Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea.

[KellySt@aol.com]

Good point about the politics.  Course you could simply flag it out of 
another country that doesn't worry about such things.  Or get a powerfull 
enough backer to ignor the Eco-nuts.

Certainly nuclear power is critical if we ae to do any deep space stuff.  
Even manmed flights to Mars would be far to risky and dificult without nukes. 
 So if you can't get nukes, you can't do space.




In a message dated 12/3/02 4:59:42 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes:

>All-
>
>
>
>Time for a reality check...
>
>
>
>If you are going to even think about nuclear powered rockets in any
>
>capacity, you might as well go for broke. DUMBO was the (potential)
>
>successor to NERVA and is easily buildable today. It has both sufficient
>ISP
>
>and sufficiently high thrust (it takes both) to make an SSTO design doable
>
>with LARGE payload capacities. No need for mid-orbit tug transfers, etc.
>
>
>
>Now for the reality part, if you have to fight tooth and nail just to get
>an
>
>RTG mission like Cassini off the ground, getting routine flights to orbit
>
>(or mid-orbit transfers) with a nuclear powered rocket are, frankly,
>
>impossible.
>
>
>
>Lots of scientists and engineers have run the numbers and the risk is low,
>
>the amount of contamination if the worst happens is low, in fact, this
>
>should be a no brainer. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear lobby has done
>a
>
>VERY good job of playing to the public's fear. So much so that I suspect
>
>that even if we were to come up with some sort of cold fusion
>
>non-radioactive engine, it STILL wouldn't be politically acceptable.
>
>
>
>Might as well wish for anti-gravity, at least the public thinks that is
>
>cool!
>
>
>
>Lee