Re: Gaussjammers NOW!(WasRe: SPACE: New propulsion technologies) (fwd)

Dennis Roberts (
Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:08:08 -0400

"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:

> > Dennis Roberts <> wrote:
> > This might be the one folks ! Cheap ! Effective !
> Cheap? The phase 2 studies come in at $500K each.

A new MR scanner is 2-5 megabucks each. Right now they can't build 'em fast enough and the lion's share of the funding is private not public.

> That doesn't way anything about what a spacecraft would cost.
> If the primary components to propel this craft are nothing more than a
> large superconducting magnet and a few kgrams of sodium or other ion, I
> suspect that it won't be very long before Trans-Mars Spacelines is offering
> its stock on the NASDAQ. Big superconductors are being cranked out by the
> thousands to service the MRI industry. It might be just a matter of scale
> to leverage the capital investment that G(eneral) E(verything) has in
> magnet production from MR scanners to propulsion units for spacecraft
> Effective for what? So we can visit the outer planets?
> Ayyah! And develop a real space based economy.
> > And We can do it without a massive new infusion of scarce Govt dollars.

Big magnets already are widespread and are a highly reliable technology. Its only a small jump to go from where we are now to applying that technology to space propulsion.

> And just where praytell is the evidence for that?
> >
> If you want additional information it is at:
> The problem with most of the NIAC proposals/grants is that
> their construction/launch times straddle the probable singularity
> time. (Making them pointless IMHO).
> I've already had one proposal for the "Study of Supercomputers in Space"
> turned down by NIAC. I'm thinking about submitting another proposal:
> "Feasibility of Dismantlement of Small Solar System Bodies to
> Construct Sun-envoloping Solar Collectors for the Suppression
> of Solar Wind Power Sources for Plasma Propulsion Methods".
> Perhaps that will get their attention enough to factor in nanotech...
> :-)
> Robert