macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) (03/28/89)
Henry Spencer posts: :Let us all be very cautious about this; while it sounds promising, there :have been major scientific false alarms before. (For example, there were :a number of high-temperature-superconductor false alarms before Bednorz :and Muller hit the jackpot -- this was one reason why their report was :slow to be accepted.) Caution is fine, but I'm too excited to keep still. Given the energy density figures from preliminary reports, how much of a scale-up will it take for a constant-boost ship capable of going to Proxima Centauri? Assume refueling there. Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm guilty of the cardinal sin of THINKING BIG again... I vote for calling it PROMETHEUS. Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/30/89)
In article <4441@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >... Given the energy >density figures from preliminary reports, how much of a scale-up >will it take for a constant-boost ship capable of going to Proxima >Centauri? Assume refueling there. Massive. Colossal. Nearly impossible. Fusion is only marginally viable as an interstellar propulsion system at all, never mind constant-boost! Effective interstellar propulsion requires antimatter rockets at least, and preferably systems like the Bussard ramjet or the laser sail that escape from some of the limitations of rockets. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (04/01/89)
In article <1989Mar29.210617.4334@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <4441@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >>... Given the energy >>density figures from preliminary reports, how much of a scale-up >>will it take for a constant-boost ship capable of going to Proxima >>Centauri? Assume refueling there. > >Massive. Colossal. Nearly impossible. Fusion is only marginally viable >as an interstellar propulsion system at all, never mind constant-boost! >Effective interstellar propulsion requires antimatter rockets at least, >and preferably systems like the Bussard ramjet or the laser sail that >escape from some of the limitations of rockets. However, _really_ cheap energy might make anitmatter propulsion far more feasible (though still expensive, it's an engineering problem - we can make and store anti-matter, just not well, since the need for such engineering has been small so far.) -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) (04/01/89)
I think that interstellar hydrogen exists. Add energy; there's your
deuterium for your palladium. Also, low temperatures exist (3 deg K).
There's the environment for energy storage in (even an old-type) superconductor.
Now we have energy storage and generation of ideal type. What's the catch?
(is it in making the deuterium - or is there enough out there already?).
=====
Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip
'twixt cup and lip