Karl Johanson wrote:

"Paul M Koloc" <xpmk@starpower.net> wrote in message

I find this interesting.  We have an alternate power and energy approach
 that will be environmentally clean (both in chemical and nuclear waste
products as well as thermal pollution).  Our Plasmak(tm) technology is
compact, rugged, has a low mass to power ratio and can be developed
relatively fast.  It is an advanced aneutronic power generator and uses
ash (He4) as reaction mass.  We have US and world patents.

So why is this a problem for NASA?  They simply don't support outside
advanced concepts, and instead may rely on a very dirty form of fission.

Yes, why won't NASA go with your, 'we'll just invent a fusion reactor' plan,
instead of using fission reactors which we already know how to make.

 Our concept promises a Carnot efficiency of 90-95% while the
"prometheus" fission project will be lucky if it can generate an
efficiency of 15%.

Why would the source of the heat (fission or fusion) affect the Carnot
efficiency?

The neutrons from the fission beast will travel
through space unabated.

Goodness. Man made neutrons in space? The cosmic rays & solar wind will be
jealous.

How is it that these chaps have the audacity to
use the name prometheus (fore thinker).  The name of our corporation is
Prometheus II, Ltd.  We are not pleased with any of this NASA effort.

Launch your own craft then.

>> .. . to ask us to help them create a plan to

circumvent our very opposition is the height of arrogance.

I agree.  My suggestion is to use our concept as an example of a far
better technology that can be developed and which is far superior in
every way to this throw-back fission monstrosity.

Yeah, well your throwback fusion craft is nothing compared to my antimatter
space craft concept that I've done a few drawings of. (All we need is to
quickly invent a cheap way of making and containing anti-matter (we can use
the synchrotron you wanted for the fusion craft) then a craft capable of
using the antimatter). Of course neither NASA or you will pay to design &
build the thing and give me all the credit, because your jealous that my
idea is better than yours. You simply don't support advanced concepts. Why
won't you spend money on my roughed out ideas?

Karl Johanson

Scientists have been working on creating antimatter in a controlled environment. Their problem is that it takes a lot of energy to produce even a small amount and a great deal of time. The amount to fuel a rocket given with the present technology would take hundreds if not thousands of years. Check the science site or NASA site, there is also a  prototype for such a craft as you are suggesting. To 'quickly invent' a way of making cheap fast antimatter in large quantities requires a great deal of money. YOU as well as other taxpayers are already paying for the  research being done by NASA. How much of YOUR own money have you already invested to at least prove that your ideas will work, before asking someone to fund a 'roughed out' idea ?If they already have a design in mind that it makes sense they would pursue their own designs first before looking at other options.