Really love that last line, and that the article includes the history of development. A lot of articles tend to leave out that bit (history) which imo is one of the most important parts of any...
It took over 40 years before NASA brought up nuclear propulsion again, first in the short-lived Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter project and then in the design reference architecture for human exploration of Mars. Powering the latter missions with a compact reactor could cut down Mars transit by more than half, to three to four months versus the six to nine months predicted for chemical rocket engines. Less time in space meant less exposure to radiation for the astronauts and fewer supplies for the trip.
So, in 2017, NASA started a small-scale NTR research program. The budget was just a hair above $18 million, but it was something. Two years later, Congress passed an appropriation bill that granted $125 million for developing NTRs. Things were progressing, but they were mostly paper studies, followed by more paper studies, followed by even more paper studies.
And then on June 17, 2020, DARPA entered the chat and said, “We want a nuclear rocket.” Not just another paper study—a demonstrator.
Really love that last line, and that the article includes the history of development. A lot of articles tend to leave out that bit (history) which imo is one of the most important parts of any scientific and technological reporting.
I highly recommend the John McPhee book The Curve of Binding Energy for an amazing profile of Theodore B. Taylor, the leader of NASA's Project Orion in the 60s.
I highly recommend the John McPhee book The Curve of Binding Energy for an amazing profile of Theodore B. Taylor, the leader of NASA's Project Orion in the 60s.
Interesting information, but also a very oddly written article. It felt like the author just copy-pasted together bits of conversation he overheard at the local diner, and then sprinkled in his...
Interesting information, but also a very oddly written article. It felt like the author just copy-pasted together bits of conversation he overheard at the local diner, and then sprinkled in his own theoretical conversations with himself.
Neat. Amusing to see that DoD just pushes things forward that NASA has to struggle to get funding for, but also not really surprising either, and it is in a genuinely interesting direction...
Neat.
Amusing to see that DoD just pushes things forward that NASA has to struggle to get funding for, but also not really surprising either, and it is in a genuinely interesting direction...
Really love that last line, and that the article includes the history of development. A lot of articles tend to leave out that bit (history) which imo is one of the most important parts of any scientific and technological reporting.
I highly recommend the John McPhee book The Curve of Binding Energy for an amazing profile of Theodore B. Taylor, the leader of NASA's Project Orion in the 60s.
Interesting information, but also a very oddly written article. It felt like the author just copy-pasted together bits of conversation he overheard at the local diner, and then sprinkled in his own theoretical conversations with himself.
Neat.
Amusing to see that DoD just pushes things forward that NASA has to struggle to get funding for, but also not really surprising either, and it is in a genuinely interesting direction...