According to Wikipedia, most currently-understood electric propulsion methods will require about 20-40 kilowatts per Newton of thrust when run at normal efficiency.
yeah, but I am asking about speeds you would get with power levels from a nuclear reactor. Also I wonder why they are not using this Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster according to what wikiedia says, this thrutser can produce extremely high specific impluses and an exhaust velocity of up to and beyond 110000 m/s, triple the value of current xenon-based ion thrusters, and about 20 times better than liquid rockets. MPD technology also has the potential for thrust levels of up to 200 newtons (N) (45 lbF), by far the highest for any form of electric propulsion, and nearly as high as many interplanetary chemical rockets. This would allow use of electric propulsion on missions which require quick delta-v maneuvers (such as capturing into orbit around another planet), but with many times greater fuel efficiency. Why not do more research on this as well!? From the problems shown on wikipedia are similar to what VASIMR had but now it is only power generation which is the down side of VASIMR.
The 200 Newton version of the MPD engine is listed as being powered by five 200-kW lasers with 59% efficiency, which still puts it in the 20+ kilowatts per newton power/thrust ratio.
As for speed, your final speed when your fuel runs out depends chiefly on the exhaust velocity achieved multiplied by the natural logarithm (log base "e") of your fuel mass as a fraction of your unfuelled spacecraft mass. VASIMR or MPD thrusters would give the highest exhaust velocity out of any engines that can be considered to be anywhere near flight-ready. Nuclear pulse propulsion (Orion or Daedalus) could give us more impulse, but has been ruled impractical due to radioactivity concerns, so VASIMR/MPD is likely the best we'll get until we either come up with new ideas or can make a continuous-fusion-powered thruster.
Now, as for the magnitude of acceleration that you could get from a nuclear-electric engine, that hinges mainly on your nuclear reactor's power-to-mass ratio. If for example your spacecraft, reactor and propellant included, masses 100 tonnes and the reactor generates 10 megawatts, then at 20 kW/N you would get 500 Newtons of thrust, which gives an acceleration of 5.0 mm/s^2, or about 18 m/s per hour, which means about eight to ten days to get from Low Earth Orbit to escape velocity. If however you could get twice the power output from your reactor while still keeping your spacecraft mass at 100 tonnes, then you would get twice the acceleration.
The 200 Newton version of the MPD engine is listed as being powered by five 200-kW lasers with 59% efficiency, which still puts it in the 20+ kilowatts per newton power/thrust ratio.
As for speed, your final speed when your fuel runs out depends chiefly on the exhaust velocity achieved multiplied by the natural logarithm (log base "e") of your fuel mass as a fraction of your unfuelled spacecraft mass. VASIMR or MPD thrusters would give the highest exhaust velocity out of any engines that can be considered to be anywhere near flight-ready. Nuclear pulse propulsion (Orion or Daedalus) could give us more impulse, but has been ruled impractical due to radioactivity concerns, so VASIMR/MPD is likely the best we'll get until we either come up with new ideas or can make a continuous-fusion-powered thruster.
Now, as for the magnitude of acceleration that you could get from a nuclear-electric engine, that hinges mainly on your nuclear reactor's power-to-mass ratio. If for example your spacecraft, reactor and propellant included, masses 100 tonnes and the reactor generates 10 megawatts, then at 20 kW/N you would get 500 Newtons of thrust, which gives an acceleration of 5.0 mm/s^2, or about 18 m/s per hour, which means about eight to ten days to get from Low Earth Orbit to escape velocity. If however you could get twice the power output from your reactor while still keeping your spacecraft mass at 100 tonnes, then you would get twice the acceleration.
Ok, out of VASIMR and MPD which is better, in terms of fuel efficiency and thrust/speed?
This is exciting stuff updated equations making energy requirements vastly less, what Im interested to see is oscillation beyond just disc differential.. Maybe get to mars using fossil fuels ROFL
This is exciting stuff updated equations making energy requirements vastly less, what Im interested to see is oscillation beyond just disc differential.. Maybe get to mars using fossil fuels ROFL
Thanks, but we already know about that. It is very exciting and hopefully it will work.
Look what I found, antimatter beam if they can create anti hydrogen from a beam sureley they can make a propulsion out of this, I can see a space propulsion engine simliar to a jet engine which compressed air is mixed with fuel to produce thrust, right, so they can do something simliar a beam of antimatter mixing with matter, when matter and antimatter are together they create energy. This could produce a thrust when aiming in the right direction.
Look what I found, antimatter beam if they can create anti hydrogen from a beam sureley they can make a propulsion out of this, I can see a space propulsion engine simliar to a jet engine which compressed air is mixed with fuel to produce thrust, right, so they can do something simliar a beam of antimatter mixing with matter, when matter and antimatter are together they create energy. This could produce a thrust when aiming in the right direction.
It's an awesome idea, but at present we don't have the methods to generate enough antimatter to be useful as a spacecraft fuel--all of the antimatter produced by mankind to date would produce enough energy to light your house for a few minutes. We need practical ways of generating multiple grams of antimatter before we can use it as a medium for wholesale energy storage--currently we are producing picograms of it.
Ok, out of VASIMR and MPD which is better, in terms of fuel efficiency and thrust/speed?
MPD gives more efficiency under optimum conditions, but it can not be "throttled" like VASIMR--which is where the "Variable" part of "VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket" comes in. A VASIMR engine is like a continuously-variable transmission that can trade off propellant mass flow for efficiency--it can be run in a "low gear" mode with low efficiency but high thrust by feeding the propellant through it faster (still higher efficiency than chemical or nuclear-thermal rockets), or in "high gear" with low thrust but high efficiency, or anywhere in between. Also, VASIMR can be run at almost any power level--you can reduce the electricity supply AND the propellant mass flow together without a loss of efficiency (only of thrust). MPD engines can not do this--below a certain rather high power level, thrust drops to nearly zero, so it's "go big or go home".
Not even a few minutes. Remember, that antihydrogen beam was 80 atoms, and that was the most we've ever had in one place at on time.
We've only created a few billionths of a gram of antimatter, most of which is just positrons. We've only produced a few million antihydrogen atoms ever. If you dropped it all in a man's lap, he might still be able to have kids (it's a lot of radiation, but less than some serious cancer patients receive between imaging and treatment).
And while nearly all the antihydrogen we've created was in the last three years, all of our facilities capable of producing it could run around the clock for a billion years without producing a full gram of the stuff.
It's an awesome idea, but at present we don't have the methods to generate enough antimatter to be useful as a spacecraft fuel--all of the antimatter produced by mankind to date would produce enough energy to light your house for a few minutes. We need practical ways of generating multiple grams of antimatter before we can use it as a medium for wholesale energy storage--currently we are producing picograms of it.
MPD gives more efficiency under optimum conditions, but it can not be "throttled" like VASIMR--which is where the "Variable" part of "VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket" comes in. A VASIMR engine is like a continuously-variable transmission that can trade off propellant mass flow for efficiency--it can be run in a "low gear" mode with low efficiency but high thrust by feeding the propellant through it faster (still higher efficiency than chemical or nuclear-thermal rockets), or in "high gear" with low thrust but high efficiency, or anywhere in between. Also, VASIMR can be run at almost any power level--you can reduce the electricity supply AND the propellant mass flow together without a loss of efficiency (only of thrust). MPD engines can not do this--below a certain rather high power level, thrust drops to nearly zero, so it's "go big or go home".
Yeah I know how VASIMR works, it is an amazing electric propulsion which they should take it seriously, out of the two which is faster? What I think they need to do is build that space nuclear reactor they were making for electric thrusters and combine that with VASIMR then send it to Alpha Centauri.
Yeah I know how VASIMR works, it is an amazing electric propulsion which they should take it seriously, out of the two which is faster? What I think they need to do is build that space nuclear reactor they were making for electric thrusters and combine that with VASIMR then send it to Alpha Centauri.
The figure I've heard tossed around for a 200kW VASIMR system is a constant acceleration of .01g. According to my (very rough) figures, that should enable a transit time from here to Alpha C on the order of 60 years or so. Top velocity on the trip will still be substantially less than lightspeed (in fact, less than half that), so relativistic effects won't be worth considering except for technical reasons - we'd still need to either find a way to put humans into suspended animation, or plan for families and training along the way so the children or grandchildren of the flight crew will be able to complete their mission...
The figure I've heard tossed around for a 200kW VASIMR system is a constant acceleration of .01g. According to my (very rough) figures, that should enable a transit time from here to Alpha C on the order of 60 years or so. Top velocity on the trip will still be substantially less than lightspeed (in fact, less than half that), so relativistic effects won't be worth considering except for technical reasons - we'd still need to either find a way to put humans into suspended animation, or plan for families and training along the way so the children or grandchildren of the flight crew will be able to complete their mission...
And by the time the crew reaches Alpha Centauri, a crew that was launched years later would likely have already been there due to some technological breakthrough.
The figure I've heard tossed around for a 200kW VASIMR system is a constant acceleration of .01g. According to my (very rough) figures, that should enable a transit time from here to Alpha C on the order of 60 years or so. Top velocity on the trip will still be substantially less than lightspeed (in fact, less than half that), so relativistic effects won't be worth considering except for technical reasons - we'd still need to either find a way to put humans into suspended animation, or plan for families and training along the way so the children or grandchildren of the flight crew will be able to complete their mission...
With electric propulsion they continuously accelerate, so could it which half the speed of light or closer? I do know the effects of reaching the speed of light, just in case anyone posts that. Surely they can send a robot mission to Alpha Centauri, since by your calculations it would take 60 years, give or take and that is in human life time. If I had the money and resources I would send these new propulsion technologies to the Alpha Centauri, since it is the closest solar system to ours to see how well the new propulsion technologies did and see Alpha Centauri. Once VASIMR has been tested on ISS they should definitely do this.
With electric propulsion they continuously accelerate, so could it which half the speed of light or closer? I do know the effects of reaching the speed of light, just in case anyone posts that. Surely they can send a robot mission to Alpha Centauri, since by your calculations it would take 60 years, give or take and that is in human life time. If I had the money and resources I would send these new propulsion technologies to the Alpha Centauri, since it is the closest solar system to ours to see how well the new propulsion technologies did and see Alpha Centauri. Once VASIMR has been tested on ISS they should definitely do this.
Hypothetically, provided you have enough propellant (all reaction engines require some kind of propellant, after all), you can get up to where you bump against the speed of light. You can never actually reach it, because that would require infinite energy, but given enough time and fuel, you could experience the time-dilation effects of high-velocity travel (as you approach the speed of light, time as experienced aboard ship slows greatly as compared with time experienced with reference to the universe at large). Those effects start to become noticeable past about 0.5c, but don't really become helpful (as in making trip time seem like just a few years) until you get up about 0.8c. Since top speed for a trip to Alpha Centauri (assuming you intend to stop there, and thus flip and start decelerating at the halfway point) at .01g acceleration would be somewhere around 0.3c, the crew would experience more than 55 years; you'd have to recalibrate your clocks once you got there, of course, assuming you care about syncing up with Ground Control back on Earth...
Overall, that might be nice for an unmanned probe, but I'm hoping the Alcubierre-White experiments bear fruit before we start trying to send people that far out.
Hypothetically, provided you have enough propellant (all reaction engines require some kind of propellant, after all), you can get up to where you bump against the speed of light. You can never actually reach it, because that would require infinite energy, but given enough time and fuel, you could experience the time-dilation effects of high-velocity travel (as you approach the speed of light, time as experienced aboard ship slows greatly as compared with time experienced with reference to the universe at large). Those effects start to become noticeable past about 0.5c, but don't really become helpful (as in making trip time seem like just a few years) until you get up about 0.8c. Since top speed for a trip to Alpha Centauri (assuming you intend to stop there, and thus flip and start decelerating at the halfway point) at .01g acceleration would be somewhere around 0.3c, the crew would experience more than 55 years; you'd have to recalibrate your clocks once you got there, of course, assuming you care about syncing up with Ground Control back on Earth...
Overall, that might be nice for an unmanned probe, but I'm hoping the Alcubierre-White experiments bear fruit before we start trying to send people that far out.
Yes, I know what happens when you approach that speed of light, as for the Alcubierre-White/Warp drive, I hope that we get Alcubierre-White/Warp drive within our lifetime, hopefully sooner and funding does not go down. But in the mean time they can still send unmanned probes to test these new propulsions and other technologies towards Alpha Centauri. I mentioned in a previous post that scientist have made an antimatter beam, antihydrogen to be exact, which I thought could be used as a method of propulsion, similar how a jet engine works when combusted air is mixed with the fuel.
And by the time the crew reaches Alpha Centauri, a crew that was launched years later would likely have already been there due to some technological breakthrough.
They can always pick them up along the way. Take look at this, Cubesats . Electric propulsion getting smaller, I so want to build a cubesat of my own and send it somewhere. Also here is something about the International Space Station, coldest place in the known universe .
They can always pick them up along the way. Take look at this, Cubesats . Electric propulsion getting smaller, I so want to build a cubesat of my own and send it somewhere. Also here is something about the International Space Station, coldest place in the known universe .
Bolded part doesn't even have to be true. The guys responsible for the faster than light neutrinos got quite a bit of grant money out of it, even though they were completely wrong.
Science tends to give people a lot of do-overs, as long as they accept the peer review process and its results. The guys responsible for the FTL neutrinos screwed up in a hilariously obvious way, but they still came out of it with some minor fame and grants to continue their research, and went on to create a slightly better system for calibrating that kind of equipment to prevent the same mistake from happening again. Because when their results were potentially earthshattering, they didn't make a big deal of it, they just said they had "results inconsistent with known theory," and let the results speak for themselves. And when the peer review process said, "Yeah, I think you screwed up here," they took a look and said, "Gee golly guys, we did TRIBBLE up there. Ok, false alarm, sorry guys, we'll get that fixed right away."
This is how you win at science. Being right is optional.
Or you can be like the guy in that article, and, when peer review (by other LENR researchers, no less) pointed out that the "product" of his fusion reaction isn't the mix of various isotopes expected but a box full of shredded H04 copper in the exact form you'd buy it from a scrap dealer, he responded, "YOU'RE ALL SELLING OUT TO BIG ENERGY TO SILENCE ME!"
That's not "news" - that's someone complaining because NASA isn't building spaceships using their imaginary technology. One might as well complain because the FAA isn't authorizing flight plans for witch's brooms.
That's not "news" - that's someone complaining because NASA isn't building spaceships using their imaginary technology. One might as well complain because the FAA isn't authorizing flight plans for witch's brooms.
They need to create a nuclear test reactor to confirm that the technology does work before wasting money on building engines that uses that technology. The US Military didn't drop the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima without having their scientists doing some serious tests. The scientists first created a nuclear pile to confirm that a nuclear reaction occurred, then they built a bunch of experimental nuclear bombs to confirm that it would create a very devastating explosion. Only after LENR has proven to work through proof-of-concept experiments and peer review, then they should start building a LENR engine. The same method applies to a witch's broom.
That's not "news" - that's someone complaining because NASA isn't building spaceships using their imaginary technology. One might as well complain because the FAA isn't authorizing flight plans for witch's brooms.
Actually it is news because he is talking about this lner research , which proves NASA is reasearching in to LNER technology as well. Here is more inforamtion on LNER and a video .
Actually it is news because he is talking about this lner research , which proves NASA is reasearching in to LNER technology as well. Here is more inforamtion on LNER and a video .
To me the research grant says "we're interested in figuring out IF this works".
To me the research grant says "we're interested in figuring out IF this works".
Still a step in the right direction, if it is going to solve our energy needs and power future spacecrafts some reasearch is better than no research. Hopefully it can't be weaponized or at leasts it is very difficult.
Still a step in the right direction, if it is going to solve our energy needs and power future spacecrafts some reasearch is better than no research. Hopefully it can't be weaponized or at leasts it is very difficult.
Terminators are powered by cold-fusion in some timelines. :P
Terminators are powered by cold-fusion in some timelines. :P
well hopefully terminators won't exist and take over the world. Anyway here is some news on the Orion spacecraft . In this picture is that the whole service module or is that bottom part going to connect the serivce module to the rocket? Here is a previous picture of the Orion with the ESA serivce module.
well hopefully terminators won't exist and take over the world. Anyway here is some news on the Orion spacecraft . In this picture is that the whole service module or is that bottom part going to connect the serivce module to the rocket? Here is a previous picture of the Orion with the ESA serivce module.
Well... my point was more that compact power sources are pretty much inevitable to be used in something military.
sure it might not be made into a bomb..... but it might power the aircraft that launches the bombs.
Well... my point was more that compact power sources are pretty much inevitable to be used in something military.
sure it might not be made into a bomb..... but it might power the aircraft that launches the bombs.
Yeah I know that, anything that is created by us could be used as a weapon which is depressing really if something was made to do a lot of good could also have the potential to do a lot of bad. Just like us, we have the same potential to do great good or great evil. Now back on topic.
Yeah I know that, anything that is created by us could be used as a weapon which is depressing really if something was made to do a lot of good could also have the potential to do a lot of bad. Just like us, we have the same potential to do great good or great evil. Now back on topic.
My line of thought is much like that of the Taelons. The only true weapon is the mind. Everything else is just a tool that can be used in a variety of ways.
My line of thought is much like that of the Taelons. The only true weapon is the mind. Everything else is just a tool that can be used in a variety of ways.
well hopefully terminators won't exist and take over the world. Anyway here is some news on the Orion spacecraft . In this picture is that the whole service module or is that bottom part going to connect the serivce module to the rocket? Here is a previous picture of the Orion with the ESA serivce module.
Comments
yeah, but I am asking about speeds you would get with power levels from a nuclear reactor. Also I wonder why they are not using this Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster according to what wikiedia says, this thrutser can produce extremely high specific impluses and an exhaust velocity of up to and beyond 110000 m/s, triple the value of current xenon-based ion thrusters, and about 20 times better than liquid rockets. MPD technology also has the potential for thrust levels of up to 200 newtons (N) (45 lbF), by far the highest for any form of electric propulsion, and nearly as high as many interplanetary chemical rockets. This would allow use of electric propulsion on missions which require quick delta-v maneuvers (such as capturing into orbit around another planet), but with many times greater fuel efficiency. Why not do more research on this as well!? From the problems shown on wikipedia are similar to what VASIMR had but now it is only power generation which is the down side of VASIMR.
Take a look at these ladies and gentlemen rocket sled parachute, virgin galactic liquid rocket engine test
As for speed, your final speed when your fuel runs out depends chiefly on the exhaust velocity achieved multiplied by the natural logarithm (log base "e") of your fuel mass as a fraction of your unfuelled spacecraft mass. VASIMR or MPD thrusters would give the highest exhaust velocity out of any engines that can be considered to be anywhere near flight-ready. Nuclear pulse propulsion (Orion or Daedalus) could give us more impulse, but has been ruled impractical due to radioactivity concerns, so VASIMR/MPD is likely the best we'll get until we either come up with new ideas or can make a continuous-fusion-powered thruster.
Now, as for the magnitude of acceleration that you could get from a nuclear-electric engine, that hinges mainly on your nuclear reactor's power-to-mass ratio. If for example your spacecraft, reactor and propellant included, masses 100 tonnes and the reactor generates 10 megawatts, then at 20 kW/N you would get 500 Newtons of thrust, which gives an acceleration of 5.0 mm/s^2, or about 18 m/s per hour, which means about eight to ten days to get from Low Earth Orbit to escape velocity. If however you could get twice the power output from your reactor while still keeping your spacecraft mass at 100 tonnes, then you would get twice the acceleration.
Ok, out of VASIMR and MPD which is better, in terms of fuel efficiency and thrust/speed?
This is exciting stuff updated equations making energy requirements vastly less, what Im interested to see is oscillation beyond just disc differential.. Maybe get to mars using fossil fuels ROFL
Thanks, but we already know about that. It is very exciting and hopefully it will work.
Look what I found, antimatter beam if they can create anti hydrogen from a beam sureley they can make a propulsion out of this, I can see a space propulsion engine simliar to a jet engine which compressed air is mixed with fuel to produce thrust, right, so they can do something simliar a beam of antimatter mixing with matter, when matter and antimatter are together they create energy. This could produce a thrust when aiming in the right direction.
It's an awesome idea, but at present we don't have the methods to generate enough antimatter to be useful as a spacecraft fuel--all of the antimatter produced by mankind to date would produce enough energy to light your house for a few minutes. We need practical ways of generating multiple grams of antimatter before we can use it as a medium for wholesale energy storage--currently we are producing picograms of it.
MPD gives more efficiency under optimum conditions, but it can not be "throttled" like VASIMR--which is where the "Variable" part of "VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket" comes in. A VASIMR engine is like a continuously-variable transmission that can trade off propellant mass flow for efficiency--it can be run in a "low gear" mode with low efficiency but high thrust by feeding the propellant through it faster (still higher efficiency than chemical or nuclear-thermal rockets), or in "high gear" with low thrust but high efficiency, or anywhere in between. Also, VASIMR can be run at almost any power level--you can reduce the electricity supply AND the propellant mass flow together without a loss of efficiency (only of thrust). MPD engines can not do this--below a certain rather high power level, thrust drops to nearly zero, so it's "go big or go home".
We've only created a few billionths of a gram of antimatter, most of which is just positrons. We've only produced a few million antihydrogen atoms ever. If you dropped it all in a man's lap, he might still be able to have kids (it's a lot of radiation, but less than some serious cancer patients receive between imaging and treatment).
And while nearly all the antihydrogen we've created was in the last three years, all of our facilities capable of producing it could run around the clock for a billion years without producing a full gram of the stuff.
Yeah I know how VASIMR works, it is an amazing electric propulsion which they should take it seriously, out of the two which is faster? What I think they need to do is build that space nuclear reactor they were making for electric thrusters and combine that with VASIMR then send it to Alpha Centauri.
And by the time the crew reaches Alpha Centauri, a crew that was launched years later would likely have already been there due to some technological breakthrough.
With electric propulsion they continuously accelerate, so could it which half the speed of light or closer? I do know the effects of reaching the speed of light, just in case anyone posts that. Surely they can send a robot mission to Alpha Centauri, since by your calculations it would take 60 years, give or take and that is in human life time. If I had the money and resources I would send these new propulsion technologies to the Alpha Centauri, since it is the closest solar system to ours to see how well the new propulsion technologies did and see Alpha Centauri. Once VASIMR has been tested on ISS they should definitely do this.
Overall, that might be nice for an unmanned probe, but I'm hoping the Alcubierre-White experiments bear fruit before we start trying to send people that far out.
Yes, I know what happens when you approach that speed of light, as for the Alcubierre-White/Warp drive, I hope that we get Alcubierre-White/Warp drive within our lifetime, hopefully sooner and funding does not go down. But in the mean time they can still send unmanned probes to test these new propulsions and other technologies towards Alpha Centauri. I mentioned in a previous post that scientist have made an antimatter beam, antihydrogen to be exact, which I thought could be used as a method of propulsion, similar how a jet engine works when combusted air is mixed with the fuel.
They can always pick them up along the way. Take look at this, Cubesats . Electric propulsion getting smaller, I so want to build a cubesat of my own and send it somewhere. Also here is something about the International Space Station, coldest place in the known universe .
NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Program is proud to announce its annual Symposium! All are invited to attend. It will be held at Stanford University in Stanford, California on February 4-6, 2014.
Livestream of the conference , It is amazing on what they are working on.
Here is some news on LNER
They need to create a nuclear test reactor to confirm that the technology does work before wasting money on building engines that uses that technology. The US Military didn't drop the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima without having their scientists doing some serious tests. The scientists first created a nuclear pile to confirm that a nuclear reaction occurred, then they built a bunch of experimental nuclear bombs to confirm that it would create a very devastating explosion. Only after LENR has proven to work through proof-of-concept experiments and peer review, then they should start building a LENR engine. The same method applies to a witch's broom.
Actually it is news because he is talking about this lner research , which proves NASA is reasearching in to LNER technology as well. Here is more inforamtion on LNER and a video .
My character Tsin'xing
Still a step in the right direction, if it is going to solve our energy needs and power future spacecrafts some reasearch is better than no research. Hopefully it can't be weaponized or at leasts it is very difficult.
My character Tsin'xing
well hopefully terminators won't exist and take over the world. Anyway here is some news on the Orion spacecraft . In this picture is that the whole service module or is that bottom part going to connect the serivce module to the rocket? Here is a previous picture of the Orion with the ESA serivce module.
sure it might not be made into a bomb..... but it might power the aircraft that launches the bombs.
My character Tsin'xing
Yeah I know that, anything that is created by us could be used as a weapon which is depressing really if something was made to do a lot of good could also have the potential to do a lot of bad. Just like us, we have the same potential to do great good or great evil. Now back on topic.
My character Tsin'xing
Exactly. I totally agree with you.
Does anyone know about this?
Also here is a recap on Build the Enterprise website.
Some news on nuclear fusion .
Here is news on nuclear fusion, 1 , 2
I hear real fusion is from Helium-3 and Crystals.
Helium-3 is on our moon.