[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Summary
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