From: schillin@spock.usc.edu   
      
   alexterrell@yahoo.com (Alex Terrell) writes:   
      
   >thomsona@flash.net (Allen Thomson) wrote in message news:<501f9   
   80.0403310702.4636b174@posting.google.com>...   
   >> henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote   
      
   >> >  The usual assumption is that power would be from a reactor.   
      
   >> It just about has to be. If you look around for relevant numbers,   
   >> you can find things like,   
      
   >Why?   
      
   >Out as far as Mars, solar power is ligher than nuclear power for a   
   >given power level.   
      
   If the given power level is ten kilowatts or so, yes.   
      
      
   >Why go nuclear?   
      
   Because VASIMR wants megawatts.   
      
      
   You seem to be assuming that nuclear and solar power scale linearly,   
   that a one-megawatt solar array or nuclear reactor will have a hundred   
   times the mass of a ten-kilowatt solar array or nuclear reactor.  This   
   is not the case - solar power starts to have problems above ~100 kW,   
   and nuclear at *less* than ~100 kW.   
      
   Either could be made to work for a ~megawatt VASIMR, and solar might   
   have to be made to work if the nucleophobes have too much inflience   
   that year, but nuclear is clearly preferred.   
      
      
   --   
   *John Schilling                    * "Anything worth doing,         *   
   *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP       *  is worth doing for money"     *   
   *Chief Scientist & General Partner *    -13th Rule of Acquisition   *   
   *White Elephant Research, LLC      * "There is no substitute        *   
   *schillin@spock.usc.edu            *  for success"                  *   
   *661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795      *    -58th Rule of Acquisition   *   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)