Re: Running multiple HET in parallel?
From: Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) (mooregr_deleteth1s_at_greenms.com)
Date: 02/27/05
- Next message: Fred J. McCall: "Re: Running multiple HET in parallel?"
- Previous message: Rodney Kelp: "Re: A Moon base is too far; an asteroid ship better alternative:)"
- In reply to: Paul F. Dietz: "Re: Running multiple HET in parallel?"
- Next in thread: Ian Stirling: "Re: Running multiple HET in parallel?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
To: sci-space-tech@moderators.isc.org Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:37:04 GMT
"Paul F. Dietz" <dietz@dls.net> wrote in message
news:SMadnfHOEoF1247fRVn-1A@dls.net...
> Michael Smith wrote:
>
> > Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't see anybody supporting the
> > development of nuclear rocket engines, given the political problems
> > associated with simple RTGs.
>
> Why should this follow? RTGs are much more radioactive at launch
> than are reactors.
Because those who oppose RTGs most loudly aren't exactly dealing with
rational arguments to begin with.
>
> The bigger problem with space reactors is development cost and
> lack of application.
>
> Paul
- Next message: Fred J. McCall: "Re: Running multiple HET in parallel?"
- Previous message: Rodney Kelp: "Re: A Moon base is too far; an asteroid ship better alternative:)"
- In reply to: Paul F. Dietz: "Re: Running multiple HET in parallel?"
- Next in thread: Ian Stirling: "Re: Running multiple HET in parallel?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]