Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote:

In article <breiei$1uhe$1@pencil.math.missouri.edu>, Dave Muller says...

..  .

*NASA HIRES PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM TO HELP BLUNT OPPOSITION TO NUCLEAR ROCKET*

December 12, 2003

Fearing another public relations defeat like they got during the 1997 Cassini campaign, NASA has hired a public relations outfit to gather information from potential critics of their latest space nuclear project.  */Project Prometheus/*, the nuclear rocket, is now being developed under the Bush /*Nuclear Systems Initiative*/ that will spend $3 billion during the next five years to expand the launching of nuclear power into space.

This time NASA wants to be prepared.  While Project Prometheus is just now in the development stage, NASA has retained /*The Keystone Center*/, based in Colorado, to gather information about potential critics so they can effectively combat any expected opposition.

[Snip]

Just today in the mail, I received a letter from The Keystone Center once again asking me to submit to an interview.  In the letter they say that they'd like to "converse with you about NASA's Project Prometheus Nuclear Systems Program......We are undertaking a round of meetings and structured interviews with some 25 people, many of whom are long-standing skeptics or critics of NASA.  Our sole focus is to understand what public involvement strategies, above and beyond the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), might be appropriate for NASA as they begin to develop Project Prometheus."

I find this interesting.  We have an alternate power and energy approach  that will be environmentally clean (both in chemical and nuclear waste products as well as thermal pollution).  Our Plasmak(tm) technology is compact, rugged, has a low mass to power ratio and can be developed relatively fast.  It is an advanced aneutronic power generator and uses ash (He4) as reaction mass.  We have US and world patents.

So why is this a problem for NASA?  They simply don't support outside advanced concepts, and instead may rely on a very dirty form of fission.  Our concept promises a Carnot efficiency of 90-95% while the "prometheus" fission project will be lucky if it can generate an efficiency of 15%. The neutrons from the fission beast will travel through space unabated.  How is it that these chaps have the audacity to use the name prometheus (fore thinker).  The name of our corporation is Prometheus II, Ltd.  We are not pleased with any of this NASA effort.

>> .. . to ask us to help them create a plan to

circumvent our very opposition is the height of arrogance.

I agree.  My suggestion is to use our concept as an example of a far better technology that can be developed and which is far superior in every way to this throw-back fission monstrosity.

For a short view graph see:
http://www.prometheus2.net/PLASMAK_SKUNKWORKS_2002_PRESENTATION.pdf

Otherwise, see the Prometheus II, Ltd. web site as found in the "sig" below.

Thanks and keep up the good work.

Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 729-0517
(352) 871-7554 (Cell phone)
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com <mailto:globalnet@mindspring.com>

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/