3 ms·
No, this is way too shortsighted. Fusion allows us to use other energy sources than our own sun, which means it's essential for viable space missions, and we wo
by tremon 4y ago
No, this is way too shortsighted. Fusion allows us to use other energy sources than our own sun, which means it's essential for viable space missions, and we won't need to compete with the rest of nature (including agriculture!) for our energy needs.
Hydroponics with fusion technology allows us to produce food without relying on the sun at all. I'd say that alone is worth the investment.
- sacrosancty 4y agoI totally agree in the long term for space travel. But for our current energy use, it could be useless if it costs even a little bit too much. Kind of like solar concentrators are worthless because PV got too cheap.
- pfdietz 4y agoDT fusion, which most of these efforts are focusing on, utterly sucks for use in space. It produces heat in materials, just like fission, except at far lower power/mass and with way more complexity. As for the future, beamed power will work out to interstellar distances, so energy sources other than our Sun (and other stars) aren't necessarily required.
- willis936 4y agoDoes beamed power also work for return trips?
- pfdietz 4y agoSure. And beamed power also potentially allows one to cool a vehicle more effectively than radiating from a black body, by exploiting anti-Stokes scattering of laser light. (From your question you might have been thinking of laser propelled light sails. These are best at speeds high enough that fusion is out of the picture.)