In man's effort to conquer space, he has relied on the same type of propulsion that powers cars, lawn mowers, jet planes, Piper Cubs, battleships and motor boats: chemical propulsion. For a long time to come, burning a fuel and controlling its combustion energy will be the way to boost a rocket into space. This may do for manned missions to the moon. But scientists and engineers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Atomic Energy Commission regard this method already as antiquated and uneconomical when it comes to missions deep in space. Over the last decade, AEC and NASA have spent $1.2 billion in developing the basic technology of the nuclear rocket; another $1 billion is needed to complete the project. It looks like it's around the corner, says Sen. John D. Pastore (D-R.I.) of the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy. We've been working on it for years, but where is it? The nuclear rocket, called NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application), has gone through all its preliminary design and testing stages, and the time from now until 1978-the current project completion date-will be taken up with getting it ready for flight. The rocket is expected to be ready in time to power a shuttle for ferrying men and cargo from low earth orbit to the space stations in high earth (geosynchronous) or lunar orbit, or to send payloads deeper into space on such missions as a trip to Mars for either a manned landing, an unmanned fly-by oI an instrumented sampling mission. Because of the trip time and the heavy payloads involved, NERVA is not only ideally suited for such a job but is considered critical to its success (SN: 9/20, p. 233). In all of these missions, a chemically powered shuttle rocket (SN: 1/3, p. 22) would first place the NERVA and its companion vehicle in low earth orbit. Then the rocket would blast off for its mission. When done it would return to low earth orbit, waiting for another payload tc be launched and docked to it. The nuclear engine, like other future space systems, is being designed with reusability as a guiding principle. Simply stated, the aim of reusability is to make a nuclear rocket engine that can be used a number of times. The idea is motivated by economics. Just as it would be uneconomical to build a car that could only make one round tripwhich is in essence what the present Apollo rockets do-NASA and the AEC want a nuclear engine that can be flown on several round trips. In no case in the foreseeable future is it envisioned for earth liftoff. The main reason is that chemically propelled rockets are adequate for that job, and present nuclear rocket capability would not provide significant advantages. Another reason is radioactivity, which could escape in small amounts to the launch area or in large amounts if an accident occurred. A nuclear rocket can carry heavier payloads on less fuel than a chemical rocket because of the nuclear engine's greater propulsion efficiency, or specific impulse. This is the tiube period in which one pound of thrust is produced by one pound of fuel. For the best chemical rocket using liquid hydrogen and oxygen, the specific impulse is about 450 seconds; NERVA'S specific impulse is nearly double that, 825 seconds, which means that one pound of propellant producing the same thrust as one pound of chemical fuel will last almost twice as long. The saving in fuel can go into carrying extra payload. As it now stands, NERVA iS comKlein: It's still a breadboard engine.