Talk:Project Prometheus

Based on NASA webpage[edit]

Since this was originally a direct paste of a NASA page, this article probably needs a lot of revamping. --NeuronExMachina 08:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revamping[edit]

I've rewritten the main article since the original was copied almost verbatim from the official NASA page. --Loren 05:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Project funding reduced/Other propulsion technologies[edit]

This needs to include the rationale for the project's funding being cut and its goals scaled back. What is intended to replace it for future outer solar-system missions? --70.142.40.34 14:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source for budget cuts - 2006[edit]

I found a source on LexisNexis. I'd copy the url but I think you have to be logged in or something at your college. Here's the article:

Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

August 7, 2006 Monday

SECTION: News; Pg. 4 Vol. 219 No. 24

LENGTH: 258 words

HEADLINE: NASA still eyeing space nuclear power

BYLINE: Jefferson Morris

BODY:

NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate is trying to shape a low-cost space nuclear power research program to ensure that the technology will be ready when needed for future long-duration explorations of the moon, Mars and elsewhere.

Following the deferment of the Prometheus space nuclear power and propulsion effort last year, there has been "almost no funding" available for nuclear research at NASA, Associate Administrator for Exploration Scott Horowitz said during the Mars Society's annual conference in Washington Aug. 4.

Nonetheless, "if you're going to Mars, solar power just isn't going to hack it," Horowitz said. "So we're going to need better power. At a minimum, we've got to solve the surface power problem... So what we're trying to do is find out, at a minimum, what we can do to keep the basic trades and the basic research alive in the nuclear regime, because we're going to need it someday."

NASA had been pursuing both space nuclear power and propulsion technology more vigorously under Prometheus, but that effort was deferred last year and the funding diverted to speed development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and Ares 1 Crew Launch Vehicle (DAILY, Nov. 7, 2005).

In the meantime, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin contends that there is "no greater advocate" of space nuclear power and propulsion in the U.S. government than himself, but the money just isn't there right now to pursue technology like nuclear-thermal rockets, which the U.S. abandoned in 1973.

- Jefferson Morris (jeff_morris@aviationweek.com)

LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2006

130.215.24.205 17:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC) John S.[reply]

Article is confused[edit]

There is a serious flaw in this article, as its authors are confusing power source (for systems operaton) with propulsion. Please review and clearly distinguish both. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A cash cow - denied[edit]

Intentionally designed to be unlikely to be continued until completion. A nine year flight? There was no reason to use nuclear propulsion over chemical propulsion. A sham designed to take initial money and then get contract cancelation bonuses at the end. This program is further evidence of the mismanagement of NASA. They have little interest in missions, rather it's become a means of enriching certain corporate interests and catering to pet projects. Why actually do real exploration when they can just fund projects that can get canceled? Rinse, repeat. Why send humans to mars in the next decade using private industry and prize money with methods we have now when we can dream about using inferior technologies now for missions that will never get launched in the hopes of some day achieving 3000W/kg nuclear rockets to pluto! There was zero chance this wouldn't have been canceled. After watching the CSPAN clip, I did a search... and here we see indeed it was canceled. Laughable. Start it at 21.50 on this video http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FlightPr 71.65.115.103 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sir, but you are talking complete non-sense.

The mission profile is physically impossible to achieve with chemical rockets. Due to the jumping into and outo of multiple moon orbits, only ion-engines are capable to deliver the necessary ISP. Due to the moons being situated around Jupiter, PV cells are insufficient to deliver the necessary power to the ion-engines. The only means of delivering 200kW of electricity (this is the equivalent of the entire ISS station!!) is with nuclear power. 153.100.131.12 (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. 71.65,115.103 is a known shill hired by Boeing to promote their systems on Wikipedia. He is now blocked due to vandalizing Benito Mussolini’s Wikipedia page with an anti-Semitic poem which was removed and him shadowbanned. - 97.46.73.86 (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was achieved - why was it cancelled[edit]

Article does not say why it was cancelled or what if anything it achieved. - Rod57 (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source for budget cuts comment above implies that the funds were switched to Constellation (Orion & Ares) - for political reasons ? So where were the Prometheus funds being spent ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Final Report, it seems it was focused on spacecraft design (the Naval reactors group to do the reactor design), and only completed phase A (requirements definition) before the funding was pulled. - Rod57 (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need to add[edit]

Article could benefit from :

what power levels, specific power etc was it hoping to achieve ?
- PFR says "200 kW of electrical power" for 10 years, and another 10 yrs at reduced power.
what other goals did the project have ?
- spacecraft and mission design
was it planning to test on Earth, or only in space (in vacuum, in low gravity) ?
what interim results did the project produce ?
how did the project goals change over time ?
- cancelled too early for major changes, but from May 2005 effort was put into the Fission Surface Power Study.
what was the reaction to the planned and actual cancellation ?
what legacy did the project leave ?
compare with Kilopower/KRUSTY ?
- Rod57 (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]