Re: Re: Summary

[Kevin C Houston <hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu>]

On Thu, 15 Feb 1996 KellySt@aol.com wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 14 Feb 1996 KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>
> ] Kevin Houston Wrote:
> 
> ] Okay, So i see three  semi-respectable drive systems.  
> ] each of which needs some more work to be productive, 
> ] each of which requires some technology that we don't 
> ] have yet, or we can't agree when we might have.
> 
> 1) The fusion RAIR: 
> 
> Pros: we are closer to fusion than to the next two ideas.  Fairly low energy.
> would have military applications (i.e. the government would fund it) 
> moderate heat load/low rad loaad depending on fuel cycle
> 
> Cons (basic to the design, for which no reasonable tech solution exits)
> Slower.  even if it gets up to .75 C, will add many years to a flight. 
> and the design only calls for .5 C.  requires many hundred tons of 
> relatively rare atoms ( i.e. Li, He, Be,) Or a better Fusion pathway that 
> uses Hydrogen.  
> 
> Tech Limitations:  a "Fuel Launcher" (whatever that is) capable of 
> keeping a tight beam of fusion fuel pellets (or gas) on course for .5 to 
> 1 Light-years.  Must be re-built in target sytem. Must be automated.
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Good summary, but what do you mean Military applications?  What the hell
> would the military do with big fixed Electromagnetic cannon?  Its just a
> scaled up version of what they are building now!
>

No, you mis-understood, I meant that the military would like to have 
fusion technology to power subs and space-vessels.  The fuel launcher is 
capable of being built with today's tech.
 
> ] 2) the MARS: (SOL > {maser sail} > mid-way point > {Lineac drive} > TC)
> 
> ] maser sail needed for return is easier to repair than fuel 
> ] launcher.
> 
> But is the maser array easier to repair then a fuel launcher?

No, and I said as much in my message.  I think a fuel launcher would be 
easier to build than a solar array/maser array