Subject:
|
Re: We're here to go
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:13:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
280 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
| |
Here’s my quandary: Don’t we still need to transport the fuel from Earth
to the Moon, and doesn’t it take fuel to get there? If so, is this really
more efficient? If so, it is sufficiently more efficient to justify a
multi-billion dollar construction project on the Moon?
|
Boost the fuel (and oxidizer) from earth?
Fuel maybe, oxidizer no.
The moon has among its most common elements: oxygen, silicon and aluminum
|
Speaking of which, here’s an interesting tidbit I’ve found. I don’t know about the accuracy of
the details, but it seemed sufficiently on-topic to bring it into the
discussion.
|
We don’t yet have fusion reactors, much less ones that use He3, so He3 doesn’t
yet help us much. Yet.
I’d rather stick to tech thats closer to proven (though I acknowledge
bootstrappable manufacturing facilities aren’t yet in commmon use I see them as
the product of many incremental advances that I expect to see soon rather than
the breakthrough that fusion entails making.)
Note that if you HAVE fusion, and can control it, you have much more powerful
drive capability (either reactive fusion products or very powerful ion drive)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) Speaking of which, (URL) here's> an interesting tidbit I've found. I don't know about the accuracy of the details, but it seemed sufficiently on-topic to bring it into the discussion. Dave! (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
