Talk:Project Prometheus
Since this was originally a direct paste of a NASA page, this article probably needs a lot of revamping. --NeuronExMachina 08:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Revamping
I've rewritten the main article since the original was copied almost verbatim from the official NASA page. --Loren 05:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Project funding reduced/Other propulsion technologies
This needs to include the rationale for the project's funding being cut and its goals scaled back. What is intended to replace it for future outer solar-system missions? --70.142.40.34 14:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Source for budget cuts
I found a source on LexisNexis. I'd copy the url but I think you have to be logged in or something at your college. Here's the article:
Copyright 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. http://www.mcgrawhill.com All Rights Reserved
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
August 7, 2006 Monday
SECTION: News; Pg. 4 Vol. 219 No. 24
LENGTH: 258 words
HEADLINE: NASA still eyeing space nuclear power
BYLINE: Jefferson Morris
BODY:
NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate is trying to shape a low-cost space nuclear power research program to ensure that the technology will be ready when needed for future long-duration explorations of the moon, Mars and elsewhere.
Following the deferment of the Prometheus space nuclear power and propulsion effort last year, there has been "almost no funding" available for nuclear research at NASA, Associate Administrator for Exploration Scott Horowitz said during the Mars Society's annual conference in Washington Aug. 4.
Nonetheless, "if you're going to Mars, solar power just isn't going to hack it," Horowitz said. "So we're going to need better power. At a minimum, we've got to solve the surface power problem... So what we're trying to do is find out, at a minimum, what we can do to keep the basic trades and the basic research alive in the nuclear regime, because we're going to need it someday."
NASA had been pursuing both space nuclear power and propulsion technology more vigorously under Prometheus, but that effort was deferred last year and the funding diverted to speed development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and Ares 1 Crew Launch Vehicle (DAILY, Nov. 7, 2005).
In the meantime, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin contends that there is "no greater advocate" of space nuclear power and propulsion in the U.S. government than himself, but the money just isn't there right now to pursue technology like nuclear-thermal rockets, which the U.S. abandoned in 1973.
- Jefferson Morris (jeff_morris@aviationweek.com)
LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2006