Does anyone know the current progress with VASIMR?

On Jan 15, 12:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Matt wrote:

:
:... IF it's coupled with a compact
:space-qualified fission reactor, a very important technology which
:seems to have dropped entirely off NASA's project list.
:

And I can understand why. The simplest way to increase the power
density of a fission reactor is to use richer fuel.

A "compact high power fission reactor" pretty much equates to
"bomb-grade fuel".

Note: I added the "high power" part of that because the engine in
question requires A LOT of power.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Highly enriched only means you need good security.

It´s not surprising that it needs lots of energy, as it´s more
powerful. Power and energy use tend to go together...i.e. you can´t
have the one without the other.

Einar

Einar wrote:

:On Jan 15, 12:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Matt wrote:
:
: :
: :... IF it's coupled with a compact
: :space-qualified fission reactor, a very important technology which
: :seems to have dropped entirely off NASA's project list.
: :
:
: And I can understand why. The simplest way to increase the power
: density of a fission reactor is to use richer fuel.
:
: A "compact high power fission reactor" pretty much equates to
: "bomb-grade fuel".
:
: Note: I added the "high power" part of that because the engine in
: question requires A LOT of power.
:
:
:Highly enriched only means you need good security.
:

Yes, as in "never leaves the control of military troops and is kept
inside an exclusion zone".

Bomb-grade uranium is dangerous stuff. Given the right amount of it,
even I could build a working nuclear weapon. You certainly don't want
to be flinging it about outside positive control or leaving it sitting
on orbit where it can eventually reenter.


--
"Death is my gift." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

On Jan 15, 6:12 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:On Jan 15, 12:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:: Matt wrote:

:
: :
: :... IF it's coupled with a compact
: :space-qualified fission reactor, a very important technology which
: :seems to have dropped entirely off NASA's project list.
: :
:
: And I can understand why. The simplest way to increase the power
: density of a fission reactor is to use richer fuel.
:
: A "compact high power fission reactor" pretty much equates to
: "bomb-grade fuel".
:
: Note: I added the "high power" part of that because the engine in
: question requires A LOT of power.
:
:
:Highly enriched only means you need good security.
:

Yes, as in "never leaves the control of military troops and is kept
inside an exclusion zone".

Bomb-grade uranium is dangerous stuff. Given the right amount of it,
even I could build a working nuclear weapon. You certainly don't want
to be flinging it about outside positive control or leaving it sitting
on orbit where it can eventually reenter.

--
"Death is my gift." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

Higly enriched need not mean bombgrade...simply enriched beyond the
nuclear powerplant norm.

If it´s not bombgrade, it can´t go critical like in a nuclear
explosion.

Like I said, it would need good security, probably something can be
worked out with the IAEA.

Einar

Einar wrote:

:On Jan 15, 6:12 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :On Jan 15, 12:55 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:: Matt wrote:
:
: :
: : :
: : :... IF it's coupled with a compact
: : :space-qualified fission reactor, a very important technology which
: : :seems to have dropped entirely off NASA's project list.
: : :
: :
: : And I can understand why. The simplest way to increase the power
: : density of a fission reactor is to use richer fuel.
: :
: : A "compact high power fission reactor" pretty much equates to
: : "bomb-grade fuel".
: :
: : Note: I added the "high power" part of that because the engine in
: : question requires A LOT of power.
: :
: :
: :Highly enriched only means you need good security.
: :
:
: Yes, as in "never leaves the control of military troops and is kept
: inside an exclusion zone".
:
: Bomb-grade uranium is dangerous stuff. Given the right amount of it,
: even I could build a working nuclear weapon. You certainly don't want
: to be flinging it about outside positive control or leaving it sitting
: on orbit where it can eventually reenter.
:
:
:Higly enriched need not mean bombgrade...simply enriched beyond the
:nuclear powerplant norm.
:

You're not paying attention. If you want to optimize power density
you want to optimize enrichment.

:
:If it´s not bombgrade, it can´t go critical like in a nuclear
:explosion.
:
:Like I said, it would need good security, probably something can be
:worked out with the IAEA.
:

We don't need to. We have our own agency. Any reactor running HEU as
fuel is going to be under direct US government control.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:23:33 -0800 (PST), Einar
wrote:

On Jan 15, 12:05 am, Chris Gunn
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:53:49 -0800 (PST), Datacide



wrote:
...and I perpetuated the same error that Chris pointed out to Einar
that he made: it's an engine, not merely a merely a 'power
plant'
Vasimr is an engine.

æIt requires a large power supply.

- Such as a nuclear plant.

Nuclear plants, such as most power plants, generate heat.

Radiating large amounts of heat in space is more difficult that on
earth where there is all the relativly highly conductive air etc. In
space radiators are the most obvious choice, but for the power in
mind, the radiator mass, with current tech, is relatively large.

A better question would therefore be: How is lightwieght radiator tech
coming along?

Or perhaps: Are there any cunning alternatives?
Perhaps for a long distance probe, the engine could be run for short
durations, and part of the probe mass (eg fuel) could be used as a
heat sink. The off periods used to radiate.
Just a thought.

He didn't make a mistake, but I was pointing out the more important
obstical to it's development.

Thanks for the link 8-)

I'm still hoping to hear some cunning ideas ;-]

Gunn

Hmm, people...clearly a fission reactor is necessary at some point.
That«s true whichever type of electric-plasma propulsion would be
used, i.e. hall, ion or vasimr thrusters.

However, the vasimr appears at least in certain respects to be an
improvement on the other types. I guess like with the other types, the
early applications will be in fairly close viscinity of the Sun, so
that solar collecters will be sufficient, and moreover these early
engines will be small to tiny.

I emphasize, for any big applications, it doesn«t really matter which
type is used, i.e. for a potential manned Mars trip to name an
example, nuclear energy would become absolutely necessary.

Hell yes, it always irritates me when people suggest a Mars trip will
take months (assumng a nonnuke trip).

Sure, the radiators will mass some, however as anyone ought to know in
absence of air, they can othervice be bulky as need be without any
great hardship. The energy of the reactor will much more than
compensate.

If you wish to contradict me, you should look at the numbers first
(Not that I have, I'm just going by what I read ;-)

I suppose a heat pump would be in order to improve radiator
efficiency?


Gunn

On Jan 15, 9:09 pm, Chris Gunn wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:23:33 -0800 (PST), Einar
wrote:



On Jan 15, 12:05 am, Chris Gunn
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:53:49 -0800 (PST), Datacide

wrote:
...and I perpetuated the same error that Chris pointed out to Einar
that he made: it's an engine, not merely a merely a 'power
plant'
Vasimr is an engine.

æIt requires a large power supply.

- Such as a nuclear plant.

Nuclear plants, such as most power plants, generate heat.

Radiating large amounts of heat in space is more difficult that on
earth where there is all the relativly highly conductive air etc. In
space radiators are the most obvious choice, but for the power in
mind, the radiator mass, with current tech, is relatively large.

A better question would therefore be: How is lightwieght radiator tech
coming along?

Or perhaps: Are there any cunning alternatives?
Perhaps for a long distance probe, the engine could be run for short
durations, and part of the probe mass (eg fuel) could be used as a
heat sink. The off periods used to radiate.
Just a thought.

He didn't make a mistake, but I was pointing out the more important
obstical to it's development.

Thanks for the link 8-)

I'm still hoping to hear some cunning ideas ;-]

Gunn

Hmm, people...clearly a fission reactor is necessary at some point.
That«s true whichever type of electric-plasma propulsion would be
used, i.e. hall, ion or vasimr thrusters.

However, the vasimr appears at least in certain respects to be an
improvement on the other types. I guess like with the other types, the
early applications will be in fairly close viscinity of the Sun, so
that solar collecters will be sufficient, and moreover these early
engines will be small to tiny.

I emphasize, for any big applications, it doesn«t really matter which
type is used, i.e. for a potential manned Mars trip to name an
example, nuclear energy would become absolutely necessary.

Hell yes, it always irritates me when people suggest a Mars trip will
take months (assumng a nonnuke trip).

Half a year, assuming non nuclear. 2 - 3 months, depending on the type
of nuclear electric propulsion.

Sure, the radiators will mass some, however as anyone ought to know in
absence of air, they can othervice be bulky as need be without any
great hardship. The energy of the reactor will much more than
compensate.

If you wish to contradict me, you should look at the numbers first
(Not that I have, I'm just going by what I read ;-)

I suppose a heat pump would be in order to improve radiator
efficiency?

Gunn

In vacume there is no drag, so bulk does not matter. Only mass.

On the question of mass, a nuclear reactor will amply compensate with
its power, granting the option of carrying a much more effective
engine.

Einar

On Jan 15, 9:50*pm, Einar wrote:
On Jan 15, 9:09 pm, Chris Gunn wrote:





On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:23:33 -0800 (PST), Einar
wrote:

On Jan 15, 12:05 am, Chris Gunn
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:53:49 -0800 (PST), Datacide

wrote:
...and I perpetuated the same error that Chris pointed out to Einar
that he made: *it's an engine, not merely a merely a 'power
plant' *
Vasimr is an engine.

æIt requires a large power supply.

- Such as a nuclear plant.

Nuclear plants, such as most power plants, generate heat.

Radiating large amounts of heat in space is more difficult that on
earth where there is all the relativly highly conductive air etc.. In
space radiators are the most obvious choice, but for the power in
mind, the radiator mass, with current tech, is relatively large.

A better question would therefore be: How is lightwieght radiator tech
coming along?

Or perhaps: Are there any cunning alternatives?
Perhaps for a long distance probe, the engine could be run for short
durations, and part of the probe mass (eg fuel) could be used as a
heat sink. The off periods used to radiate.
Just a thought.

He didn't make a mistake, but I was pointing out the more important
obstical to it's development.

Thanks for the link 8-)

I'm still hoping to hear some cunning ideas ;-]

Gunn

Hmm, people...clearly a fission reactor is necessary at some point.
That«s true whichever type of electric-plasma propulsion would be
used, i.e. hall, ion or vasimr thrusters.

However, the vasimr appears at least in certain respects to be an
improvement on the other types. I guess like with the other types, the
early applications will be in fairly close viscinity of the Sun, so
that solar collecters will be sufficient, and moreover these early
engines will be small to tiny.

I emphasize, for any big applications, it doesn«t really matter which
type is used, i.e. for a potential manned Mars trip to name an
example, nuclear energy would become absolutely necessary.

Hell yes, it always irritates me when people suggest a Mars trip will
take months (assumng a nonnuke trip).

Half a year, assuming non nuclear. 2 - 3 months, depending on the type
of nuclear electric propulsion.

Sure, the radiators will mass some, however as anyone ought to know in
absence of air, they can othervice be bulky as need be without any
great hardship. The energy of the reactor will much more than
compensate.

If you wish to contradict me, you should look at the numbers first
(Not that I have, I'm just going by what I read ;-)

I suppose a heat pump would be in order to improve *radiator
efficiency?

Gunn

In vacume there is no drag, so bulk does not matter. Only mass.

On the question of mass, a nuclear reactor will amply compensate with
its power, granting the option of carrying a much more effective
engine.

Einar- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another option to power VASIMIR is solar concentrator based PV such
as the triple junction cells from Spectrolab that acheive roughly 40%
efficiency and have a specific power around 1KW/kg at present although
this is likely to improve. When coupled with a low mass concentrator
mirror (which only needs to concentrate the sunlight 200X - 400X) of
aluminized mylar or similar material; the lower sunlight at Mars is
compensated for with only a small decrease in specific power. The
concentrated sunlight can be used for solar thermal perigee thrusts
from LEO to escape velocity with perhaps a little O2 thrown into the
hydrogen propellant on the last kick. Following that, any kind of
electric engine including VASIMIR can be used to reduce travel
time.Travel times can be comparable to nuclear thermal and are far
better than nuclear electric. JIMO would have taken two years to get
from LEO to escape whereas STEP can do it in closer to two weeks.
No nuclear reactor design currently proposed has this kind of thermal/
electric rocket propulsion versatility or anything approaching the
specific power. The pathetic nuclear power system for JIMO had a
specific power closer to 4 watts electric per pound (100KW elec. at
25,000 lb est..) and costs around 10 billion dollars. By contrast the
entire cost of the "Starfire" program to demonstrate solar thermal
propulsion on-orbit was 40 million!
Solar concentrator mirrors can also serve as high baud communications
antennas, radar antennas, microwave power(to the surface of Mars from
orbit for instance), solar furnaces capable of vaporizing almost
anything for ISRU, radiators for waste heat by circulating gas in
their support structure and probably many other synergystic uses.
Conventional wisdom has said solar is good only near the sun -
nonsense!
Steve Mickler
Solar Thermal/Electric Propulsion
First STEP

On Jan 22, 12:45 pm, wrote:
On Jan 15, 9:50 pm, Einar wrote:



On Jan 15, 9:09 pm, Chris Gunn wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:23:33 -0800 (PST), Einar
wrote:

On Jan 15, 12:05 am, Chris Gunn
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:53:49 -0800 (PST), Datacide

wrote:
...and I perpetuated the same error that Chris pointed out to Einar
that he made: it's an engine, not merely a merely a 'power
plant'
Vasimr is an engine.

æIt requires a large power supply.

- Such as a nuclear plant.

Nuclear plants, such as most power plants, generate heat.

Radiating large amounts of heat in space is more difficult that on
earth where there is all the relativly highly conductive air etc. In
space radiators are the most obvious choice, but for the power in
mind, the radiator mass, with current tech, is relatively large.

A better question would therefore be: How is lightwieght radiator tech
coming along?

Or perhaps: Are there any cunning alternatives?
Perhaps for a long distance probe, the engine could be run for short
durations, and part of the probe mass (eg fuel) could be used as a
heat sink. The off periods used to radiate.
Just a thought.

He didn't make a mistake, but I was pointing out the more important
obstical to it's development.

Thanks for the link 8-)

I'm still hoping to hear some cunning ideas ;-]

Gunn

Hmm, people...clearly a fission reactor is necessary at some point.
That«s true whichever type of electric-plasma propulsion would be
used, i.e. hall, ion or vasimr thrusters.

However, the vasimr appears at least in certain respects to be an
improvement on the other types. I guess like with the other types, the
early applications will be in fairly close viscinity of the Sun, so
that solar collecters will be sufficient, and moreover these early
engines will be small to tiny.

I emphasize, for any big applications, it doesn«t really matter which
type is used, i.e. for a potential manned Mars trip to name an
example, nuclear energy would become absolutely necessary.

Hell yes, it always irritates me when people suggest a Mars trip will
take months (assumng a nonnuke trip).

Half a year, assuming non nuclear. 2 - 3 months, depending on the type
of nuclear electric propulsion.

Sure, the radiators will mass some, however as anyone ought to know in
absence of air, they can othervice be bulky as need be without any
great hardship. The energy of the reactor will much more than
compensate.

If you wish to contradict me, you should look at the numbers first
(Not that I have, I'm just going by what I read ;-)

I suppose a heat pump would be in order to improve radiator
efficiency?

Gunn

In vacume there is no drag, so bulk does not matter. Only mass.

On the question of mass, a nuclear reactor will amply compensate with
its power, granting the option of carrying a much more effective
engine.

Einar- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another option to power VASIMIR is solar concentrator based PV such
as the triple junction cells from Spectrolab that acheive roughly 40%
efficiency and have a specific power around 1KW/kg at present although
this is likely to improve. When coupled with a low mass concentrator
mirror (which only needs to concentrate the sunlight 200X - 400X) of
aluminized mylar or similar material; the lower sunlight at Mars is
compensated for with only a small decrease in specific power. The
concentrated sunlight can be used for solar thermal perigee thrusts
from LEO to escape velocity with perhaps a little O2 thrown into the
hydrogen propellant on the last kick. Following that, any kind of
electric engine including VASIMIR can be used to reduce travel
time.Travel times can be comparable to nuclear thermal and are far
better than nuclear electric. JIMO would have taken two years to get
from LEO to escape whereas STEP can do it in closer to two weeks.
No nuclear reactor design currently proposed has this kind of thermal/
electric rocket propulsion versatility or anything approaching the
specific power. The pathetic nuclear power system for JIMO had a
specific power closer to 4 watts electric per pound (100KW elec. at
25,000 lb est..) and costs around 10 billion dollars. By contrast the
entire cost of the "Starfire" program to demonstrate solar thermal
propulsion on-orbit was 40 million!
Solar concentrator mirrors can also serve as high baud communications
antennas, radar antennas, microwave power(to the surface of Mars from
orbit for instance), solar furnaces capable of vaporizing almost
anything for ISRU, radiators for waste heat by circulating gas in
their support structure and probably many other synergystic uses.
Conventional wisdom has said solar is good only near the sun -
nonsense!
Steve Mickler
Solar Thermal/Electric Propulsion
First STEP

Hmm, if this solar collector is so effective, I see no reason not to
combine it into the whole package, i.e. along with the nuclear
reactor.

Remember Mars is one of the so called inner planets, in other words
about Mars you are still relativelly close to the Sun. Operating
further away, the case for nuclear reactors becomes considerably more
clear.

Anyhow, is there anything at all wrong with the use of nuclear
reactors? It´s not like there is any lack of radiation in space
anyhow, and what litle we can add to it is comparable to trying to
make the ocean more salty by adding spoonfuls to it.

Einar

On Jan 22, 1:19*pm, Einar wrote:
On Jan 22, 12:45 pm, wrote:





On Jan 15, 9:50 pm, Einar wrote:

On Jan 15, 9:09 pm, Chris Gunn wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:23:33 -0800 (PST), Einar
wrote:

On Jan 15, 12:05 am, Chris Gunn
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:53:49 -0800 (PST), Datacide

wrote:
...and I perpetuated the same error that Chris pointed out to Einar
that he made: *it's an engine, not merely a merely a 'power
plant' *
Vasimr is an engine.

æIt requires a large power supply.

- Such as a nuclear plant.

Nuclear plants, such as most power plants, generate heat.

Radiating large amounts of heat in space is more difficult that on
earth where there is all the relativly highly conductive air etc. In
space radiators are the most obvious choice, but for the power in
mind, the radiator mass, with current tech, is relatively large.

A better question would therefore be: How is lightwieght radiator tech
coming along?

Or perhaps: Are there any cunning alternatives?
Perhaps for a long distance probe, the engine could be run for short
durations, and part of the probe mass (eg fuel) could be used as a
heat sink. The off periods used to radiate.
Just a thought.

He didn't make a mistake, but I was pointing out the more important
obstical to it's development.

Thanks for the link 8-)

I'm still hoping to hear some cunning ideas ;-]

Gunn

Hmm, people...clearly a fission reactor is necessary at some point.
That«s true whichever type of electric-plasma propulsion would be
used, i.e. hall, ion or vasimr thrusters.

However, the vasimr appears at least in certain respects to be an
improvement on the other types. I guess like with the other types, the
early applications will be in fairly close viscinity of the Sun, so
that solar collecters will be sufficient, and moreover these early
engines will be small to tiny.

I emphasize, for any big applications, it doesn«t really matter which
type is used, i.e. for a potential manned Mars trip to name an
example, nuclear energy would become absolutely necessary.

Hell yes, it always irritates me when people suggest a Mars trip will
take months (assumng a nonnuke trip).

Half a year, assuming non nuclear. 2 - 3 months, depending on the type
of nuclear electric propulsion.

Sure, the radiators will mass some, however as anyone ought to know in
absence of air, they can othervice be bulky as need be without any
great hardship. The energy of the reactor will much more than
compensate.

If you wish to contradict me, you should look at the numbers first
(Not that I have, I'm just going by what I read ;-)

I suppose a heat pump would be in order to improve *radiator
efficiency?

Gunn

In vacume there is no drag, so bulk does not matter. Only mass.

On the question of mass, a nuclear reactor will amply compensate with
its power, granting the option of carrying a much more effective
engine.

Einar- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*Another option to power VASIMIR is solar concentrator based PV such
as the triple junction cells from Spectrolab that acheive roughly 40%
efficiency and have a specific power around 1KW/kg at present although
this is likely to improve. When coupled with a low mass concentrator
mirror (which only needs to concentrate the sunlight 200X - 400X) of
aluminized mylar or similar material; the lower sunlight at Mars is
compensated for with only a small decrease in specific power. The
concentrated sunlight can be used for solar thermal perigee thrusts
from LEO to escape velocity *with perhaps a little O2 thrown into the
hydrogen propellant on the last kick. Following that, any kind of
electric engine including VASIMIR can be used to reduce travel
time.Travel times can be comparable to nuclear thermal and are far
better than nuclear electric. JIMO would have taken two years to get
from LEO to escape whereas STEP can do it in closer to two weeks.
*No nuclear reactor design currently proposed has this kind of thermal/
electric rocket propulsion *versatility or anything approaching the
specific power. The pathetic nuclear power system for JIMO had a
specific power closer to 4 watts electric per pound (100KW elec. at
25,000 lb est..) and costs around 10 billion dollars. By contrast the
entire cost of the "Starfire" program to demonstrate solar thermal
propulsion on-orbit was 40 million!
*Solar concentrator mirrors can also serve as high baud communications
antennas, radar antennas, microwave power(to the surface of Mars from
orbit for instance), solar furnaces capable of vaporizing almost
anything for ISRU, radiators for waste heat by circulating gas in
their support structure and probably many other synergystic uses.
*Conventional wisdom has said solar is good only near the sun -
nonsense!
Steve Mickler
Solar Thermal/Electric Propulsion
First STEP

Hmm, if this solar collector is so effective, I see no reason not to
combine it into the whole package, i.e. along with the nuclear
reactor.

Remember Mars is one of the so called inner planets, in other words
about Mars you are still relativelly close to the Sun. Operating
further away, the case for nuclear reactors becomes considerably more
clear.

Anyhow, is there anything at all wrong with the use of nuclear
reactors? It´s not like there is any lack of radiation in space
anyhow, and what litle we can add to it is comparable to trying to
make the ocean more salty by adding spoonfuls to it.

Einar- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As you correctly point out, there is nothing at all wrong with using
reactors in space,or with combining solar and thermal, but with the
current state of development and regulatory environment, solar costs
about 1/100th as much or less and can do the job without any other
power source..While nuclear can have higher specific power and can be
operated as a thermal rocket it would, require quite a bit of
development and be quite expensive.
Steve
Solar Thermal/Electric Propulsion
First STEP

On Jan 24, 11:03 am, wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:19 pm, Einar wrote:



On Jan 22, 12:45 pm, wrote:

On Jan 15, 9:50 pm, Einar wrote:

On Jan 15, 9:09 pm, Chris Gunn wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:23:33 -0800 (PST), Einar
wrote:

On Jan 15, 12:05 am, Chris Gunn
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:53:49 -0800 (PST), Datacide

wrote:
...and I perpetuated the same error that Chris pointed out to Einar
that he made: it's an engine, not merely a merely a 'power
plant'
Vasimr is an engine.

æIt requires a large power supply.

- Such as a nuclear plant.

Nuclear plants, such as most power plants, generate heat.

Radiating large amounts of heat in space is more difficult that on
earth where there is all the relativly highly conductive air etc. In
space radiators are the most obvious choice, but for the power in
mind, the radiator mass, with current tech, is relatively large.

A better question would therefore be: How is lightwieght radiator tech
coming along?

Or perhaps: Are there any cunning alternatives?
Perhaps for a long distance probe, the engine could be run for short
durations, and part of the probe mass (eg fuel) could be used as a
heat sink. The off periods used to radiate.
Just a thought.

He didn't make a mistake, but I was pointing out the more important
obstical to it's development.

Thanks for the link 8-)

I'm still hoping to hear some cunning ideas ;-]

Gunn

Hmm, people...clearly a fission reactor is necessary at some point.