Hooray For Space Nukes – Again
President Trump Signs Space Policy Directive 6 Establishing National Strategy On Space Nuclear Power And Propulsion, White House
NASA Supports America’s National Strategy for Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion
“In support of SPD-6, NASA’s near-term priority is to mature and then demonstrate a fission surface power system on the Moon. NASA, the Department of Energy, and industry will design, fabricate, and test a 10-kilowatt class fission surface power system. NASA plans to demonstrate the system on the Moon in the late 2020s, providing power for sustainable lunar surface operations and testing its potential for use on Mars.”
Keith’s note: Is there any new funding set aside for these efforts at NASA or will things continue to chug along at the low level rate that they have been progressing? Details, details.
I hope they’re putting some money into it. We could really use that 10 kW system for a lunar base, although ultimately we’d probably want something bigger (a 50-100 kW system, which would also make it easier to use Low Enriched Uranium for fuel).
And of course a 10 kW system built to last on an outer solar system robotic mission would be excellent. They should stick it on any proposed Uranus/Neptune flagship mission.
Show me the money.
I think it is basic for a lunar or Mars base and necessary for deep exploration probes, but Keith is right to ask, “Is there any new funding set aside for these efforts…?”
Not a penny. This is just something they dashed out before the Administration started to shut off the National Space Council.
The directive states clearly that the Departments of Defense, Energy and Homeland Security are directed to work on it. Between the three departments their budget is about $765 billion dollars. That’s a lot of money. They already spend a lot of money on the nuclear weapons stockpile which includes missiles and bombers and for nuclear powered-aircraft carriers and for nuclear-powered submarines. Is it really that expensive to build more nuclear power capability for space?
I doubt it.
I think it’s a matter of priorities. If the directive says do it, they are supposed to do it. They already have the money.
I’m sorry – but where is the NASA funding to use all of the lofty words about nukes for the whole outer space thing? You know – hardware. As for directives – they are regularly left to flap in the wind unimplemented – without funding – and they can be rescinded easily – as a bunch of them will be on 20 Jan 2021 after 12:00 pm. Oh yes: Presidential directives are as hollow as congressional authorization bills – like the one that the Senate passed today. Without actual congressional appropriations passed by Congress and signed into law nothing happens. Nothing. The White House cannot mandate spending – they can only suggest a budget and then approve whatever Congress sends back to them.. FWIW I wish they’d spend more on nukes in space. But they actually have to budget for it and then get the budget passed. That’s how it works here in DC.
Perhaps this is helpful:
NASA and the Department of Energy have been jointly working on this key element of the Directive for a while now and they are fairly close to flying a test version of it as soon as 2022.
Nuclear Reactor for Mars Outpost Could Be Ready to Fly by 2022
https://www.space.com/nucle…..
The multi-agency approach is the key.
The Department of Energy is currently working on a line of safer nuclear power stations at the Idaho National Laboratory to help with climate change.
They’re very well funded so it’s not all on NASA’s shoulders, is my point.
Congress decides on what happens, that is true, but if they are funding Artemis they aren’t going to leave the astronauts without a decent power source.
You may be right that it won’t happen but you see the need for it and that’s the problem: have to get a consensus to move forward,
There’s also our international partners like Japan and the Europeans and
they will benefit from nuclear power in space so maybe that’s going to be a joint venture.
I’m sorry but what mission is it that this reactor is going to fly on in 2022? It is not mentioned anywhere and these things tend to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Oh and where is the EIS for public comment – you need to circulate those a few years in advance of any mission that flies nuclear materials. There is zero funding in NASA’s budget for this mission and given that the baseline Mars exploration plan is barely funded it ain’t going to happen without a big plus up – but you’d need a time machine to make it work to fly in 2022. Or 2023. Or 2024 etc. Other agencies rarely – if ever – fund NASA launch and mission costs. Lots of maybes in your argument. Show me the appropriated funds in the multi-hundred million dollar range – please. As for Artemis – the short sorties on the lunar surface will be handled by conventional power systems. Just look at the pictures.
I understand but here is some additional info about it’s technology readiness:
“In the early 2010s researchers at Los Alamos and later the NASA Glenn Research Center and the US Department of Energy
began work on a joint project called Kilopower, now renamed the Nuclear Fission Power Project. Dionne Hernández-Lugo of the NASA Glenn Research Center and deputy project manager of the Nuclear Fission Power Project says the proposed budget puts the team “on the path to build and send a surface power system to the moon.”
That’s according to this:
Why NASA thinks nuclear reactors could supply power for human colonies in space
https://cen.acs.org/energy/…
It would be only a test to prove the concept. It’s my understanding NASA is planning to start sending payloads on commercial spacecraft before the astronauts so the nuclear technology demonstration could be sent that way. NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services aka CLPS
is the new program that could possibly be involved in launching it to the Moon
That’s all I know, I have no exact details. I’m just pointing out that the technology is really close to being ready. And that in this new commercial age it’s easier than ever to send cargo to the Moon.
Show me the appropriated and allocated money for your mission – or drop the subject. Seriously. You are just going in circles based on Google searches. At one point GRC and LaRC were researching cold fusion. Does that mean we’re about to warp out to Mars?
Really?
Ok, forget the whole thing. What a waste of time
Exactly.
See: US looks to nuclear propulsion systems to achieve space ambitions : New Nuclear – World Nuclear News https://world-nuclear-news….
Includes interesting details. Sounds like the directive is an order for
several government agencies to make it happen. Like maybe from out of
their budgets. They do have a lot of money in those agencies so maybe that’s the plan.
“maybe” does not mean there is any money for this. Yet another unfunded mandate by the Trumpsters for NASA.
You don;t know that. It’s going to happen. Sorry you don’t like it.
And I suppose you know?
I have to agree. On nuclear tech in particular and this administration, beware byzantine politics at best, corruption more likely. Also look for the appropriation line item once published, especially to see if lots of existing work (of the thinking about it and R&D kind) just got retagged to make it appear the new directive is funded when nothing has changed (a classic trick).