[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:

>> >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
>not colonies.)

Agreed, but then their won't be any remote colonies.

>BTW, what happened to your spelling?  It has recently gotten MUCH

I'm sorry, it was an accident, really!  ;)