"dwight.thieme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <dwight.thieme@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>I would also note that while ion drives might - might - qualify for
>certain unmanned probes, but the fact of the matter is, they're not
>even that far yet:
>
>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E2D61E38F935A35753C1A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
That article is from 1998.
>I CALL FOUL! No way. Closed loop life-support is _very_ advanced
>technology. We can't even do it here, on Earth, with even fairly
>large mammals, let alone in space, for humans. I know that some
How much have we tried?
>And if you don't have this sort of technology, how do you justify an
>extensive manned presence in space? And if you don't have _that_, how
>could there be any need for stealth or space wars, ever? You've got
>to be consistent.
True, and applies to space drives as well, which makes watching you two
argue over nuclear thermal and ion drives somewhat surreal.
>I don't suppose it would help at this point, but I'm a space-head from
>waaay back. I thought that we'd have space stations, a moon base, a
You're not the only one around here.
>manned mission to Mars by now, with plans on the drawing board for a
You're not the only one around here.
>You need to talk with other people who are actually in the field. My
>impression is that these are very hard problems, and that the money,
>even for your scenario, isn't coming in large gobs any time soon.
Not that large gobs are being thrown at space at all.
-xx- Damien X-)
|
