In TML Message # 7732, you said:
>
> Ok, I take back what I said about proofreading, here's a *real*
> doozy....
>
> [bits and explanations deleted]
>
> THRUST FUEL USE ...fuel per ton of thrust
> Daedalus drive: 1.5 ton 0.00050 ton/hr. 0.000334 ton/hr
> Fusion rocket 9.0 ton 0.00035 ton/hr. 0.000039 ton/hr
> HEPlaR drive: 33.4 ton 0.02917 ton/hr. 0.000873 ton/hr
>
> [understandable rants deleted]
>
> This also brings up another interesting point. It seems to me
> that even accounting for the extra mass needed in the motor of
> a fusion rocket, it is more efficient than a HEPlaR drive. This
> suggests that there may be an advantage to using fusion rocket
> designs in some cases on a military vessel, perhaps as a second
> drive system.
>
> Any comments? Am I reading this wrong?
Hi Steve,
I wish I could say you are... but. You aren't. When GDW-beta list was
playing around with the pre-release stuff we had on FFS (precious little)
it became clear VERY quickly that the most effecient drive that still
fit within reality was the Fusion Rocket - and aside from it's nasty side
effects is a beautiful deep-space drive. I designed a number of ships
from that system, and planetary landings aside, Fusion is the best bet.
- --
joe [phone removed]
[email removed] University of Missouri - Columbia
"with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and
imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin
<A HREF="http://www.phlab.missouri.edu/ccjoe_www/ccjoe.html">ccjoe</A>