[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years

> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
> > Thank you, it means it is still only on paper, as I claimed.
> Huh?
Huh?  ;-)

> > Again, exactly my point.
> > So I do not understand why we seem to quarrel on these issues?  ;-)
> I give up, its not worth the effort...
> > > Are we both talking about Penning traps?
> > It seems so...
> No it doesn't, which is why I asked.
> > You are right, of course, with flash powder.
> > But consider the question of scale -
> > the difference between flash burn and blowing the hand off
> > is very tiny as compared with the difference
> > between blowing the hand off and propelling a starship...
> No its not, you missed the point.
Ehem, it certainly seems the time to stop this discussion,
as we seem to be in the state of total mutual misunderstanding...

> > Sorry, I stated it probably in too shortened a form.
> > I meant "not real working space drive".
> > For me, it can be called "real working space drive"
> > only after being tested in space.
> >
> > > I never claimed VASIMR was interstellar capable, quite the opposite, I
> > > specifically stated that it wasn't.
> > >
> > I admit that. But then it is not good as an example of technology
> > ready to be used for starships - and my discussion from the very
> > beginning was specifically about starhip technology.
> It is in fact  good example. Nobody on this list thinks that there is a
> workable stardrive already built and tested in space today and that was
> neither the original question nor the point of this discussion. The question
> was what is likely to be available in fifty years? ACMF, AIMSTAR and VASIMR
> all show orders of magnitude improvement over what was state of the art only
> a few years ago. As such they are perfect examples of what MAY be possible,
> which is where we started.
OK, granted. It is only the problem that for me the distance
between your examples (at the stage of their actual development, 
i.e., say, 70% on paper) and the viable stardrive designs is of 
some orders of magnitude larger than the distance
between today's space engines and these examples. 

> > Possibly they do.
> > But an attempt to do a more precise comparison
> > would be useful anyway. I think it can be done more
> > precisely than our gueses and speculations here.
> Its been done.
Thanks - nice to hear. Any references?

-- Zenon