5 ms·

NASA is developing its own system: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170003378.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/2

NASA is developing its own system: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170003378.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/201700.... It's expected to follow a similar industry bidding process as the commercial crew launch etc. It's too bad the military had to get involved. Let's hope nuclear rockets become a commercial reality before they become a military tool. There's a company in Seattle called Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp that develops the fuel and core for the NASA mission: https://www.usnc-tech.com/products/ https://www.usnc-tech.com/products/. They also do a terrestrial reactor for off-grid remote regions that is set to be demonstrated in Canada in the next few years: https://www.usnc.com https://www.usnc.com.

umvi 6y ago
> Let's hope nuclear rockets become a commercial reality before they become a military tool I realize this is a very touchy subject, but military tools are not necessarily bad. GPS, for example, has been a great boon to society, despite being developed by and for military use. Even weapons are not necessarily bad just because their purpose is to kill people. If we didn't develop newer and more precise weapons, we would still be using B-52s to carpet bomb cities hoping to take out the half dozen targets we care about instead of precisely excising the one bridge with a PGM with minimal casualties. WMDs on the other hand... I don't see what good can come of those since we already have nuclear MAD.
- charwalker 6y ago
  One factor to consider is the US military wanted fissile material so lobbied for US nuclear plants to be made in a way that created weapons grade material, even if it needed refining. If the US had opted for alternative reactor types we may have had a boom of very safe, non weapons grade material creating reactors today. Instead, we have many nations with the technology to create weapons grade material as that was the reactor type they were sold or were trying to copy. The military has a goal, and it doesn't always line up with civilian interests. Unfortunately, their involvement could further drive dangerous variations of otherwise comparably safe and effective tools.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    It's not clear to me what the modern concern would be with nuclear powered military rockets. ICBMs don't have particularly high performance demands by modern rocket standards, and modern ICBMs are built with solid fuel boosters because they're simpler to deal with in every way. A nuclear powered ICBM doesn't make much sense; I don't think they'd make those and if they did, I don't think they'd be more alarming than the ICBMs which already exist. So what would the military even use such engines for? Maybe an X-37 successor, but why would that be particularly alarming?
  - throwaway2048 6y ago
    A minor nit, the us military created the nuclear industry to begin with, it did not lobby and co-opt it into building nuclear weapon material, that was a major goal from day one.
- nickik 6y ago
  Yeah look at how precisely and limited US Airforce handled Raqqa. The city doesn't look at all like Berlin after the war.

umvi 6y ago

> Let's hope nuclear rockets become a commercial reality before they become a military tool I realize this is a very touchy subject, but military tools are not necessarily bad. GPS, for example, has been a great boon to society, despite being developed by and for military use. Even weapons are not necessarily bad just because their purpose is to kill people. If we didn't develop newer and more precise weapons, we would still be using B-52s to carpet bomb cities hoping to take out the half dozen targets we care about instead of precisely excising the one bridge with a PGM with minimal casualties. WMDs on the other hand... I don't see what good can come of those since we already have nuclear MAD.

charwalker 6y ago
One factor to consider is the US military wanted fissile material so lobbied for US nuclear plants to be made in a way that created weapons grade material, even if it needed refining. If the US had opted for alternative reactor types we may have had a boom of very safe, non weapons grade material creating reactors today. Instead, we have many nations with the technology to create weapons grade material as that was the reactor type they were sold or were trying to copy. The military has a goal, and it doesn't always line up with civilian interests. Unfortunately, their involvement could further drive dangerous variations of otherwise comparably safe and effective tools.
- catalogia 6y ago
  It's not clear to me what the modern concern would be with nuclear powered military rockets. ICBMs don't have particularly high performance demands by modern rocket standards, and modern ICBMs are built with solid fuel boosters because they're simpler to deal with in every way. A nuclear powered ICBM doesn't make much sense; I don't think they'd make those and if they did, I don't think they'd be more alarming than the ICBMs which already exist. So what would the military even use such engines for? Maybe an X-37 successor, but why would that be particularly alarming?
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  A minor nit, the us military created the nuclear industry to begin with, it did not lobby and co-opt it into building nuclear weapon material, that was a major goal from day one.
nickik 6y ago
Yeah look at how precisely and limited US Airforce handled Raqqa. The city doesn't look at all like Berlin after the war.