[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]
In a message dated 3/20/00 4:21:26 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes:
>Kelly,
>
>> >Space has almost no need for fusion power expect for
>> spacecraft propulsion.
>> >Solar power is easier, freely available and far cheaper.
>>
>> Solar power is only avalible in the inner solar system. Even
>> at Mars its
>> chancy. You want to go past that you need nukes or fusion,
>> and nukes are a
>> political no-no.
>
>I don't have the figures to back this up, but I would think even at the
>orbit of Mars there would still be enough solar radiation for solar power,
>perhaps not much beyond that.
I remember it was geting to be a serious problem with the recent Mars probes.
Thats why the Rovers and such died so rapidly. The old nuclear Mars probes
kept going for years. The new ones only lasted a couple weeks.
>As far as the political realities of fission
>versus fusion, I think a space based civilization might have a litter
>different take on the realities than us ground pounders who are worried
>about contaminating our biosphere - which is not an issue there.
>Fissionables and fusionables are both in good supply in the asteroids...
Irrelavent. It'll be most of a century before we get a "space based
civilizatoin", and we won't be abl;e to build it without high power systems
like fusin or fision.
>> To a remote colony where they will be highly dependant on
>> Earth sent suplies?!
>
>There won't BE any remote colonies dependent upon Earth for resupply. If
>they aren't self sufficient, they will die. (Science and research bases
>are
>not colonies.)
Agreed, but then their won't be any remote colonies.
>BTW, what happened to your spelling? It has recently gotten MUCH
>better...<G>
I'm sorry, it was an accident, really! ;)
>
>Lee
Kelly