 | | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core) —Ed T. Toton III
|
| | | (...) Cool, thanks for the interesting propulsion discussion. It's been a while since I've thought about these things, but it's always been an interest of mine. Personally I'd like to see some work being done on nuclear propulsion again as well. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core) —Dan Bobrovsky
|
| | | | | I'm gonna go out on a limb here... and speculate that Tobias was only trying to call attention to the overly complex technologies and names people give there "LEGO" creations... I think Tobias (and please correct me if I'm wrong Tobias) was (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core) —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | (...) Going further up on the tree...... (...) Hmm.. Well, when I was younger, I bought the Star Trek Technical Manual for the U.S.S. Enterprise, NCC1701D. I named a lot of my technology on that, I always liked the more technical names, as in Warp (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core) —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) I got that same book. It was okay, I guess, but I got really steamed when I found out that the manual didn't come with parts to build your own starship. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core) —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | Jeremy, (...) LOL! Yes, I was disappointed to. Some of the book made me want to vomit (Politics, etc.) but it was a neat book to see what the ST universe did. I still base a lot of my technology on it, simply because I like it. But I wish a (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | (...) Why fission? Just because it's easier for us right now to garner energy from fissionable heavy minerals rather than the fusion of light ones? The concepts for nuclear pulse propulsion for fission almost always have to be external to the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core) —Ed T. Toton III
|
| | | | (...) from (...) concepts (...) to (...) *inside* (...) momentum, (...) Why fission? It can be done -now-. The technology exists. :) I agree, in the long run fusion is much better, because of the theoretical effeciency, and the abundance of fuel (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Spacecraft propulsion (was: Ship Power Core) —Patrick Leahy
|
| | | | (...) Although fusion propulsion is far better than fission propulsion, there are still faster things. For example, light drives. They work by emitting light backward, as so to move foreward, an you know what the specific impulse in that case would (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
