Become an NS/NSTI sponsor
...who we are
|
| BREAK THE
TABOO, INVEST IN A REAL SPACE PROGRAM |
| |
| Interview with Dr. James Dewar
author of, “THE NUCLEAR ROCKET” |
| |
|
PRELUDE:
At some future time one
of the more interesting debates on space policy this century will be a hold over from
the close of the last
century.
At hand will be the issue of progress in Human Space
Flight
(HSF). In particular since after the successful Apollo missions
essentially few meaningful advances in HSF of any substance were ever
made toward establishing a 'Soil Firma' human habitat. It was a
period of time in space history marred by continued refusal from leaders
to honestly come to terms and explain why they have neglected to consider
the use in space of nuclear propulsion. They instead opted to mute the
obvious physics a science that can be applied to relationary
behavioral aspects with progressive and prosperous sustainability based on
realistic approaches rather than offering myths of changing
water-into-wine driven by media and emotional political agendas.
In other words, the tired banter from indebted consumer based
societies rather than emerging savings and production-based societies. As we
know historically most of the advances we observe have been when our
American society was a production-based society.
|
I hope to develop with Mr. Dewar clearer reasons for
his explanations in his latest book. I will not attempt to justify nor
explain why Bush Senior and Junior both seem to create a chimera in the
nuclear rocket or the present president Obama's executive planning for a
more environmental and educational NASA rather than incorporating these
attributes into a proactive space agency. What I will try and do is ask
Mr. Dewar the underlining environment for why our leaders continue to
steer way from nuclear space science and technology.
It’s not enough to explain advances in nuclear
rocket development or aerospace activities have affected society and
industry these are legendary.
The problems we face presently are stagnation, mediocrity of
ethos and economic decline. Moral hazard in the
worlds banking system using 'favored' mathematical models created an
unbalanced scenario whose value judgment were never linked to unbiased
metrics. Prolonged economic stagnation serves no interests only the few
that profit from stimulus and too-big-to-fail regimes of diminished
returns sponsored by faulty government policy and adjunct corporatism of
cronyism and monetizing debt without a valued metal as a disciplined
metric. Historically the Apollo mission took place when the U.S. had a
currency linked to gold's value and as a robust manufacturer, with a
favorable ratio of exports-to-imports and its employed citizens had
savings accounts that grew. Quite the opposite exists today.
Here I borrow the worn phrase, ‘renewable sustainable
development’. Politically this phrase is frequently associated with the environmental industry and its supporters. Rarely is it
associated more broadly to include other industry and sciences that
offer energy services.
|
Space development is inherently tied to economic performance and its
recovery can only be arrived at when regulation is tempered with
assisting stability and the predictability of fair risk management and
when nations subscribe to the maxim: Free trade for those who trade
freely, frequently and fair.
Make no mistake, economic prosperity is interlinked with space
advancement and achievement for those that contribute as a true space
faring nation. |
In 1960 NASA prohibited the use of nuclear rockets to reach Low
Earth Orbit (LEO).
It prohibited ground launch or the launch in the
upper atmosphere about 100,000 ft. to send payloads to LEO. The ban
would only allow nuclear rocket engines to operate from LEO and go deep
into the solar system away from Earth where its ‘radioactivity’ could do
no harm. According to Mr. Dewar this decision has had devastating
consequences. He wants to repeal this prohibition and allow congress and
like-minded foreign legislators to create a privately funded,
prosperous, and democratic space program that lead to world peace and
the environmental goal of sustainable development.
He points to a
fraternal space program with countless new industries and jobs, billions
in private investment, a vastly expanded tax base and world peace. This
will
ultimately be managed by citizen investors and have a green planet as its
consequence.
One of Mr. Dewar’s rare criticisms of Project ROVER/NERVA is one
of egalitarian and equitable distribution for example, roughly
$1.4 billion
dollars produced tangible gains still reverberating in our economy, but it
didn’t directly benefit those who paid the taxes for it in the first
place. A few benefited whom the program directly employed. He advises
each taxpayer be guaranteed a return on investment on his or her tax
dollar. He urges it’s not enough for taxpayers to receive pictures
from the Hubble telescope or Mars Rovers; these are interesting and
exciting but not what he calls sufficient return. He specifically
qualifies each taxpayer in the world would receive a return on
investment. Another issue that is presently debated in mainstream press
is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Outer Space Treaty
(OST) Mr. Dewar sees them as ambiguous. He points to article IV of the
OST noting that plutonium would be kept in a safety matrix for storage.
How could this safety procedure be argued as weaponizing space in its
application? Another false logic is the international effort of disposal of High
Level Radioactive (HLR) waste and hazardous
chemicals in space for a one-way journey to solar burn-up disposal. How
could for example, a rogue militaristic country retrieve and process for
enrichment weapons grade plutonium in space? This would nearly be
impossible especially if the regime's mandate is to dispose of radioactive
waste in space.
 Critics also point to launch accidents at the launch pad
involving reactors and radioactive material as being catastrophic and
insurmountable in cost. Nothing could be further from the truth this
according to evidence from tests of ROVER/NERVA. In two instances
reactors exploded. One planned. Los Alamos Labs rigged a 1000MW reactor
to have a super fast runaway chain reactor blow-up in January 1965
control drums spun 100 times faster than normal in 0.8 sec (very
difficult to implement) an equivalent of 300 lbs black powder explosion
ensued. Military nuclear thermal explosions run much, much faster. The
other incident was the unplanned accident in June 1965 several months
after KIWI-TNT a real accident occurred when the Phoebus 1A ran out of
LH2 gas while at full power it overheated and ejected part of its core
out the nozzle. Los Alamos cordoned off the area, made a radiation map
then waited six weeks for the radioactivity to decay to manageable
levels. Then clean-up began. It took two months to complete at a cost of
$50,000 USD the exposure to the clean-up crew workers would be under the
limits for today’s nuclear industry workers.
Mr. Dewar explains, "To my knowledge, no ban on using nuclear
energy for propulsion or power in space for any purposes, commercial,
military or scientific exists. There is a ban in the United States (not
elsewhere) a taboo, on using nuclear propulsion or nuclear rockets to
reach LEO and that is what my second book is all about."
He is an active proponent of the nuclear rocket
and it requires a totally
different treaty that reflects its capabilities.
Bruce: Do you think the (OST) being a relic of past United
Nations edicts is simply a tool by which socialist countries hope to
control space enterprise again making government the over baring
regulator of space commerce?
Dewar: The Outer Space Treaty was negotiated by the U.S., Soviet Union
and other countries in the 1960's as a means of regulating or
prohibiting what countries could and could not do in space. It was a
good faith effort and is quite normal because when new technologies
appear on the scene, all governments seek to establish some rules of the
road to govern them. This is true whether they are democratic,
socialist, or dictatorial. Failure to do so can lead to chaos. Just
think, for a moment, if the airlines were not regulated; you would
probably have chaos and a lot of crashes.
In my second book on the nuclear rocket, I hold the Outer Space Treaty,
drafted in the 1960's, reflects the capabilities of chemical rockets. I
believe it would be misguided to apply all of its conditions to the much
greater capabilities of nuclear rockets. In fact, it would be wrong and
this brings to mind the naval treaties of the 1920's or 1930's (I'm not
sure which) that mandated that submarines had to have cannons on them.
Well, that was fine for diesel/electric subs that had to surface every
couple of days, but to apply that to nuclear submarines would have been
absurd.
Instead, I hold that a treaty governing how nuclear rockets are used in
space will be necessary, but that should be drafted only after
experience is gained. Fly some nuclear rockets first and while you are
flying have the diplomats in continual contact with the technologists to
get a good feel for where the technology is heading, for its potential.
A treaty should fit what it is trying to govern and not be too
restrictive or not restrictive enough.
You point to an example analogous to the nuclear rocket as epoch
changing and even disruptive in a good sense. You mentioned a statement
by Stan Ulam when he said the nuclear rocket was more revolutionary than
the H-bomb, which incidentally he co-developed.
You also level criticism that the space age has stagnated because
of the physics of heat & weight favoring a less efficient mode of space
propulsion as being expensive, elitist space programs that resemble
‘gold-plated nails rather than a bigger hammer for continued success in
human space flight.
You also completely reject current discussions that focus on
squeezing a few more Isp from chemical rocketry made to mission NASA’s
tentative lunar missions beginning by 2015.
Bruce: In your estimation what would it take to completely change
the American effort in Space?
Dewar: The short answer is to break the taboo against using nuclear
rockets to reach and return from LEO. That changes the economics of the
space program drastically, to where $100 per pound would become the
norm, but where the figure would likely be reduced even further as newer
nuclear engines are introduced. That alone changes its very nature as
now private citizens and private money can do things they want in space
whereas sticking with chemical propulsion means mainly a government
space program probably forever. The longer answer is that this country
and other countries that share in its fundamental values must enter into
a debate and dialogue over using nuclear rockets to reach and return
from LEO. This opens up space for the average citizen whereby he or she
not only can have personal access but also can profit from its enormous
potential. The consequences can be that profound and I articulate them
in my
second book. However, I offer them only in the sense of putting a
marker on the table, to use a bureaucratic phrase, to provoke discussion
and dialog. So in sum, I propose to enter into debate and dialogue on
breaking the taboo and on the new institutions that will be required to
manage and direct this effort. In other words, breaking the taboo means
a private sector space program will become much larger than a
government-run one.
Some people consider the normal lifecycle of a large corporation to
follow the following: They are born well meaning by technical people.
They flourish under sales and marketing. This attracts the finance
parasites who reduce the company to feebleness. Then lawyers take over
and you have the government bailouts (too big to fail) and leveraged
buyouts by interests who are well connected
to government much like the environmental services are in now. Case in point,
Gore backer car company gets a 529 million U.S. government loan and all
the nouveau-criminal ways to kill companies, without ever forcing them to
go bankrupt.
I would think that NucrocCorp or the Fraternal Space Regime (Space
Charter Authority) you reference would never permit this so-called
'lifecycle' for large corporations, because you would in effect spread
risk around to other companies and governments not to mention the added responsibility
in providing the financing for life sustaining support for
whole settlements and space colonies.
Bruce: Could my assessment of NucrocCorp or
the Fraternal Space Regime seem plausible?
Dewar: When I began my book I had no idea where I was going to end up. I
was working my way through the logic of the argument of breaking the
taboo. That's really the truth. So when I developed entities such as NucRocCorp it was to overcome hurdles or barriers. With NucRocCorp, it
was to overcome the political problem of NASA giving a sweetheart
contract to one or two companies, such as was done with Westinghouse and
Aerojet General in the 1960's, to develop a nuclear rocket engine. If it
takes payloads to space for $100 per pound that would privilege them
while putting the others out of business. That is an untenable position.
So I came up with the NucRocCorp concept to allow all rocket firms to
participate either on engine development or on actual missions or both.
Then I looked at the funding. The government cannot do it; it's broke.
So I came up with this NucRocCorp concept whereby the government
provides things as a contribution in kind, such as the uranium HEU fuel,
while the private sector provides the men, money and material to make it
happen. Then I looked at the enormous stimulus the Rover/NERVA had on
the economy, where some companies are now making billions off its
innovations, but I note the taxpayers who funded it in the first place
got little or nothing from their tax dollars. So I wanted to find a way
to let them profit personally, to get a return on their tax dollars, if
they so desire.
The upshot of this is the NucRocCorp, but view it only as a marker laid
on the table to provoke discussion and dialogue. I think it could lead
to a Fraternal Space Regime, as all technologies have political, social
and other consequences, but that depends on the leaders who take up the
argument.
I hope members of Nuclear Space read the book and begin a debate and
dialogue. I hope my book sparks new ideas and thoughts.
On The Space Show interview in September 2009 with
David Livingston you didn't seem too interested by the review of the
U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee (aka,
The Augustine Committee after its chairman Norm Augustine) released
it's report on Human Space Flight (HSF).
You characterize the current support as a waste of time and urged space
policy fans to instead focus on your book, "The Nuclear Rocket" to get a
glimpse of what a revitalized international space program would look
like with nuclear power as the mainstay for investment of the 3 billion
dollars
for HSF in a NASA budget for advancement.
Some see the HSF effort as unconvincing rationale in fact many house
committee members appeared to conclude there's no technical reason to
mission with Constellation and it was simply the reason to spend more
money on HSF. Apart from the influence Americans obtain with working
with the technical international community the single overriding issue
for most people is the propagation of human beings in the solar system.
Especially in light of the recent global collapse of the banking
system and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Plagued with
soaring deficits of several trillions of dollars what can people
possibly find
as productive and prosperous in attempts at establishing a lunar human
base? According to examples you point to in nuclear rocket engine
development in your book-it's quite a lot.
Bruce: What in your estimation is the most dire message you would send
to government (NASA), industry and the public in general on how to
revive technological prosperity and human advancement ? Or are we just
too late and NASA and the space program needs to collapse and start over
with new technological people and thinking?
Dewar: I do believe the space program is in dire
straits, as it has pushed chemical rocket propulsion as far as it can
go. Even with the Ares vehicles we will be seeing just marginal
improvements over the Saturn V. It's back to the past, particularly with
the J2X, a marginally improved J2. The chemical rocket space program is
stuck with solid rockets having specific impulses around 330 seconds and
liquids, namely LOX/LH2, at 450. As I say in my book, all that has been
done for the last fifty years is to gold plate the nail; the real need
is for a bigger hammer. And that bigger hammer is Nuclear Propulsion.
But it also needs to break the taboo against using nuclear rockets to
reach LEO and if it does, the economics of reaching LEO becomes a
sliding scale. It might start at $1000 per pound for a first generation
solid core, but steadily drop as more advanced systems are introduced.
So when a fourth, fifth, sixth generation systems are introduced, it
might be $100 per pound or even less. Here I must point out even the
humble solid core nuclear rocket, starting at 825 seconds of specific
impulse, can improve drastically. To hammer that point home in my book,
I base my analysis on the specifications I expect in a fourth generation
solid core and that is 1000 seconds. Does it stop there? No. I have an
appendix that sketches some of the things that can come in even later
generation systems. Moreover, at one point early in Rover/NERVA's
history, some were speculating the solid core could reach 1600 seconds
of specific impulse. That seems like a pipe dream now, but I was talking
to a knowledgeable expert several months ago on this very point and he
guessed maybe 1700 or 1800 seconds. That seems preposterous now, but as
you start research and development, you find things you never dreamed
of, so maybe this guess might prove realistic. I hope, I need not point
out to Nuclearspace.com that each increase in specific impulse (Isp)
means a corresponding increase in thrusting power and speed and that
changes the economics of moving payloads into and around space. But
that's just one aspect of the "tricks" one can use to upgrade even the
humble solid core. I think what my friend was thinking about when he
said, 1700-1800 seconds was somehow getting the hydrogen molecule to
disassociate into two atoms, and if you know the rocket equations state
the velocity of the gas in the nozzle chamber is proportionate to the
square root of its temperature over its molecular weight. If hydrogen
atoms come out the nozzle, that means the molecular weight is one, not
two. That's a tremendous improvement.
Now, do I want the space program to collapse and begin over again?
No, not at all.
All my book seeks to do is look at the consequences of breaking the
taboo against using nuclear rockets to reach LEO. So it's a book to
provoke discussion and dialogue within the space community and public on
a subject that has not been studied, with the exception of Bob Bussard's
two ASPEN concepts, since 1960. Can you launch a nuclear rocket and
return it to earth safely? I think the answer is definitely Yes, and it
will be safer than a chemical rocket. Those are bold words, but I
include an appendix that takes a look at the various steps in the launch
sequence to see if there are any show-stoppers. I don't see any. But I
would welcome a dialogue with Nuclearspace.com members here. Read the
book, hear the arguments, agree, disagree, propose, amend or whatever,
but get off chemical propulsion if you want to have a real space
program. It's done it's job, but now is the time for a rocket system for
the 21st century.
As a precondition of eligibility in the Fraternal Space Regime. You
advise congress to break
its taboo on the use of the nuclear rocket and institute the
Democratization of Space Act. You oppose it being open to all nations,
as is the case with the UN.
You require only democratic governments that adhere to the rule of law,
have free elections, preserve human rights, live peaceably in the
community of nations and keep in full compliance with international
obligations need apply.
Bruce: How would you manage peace and equal economic opportunity with
some of the nations that have less than stellar human rights record or
demonstrated military interventionist policy? You mention countries with
dictators like Libya, Cuba and North Korea, Somalia as unstable.
Authoritarian countries like China and Vietnam would be ineligible.
Countries like Rwanda and Sudan would be ineligible countries with
deplorable practices toward women like in southeastern Asia would be
ineligible.
What about countries that soft pedal military intervention in the
internal affairs of other nations feel it necessary to spread a
particular brand of democracy like the United States or Russia?
Countries like North Korea, Iran, India, Israel and Pakistan who have not
ratified NPT often refuse to sign or acknowledge the existence of their
domestic nuclear weapons. When evidence clearly exhibits they posses
nuclear weapons and the delivery systems it requires.
How fair and even handed will membership to the Fraternal Space Regime
be in these cases?
Dewar: This question tracks part of the title to my
book: Making Our Planet Green, Peaceful and Prosperous.
Obviously, the question is about the Peace part. To talk about this I
must go to the source, the origin of this idea, and that lies with Leo
Szilard in 1932 who said (paraphrased), 'Nuclear rockets would bring
peace to earth.' Many today may not know who Szilard was, but back then
he was probably second to Albert Einstein in terms of his importance. If
not second, at least in the top ten of the brightest, smartest people of
the first half of the twentieth century. On the face of it, this claim
seems ludicrous, yet Szilard had a habit of being quite prophetic and
quite right. In 1934 he foretold the industrial uses of atomic energy,
something quite routine today. In 1939 he wrote the letter that Einstein
signed that led to the atomic bomb effort in WWII. In other words, he
foresaw the bomb. So he has a pretty good track record. His comment
appears to have motivated other very bright people such as Stan Ulam,
the co-inventor of the H-bomb. It also may have influenced Freeman
Dyson. These are very intelligent people and for them to say something
like this means, to my way of thinking, that they have an insight that
most do not. Yet for some reason none have developed their idea in any
way to say how it could be done.
That's what I've done in my book, to show how nuclear rockets might
bring about world peace. It's "a" vision of how it might happen and here
I stress the indefinite article "a." It is not "the" vision, and I hope
it provokes debate and dialogue and gets the space community off its
"mission-itis," the ever-prevalent belief a mission must exist before a
nuclear rocket can be developed. This is simply a carry-over from the
ultra expensive chemically propelled space program.
So, what I argue for in my book is starting with a small engine first
and use it to develop the infrastructures needed to effectively use it.
And since I project the costs of reaching LEO would be $100 per pound by
the time of a fourth generation system, I see that this in effect
democratizes the space program, opening it up to the common man. So, I
said, 'How can this happen?' and I came up with the concept of a
one-time "free launch" whereby NASA would launch payloads free of charge
to anyone who wanted to build it at his or her expense. I expect a
fourth generation nuclear rocket could launch a payload to LEO of 17,000
pounds and so, each person might be given 500 pounds of payload. That's
34 private citizens who could have a payload launched, but it could be
more or could be less, that's for debate to decide. As it is now, only
government scientists or well-endowed companies can launch payloads into
space. NASA did have a highly popular program called "Hitchhiker" in
which 200 pound canisters would be taken aboard the space shuttle filled
with experiments from students or private citizens. But that was
cancelled. Imagine what the interest would be like for a "free launch"
program by the private sector. I hold it would really stimulate interest
in space.
Now, when you build a small engine you are learning how to build really
big ones. Let me get technical for a moment.
In Rover/NERVA, the typical core size was 35 inches wide by 52 inches
long, with a very large reactor, the Phoebus 2A, at 55x52 inches and a
very small engine, the Pewee, at 20x52 inches. Each of these had
different power levels, the super large one at 5000MW, the small one at
500MW and the others at 1000-1500MW. So you have many design choices as
you scale up from a small engine, perhaps in 5 inch increments: 25, 30,
35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 inch core diameters. These many design choices
mean you could launch increasingly larger payloads to LEO. Perhaps a
decade or so after the program was restarted you might have super heavy
lifters taking 500 tons or more to LEO per launch. That might seem
absurd now, but bear in mind Rocketdyne did a study in 1968 that said,
by taking a first generation NERVA I engine and using it as the third
stage of the Saturn V you could double the lift capability to LEO, from
250,000 pounds for the all-chemical Saturn V to 500,000 pounds.
So now, in principle, we could have a super heavy lifting capability.
How could we use it effectively?
Here it didn't take me long to figure out that this could mean the birth
of a competitive, private sector space station industry doing all sorts
of things in space, from manufacturing to tourism and hotels. Obviously,
that is not something government should be involved in, as this implies
making a profit and, I submit, a very healthy profit. So now I started
to think how could I structure this to allow the average citizen to
participate in and profit from such endeavors?
Well, I came up with a private sector-government corporation that I
call, 'NucRocCorp' in which the government provides the HEU (Highly
Enriched Uranium) land and facilities as a contribution in kind while
the private sector and citizen taxpayers provide the money to make it
happen. NucRocCorp will be profit driven and you can read the argument,
I think it would be highly profitable.
So now, I said, 'How can I bring in Szilard's world peace idea?' Here I
came up with a way for citizens around the world to participate and
profit. I call it the "Space Charter Authority" that would grant
charters to private sector entities to build "For-profit Space Stations"
in LEO. National governments would not do it nor would the UN, at least
that's my argument. These space stations have to be funded by the
private sector and must be free to make business decisions without
having to go to the government every year for funding or approvals. In
the private sector time-is-money and that will be true in space as well
as on earth.
Anyhow, I've not been able to do full justice to my ideas here, but this
is sort of a flavor of them. I develop in greater detail in my book how
all this can be structured to lead to world peace. Nuclearspace members
can read it in my book and then hopefully, a vigorous debate will take
place on this website.
|
|
Other books by Dr. Dewar |
|
|
|