Talk:Project Prometheus

message: 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)
thread_title: Based on NASA webpage 

message: 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)
thread_title: Revamping

message: 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)
thread_title:  Project funding reduced/Other propulsion technologies 

message: 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:
Copyright 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. http://www.mcgrawhill.com
All Rights Reserved 
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)
thread_title:  Source for budget cuts - 2006 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article is confused 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  What was achieved - why was it cancelled 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Need to add