Talk:Project Prometheus

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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]