Agreed with Gary that someone, somewhere, _really_ wants NASA to fly a major nuclear-powered mission. The destination not being as important as the nuclear aspect.

I don't fully get it either. THe military link is the obvious guess, but Gary's technical points are well taken. I could also buy pokenyaw's suggestion that it's about upping nuclear's profile in general; nukes did get a huge starring role in Cheney's original energy plan, though they don't talk about them as loudly now.

I guess the most optimistic interpretation would be that powers-that-be realize that ambitious missions, whether manned or robotic, are going to need the sort of power you get from nukes and thus they think it's important to develop the tech and break the "reactor in space" taboo.

The problem politically is that we won't be the only ones to notice this. I have no doubt that Congressional staffers and anti-nuclear groups are also aware that going nuclear rather than accomplishing a specific science goal is the whole point of Promethus. With Cassini, one could argue that the only possible way to go to Saturn with with RTGs, and the whole space science community would back that up. Some members of congress wouldn't care of course, but many would. When the argument is that we want a nuclear mission for the sake of a nuclear mission, it's a lot easier to attack it.