Prometheus project all but dead

gunsandrockets · Nov 7, 2005

http://www.space.com/news/051103_nasa_griffin.html "The Project Prometheus nuclear power and propulsion program, once a major initiative, has been reduced to a low-level research effort. Its 2005 budget of $430 million shrinks to $100 million in 2006, all but $10 million of which will be used to pay closeout costs on canceled contracts" I know the problems with the budget have more to do with the Space Shuttle than with the ESAS architecture, but if NASA wasn't so wedded to the white elephant concept of developing a Heavy Lift Vehicle then nuclear propulsion development wouldn't be discarded so thoughtlessly. I'm also shocked at the develpment cost of the CEV. NASA has a budget of 1.9 billion next year for the CEV. The total development cost of the CEV is projected at 5 billion dollars. 5 billion for a glorified Apollo capsule and service module? That's nuts! The Russians claim they can develop the Kliper for only a billion dollars, and it's a much more sophisticated lifting-body design than the NASA semi-ballistic capsule CEV. t/Space claims they can develop both the CXV capsule spacecraft and it's launch vehicle for only 400 million dollars. Now the claims of the Russians and t/Space are no doubt overly optimistic, but it shouldn't take 5 billion dollars to re-create the supposedly 'simple and inexpensive' design of the Apollo.

spacefire · Nov 7, 2005

Thank you NASA and the US Government for stopping research into the most promising technology for long-range space exploration and colonization of the Solar System and instead giving us Apollo vomited in the same package. Everyone, please join me in hearty congratulations to the 'illuminated' minds that run this country's space program <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

nacnud · Nov 7, 2005

NASA isn't giving up on nuclear power or propulsion. It just can't afford to do it now. Check out the threads on Griffins Congressional hearing. Basically NASA has to priorities it's limited budget and any technological research that is not directly needed for the CEV and VSE has to be postponed or stopped. The VSE needs surface nuclear power for long duration Moon missions and/or a Moon base but before you can have a surface nuclear power station you need a way of getting it to the moon first. This is what the money is needed for now. Unfortunately continuing Prometheus at the moment would be like buying a caravan before you have a car to pull it with. I wish NASA had more money but they don't, however I think this kind of realistic management of programs will go a long way in eventually getting NASA the money they should have. PS How would you launch Prometheus or JIMO without a HLV?

spacefire · Nov 7, 2005

let's be real here....the HLV, despite using 'proven' technology, will cost more than anything NASA has ever attempted to develop, including the Saturn V rocket. The HLV will not be the magic affordable heavy launcher that advocates of space exploration always wanted, and, if ever developed, which I doubt, it will be used solely for manned missions to the Moon because if NASA cannot afford to continue research on the Prometheus now, they sure as hell will not afford to do it while a new manned space program is underway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

starfhury · Nov 7, 2005

I agree. Cancelling Promethius is a disaster for the near future. I can't believe O'Keefe was smart enough to preceive the abosoltue neccessity of Promethius while Griffin supposedly a very smart space advocate can not. This basically means no one is going to Mars before 2030. Every one knows the proposed CEV can't make it to Mars. Especially with out a super fast means of getting to Mars. Not only was Promethius cancelled, but so was VASMIR. Unless some one has some secret plans up their sleeves Mars is out for the forseeable future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacefire · Nov 7, 2005

of course it is, we're going to the Moon...at least until the next election

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

starfhury · Nov 7, 2005

What I'm objecting to is the total waste of time ESAS is turning out to be. It's being sold as a means of eventually getting to Mars, but i think it's just a lie. A whole new program is need to get to Mars and the research is not getting done. Another objection of have is the illogical of what they are trying to do. Maybe it's not Griffin, and he's just doing the best with what Bush wanted. I just don't see the need to rush of to the moon again for exploratory reasons when we should be building beach heads in LEO as stepping stones to every where else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dragon04 · Nov 7, 2005

It's a shame that the long term future is being mortgaged for the present and near future, but that's an old song at NASA that we all know the words to. At this point, I think NASA should just take a deep breath, fund and finish what missions they wan to try to fly with the shuttles and not spend another manned spaceflight dollar until they decide what they want to be when they grow up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

radarredux · Nov 7, 2005

> A whole new program is need to get to Mars and the research is not getting done./i> What RESEARCH would that be? One of the two critical points of Zubrin's "The Case for Mars" is that there isn't any major new technology that needs to be developed to begin the settlement of Mars. (The other critical point is stressing ISRU) Engineering and development needs to be done (e.g., developing a Methane/LOX engine, verifying the industrial processes Zubrin lays out to exploit ISRU, etc.), but there are no major unknowns. Much of Prometheus's value was for exploring the outer planets.

spacefire · Nov 7, 2005

if you could get to Mars faster, wouldn't you want to? A 6 months trip just one way is no fun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

n_kitson · Nov 7, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />of course it is, we're going to the Moon...at least until the next election <hr /></blockquote> So true. Project Prometheus was one of the BIG announcements made by the President before his second election. Not surprisingly it faded after the election. Like many, I expect that the whole VSE will fade soon, and a new president will have a different grand plan in 2011, when he or she is up for re-election.

josh_simonson · Nov 7, 2005

It doesn't matter so much how long it takes to get to mars because you've got to wait for the next rendevous to return anyway. Nuclear power systems for space applications will have to be developed at some point, and at least prometheus got us to the point where it became accepted and talked about without a public outcry. This was my favorite program though, so I'm sadder than most to see it go.

spacefire · Nov 7, 2005

not if you had a better engine to play with,.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

radarredux · Nov 7, 2005

> if you could get to Mars faster, wouldn't you want to?/i> Sure, I would WANT to, but I wouldn't NEED to. By the way, the June 2005 issue of Scientific American had an article on suspended animation. In one section they talked about using Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) to put mice into an artifical hibernation. Perhaps by 2020 artificial hibernation will be perfected in humans and could be used in a journey to Mars. /> A 6 months trip just one way is no fun./i> Just think of it as the typical ISS mission.

radarredux · Nov 7, 2005

> at least prometheus got us to the point where it became accepted and talked about without a public outcry./i> Yeah, I remember all the protests when Cassini launched. /> This was my favorite program though, so I'm sadder than most to see it go./i> I really looked forward to some excellent Prometheus-powered missions to the Moons of Jupiter and Saturn. However, I think those missions could be reconstituted relatively quickly in the future. Within the inner planets, Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) is still very viable, and as we mature that technology a big chunk of it could be transferred to NEP. Meanwhile the Navy and DOE will probably continue to develop various technologies for nuclear power. Perhaps by 2015-2020 the technologies from these two efforts can be brought together for a Prometheus II program.

spacefire · Nov 7, 2005

> A 6 months trip just one way is no fun. Just think of it as the typical ISS mission. the radiation levels encountered by the crew on a 6 mo mission to Mars would be much greater because the Earth's magnetosphere still protects the ISS crew somewhat from Gamma radiation <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

kdavis007 · Nov 7, 2005

Which I'm sure there will be a way to protect the astronauts from the radiation on the way to Mars....

starfhury · Nov 8, 2005

Yes. We can do it with none existent technology from all the proposals going around. No one has proven insitu for Moon Mars or anything yet. My opinion is that we can do the things we need better and faster using better tools --better technology. By putting the money into a technology that has great future potential we can spend funds for a better return. Yes, the piston engine in the airplain was great and still server admirable in the industry, but it can not provide the same advances allowed the jet engine. Promethius and it's follow on programs when developed will be able to get us to Moon, Mars and beyond faster and more efficiently than the proposed ESAS program. The longer we take to start development the more expensive and easier it becomes to push off to some distant time in the future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

radarredux · Nov 8, 2005

> No one has proven insitu for Moon Mars or anything yet./i> If by "proven" you mean having actually done it, that is true, but many of the elements identified by Zubrin are clearly viable. Interestingly, ISRU will probably be much easier on Mars than the Moon because of the large number of chemical compounds readily available. Confidence in Lunar ISRU is lower. /> By putting the money into a technology that has great future potential we can spend funds for a better return./i> At some point you need to stop developing technology and start using the technology. Someone needs to determine what that balance is. In this case, the White House has effectively determined the balance by setting a time goals. /> Yes, the piston engine in the airplain was great and still server admirable in the industry, but it can not provide the same advances allowed the jet engine./i> Although, if we would have decided that we shouldn't fly prop engines and skip to jet engines, we may have never flown. Propeller-driven industry helped build the funding, industrial base, knowledge base, and general support that allowed the transition to the jet age. /> Promethius and it's follow on programs when developed will be able to get us to Moon/i> How would Prometheus without ESAS get us to the Moon faster? I don't think Prometheus is even feasible without an HLV (the biggest effort in ESAS). And what part of Prometheus would you use for Lunar exploration?

nacnud · Nov 8, 2005

One thing that has just struck me is how much money was actually spent on Prometheus. I think it was about $500M, roughly what t/Space want for the CXV. Now I know that the t/Space is probably over hyped but its just interesting to see what else could be done. Oh, and I think Griffin mentioned at the congressional hearing that he has about $500M for commercial ISS re-supply between now and 2010. Probably coincidence but it does raise an interesting question. Which would be more important in the short term: Prometheus or commercial ISS re-supply?

spacefire · Nov 8, 2005

the CVX does not use new technology, other than maybe the vertical air launch. OTOH, Prometheus is, in concept, years ahead of anything flying in space today. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

Swampcat · Nov 8, 2005

"Probably coincidence but it does raise an interesting question. Which would be more important in the short term: Prometheus or commercial ISS re-supply?" Yes, this is my take on what's going on, as you also mentioned in an earlier post. When I first read about all those programs getting cancelled (deferred?) I was concerned that NASA was making a big mistake. I've come to look at it differently. NASA has a limitied budget (and possibly getting more limited), but has its hands in a wide variety of expensive projects that may or may not pan out. If I had the money, I would probably be throwing it around in a large number of projects too, but I don't. I have to determine what is most fruitful and concentrate my resources in a few projects that get me where I want to be. Obviously, that means not getting something I want, but that's just the way it is. Hopefully, that's what's happening here. Money is tight, so concentrate funds where it will do the most good and defer other projects until they are needed. The technology that Prometheus will provide is, IMO, necessary for the future of human spaceflight. But will it be needed in the next 10 years? Probably not. Perhaps NASA feels that they can defer Prometheus until after the transportation infrastructure is in place and then ramp up development over a short period of time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

Prometheus project all but dead

gunsandrockets

Guest

spacefire

Guest

nacnud

Guest

spacefire

Guest

starfhury

Guest

spacefire

Guest

starfhury

Guest

dragon04

Guest

radarredux

Guest

spacefire

Guest

n_kitson

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

spacefire

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

spacefire

Guest

kdavis007

Guest

starfhury

Guest

radarredux

Guest

nacnud

Guest

spacefire

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page