9 Comments
User's avatar
J.K. Lundblad's avatar

The lack of detail released this far is killing me. I am glad, however, that NASA is pursuing more ambitious projects instead of that dumb Lunar Gateway.

If Issacman can succeed in getting NASA to stop funding political campaigns and actually refocused on transformative breakthroughs again, we are all in for a real treat.

Alastair Williams's avatar

Hopefully we will get more soon. It sounds like there is a real fight over funding coming, and I am sure the Gateway still has its supporters. But Isaacman seems genuinely enthusiastic about nuclear propulsion, and I would love to see a mission like this actually fly!

Andrew Sniderman 🕷️'s avatar

Hold up - The Three-Body Problem taught me that chucking nuclear bombs behind a spaceship was totally legit.

Alastair Williams's avatar

I mean, if you want to try it…

Dennis Bodzash's avatar

Very interesting concept. Even if this type of propulsion becomes viable, the problem of logistical support required for human missions to deep space remains unsolved.

Dan Elbert's avatar

How can launch the nuclear fuel to orbit can be made safer?

Alastair Williams's avatar

The main way is to launch over unpopulated areas, for example, by ascending over the ocean. If there is an accident then any radioactivity falls into the water, which isn't great but is better than spreading it over populated land. You still have a risk of explosion on or near the pad. There's not a lot that can be done there, other than making sure people are kept well away from any risk.

Gian's avatar

Does it require carrying kgs of xenon gas

Alastair Williams's avatar

It does, with the mass you need depending on how far you want to go. But electric propulsion is still far more efficient than chemical systems, so you carry less mass in xenon than you would have otherwise done in chemical fuels.