Re: Re: Summary

[rddesign@wolfenet.com (Ric & Denisse Hedman)]

As you all know I haven't put more than two cents worth into this
discussion, mainly because most of it is far above my head. But....
What have we found out about our different propulsion systems? ( I think we
have found out we don't really have one)
How are we going to stop this bugger? (Short of carrying all our reaction
mass/fuel, we probably can't)
Can we build any of these systems? ( Probably a few but not to reach the
speeds we want)
I think you all are really trying very hard to come up with a means to move
and stop this thing. I hope all of you can show me, (in laymans trems) that
I am wrong on all these points.

Next>>>> Once we come up with something we can all agree on.... then what???

Where do we go from there??

Ric

>>> 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.
>
>Oh, your right I didn't understand. 
> 
>>> ] 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
>
>Missed that too.  Opps.
>
>Ok, no disagreements then.
>
>Kelly
>
>