Re: No Nukes in Space

"ramiga" <gnossis1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1138362617.117616.268320
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I prefer that you use antimatter as was discussed with the DS1 project.

That technology will not be practical without a massive
source of power to generate, very inefficiently, the
antimatter. That source will certainly have to be
conventional nuclear fission for the first few decades.

> Please, no nukes in space.
>
> What are your thoughts?

I want LOTS more nuclear energy, everywhere. Sure
beats burning coal.

--Damon, having fission chips for lunch
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Energy and momentum conservation in space propulsion
    ... Would the result you derived above indicate that the power ... As we've already discussed, the amount of kinetic energy required to accelerate something is frame dependent, so this means that the energy-momentum converter has some bizarre properties. ... the biggest possible bang upon the surface of some planet, ... an amount of antimatter, a device to convert this antimatter to useful ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • How can I explain physics to the science illiterate?
    ... The topic on one forum turned to the hydrogen economy ... and antimatter power. ... hydrogen wells nor antimatter mines. ... teaching the second law of thermodynamics in school anymore. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: No Nukes in Space
    ... >> I prefer that you use antimatter as was discussed with the DS1 project. ... > That technology will not be practical without a massive ... I could envisage giant solar power sats orbiting in mercury orbit, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: New and Improved Antimatter Spaceship for Mars Missions
    ... This begs the question - If enough antimatter can be made to power a trip to ... mars for $250M, then how much antimatter has already been made to power city ... killer weapons that fit in a watch??? ...
    (sci.space.policy)