|
" Flying reactors : "
James R. Downey, Anthony M. Forestier, David E. Miller.
| Document Type
|
:
|
BL
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
955706
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
b710076
|
| Main Entry
|
:
|
Downey, James R.
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
Flying reactors : : the political feasibility of nuclear power in space /\ James R. Downey, Anthony M. Forestier, David E. Miller.
|
| Publication Statement
|
:
|
Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala. :: Air University Press,, [2005]
|
| Series Statement
|
:
|
CADRE paper,; no. 22
|
| Page. NO
|
:
|
1 online resource (xi, 110 pages).
|
| ISBN
|
:
|
1585661384
|
|
|
:
|
: 9781585661381
|
| Notes
|
:
|
"April 2005."
|
|
|
:
|
At head of title: College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education, Air University.
|
|
|
:
|
Title from title screen (viewed March 18, 2009).
|
| Bibliographies/Indexes
|
:
|
Includes bibliographical references (pages 107-110).
|
| Contents
|
:
|
1. Wither space nuclear power? -- 2. Space nuclear power as trans-scientific public policy -- 3. Political permission, the contemporary dimensions -- 4. A trans-scientific political engagement strategy -- 5. Conclusions.
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
Lt Col Downey, USAFR; Wing Cdr Forestier, RAAF; and Lt Col David E. Miller, USAF, advocate a feasibility study for reactors in space and explore a deeper problem with widespread societal rejection concerning the theoretical employment of nuclear technology in space. They point first to the mission enabling advantages of nuclear reactors in space--factors like light weight, high power, long life, and potentially lower costs. They see that nuclear-powered spacecraft would serve long-range NASA missions as well as permit effective hyperspectral satellites that would have profound benefits for the Department of Defense. The limiting factors for nuclear power in space are a compelling mission requirement and broad acceptance in popular support. Many opponents either have general doubts about such an undertaking or perceive cataclysmic dangers. A failure of a space launch carrying nuclear systems would produce something on the order of a ₃dirty₄ nuclear bomb. Two things were clear to the authors. One, nuclear space developers must convince the public that they are capable of developing a safe and robust system. Two, because the political battle is primarily over perceived risks rather than empirically based understanding, employment of a values-focused decision strategy is necessary to convince the public and congressional leaders of the feasibility of a space nuclear program.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Nuclear energy-- Government policy.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Nuclear energy-- Public opinion.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Project SNAP.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Space vehicles-- Auxiliary power supply.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Space vehicles-- Nuclear power plants.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Nuclear energy-- Government policy.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Nuclear energy-- Public opinion.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Project SNAP.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Space vehicles-- Auxiliary power supply.
|
| Subject
|
:
|
Space vehicles-- Nuclear power plants.
|
| Dewey Classification
|
:
|
629.47/53
|
| LC Classification
|
:
|
TL1102.N8D68 2005eb
|
| Added Entry
|
:
|
Forestier, Anthony M.
|
|
|
:
|
Miller, David E.,1960-
|
| Added Entry
|
:
|
Air University (U.S.)., College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education.
|
|
|
:
|
Air University (U.S.)., Press.
|
| Parallel Title
|
:
|
Political feasibility of nuclear power in space
|
| |