Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Planning a trip to Proxima Centauri
Message-ID: <6478@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 1 Apr 89 00:46:14 GMT
References: <4441@drivax.UUCP> <1989Mar29.210617.4334@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 20

In article <1989Mar29.210617.4334@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <4441@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>>... Given the energy
>>density figures from preliminary reports, how much of a scale-up
>>will it take for a constant-boost ship capable of going to Proxima
>>Centauri?  Assume refueling there.
>
>Massive.  Colossal.  Nearly impossible.  Fusion is only marginally viable
>as an interstellar propulsion system at all, never mind constant-boost!
>Effective interstellar propulsion requires antimatter rockets at least,
>and preferably systems like the Bussard ramjet or the laser sail that
>escape from some of the limitations of rockets.

	However, _really_ cheap energy might make anitmatter propulsion
far more feasible (though still expensive, it's an engineering problem -
we can make and store anti-matter, just not well, since the need for such
engineering has been small so far.)

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup