine doing most of the work.
Of course I'm not sure public opinion is any more flexible now... one can hope, though. If not, we might need to conduct our "ground" testing of these new engines somewhere else, such as on the Moon. I'm still hopeful we'll see Bigelow landing Moon bases within the next 10-20 years, at which point, I guess NASA could rent some space to do their tests!
Joe Strout
Lead Developer, High Frontier
