Feasibility study of a mission to Sedna – Nuclear propulsion and solar sailing

And tragically, nuclear propulsion at NASA has been aggressively singled out for the axe so humanity will be counting on more advanced countries to finish that research.

Was that the fossil fuel lobby's doing?

I always figured it was from Nuclear pearl-clutching and genuine fear about launch disasters. Especially after the various Apollo and shuttle disasters.

Though with how SpaceX has been blowing up rockets left and right, probably a good idea to not have nuclear materials launching until that's been resolved entirely.

Boca Chica beach is a mess now, I can only imagine what new Fallout installment we'd get if South Texas became irradiated from a failed launch.

> "probably a good idea to not have nuclear materials launching until that's been resolved entirely"

This isn't an issue at all: fission reactors aren't hazardous until after they first start up (go critical), which in the space electric-propulsion context means after (if) they've successfully launched, and are no longer in the vicinity of Earth.

At any rate, China is apparently[0] moving in this direction, regardless of what the US does.

[0] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3255889/star... ("Starship rival: Chinese scientists build prototype engine for nuclear-powered spaceship to Mars" (2024)) (mirror: https://archive.is/sGUJr )

>fission reactors aren't hazardous until after they first start up (go critical)

This is only true if the fission reactor's fuel isn't scattered over square kilometers after a launch failure.

It's not radioactive enough to matter.

Generally the sort of lightweight reactors NASA is looking at for space power use highly enriched uranium. U234 isn't particularly radioactive (it's lasted since the Earth was formed) and far less toxic than the hydrazine propellant our ships carry but it's a significant proliferation risk if it should all into the wrong hands.

But yeah, it's not dangerous like the P238 in a radioisotope thermal generator (RTG). To put off enough heat to power a spacecraft just through natural decay you need something ferociously radioactive.

SpaceX let rockets explode because they're using chemical propellants and the consequences of that are low provided no one gets hit by debris.

It's bizarre to suggest that the same strategy would be used with nuclear materials onboard. Developing the "can not fail" rocket is the sort of thing NASA does well, and kind of highlights how we've squandered them.

Actually spreading it out over a large area is much safer. What you don't want is a big hunk of highly enriched uranium landing somewhere. Not that it is very likely to harm anyone, but it becomes quite a nightmare to deal with it.

It makes sense for USA to not want to be the only ones pushing a solution to a challenge like this. America is the trailblazer in this domain and that's impressive enough.

Nuclear thermal was killed for pretty good reasons, one of which is the focus on nuclear-electric instead, which is better for this mission (along with a strong push by a refueled chemical stage in high Earth orbit).

Any loss of containment is not going to play well in the news media.

We saw the hyperreactivity over Fukushima. I even know some very educated people who should know better like not wanting to eat any seafood caught in the Pacific.